CRP Essay - final - 2011

The Rights of Child Soldiers in Northern Uganda: Analysis of some relevant human
rights policy documents and an alternative
Introduction:
History of the conflict
A war in Northern Uganda, often described as one of the most neglected humanitarian
emergencies, began in 1986 between the rebel “Lord’s Resistance Army” (LRA) and the
government of Uganda (GoU). At the height of the conflict (2002-2005), more than 1.8
million people, (80% of the Northern Uganda population) were forced to flee their homes and
live in displacement camps where an estimated 1,000 people died every week
(http://www2.invisiblechildren.com and http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf).
The LRA rebel movement can be traced back to Alice Lakwena (1980’s) who believed the
Holy Spirit ordered her to overthrow the GoU for being unjust to the Acholi people. Lakwena
and her followers, known as the “Holy Spirit Movement”, gained momentum as resentment
towards the GoU increased. When Lakwena was exiled, Kony, claiming to be Lakwena’s
cousin, took control and transformed Lakwena’s rebel army into the LRA. However, the
LRA did not receive the same support and with dwindling approval for their cause and
heightened government offensives, the rebels resorted to violently abducting children and
indoctrinating them into their ranks. It is estimated that more than 90% of the LRA’s troops
were abducted as children (about 30,000 to 66,000 children). These children were forced to
terrorize their own communities and other civilians by cutting off the hands, ears, or lips of
individuals who were suspected of sympathizing with the government. The nature and
duration of the conflict has created tremendous humanitarian, social, and economic costs for
Farhana Zaveri - ZAV09076869 1

all of Uganda, particularly for children. The GoU's attempt to protect its citizens from this
rebel militia largely failed, and this has resulted in an entire generation of youth with no
experience of peace. Although in recent years Northern Uganda has become more secure,
sustained peace still continues to elude many. Many argue that child protection has not been a
priority for governments, despite national and international laws guaranteeing their basic
rights (http://www2.invisiblechildren.com/history-of-the-war, and
http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/globalissues-uganda).
Against this historical backdrop of the context of Northern Uganda, this essay will seek to do
the following in relation to the plight of child soldiers:
1) Section One:
a) Will justify why Uganda was chosen for the purpose of this study.
b) Draw from research in other contexts and propose likely reasons why child soldiers were
recruited by the LRA. It should be noted that while some authors were not speaking
specifically about Uganda, they were making the point that there are important questions
about how universal rights as well as contextual rights can be understood, applied and upheld
so as to protect and support the child in his own peculiar context, in the best possible manner.
2) Section Two:
It will discuss the social construction of childhood and argue that it is an appropriate
framework because it offers the researcher a way of looking at the rights of child soldiers in a
way that both recognises their vulnerability as well as their agency. It then compares the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC (1989))1
and the African
1
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) an international convention safeguarding
the human rights of all children (under the age of 18) was brought into practice 1989. It is ratified by all nations
but the USA and Somalia (www.unicef.org).

Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC). Thereafter due to the limited
scope of this study, three relevant rights (Article 32
, 43
and 54
) from the United Nations
Human Rights (UNHR, 1948) are discussed. Although all the rights in the UNHR are equally
important, rights relating to liberty, security, slavery, torture, inhuman treatment etc. were
specifically chosen for discussion, in the context of this essay.
3) Section Three:
This section will carry out an analysis of the policy documents in relation to the rights of
child soldiers. It will examine the utility and shortcomings of the following:
a) the UNCRC (1989),
b) the ACRWC (1999) and
c) selected rights from the UNHR (1948).
It will recommend that using a re-contextualised framework of child rights, through the lens
of sociology of childhood, is more useful because it recognises the importance of having a
more context based understanding of issues with the child at the centre of the discourse.
2
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person (www.un.org).
3
Article 4: No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all
their forms (www.un.org).
4
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
(www.un.org)

Section one:
Justification for choosing Uganda for the study
The plight of child soldiers in Uganda was chosen because the researcher had some years
earlier watched a documentary by the BBC entitled “Invisible Children”
(http://www2.invisiblechildren.com/history-of-the-war). She was particularly disturbed to see
the plight of the children who became night commuters, as they tried to escape being
abducted and forced to participate in the LRA and to commit atrocities on their own families.
She was struck by the childrens’, in Freeman’s words “lack of right to possess rights”
(Freeman 2007:8) the sheer dehumanisation of the children and the stripping away of their
humanity. This essay thus offered an opportunity to examine the rights of children who
suffered hardship in the context of a brutal war in Northern Uganda. In order to have a better
understanding of the context the following paragraphs highlight some of the specific
contextual implications of how and why the children soldiers transitioned from helpless
victims to unwilling perpetrators of war to willing accomplices and participants.
The context of the child soldiers in Uganda
1) Why and how child soldiers?
Human Rights Watch (an NGO) worked in Northern Uganda during the war period, and
carried out research to examine the LRA and the plight of the children involved in LRA.
Their report (2003:7) notes that very young children were abducted by the LRA, including
girls, who were taken as slaves. Brett and McCallin (1998) note in a UNICEF report that
entire villages were terrorized by the LRA’s child soldiers with AK-47s. The children were
also used to loot villages, abduct other children and kill those who try to escape. Indeed,
research from other contexts seems to suggest that it was (Boyden, 2003; and Boyden and

Berry, 2004) likely that the LRA preferred child soldiers over adults because they were easily
intimidated, more loyal, agile and impressionable and could thus be assigned hazardous tasks
without resistance. Consequently it was to their advantage to abduct children.
While not examining the specific context of Northern Uganda, there is research done in other
contexts which can help understand this context better, thus the references used here are not
specific to Uganda but help to shed light on the issues at stake. Some researchers emphasise
the lack of agency, rights and decision making on the part of the children when they were
abducted, but others such as Tefferi (2008) highlight other aspects. She points out that
although there is a wide held assumption that children were generally speaking, compelled
and abducted; her research shows that there are a range of other factors that sometimes led
the children to voluntarily join the LRA such as material gain.
Similarly, findings by Human Rights Watch (2003:21) found that young boys voluntarily
joined the LRA for monetary gain, which was their only hope of survival and an escape from
a life of humiliation, hopelessness and powerlessness. Others may have joined out of
victimization and peer pressure (Alfredsom, 2002:1-2). Despite the risks, still other children
may have joined the LRA because it answered a deep emotional and psychological need
(Woodhead, 1998 in Boyden and Mann, 2005:16) to be part of a community at a time when
their own families were totally broken. Indeed, as Tefferi (2008) and Brett and Specht (2004)
point out, as a consequence of war, the community and family structures get weakened and as
the children’s normal environment is disrupted, their psycho-social needs of agency, power,
worth and capability remain unmet. Furthermore, Wessells’ (2005:4-5) research shows that as
child soldiers struggle for meaning and identity in their lives, ironically these needs begun to
be addressed in the new community, even as they were abused. In the context of the LRA, it

meant that over time, the children begin to voluntarily participate in the LRA as they
struggled for identity and acceptance from a community.
However, Alfredson’s (2002), research does not agree entirely with Tefferi (2008) because he
notes that there is a fine line between forced and voluntary involvement of children as in
many cases they are innocent victims of a harsh socio-political environment which compels
them to make choices which they would not normally make.
Additionally, Brett and McCallin’s (1998) research (though not Ugandan) shows that
interestingly, many abducted children experienced positive sensations such as joy, a sense of
glamour, fame, admiration and excitement when they accomplished challenging tasks set by
their abductors. Boyden (2003) also points out that children sometimes in their naivety, often
lack an adequate understanding of right from wrong, and therefore may commit acts (even
rape, murder, looting) unknowing of their consequences. Furthermore, Brett and Specht
(2004) suggest that in some instances, the children are incited to revenge against their
families by their captors. Overtime, the children transition took place from innocent victims,
to forced perpetrators and to willing accomplices. The situation is very complex and has a
combination of social, political, religious and personal factors which contribute to making it
extremely difficult for children to comprehend their reality.
Section Two:
Why is the Social Construction of Childhood a useful approach?
Some of the reasons (there may be others) why the sociology of childhood is a useful
approach for exploring the specific issues of child soldiers in Northern Uganda is because it:
a) recognises children as social actors, and emphasises their everyday life challenges

b) recognises the importance of acknowledging the ways in which children orientate
themselves in society, engage with the cultural activities and religious/social values
c) seeks to understand the social worlds which children construct and take part in
d) examines and approaches children as active participants and members of society
e) emphasises the voice of the child (Mayall, 2004).
Indeed, Mayall (2000), although while not speaking specifically about the Ugandan war,
noted that children, usually fall prey to adult notions of childhood as they lack the voice and
power to have their issues heard from their own standpoint, and as such that their issues
expressed in their own voices are hardly ever considered. Archard (1993:66) also highlights
this - “What makes it (the right to be heard) valuable is both that there is a point to making
one's views known and, further, that making one's views known makes a difference.” This is
an important point because it is critical to ensure that “children’s own understandings and
perspectives across cultures and of their active contributions to their well-being, coping, and
very survival” (Boyden and Mann, 2005:20) are acknowledged and understood, and this is
key to understanding the child and his/her rights, in his/her own context, his/her reintegration
and rehabilitation. The starting point to progress is the child, and the child is empowered
knowing that his/her voice makes a difference.
Consequently, in the sociology of childhood approach, children are analysed not as
“outsiders” or as “emergent” members of society, but as having inherent rights,
responsibilities, challenges and victories (Boyden and Mann, 2005). Their rights are sought to
be recognised, upheld and acknowledged as important from the outset (Archard, 1993), such
that their actions, resistance, cooperation, and collective action amongst their peers and their
interactions with their wider, specific community and particular context is taken into account

when trying to understand them and their challenges (Boyden and Mann, 2005). This is very
important because as Mayall (2000) points out, children’s rights are acknowledged and
upheld if there is a better understanding of their specific and particular social conditions and
she thus recommends that policy makers and academics espouse new paradigms to
understand children better, using this lens.
The sociology of childhood offers a framework which puts the child at the centre of the
discourse on child rights. However, in many cases it is not popularly applied, and more
commonly, general policies which uphold children’s rights are used.
The next section examines and compares popularly applied child rights policy documents.
The UNCRC (1989) and ACRWC (1999) and UNHR (1948)
The UNCRC (1989) focuses on the best interests of the child and it has been the very first
legal international document which covers an entire spectrum of human rights—cultural,
civil, political, economic, and social rights— for children (www.unicef.org/crc). It re-
examined the status of childhood and the responsibilities of adults and governments to ensure
provision, security and rights to children (Freeman, 2007 in Mayall, 2004:42). The UNCRC
(1989) re-examined the status of childhood and the responsibilities entrusted upon adults and
governments to ensure provision, security and rights of children. It also included, according
to Boyden and Mann (2005) the protection of children from adversity as one of its key
priorities. According to policy makers, generally speaking, the UNCRC (1989) offered a
complete global framework to support children in both episodic and chronic conditions of
stress and it embraced the moral and ethical view that each child is entitled by right, to

special considerations. Furthermore, it emphasised that children in exceptionally harsh and
extreme situations ought to receive greater concern (Boyden and Mann, 2005:3).
The provisions of the UNCRC (1989) are classified into the "three Ps", which are the rights
to Provision, Protection and Participation.
a) Provision recognizes the right to provision of assistance for their basic needs i.e. resources
and services to ensure their survival and development (eg. healthcare Article 24).
b) Protection ensures rights of children from exploitation and cruelty, arbitrary separation
from family and abuses in the criminal justice system, i.e. acts that threaten their dignity and
survival (eg protection and care Article 3).
c) Participation ensures rights to freedom to express opinions and engagement in processes of
change and prepare them for an active part in society (eg the right to be heard in legal
proceedings Article 12).
In the context of the child soldiers, it appears that all three fundamental rights were violated
(when they were abducted and forced to become soldiers), and because rights are indivisible,
all their other rights, including their ability to act as independent agents was undermined.
Freeman (2007:8) notes that “agents are decision-makers. They are people who can negotiate
with others, who are capable of altering relationships or decisions, who can shift social
assumptions and constraints”. Clearly, the child soldiers in Northern Uganda had none of
these options; they had no right to provision (as their basic survival was dependent upon their
captors), no right to participation (no choices available, no power or voice to negotiate) and
no right to protection (their security was under continual threat) and thus they had no
independent agency. Freeman (2007:8) also explains “as agents, rights-bearers can
participate. They can make their own lives, rather than having their lives made for them. And

participation is a fundamental human right. It enables us to demand rights” (Freeman,
2007:8). For the Ugandan children, their fundamental right to participation had been
snatched away, their life was determined by their circumstances, by their captors and
demanding any sort of rights was an impossibility.
However, the UNCRC, according to some scholars (eg Archard, 1993:64) has failed to cover
adequately or address the rights of all children based on their different contexts. For instance,
he argues, a more context based, nuanced document is The Preamble5
of the African Charter
of the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC) (1999). It is far more meaningful because it
appears to adopt the sociology of childhood and puts the child and his contextual and
personal needs at the centre of the discourse. The ACRWC stipulates children’s rights for
African countries, which intended to complement the UNCRC and also to address the
specific realities of children in Africa (www.crin.org).
The next section discusses the similarities and differences between the two treaties and
highlights why the ACRWC is more applicable for examining the rights of child soldiers in
Uganda.
Like the UNCRC (1989), the ACRWC (1999) makes provisions for principles of non-
discrimination and participation. In addition it addresses issues pertinent to African children
eg apartheid, female genital mutilation (FGM), internal conflicts and displacement,
(http://www.unicef.org/esaro/children_youth_5930.html) etc. All of these issues are specific
5
RECOGNIZING that the child, due to the needs of his physical and mental development requires particular
care with regard to health, physical, mental, moral and social development, and requires legal protection in
conditions of freedom, dignity and security… (www.africa-union.org)

to the African continent and therefore not addressed in the UNCRC (1989). The ACRWC
(1999) thus goes further than the UNCRC (1989) in addressing child’s rights.
An example of the difference where the ACRWC takes into consideration cultural
implications is where in addition to rights and privileges which are accorded to the child, the
ACRWC also confers (upon the child) certain additional responsibilities i.e. a child has a duty
of care towards his/her elders as well as the responsibility of upholding the values and
solidarity which are generally speaking, common to African culture. This provision in the
ACRWC seeks to instil citizenship, societal and communal responsibility upon the child
which it believes are beneficial to the child, his family but also the larger community in
which he lives and works. In the context of Uganda, from a very young age, children who
have grown up in small communities or villages would be aware of their responsibilities
towards others, and they would be likely to have a strong sense of clanship and cultural
values. In contrast, the UNCRC (1989) does not explicitly confer any responsibility on the
child. It does emphasize citizenship participation which might be extended to family and
communal responsibility, but as rights. It stresses on the importance of a child’s participation
and contribution in matters pertaining to his/her rights. Thus, when the child is abducted by
the LRA, not only are her/his rights denied, but s/he is also deprived of the opportunity to
carry out her/his responsibilities, but even further, by harming her/his family s/he is actually
acting in contravention to these. The psychological impact of this on the child is arguably
thus more traumatic. As Boyden and Mann (2005:4) point out, it is thus imperative that the
child’s social and cultural context must be borne in mind when trying to understand their
rights, responsibilities, agency and culpability because it is more nuanced and more complex
than it prima facie appears to be.

A further difference, within the context of rights with regard to children’s involvement in
armed conflict, is the age of child participation in the two documents. While the definition of
a child is consistent as under the age of 18, the ACRWC entirely prohibits and condemns the
use of ‘children’ in any direct conflict and hostilities. Anyone under the age of 18 must not be
recruited and if at all they are, they must not participate directly in hostilities. The UNCRC
(1989), on the other hand, permits children as young as 15 to participate in direct hostilities.
However, interestingly, the UNCRC does not totally ban or condemn children’s involvement
in any direct hostilities. This appears to be a shortfall, according to some scholars (eg Rosen
2005) in the UNCRC. If the UNCRC were applied in the context of Uganda, it would be very
problematic as it is less strict on age and appears that it would, by its strictest application,
allow children to participate in the LRA. Indeed, for Rosen (2005), even though the UNCRC
(1989) is a very strong and influential policy document on the welfare of children, he firmly
believes, it is inadequate, because it fails to completely abolish the use of child soldiers in
Article 386
.
This distinction between the ACRWC (1999) and the UNCRC (1989) highlights the fact that
the former is more cognisant of African issues and has tried its best to protect the child, even
6
Article 38
1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable
to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child
2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen
years do not take a direct part in hostilities
3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their
armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not
attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest
4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in
armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are
affected by an armed conflict (UNCRC, 1989).

while upholding the provisions of the UNCRC (1989). On the other hand, it is arguable that
the UNCRC (1989) is a universal document, and was intended to remain as a general
guideline for each country who is a party to its ratification to have the flexibility to determine
its own specific age minimum, based on its own understanding of its particular context.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNHR) (1948) is a document that confers and
entitles fundamental rights, regardless of their caste, sex, creed, age, etc. (www.un.org) on all.
It focuses on a healthy environment and tried to ensure that each human being is treated with
respect, dignity, protection and humanity. A discussed above in the context of this essay:
a) Article 3 (footnote 2);
b) Article 4 (footnote 3) and
c) Article 5 (footnote 4) will be taken into account.
In the situation of the child soldiers in Uganda it seems all these fundamental rights have
been violated. From the time of their abduction, their liberty, security and wellbeing are all
violated.
While the above document focuses on the importance of context and environment, Archard
(forthcoming) explores the debate from a philosophical and moral perspective
(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/) and while it is beyond the scope of this
essay to examine all aspects here, however, it is important to note briefly why child’s rights
must be understood. As Freeman (2007:7-8) notes, “rights are important because those who
have them can exercise agency” they “are invisible and inter-dependent” and thus “denying
certain rights undermines other rights”. As part of this moral and ethical debate on the

relationship between agency, rights and choices, Archard, takes a more philosophical
approach and disagrees with Freeman (2007). He argues that “it is not obvious that children
do have the basic human rights that adults have. Central amongst these rights is that of self-
determination, that is the right to make choices in respect of one's own life” (Archard,
forthcoming URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children) and he says children do
not have that choice, even in normal situations, let alone where they are in danger. He thus
makes the point from a philosophical point of view, that children do not have the same
starting point as adults when it comes to rights, and therefore to speak about them as having
rights which have been taken away is actually not correct, as in reality they never had them in
the first place. He argues for looking at child rights from a child’s point of view, rather than
an adult’s point of view which is in keeping with the sociology of childhood perspective.
The sociology of childhood is thus a better way of approaching the issue of child rights, as
there are many complex issues at stake.
Section Three:
The utility and shortcomings of these policy documents as a framework for understanding the
context and challenges of children soldiers in Uganda.
The previous section compared two policy documents and highlighted relevant aspects. The
next section examines what a strict versus a re-contextualised application of the polices
would mean in the context of understanding the rights of the child soldiers in Northern
Uganda
a) a strict application of the policy documents

Both the UNCRC (1989) and ACRWC (1999) seek to uphold and protect the rights of
children, but it appears that in some cases the children themselves choose to relinquish these
rights in order to protect themselves as Boyden (2003) mentioned above. Despite making this
choice, a child in many cases, continues to remain insecure. The point is this, if a child’s
rights are taken away, or if he chooses to give them up and the outcome of either is that the
child is in danger, it is irrelevant how it happened. In both situations, the child has been
completely dehumanised and stripped of all rights. It is thus vital and paramount to ensure
that every child has the basic right to rights at all times, and this is upheld and protected, at
any cost and irrespective of context. This arguably means applying rights policy documents
as strictly as possible.
However, as Rosen (2005) noted, most of the articles in the UNCRC (1989) have been
violated and thus it appears that while activists can argue for strict application of basic rights,
a more nuanced view of war and the context of childhood is needed. Indeed, according to
him, treaties, and policy documents are mere pacifiers, and in reality fail to address any real
issues or give justice to the real victims. He explains the situation is complex because of
competing priorities humanitarian and political, and when these are intertwined and
manipulated, the realities of the children’s issues and contexts are often forgotten.
What if the ACRWC were to be strictly applied? It is true that in the context of the children
soldiers in Uganda, the ACRWC (1999) is a more applicable document than the UNCRC
(1989) as it highlights the gravity of their involvement in the LRA not just as a violation of
their rights, but also as a neglect of their responsibilities towards their elders, family and
community. But a strict application is problematic. The children’s involvement in the LRA, if
forced, is a violation of their rights and also a forced abdication of their responsibility. If

joining the LRA by the child was made out of self preservation, it is also an abdication of
his/her cultural, communal and familial values which makes it incumbent on them to give
their family priority and put themselves as second. The psychological impact and burden of
this is more complex as a child and his/her family struggle to understand the new dynamic
within the context of broken families, war, economic hardship, eroded values and customs
and a total breakdown of society. The child could be accused of being guilty of abdicating
his/her rights towards his/her family, even though s/he could argue s/he was under duress to
do so. The strictest application of the ACRWC is thus problematic because it is unfair to hold
children responsible for the crimes they committed under duress, as well as their abdication
of values and responsibilities, without consideration of other relevant factors. Thus a more
sensitive approach, which focuses on the voice of the child, is needed.
Another example of where strict application may not always be possible is where a
government may decide not to prioritise children’s rights and welfare during a period of war
may decide that the focus ought to be national security, political stability and economic
progress. There are suggestions that this is what happened in Uganda, and while children’s
rights might fit into the overall framework of security, these may not be specifically
addressed because of other competing factors. So, while activists for the UNCRC and
ACRWC may argue for child rights as a priority this may not always be possible. However, if
the sociology of childhood were adopted as a framework, the voice of the child and his needs
would be placed at the forefront, and not as a competing minority priority.
Another reason that the ACRWC and UNCRC may not be applied strictly, is that these policy
documents are arguably, based on western conceptions of how children ought to be treated,
and this may not be universally applicable eg to Northern Uganda. For instance, Archard

(1993:63) points out that, what is acceptable and moral in one society may be perceived
unacceptable and immoral in another, and as Boyden and Mann (2005) note even within the
same society, there may be several differences. Thus strict application of these documents
may not always be beneficial to children because their contextual needs may be very
different. Arguably, the ACRWC has a more relevant conception, but, as this essay has tried
to show, understanding child rights requires a proper understanding of the child, in his
context, and his particular experiences.
The above argument leads on to the next question; if the strictest application of universally
(UNCRC, 1989) or continentally (ACRWC, 1999) accepted policies is problematic, what
framework can be used to understand and protect the rights of child soldiers in Uganda,
keeping in mind the importance of the sociology of childhood approach? The next section
proposes a solution.
Re-contextualisation of the policies in keeping with the sociology of childhood
As shown above, it is important to note that it is not always possible and is sometimes
problematic to apply the UNHR (1948), ACRWC (1999) and UNCRC (1989) very strictly.
Thus, when applying these policies to the children of Northern Uganda, it would be a mistake
to say one size fits all, and instead, this essay argues for a more contextually and culturally
sensitive approach to be taken, where re-framing and re-contextualisation occurs, through the
lens of the sociology of childhood, as explained in section one, above.
This contextual and specific understanding of the child soldiers and their rights is important
because, when trying to assist the children, their contextual, cultural and specific needs and
the realities of their plight are kept at the forefront. Consequently the chances of successfully

rehabilitating and re-integrating them into society are greater. Indeed as pointed out, the
sociology of childhood places the child at the focus of the discourse and this allows a better
and more comprehensive picture of the challenges and specific needs of the children.
Rights are inextricably intertwined and there are thus many complex contextual,
psychological and sociological issues at stake for children and as Boyden and Mann (2005:4)
point out that while “the relevance of many traditional prescriptions for protecting children,
especially interventions imposed from outside the child’s social and cultural context” are
being questioned, “new insights and ideas that could be more helpful have not been widely
disseminated or evaluated” have been overlooked. They thus advocate for a balanced
approach to help understand children and their rights, and say that the starting point ought to
be the children themselves. Indeed, Boyden and Mann (2005:19) believe that failing to take
into account a child’s views can lead to inappropriate interventions and may even worsen the
situation.
It is clear that child soldiers not only need extra protection but they ought to be consulted
when trying to help them so that appropriate and relevant solutions to problems can be found.
This approach recognises that children are not just voiceless recipients but are capable of
contributing to decisions about their lives. In this sense they are assets as potential,
participating competent social actors. This approach calls for working “with” children rather
than “for” them, and understanding and consulting them about their needs and rights in
relation to their specific context and experiences.
The current debates around child rights and notions of childhood focus around the necessity
to understand the issues and support children with a better understanding of their personal

traits and context. Indeed as Boyden and Mann (2005:4) point out, “many notions of
childhood and of childhood vulnerability, development, and well-being are contextually
constructed” and these need to be understood as such, and not from outside the context. They
go on to question “the relevance of many traditional prescriptions for protecting children,
especially interventions imposed from outside” (2005:4). By this they mean that while
universally accepted policies and approaches to uphold child rights and protect children
maybe generally applicable, they need to be re-contextualised and understood from the
perspective of the child in his own specific context i.e. the sociology of childhood, where
they are constructed, in order to be effective.
Conclusion
At present, there are attempts being made to rehabilitate and reintegrate the ex-child soldiers.
This is a challenge because often the child soldiers had killed, looted and maimed their own
villages. While the GoU has allocated budget support towards the rebuilding process, it is
according to many not enough (http://kabiza.com/War-Northern-Uganda-LRA.htm). The
efforts, issues and consequences are beyond the scope of this essay and involves research on
economic, social and political considerations from the child’s perspective.
This essay examined the sociology of childhood and argued it is a useful framework for
examining child soldier’s rights in Uganda. It examined the UNHR, UNCRC and ACWRC. It
argued that in order to have a better understanding of the rights of children and “for
interventions to effectively address the actual needs and concerns of children” context
specific information must be based on “sound theory and appropriate empirical evidence”
(Boyden and Mann, 2005:20). It highlighted the importance of looking at the actual

historical, geographical, socio-economic, cultural and personal issues when examining the
rights of children. It recommended that children’s rights must be examined in their own
environment and within their own contexts and suggested the sociology of childhood as one
possible lens and framework to achieve this.
Final Word Count: 5366
References
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child

Bibliographical Note. Online.
Available from www.africa-union.org (accessed 10th
February, 2010)
Alfredson , L. (2002) Child soldiers, displacement and human security London: Child
Soldiers
Archard, D. (1993). 2nd
(Eds.). Children Rights and Childhood Routledge: Oxon
Archard, David William, "Children's Rights", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/rights-children/>.
Available from (www.crin.org) (date accessed 15th
April, 2011)
Available from http://www2.invisiblechildren.com (date accessed 20th
April, 2011)
Available from http://kabiza.com/War-Northern-Uganda-LRA.htm (date accessed 12th
April,
2011)
Available from http://www.unicef.org/esaro/children_youth_5930.html (date accessed 12th
April, 2011)

Available from http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf (date accessed 20th
April, 2011)
Boyden, J. (2003) ‘The Moral Development of Child Soldiers: What Do Adults Have to
Fear?’ in Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology Vol. 9 No. 4 pp. 343-362
Boyden, J., and de Berry, J. (eds) (2004) Children and youth on the front line: ethnography,
armed conflict and displacement. Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Boyden, J. and Mann, G. (2005) Children’s Risk, Resilience, and Coping in Extreme
Situations
Brett, R. and McCallin, M. (1998) Children the Invisible Soldiers Sweden: Save the Children
Brett, R. and Specht, I. (2004) Young Soldiers: Why they Choose to Fight USA: International
Labour Organization
Freeman, M. (2007). Why it Remains Important to Take Children’s Rights Seriously.
International Journal of Children’s Rights 15 pp. 5-23
Human Rights Watch (2003) Stolen Children: Abduction and Recruitment in Northern
Uganda New York: Human Rights Watch

Mayall, B. (2000) 'The sociology of childhood in relation to children's rights' in International
Journal of Children's Rights, Vol.8 no.3, pp.243-58
Mayall, B. (2004) 'The sociologies of childhood’ in Developments in Sociology, Vol.20,
pp.37-57
Rosen, D.(2005) Armies of the Young: Child Soldiers in War and Terrorism USA: Rutgers
University Press
Tefferi, H. (2008) Reconstructing Adolescence After Displacement: Experience from Eastern
Africa in Hart, (J). (eds) (2008) Years of Conflict: Adolescence, Political Violence and
Displacement. Oxford: Berghan Books.
United Nations Human Rights
Available from www.un.org (accessed 8th
July, 2010)
UNICEF
Available from http://www.unicef.org (accessed 4th
June, 2010)

UNICEF
Available from http://www.unicef.org/crc (accessed 10th
April, 2011)
United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child
Wessells, M. (2005) ‘Child Soldiers, Peace Education, and Postconflict Reconstruction for
Peace’ in Theory into Practice Vol. 44, No. 4 pp. 363-369

CRP Essay - final - 2011

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CRP Essay - final - 2011

Similar to CRP Essay - final - 2011 (13)

CRP Essay - final - 2011