However, scholars have recognized that these international frameworks are subject to the self-interests of states and bureaucratic factors. These frameworks, in theory, are applied in all conflicts around the world in a highly structured manner. The impact of conflict on the lives of children is recognized globally and is given high priority by the international community, with international organizations and formal mechanisms established to protect children in armed conflict. In order to analyze this question, the paper compares UNICEF-Afghanistan and UNICEF-oPt and the organizations’ reporting on the grave violation of “recruitment and use” of children. This paper will shed initial light on the question of why variations in reporting on children in armed conflict exist despite well-established frameworks. However, this reliance may not be in the best interest of children and can result in one-sided political advocacy that does not serve the purposes for which the MRM and Working Group frameworks were established. In countries noted in the body of the SG’s report but not included on the Annex, UNICEF operates a “Working Group.” In both cases, UNICEF extensively relies on local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as implementing partners to monitor and report on the situation of children in armed conflict. The UNSG’s annual report on children and armed conflict and its “Annex” lists the world’s grave violators of children’s rights – resulting in a formal UNICEF-led mechanism, known as an MRM.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |