International Legal Protection of Children in Armed Conflict in Syria

Abstract

Abstract A detailed, multifaceted investigation into the international legal protection of children impacted by the lengthy armed war in the Syrian Arab Republic is presented in this dissertation. The study, which is based on the New Haven School's jurisprudential framework, views the Syrian conflict as a paradigmatic setting where the conflict between normative aspiration and operational reality becomes sharply apparent, exposing the structural weaknesses, political circumstances, and jurisprudential complexities that continue to influence the international child-protection regime. This research approaches the conflict as a critical diagnostic lens through which the vitality, adaptability, and limitations of international law can be evaluated when confronted with systemic institutional collapse and entrenched violence, rather than merely treating it as a site of humanitarian failure. Fundamentally, the dissertation contends that an ambitious vision of human dignity, civilian immunity, and the unique status of children as holders of heightened protection is embodied in the legal framework governing the protection of children in armed conflict, which includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law, refugee law, and specialized instruments like the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols. However, the Syrian crisis shows that this normative structure is not always operationalized just because it exists. The fragmentation of territorial control among State and non-State actors, the deterioration of domestic judicial systems, geopolitical rivalries that influence the actions of powerful external powers, and the slow deterioration of institutional capacity in the administrative, humanitarian, and accountability domains are some of the intersecting forces that have seriously weakened the protective regime. The dissertation shows that children in Syria have endured a continuum of violence and deprivation that reflects not only violations by individual actors but also deeper systemic failures through an integrated analysis that traces past decision-making patterns, on-the-ground practices, and evolving conditioning factors. The gap between formal legal obligations and actual compliance is highlighted by the recruitment and use of children by armed groups, mass displacement, the intentional targeting of medical and educational infrastructures, the denial of basic services, and the widespread use of siege and starvation tactics. These patterns also show how human rights principles and international humanitarian law are interpreted -or disregarded- in a war that is affected by power imbalances, conflicting ideologies, and changing regional and global stakeholder motivations. The dissertation also demonstrates how accountability-enforcing measures, whether through international tribunals, Security Council action, or domestic channels, have proven susceptible to institutional inertia and political blockage. A situation of almost complete impunity has been created by vetoes in the Security Council, little collaboration with investigative agencies, and the lack of reliable domestic legal channels. However, the research identifies significant countervailing forces within this context: the documentation efforts of UN investigative bodies, the normative influence of international criminal jurisprudence in comparable contexts; the advocacy of civil society organizations, and the tenacity of community-based initiatives that aim to protect children's rights in the face of displacement and violence. The dissertation conceptualizes the Syrian war as arena where contending actors deploy resources -military, economic, ideological, and institutional- to accomplish their desired ends, fully engaging with the New Haven School's paradigm. The study evaluates how claims about children's rights are expressed, disputed, and negotiated at various levels of authority within this analytical framework. It shows that the ability of institutions to recalibrate incentives, create shared expectations, and produce authoritative decisions in line with the larger values of human dignity and community well-being is just as important to the prospects for improving child protection as the improvement of legal norms. In the end, the dissertation argues that a rethinking of the connection between law and power is necessary to protect children in protracted crises like Syria. It makes the case for the development of international consensus that prioritizes children's rights in peace processes, political agreements, and reconstruction agendas; the depoliticization of humanitarian access, the strengthening of international monitoring and accountability mechanisms; and the reconstruction of domestic institutions capable of upholding child-protection norms. The Syrian situation serves as an example of how the persistence of legal standards depends not only on their conceptual coherence but also on the international community's readiness to uphold them at political expense. This dissertation emphasizes that the protection of children is both a legal need and a moral obligation -one that must continue to be fundamental in any vision for a sustainable and dignified future for Syria- by combining doctrinal study, empirical data, and jurisprudential reasoning.