A comparative analysis of the rights of the child with particular reference to child soldiers
- Authors: Anwo, Joel Olasunkanmi
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Children's rights -- Child welfare -- Demobilization of children , Disarmament -- Reintegration
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: vital:11108 , http://hdl.handle.net/10353/102 , Children's rights -- Child welfare -- Demobilization of children , Disarmament -- Reintegration
- Description: The recruitment, enlistment and forceful conscription of children as soldiers is a cause for grave concern all over the world and most especially in Africa, where years of factional fighting, civil wars and cross border conflicts have raged, children and youth have been pulled into violence not only as victims, but also as perpetrators. The involvement of children in war posses a severe challenge to prevailing moral and legal norms of the conduct of modern warfare. A major problem and most controversial issue, among others, is on the age at which children should be eligible to become combatants. Children, who may be viewed as a valuable resource due to their often inherent malleability, wish to avenge family member(s) killed in war, sense of immunity to danger, and or feeling of power in participating in the violence. Can the use of children as soldiers be effectively regulated in Africa? All efforts to assist child soldiers in recovering from the devastating effects of wars often unwillingly helped promote the growing number of child soldiers. This is in part because wars are now more fought internally among rebel armies and factions vying for power with the government and thus enlist children into their various armies. The study comes to a conclusion that drastic steps need to be taken to ameliorate this unfortunate situation. This formed the basis of the recommendations offered in the thesis to assist the African continent.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008
In search of a regime of responsibility and accountability for perpetrators of torture with reference to persons with special responsibility for protecting human rights
- Authors: Odeku, Kolawole Olusola
- Date: 2008
- Subjects: Human rights -- Accountability -- Perpetrators of torture -- Torture
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Doctoral , LLD
- Identifier: vital:11112 , http://hdl.handle.net/10353/101 , Human rights -- Accountability -- Perpetrators of torture -- Torture
- Description: orture is a serious violation of human rights and it is strictly prohibited by numerous human rights instruments. The prohibition of torture enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a democratic society. Its prohibition in a national constitution commits the country, and specifically its law enforcement officers, to performing their duties with due regard to the essential dignity of every human being. The irony is that the law enforcement officials and the security agents who are entrusted with the responsibility of maintaining law and order in the society sometimes breach the law which they have sworn to uphold. Most of the perpetrators of acts of torture are usually those in positions of state power. In addition, other persons who wield other forms of authority or influence also perpetrate torture. It is contended that both civil and criminal responsibilities of the perpetrators should be explored by bringing them to justice in order to serve as deterrence to others. Despite being stringently outlawed, torture continues to be practised in many countries in the world. The underlying assumption is that, although the prohibition of torture has become part of customary international law, the practice of torture remains widespread. Torturers and those who order or encourage torturers to ply their trade or acquiesce in their doing so, enjoy virtual impunity from prosecution within their own jurisdictions. In many cases, the majority of the torturers go unpunished because they are, most often than not, agents or officials of the state. Nowadays, there are various international human rights instruments prohibiting torture. Violations of the provisions of these instruments by states or individuals will attract necessary and appropriate sanction. The erring state or individual will be held accountable and if found liable, sanctions as contained in the instruments banning torture will be invoked accordingly. It must be stressed that condemnation of torture is universal and its prohibition forms not only part of customary international law, but has joined that narrow category of crimes so egregious as to demand universal criminal jurisdiction. There is no save haven for perpetrators because the various mechanisms and adjudicating bodies of state parties and the United Nations have competent jurisdictions to right the wrong. Furthermore, it must be stressed that there can be no justification for torture because CAT and other important international human rights instruments assume increasing importance tools which have realistic prospects for eliminating torture.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2008