On 29 October, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2601 (2021) on the protection of education in situations of conflict. The resolution gathered unanimous support from all the fifteen members of the Security Council, while condemning attacks against schools, children, teachers, and aimed at immediately safeguarding the right to education.
Earlier on 28 June, Nigeria based Plan International’s Education specialist, Laban Onisimus, briefed the UN Security Council at this year’s Annual Open Debate on children and armed conflict. In his brief, he emphasized on the fact that girls are being specifically targeted during conflicts, and they are being subjected to all the six forms of grave violations against children in times of war, namely: killing and maiming of children, recruitment or use of children as soldiers in armed forces and armed groups, rape and other grave sexual violences, abduction of children, attacks against schools or hospitals, and denial of humanitarian access for children. He supported his arguments by leading instances and statistics from Nigeria, under each head of six grave violations. He further recommended to; recognize that girls are being specifically targeted and being subjected to all six forms of grave violations during conflicts; demand and pursue accountability for violations; and ensure uninterrupted humanitarian assistance to children. Lastly, he urged the UN to do better towards conflict prevention.
The Resolution 2601 (2021) is unique as never before the Security Council has adopted a resolution dedicated exclusively towards protection of education of children during conflicts. As the Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, this resolution aims at encouraging the Member States to address issues of disruption of education during conflicts, by ensuring a safe and secure environment for access to education by protecting schools, children, teachers, other connected civilians during conflict and in post-conflict phase. All the more, the resolution condemns subjecting schools to military usage and urges parties to respect it as a civilian object.
The resolution also shows deep concern towards the plight of girls and women who as a war tact are abducted on their way to school, forced into marriage, recruited as soldiers, trafficked or subjected to various kinds of sexual and other form of violence. The resolution is sensitive towards the fact that girls are more vulnerable to discontinue education during any conflict, hence in order to prevent such disruption of education, apart from ensuring a protective environment, the Member State is also encouraged to devise mechanisms for remote learning through digital means, while ensuring protection of their personal data. Due consideration under the resolution is also given to the mental and psychological well-being of the children who have suffered the brunt of conflict.
Moreover, the protection of resolution is extended to safeguarding the right to education of internally displaced and refugee children as well. It was realized by the drafters that essential services, such as food or medicine, are fundamental to the right to education of children during the times of conflict, hence the current resolution gave a call for safe and unhindered humanitarian access, without delay for humanitarian and medial personals and for things ancillary to the same.
It is pertinent to mention that with the listing of humanitarian access in paragraph 25 of the Resolution 2601 (2021), the sixth and final grave violation against children has come to surface. The positive implication of the same would be that, now, the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism through the UN country level task-force under paragraph 5(c) of the current resolution (established by UN Security Council Resolution 1612 (2005)), shall be triggered in the event of violation humanitarian access, as a result, the violations would be brought to the knowledge of the Working Group which, by virtue of paragraph 20 of the current resolution, is empowered to use all the necessary tools within its mandate to ensure compliance of the said text.
In this respect, it is useful to specify that out of six grave violations against children, five have already been listed prior to listing of humanitarian assistance, in the manner to follow: recruitment and use of children (listed by Security Council Resolution 1379 (2001)); killing and maiming of children (Security Council Resolution 1882 (2009)); rape and other forms of sexual violence to children (Security Council Resolution 1882 (2009)); attack on schools and hospital (Security Council Resolution 1998 (2011)); abduction of children (Security Council Resolution 2225 (2015)). In other words, in case of any given violation, the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism shall be triggered and the working group shall act according to bring the perpetrator back in line.
Even prior to the Resolution 2601 (2021), and by virtue of International Humanitarian Law, schools and children, teachers and other connected individuals were protected as civilians’ objects and civilians respectively during any conflict. Hence the issue is not the dearth of mechanisms, but of its implementation. In furtherance of the implementation debate, the primary question that has been haunting various resolutions on children affected by armed conflict since the very inception is of “impunity”. With impunity and lack of accountability, every legal mechanism in place is worthless. The UN Security Council has had a long commitment towards addressing impunity, as its credibility depends on the same. The issue of impunity is a matter of concern under the current resolution too, but without legal ramification for the acts of violence against children, no group or individual shall halt its actions.
In cases of impunity, the UN Security Council should act immediately and take necessary targeted measures. Nevertheless, it has been reluctant to do so. Excluding the instances of Côte d’Ivoire and Democratic Republic of Congo where the sanctions (for recruitment and use of children) were imposed on already pre-existing sanctions, it was only in 2009 alone where the Sanctions Committee concerning Democratic Republic of Congo imposed sanctions (in form of freezing of assets and travel ban) on 3 individuals, solely for the reason of abduction and sexual abuse of girls and recruitment and use of boys as old as 10 years.
Moreover, apart from the above, the effectiveness of the current resolution would also depends on: i) the fact that how well the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism at the hands of UN local task force shall perform their duties; ii) how well the Sanctions Committee is working closely with the working group; iii) how effectively the Member States have adopted this resolution as a part of their national legislation, with the provisions of effective penalty in case of violation; iv) how carefully tailored targeted measures are adopted against the persistent violators by the working group.
Lastly, the burden of effectiveness of the Resolution 2601 (2021) rests mainly at the hands of the Member States, since UN task force have no access to many regions in order to ascertain compliance of the various resolutions, moreover their access is dependent solely at the mercy of the Member States, hence the intent of Member States with regard to compliance of the resolution becomes all the more important.
Here, with regard to India’s statement where it supported the resolution, but with the qualifier that it should not be interpreted to apply to “non-armed conflict situations”, is a great example as to how the Member States may interpret the resolution as per their interest in the times to come. With regard to India, during the counter – insurgent operation in Naxal dominated regions and in Kashmir, the government schools are used to accommodate security forces and may also be targeted by security forces or the terror group against each other. Indian Courts have time and again frequently banned paramilitary forces and police from occupying schools. In the matter of Exploitation of Children in Orphanages in the State of Tamil Naidu v. Union of India & Others, W.P. (CRL.) 102/2007 (order dated 01 September 2010), the Supreme Court of India had ordered the security forces to vacate school buildings occupied in the northeast states of Assam and Manipur, and warned them not to occupy the school in future. In a similar case of Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.P (Civ.) 250/2007 (order dated 15 Deember 2010), the Supreme Court of India passed a similar order directing the State government to vacate schools in occupation of security forces in the State of Chhattisgarh. Moreover, India till date does not recognize its conflict against insurgents as an armed conflict situation. However, before adopting the qualifier, India is forgetting that the right to education is enshrined in the Constitution of India as an enforceable fundamental right which the State is obliged to protect. Furthermore, India has also ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in the year 1992, where right to education is mandated upon the States Parties. Hence, in the light of the aforementioned facts, irrespective of India’s stand, upholding the right to education and its respective institution is the solemn duty of India, even when there is no armed conflict.
Thus, while the adoption of Resolution 2601 (2021) is an important step, it is too early to celebrate.
Catherine MAIA, Shashaank BAHADUR NAGAR, "UN Security Council Resolution 2601 (2021): the first-ever resolution protecting the right to education in armed conflict situations", Multipol, 11/11/2021
Aucun commentaire :
Enregistrer un commentaire