Children’s Participation in Holding International Peacekeepers Accountable 27
(a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual
(b) The exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual
(c) The exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and
The CRC thus, on the analysis here, imposes extraterritorial obligations on the TCC State Party to
the CRC to also protect the rights and freedoms of children in the host country. This is the case
since the TCC’s international peacekeepers have in large part, in practice, effective jurisdiction
over the civilian population in the host country where the international peacekeepers are
SEA of children by international peacekeepers during UN peacekeeping operations in the
host country constitute, among other things, violations of the child victims’ CRC right ( i) to be
protected by the State Party to the CRC from “all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse”
(Article 34), and (ii) to be protected against “torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment” (Article 37). Since the TCC retains sovereign jurisdiction over its international
peacekeeper nationals while they are participating extraterritorially in UN peacekeeping
operations, the State (the TCC) itself is also potentially liable for ( i) the sexual misconduct of their
peacekeeper nationals while deployed in the host country and for (ii) the TCC’s failure to properly
and timely hold the peacekeeper SEA perpetrators to account, if at all. This opens the opportunity
for peacekeeper SEA child victims to advance complaints under the Third Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC-OP3), the CRC complaint mechanism121 against
certain States Parties.122
Consider then, as an example, that in the UN peacekeeping mission in CAR, many of the
troops who allegedly committed SEA of children were French nationals under French day-to-day
operational command. The French military contingent, known as the Sangaris, as part of the
peacekeeping effort in CAR, operated under Security Council authorization but not as part of
119 CRC, supra note 5, at art. 34.
120 This perspective is also consistent with the Additional Protocols I and II to the to the 1948 Geneva Conventions.
Additional Protocol I concerns international armed conflict. PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS
OF 12 AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS
(PROTOCOL I) (June 8, 1977). Additional Protocol II requires that those in power during an armed conflict or immediate
post conflict situation afford children special care, aid and protection; including protection against indecent assault.
See generally PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949, AND RELATING TO THE
PROTECTION OF VICTIMS OF NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICTS (PROTOCOL II) (June 8, 1977). See also
Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, INT’L
COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS (1987), https://ihldata
121 G.A. Res. 66/138, supra note 4.
122 A complaint under CRC-OP3 would be possible were the TCC a State party to the CRC-OP3 and either to the CRC
and/or to one of the first two optional protocols to the CRC. See generally G.A. Res. 54/263, Optional Protocol to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (May 25, 2000); see also G.A.
Res. 54/263, Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution
and child pornography (May 25, 2000).