Background and Aim: The involvement of children in armed conflicts constitutes one of the most significant challenges facing the international systems of human rights protection and international humanitarian law, necessitating a precise delineation of States’ obligations and the scope of legal protection afforded under international instruments. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict establishes a specific framework for the protection of children by strengthening restrictions on the recruitment and use of persons under the age of eighteen. Nevertheless, the distinction between the prohibition of compulsory recruitment and the conditions governing voluntary recruitment into State armed forces, the prohibition of the recruitment and use of children by non-State armed groups, and the challenges associated with fulfilling preventive and protective obligations raise questions concerning the coherence and adequacy of this legal framework. This study aims to critically analyse the scope of obligations arising under the Optional Protocol, assess its normative and implementation-related limitations, and elucidate the capacity of international law to strengthen the effective protection of children in armed conflict.  

Method: This study adopts a descriptive-analytical method within a critical legal framework, drawing on documentary research and the analysis of primary sources of international law. Accordingly, the provisions of the Optional Protocol, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, relevant rules of international humanitarian law, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, and the interpretative and monitoring documents of international bodies are examined. The analysis is conducted through a systematic interpretation of treaties, a distinction between States’ treaty obligations and the criminal responsibility of natural persons, and an examination of the relationship between substantive legal rules and implementation mechanisms.

Findings: The legal analysis demonstrates that the Optional Protocol, while requiring States Parties to take all feasible measures to ensure that members of their armed forces under the age of eighteen do not take a direct part in hostilities, pursuant to Article 1, prohibits the compulsory recruitment of persons under eighteen into State armed forces and establishes specific conditions and safeguards for their voluntary recruitment. By contrast, Article 4 categorically prohibits the recruitment and use of persons under eighteen by armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a State and obliges States Parties to take all feasible measures to prevent such practices. The findings further underscore the importance of States’ obligations to adopt legislative and administrative measures, monitor the implementation of the Protocol, and facilitate the release, rehabilitation, and social reintegration of affected children. At the same time, differences in the structure of obligations applicable to State armed forces and non-State armed groups, difficulties in effectively implementing preventive obligations, and the limited capacity of monitoring mechanisms constitute major concerns in assessing the adequacy of the protection afforded by the Protocol.
Conclusion: Effective protection of children in armed conflict requires moving beyond the formal recognition of legal prohibitions and addressing, in an integrated manner, the coherent interpretation of treaty obligations, the effective implementation of domestic legislation, the prevention of child recruitment and use, and the provision of rehabilitation and reintegration measures. Achieving this objective requires not only strengthening monitoring and accountability mechanisms but also clearly distinguishing the international responsibility of States from individual criminal responsibility and making coordinated use of the frameworks of international human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law. Accordingly, the adequacy of the protection afforded by the Protocol should be assessed not solely on the basis of the substantive content of its provisions but also in light of the enforceability of the obligations it establishes and the extent to which affected children have effective access to protection and remedies.