The Illusion of Inclusion: Child Protection in Peace Agreements

International bodies such as the United Nations have long advocated for the inclusion of child protection measures in peace agreements. UN Security Council Resolution 1379, for instance, urges negotiators to incorporate provisions addressing disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) of child soldiers. Other efforts, including the Checklist for Drafting Children and Armed Conflict Provisions in Peace Agreements, guide mediators on integrating protective language into peace processes​.

Peace agreements are often lauded as blueprints for rebuilding war-torn societies, promising stability and rights protections. Among the most vulnerable groups affected by conflict are children, whose safety, well-being, and rights are frequently at risk. 

However, my research questions whether the inclusion of child protection provisions in peace agreements is genuinely transformative—or if it merely perpetuates exclusion and power imbalances. My research examines how children’s rights are addressed in peace negotiations. The findings suggest that while many agreements acknowledge child protection, they often reinforce hierarchical power structures, fail to engage children in decision-making, and prioritize protection over participation​.

The research found that peace agreements frequently cite international legal frameworks like the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Some agreements go beyond these standards, imposing stricter national obligations to protect children from exploitation, recruitment into armed groups, and abuses during transitional periods​. Countries such as Colombia and South Sudan have incorporated child-specific protections into their constitutional frameworks, elevating these rights to legally binding obligations. 

However, despite these positive steps, inclusion on paper does not necessarily translate into meaningful implementation.

A Closer Look: The Problem with ‘Inclusion’

Despite formal recognition of child protection, peace agreements often fail to produce tangible improvements. The study highlights several key concerns:

1. Failure to Implement Provisions – Many peace agreements are never fully enacted, leaving child protection commitments unfulfilled. The 1993 Arusha Accords, meant to bring peace to Rwanda, ultimately failed to prevent the 1994 genocide. Similarly, earlier peace deals in Colombia, including the 2016 Final Agreement to End the Armed Conflict and Build a Stable and Lasting Peace did not end violence involving children,​ and children continue to be recruited into armed gangs.

2. Exclusion from Decision-Making – Although children are directly affected by war and post-conflict transitions, they are rarely included in peace negotiations. The language used in agreements often frames them as passive victims in need of protection rather than as stakeholders with agency. UNSC Resolution 2427 calls for children’s views to be considered in peacebuilding efforts, but this remains more aspirational than practical​. 

Although children are scarcely directly included, children’s rights organisations can help to articulate the views and rights of children. For example, during the 2016 peace negotiations between the Colombian government and the FARC, the child rights organization COALICO played a role in advocating for the rights of children and youth affected by the armed conflict.

3. Reinforcing Power Structures – Peace negotiations are typically dominated by political and military elites—often male leaders—who set priorities based on their own agendas. As a result, child protection measures may be added symbolically, rather than with genuine intent to enforce them. 

Prioritizing protection over broader rights such as participation and education also risks reinforcing paternalistic attitudes toward children. Peace agreements in countries like Burundi, Yemen, and Angola place more of an emphasis on children being dependent, at risk, and ‘needy,’ perpetuating ideas around children being only vulnerable and lacking agency. Protection is essential, however, children’ s broader rights, such as the right to education, must be more heavily emphasized in order to help children’s needs be fully recognized.

4. Lack of Legal Accountability – While agreements may reference international laws, the mechanisms to ensure compliance are often weak. Without enforcement, provisions become rhetorical commitments rather than actionable obligations. For example, while some agreements in such places as Colombia and South Sudan recognise a role for UNICEF, the ICRC, and the Office of the UN Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, in many contexts no external bodies are appointed to oversee and monitor the implementation of child-specific provisions.

Moving Beyond Symbolic Commitments

The research challenges policymakers, mediators, and international organizations to rethink how children are incorporated into peace agreements. It demonstrates that inclusion should not be limited to protective measures but must extend to meaningful participation. Children’s rights advocates suggest several potential reforms:

–Child Participation in Peace Negotiations – Ensuring that children’s perspectives are actively considered in peace talks, perhaps through youth advisory councils or consultations.

–Stronger Enforcement Mechanisms – Creating independent oversight bodies to track implementation and hold governments accountable.

–Shifting the Narrative – Moving away from framing children solely as victims and instead recognizing their capacity to contribute to rebuilding society.

As conflicts continue to disproportionately affect children, the need for truly transformative peace agreements remains urgent. Without fundamental changes in how agreements are drafted, negotiated, and implemented, the promise of child protection will remain largely unfulfilled—a case of inclusion in theory but exclusion in practice.

Keywords: children, child protection, war to peace, war to peace transition, transitional justice, transitional peace, conflict, conflict resolution, peace, children’s rights, child rights, child, Colombia, South Sudan