This paper tries to shed light on the discussion of moral distinction betwenn child soldiers and adult soldiers, as well as combatans and non-combatans.
The presence of armed children in war zones has become a sad reality in contemporary conflicts all around the world. Many non-governmental armed forces would not even be able to participate in war without recruiting children. However, strategies to cope with the situation lack sufficient definitions of where to draw the line between soldier and child. Does it include those children who are actively taking part in armed conflicts? Or do children -similar to adult soldiers - lose their immunity as soon as they take up arms? While there are numerous legal and theoretical attempts on the rights and duties of adult soldiers
the contemporary issue of child soldiers seems to challenge these thoughts. This is because our general moral intuition understands children as vulnerable beings in need of protection. The image, however, is diametrically opposed to armed juveniles on the battlefield and thus creates a moral dilemma.
Therefore, the author argues that no clear cut distinction between combatants and non-combatants and further between children and adults can be made. To substantiat her claim, she will approach the issue from its theoretical basis by having a closer look on depicted definitions first and from its feasibility in war second. Based on her findings, she claims that it is not possible to make a clear cut distinction and thus that there are good reasons to treat child soldiers no different than regular combatants. In the following conclusion she will briefly suggest additional guidelines to provide a more thoughtful and secure framework for every soldier- child and adult - on the battlefield.
Table of Contents
1. Is it possible to morally distinguish child soldiers from adult soldiers? A normative approach on innocence and guilt in modern warfare
2. What makes a child a child? What defines a soldier? - Definition problems
3. Feasibility on the Battlefield
4. Conclusion and Outlook
Research Objectives and Themes
This paper examines whether a distinct moral category for child soldiers can be justified in modern warfare, challenging the binary distinction between combatants and non-combatants. The central research question asks if, from a normative perspective, child soldiers can be treated differently than adult soldiers on the battlefield despite their participation in armed conflict.
- The theoretical deconstruction of childhood as a socially constructed label versus a biological state.
- The application of Just War theory principles to the participation of minors in hostilities.
- The moral dilemma faced by adult combatants when confronted by child attackers.
- The tactical exploitation of child soldier status by recruiters.
- The critique of international legal frameworks that categorize child soldiers primarily as victims.
Excerpt from the Book
Feasibility on the Battlefield
Not only the lack of defining traits demonstrates a problem of separating child soldiers from adult soldiers. In this section I present the moral difficulties of treating child soldiers with restraint on the battlefield. I will therefore address this consideration by focusing on three different actors most affected by child soldiers – the enemy adult soldier, the recruiter and the child.
First, the adult combatant faces a moral dilemma when being attacked by a child soldier. From a moral perspective, child soldiers are both innocent and non-innocent. Innocent in respect to their identity as children and its related characteristics and non-innocent because of their participation in war. Thus, on the one hand soldiers are obligated to protect the innocent and on the other they have the right to protect themselves when attacked. Jeff McMahan tries to tackle this dilemma by introducing two additional social categories – namely the Innocent Attacker and the Culpable Attacker (McMahan 1994, reprinted in Vaha 2011, p.38).
Chapter Summaries
Is it possible to morally distinguish child soldiers from adult soldiers? A normative approach on innocence and guilt in modern warfare: This introductory chapter outlines the core problem of the moral status of child soldiers within the context of Just War theory and legal definitions of protected persons.
What makes a child a child? What defines a soldier? - Definition problems: This section critiques the lack of universal definitions for childhood and adulthood, arguing that these are socially constructed labels that fail to provide a consistent basis for moral distinction on the battlefield.
Feasibility on the Battlefield: This chapter analyzes the practical and moral consequences of treating child soldiers differently, focusing on the dilemmas faced by adult combatants and the potential for tactical abuse by recruiters.
Conclusion and Outlook: The final chapter summarizes the argument that rigid categorization fails to address the complexities of modern warfare and suggests that focus should shift toward standardized, dignified rules of engagement for all combatants.
Keywords
Child soldiers, Just War theory, moral agency, combatants, non-combatants, innocence, guilt, international law, normative ethics, warfare, soldier, battlefield, accountability, social construction, protection
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
The paper explores the moral and normative challenges of categorizing child soldiers as distinct from adult combatants in modern warfare.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The research covers definitions of childhood, the principles of discrimination in Just War theory, the moral dilemmas of frontline soldiers, and the tactical misuse of the child soldier label.
What is the central research question?
It questions whether a moral distinction between child and adult soldiers can be justified, or if such distinctions are untenable in practice.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author uses a normative, philosophical approach, critically analyzing legal frameworks and existing literature within the tradition of Just War theory.
What does the main body address?
The body addresses the fluidity of 'combatant' status, the problematic nature of 'innocence' as a defining trait for children in war, and the practical implications for military conduct.
Which keywords characterize the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as child soldiers, Just War theory, combatant, morality, innocence, and international law.
How does the author evaluate the 'Innocent Attacker' concept?
The author suggests that applying McMahan's 'Innocent Attacker' category to child soldiers is morally problematic as it implies their lives carry different weight and complicates the soldier's ability to defend themselves.
What is the author's stance on the legal protection of children?
The author argues that while international law seeks to protect children, the failure to hold them accountable for serious crimes can violate the rights of victims and hinder the child's own post-war resocialization.
Why does the author advocate against special moral treatment?
The author concludes that special moral status can be exploited by recruiters to gain tactical advantages and that treating all soldiers with dignity, rather than relying on socially constructed labels, is a more robust path forward.
- Citation du texte
- Elena Mertel (Auteur), 2018, Is it Possible to Morally Distinguish Child Soldiers From Adult Soldiers?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/498137
