Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
- 1 -
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the
war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
Magdalena Matusiak-Frącczak*
Keywords
terrorism, children, children’s rights, repatriation, jurisdiction, Syria
Abstract
The aim of the article is to analyse the legal situation of the children held in
camps in northeast Syria. The situation in the camps is devastating and poses a
threat to the children’s right to life as well as physical and mental integrity. The
article explores whether the states of citizenship of these children exercise any
this jurisdiction. Next, the research will focus on the question of whether the states
of citizenship have the obligation to repatriate those children from Syria. To this
examined. Lastly, the deliberations will focus on the policy of citizenship revocation
that is applied by some states in terrorism combatting and it will be studied whether
this policy can be applied to children in conformity with international law. It results
from the analysis that states have obligations towards children placed in the Syrian
camps being their nationals, especially an obligation to repatriate them and to
enable their rehabilitation and reintegration.
Wroclaw Review
of Law, Administration & Economics
Vol 14:1, 2024
DOI: 10.2478/wrlae-2022-0026
* U
ORCID: 0
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
I. Introduction
1
people of mostly women and children
Roj in northeast Syria, which are under the control of the Syrian Democratic
violence4
indoctrination of minors, leading to further radicalisation5. Some of these people
states to repatriate their citizens. Nevertheless, the problems with this repatriation
raises several legal issues. The aim of this article is to discuss the ones related to
1
repatriate women and children from squalid camps’ (Oce of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights
2
3 Syrian Kurdistan is a de facto
H.F. and others v. France,
4
5 F.B. et al. v France
Letter dated 31 December 2020 from the Analytical Support and Monitoring
Team in accordance with paragraph (a) of annex I to resolution 2368 (2017) addressed to the
Chair of the Security Council Committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999), 1989 (2011)
and 2253 (2015) concerning Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Da’esh), Al-Qaida and
associated individuals, groups, undertakings and entities,
H.F. and others v. France, International
obligations concerning the repatriation of children from war and conict zones, available at:
6
(Oce of the
High Commissioner for Human Rights <
> A call to
repatriate women and children from camps in the northeast Syria was also made by the UN
https://reliefweb.int/sites/
pdf
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
the children’s rights and the states’ obligations toward them. Some of these
children allegedly collaborated with the Da’esh. They were either born in Syria
or travelled there with their parents.
States are entitled to and at the same time obliged to protect public security
and order within their own borders, including safeguarding their territory from
terrorist threat. That is why the repatriation of the mentioned children might raise
public security concerns. On the other hand, children due to their age are very
vulnerable to radicalisation. In this paper it will be discussed whether public
security concerns should prevail over rights of these children and whether states
The deliberations cannot be detached from the conditions in which these
. Adolescent girls
.
territories and diplomatic missions have been withdrawn several years ago.
their wish to cooperate in repatriating foreign nationals to their states of origin
10. Therefore, technically these
7
overblown fears of terrorism, as well as xenophobia and Islamophobia, peddled by
https://pace.coe.int/en/
8 UNCRC, F.B. et al. v France H.F. and others v France,
9 “They have erased the dreams of my children”: children’s rights in the
Syrian Arab Republic
principles for the protection, repatriation, prosecution, rehabilitation and reintegration of
https://
10 F.B. et al. v France C.P.
and others v France,
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
repatriations can be organised and this article will not deplore this technical
paper will be devoted to problems of jurisdiction. Afterwards, the obligation to
repatriate the children from the Syrian camps will be discussed. Lastly, the paper
will focus on the policy of citizenship revocation applied by some states in the
II. Jurisdiction
obligation to protect human rights of children in these camps11
justify exception to the principle of territorial jurisdiction of states and the
repatriation falls within conducting international relations, as it includes
negotiations with a foreign state, and therefore it falls outside judicial competence
of courts. As a result, if a state has no jurisdiction over an individual, it has no
obligation towards this individual as well14.
https://www.ohchr.
families
11
https://
12
13
14
Israel L Rev.
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
As a rule, it is presumed that states’ jurisdiction has a territorial character15.
territories can exceptionally constitute an exercise of jurisdiction, if there exist
special features justifying it and it is limited by the sovereign territorial rights of
the other relevant states. In international law, the instances of extraterritorial
jurisdiction are military occupation and exercising authority and control over a
rights violations on a territory of another state, which violations it could not
perpetrate on its own territory
even noticed that a state can exercise control over a person if it impacts the rights
.
To this regard we can point out the following cases of extraterritorial
jurisdiction in matters relating to human rights protection indicated by the
control over another territory, where state authorities act abroad or their actions
. These are the instances in which a state is
considered to exercise functional sovereignty abroad
15
Konwencja o Ochronie Praw Człowieka i Podstawowych
Wolności. Tom I. Komentarz do artykułów 1-18
16 Banković and others v Belgium and others,
Al-Skeini and others v the United Kingdom, Appl. no.
17 Cyprus v Turkey,
Salidas de Lopez v Uruguay,
Celiberti de Casariego v. Uruguay,
Special Rapporteurs, Extra-territorial jurisdiction of States over children and their guardians
in camps, prisons, or elsewhere in the northern Syrian Arab Republic, <https://www.ohchr.
> accessed 1
QIL
18 General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, on the right to life,
19 Banković, Al-Skeini, Issa and others v. Turkey,
20
EJIL
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
rights protection, nevertheless not every vacuum would necessarily trigger its
application.
Analysing the issue of jurisdiction over the children held in the Syrian
state’s jurisdiction is not limited to its territory, as states may have jurisdiction in
respect of domestic acts that are performed, or produce direct and foreseeable
protection. Regarding the children in the Syrian camps, the state is well aware
harm to the children. At the same time, as the state of nationality, it has the
capability and the power to protect the rights of these children
In H.F. and others v France,
extremely exceptional basis. The Court emphasized that the mere fact that an
applicant brings proceedings in a state with which he or she has no connection
an impact on the situation of individuals residing abroad, it does not establish its
jurisdiction over these individuals.
4 to the Convention
into account new challenges for security and defence. The special features that
conditions and safety concerns in the camps, which are incompatible with respect
for human dignity, the form and the length of their detention in the camps and the
21 Cyprus v Turkey,
22 UNCRC, L.H. et al. v France,
F.B. et al. v France,
P.N. et al. v.
Finland,
23 H.F. and others v France,
24 No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a
national.
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
number of the repatriation requests made based on the fundamental values of
democratic societies.
have jurisdiction. The Committee accentuated that jurisdiction covers not only
national territory of a state, but it also includes all areas where the state exercises,
directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, de jure or de facto
accordance with international law.
actors who publicly announced that they neither have the means, nor the will to
their physical and mental integrity and, at the same time, their state of nationality
.
The UN Special Rapporteurs noticed as well that the acts and omissions of
their jurisdiction ratione personae. Nevertheless, this jurisdiction covers not all
but only some of these rights, namely those over which states have a de facto
right to enter their own country and therefore, they have jurisdiction in respect to
prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, which are
endangered due to the situation in the Syrian camps28.
devastating situation of the children concerned and by the fact, that states have
the power, ability and competence to remedy this situation. At the same time,
citizen to enter the territory of the state of citizenship. This right can be raised
only when an individual is present abroad and once returned to the territory of the
state of citizenship the problem would no longer exist. Therefore, this interpretation
of extraterritorial jurisdiction should not be extended to other situations, as it is
extremely extraordinary.
25 H.F. and others v France,
26 UNCAT, General Comment no. 2 (2007),
27 UNCAT, C.P. and others v France,
28 UN Special Rapporteurs, Extra-territorial jurisdiction of States...
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
III. Obligation of repatriation
In general, states as sovereigns decide who can enter their territory, although
the state, of which one is a citizen and no one can be arbitrarily deprived of this
right. Nevertheless, in international law, both customary and conventional, it is
emphasized that despite the existence of this right, there exist no obligation of
states to repatriate their citizens, as it falls within diplomatic and consular
relations
threats to national security. Some states even hinder repatriation of children by
nationality cannot be easily established or refusing repatriation because of the
fear of radicalisation of those children
receive military training.
The issue of repatriation was examined by the UN Committee on the Rights
of the Child. In this place it has to be reminded that the situation of minors, in
the Rights of the Child, in all actions concerning children state authorities shall
states to ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of
other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment of children. The Convention imposes
administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised
obligation to repatriate minors being their citizens from Syria, together with their
29
30 H.F. and others v France,
31
32
33
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
each child who has been repatriated or resettled. The UNCRC emphasized that
contrary to the child’s best interests and cannot be described as anything other
than cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The same reasoning was adopted
by the UNCRC in P.N. et al. v. Finland.
inhuman conditions in which people are living in these camps. The reasoning of
this decision was similar to the statement of reasons adopted by the UNCRC.
does not mean that domestic courts would have to order the requested
repatriations.
within a state’s territory, all citizens must be treated equally and would not depend
on whether previously an individual left the territory voluntarily or was born
abroad and has never been to this territory yet. This right covers not only some
negative obligations of a state that should refrain from depriving individuals of
actions on the part of the state, as the Convention should be applied in a way that
.
The situation of children in the camps in northeast Syria is exceptional, as
the conditions in the camp are incompatible with international humanitarian law
regarding safety, healthcare, protection of human dignity and the prohibition of
there have had arrest warrants issued against them, so even if repatriated, they
would be subjected to decisions of domestic courts. Nevertheless, the most
important aspect of the case is that repatriation requests are made on behalf of
34 UNCRC, F.B. et al. v France
35 UNCRC, P.N. et al. v Finland,
36 UNCAT, C.P. and others v France,
37 H.F. and others v France,
38 H.F. and others v France,
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
particular vulnerability. That is why, in decisions on repatriation, independent
particular case.
40.
The obligation to repatriate children from the Syrian camps should be therefore
unconditional, as they have no other way of safeguarding their right to enter the
child’s best interests should prevail.
deliberations is the reference to the provisions regulating combatting human
41
receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of
coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power, a position of vulnerability,
shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other
forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices
transfer, harbouring, or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be
states’ obligation to protect the child against all other forms of exploitation
prejudicial to any aspects of the child’s welfare.
39 H.F. and others v France,
40 Scordino v Italy (No. 1),
Prince Hans-Adam II of Lichtenstein v Germany,
Waite and Kennedy,
41
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
The protocol underlines a particular vulnerability of children. It obliges states to
persons, in particular the special needs of children, including appropriate housing,
emphasises that
child’s best interests must be therefore a primary consideration. The penalties for
44. Children shall as well have the right
them. In all actions relating to children the child’s best interests must be a primary
45
and to provide the necessary support for their rehabilitation and reintegration.
even if a child was radicalised and went to Syria to join Da’esh voluntarily, he or
perpetrator of an act that threatens national security. The UN even recommends
that in cases of children there should be a presumption against prosecution, and
even if the presumption is rebutted, the prosecution should respect recognised
42 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Tracking in Persons, Especially
Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational
Organized Crime,
43
44
45
46
th
47 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
for Children and Armed Conict,
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
standards of juvenile justice. It needs to be remembered that minors are
vulnerable and immature, that is why the measures that might seem adequate in
relation to adults, will be disproportionate when deciding on children’s rights.
such measures of protection that are required by their status as minors, thus
distinguishing their situation from adults.
in human beings stipulates that a state of which a victim is a national of or in
which that person had the right of permanent residence at the time of entry into
the territory of the receiving state shall, with due regard for his or her rights,
safety and dignity, facilitate and accept, his or her return without undue or
not only an obligation to examine the repatriation cases without arbitrariness, as
, they
This argumentation is supported by international humanitarian law, as these
be object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent
50. The rules of international
appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social
48 UN, Key principles for the protection... UN Special Rapporteurs, Extra-territorial jurisdiction
of States...
49 A child soldier is a child associated with an armed force or armed group, as well as any
armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to children, boys and girls used as
, <
these children a right to reintegration and protection from further stigmatisation.
50
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
51.
States should cooperate in the rehabilitation and social reintegration of persons
who are victims of child recruitment to armed forces. These provisions refer
appropriate measure that should be adopted on the basis thereof is the repatriation.
of these children.
well underlined that in the case of children it should not be assumed that they
reasons they should be granted due process guarantees and other adequate
protections in order not to compound the trauma and not to continue the cycle of
to psychological and support services54.
it recommends developing and implementing prosecution, rehabilitation, and
55. This refers
supporters, facilitators, or perpetrators of terrorist acts, that they require a special
sensitivities
51
52
53
54 UN, Key principles for the protection
Technical Recommendations on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism for the 7th Biennial
Review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (A/RES/72/284), https://www.ohchr.org/
sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Terrorism/SR/GlobalStrategy/
TechnicalRecommendations.pdf
Human rights impact of counter-terrorism and countering extremism policies and practices
on the rights of women, girls and the family
Special Rapporteurs, Extra-territorial jurisdiction of States... UNGA, Resolution 60/1, 2005
World Summit Outcome,
55
56
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
rehabilitation and reintegration. The deprivation of liberty of these children and
. States should
remember that these children have been abducted, recruited, used, and exposed
to violence at an early age and they should not be doubly victimised.
in which
it underlines that these children have grown up in a climate of extreme violence.
informs competent local authorities and the juvenile judge who decides on
As it was mentioned at the beginning of the paper, only some of the children
held in the Syrian camps were allegedly engaged in supporting the ISIS. The
reasons, some states would prefer to repatriate only the children without their
parents, who are considered to pose a threat to national security. Nevertheless,
this would be contrary to the children’s best interests, as it would mean a separation
against the mothers’ wishes. The UN Secretary General called states to repatriate
the children from the Syrian camps with simultaneous maintenance of family
unity.
unconditional obligation to repatriate children held in the Syrian camps being
their nationals, irrespective of the children’s personal behaviour and activities.
rights should prevail. Only repatriation can protect these children from threats to
57
terrorist groups’
58 Report of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General
for Children and Armed Conict,
59
https://
60
61 UN Secretary General, Key principles for the protection...
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
their lives and physical and mental integrity, and it can prevent their further
committed terrorist crimes.
IV. Withdrawal of citizenship
The deliberations contained in the previous parts of the paper lead to a
question of whether states can apply deprivation of citizenship as a method for
protecting their citizens and territory from terrorist threat in relation to children.
Of course, it results from state’s sovereignty that states are entitled to settle their
own legislation regarding the rules relating to the acquisition of their nationalities.
Nationality, as a legal bond between a person and a state, has its most immediate
to determine that the person upon whom it is granted enjoys the rights and is
bound by the obligations which the law of the state grants to or imposes on its
nationals. The sovereignty of a state’s decision regarding nationality applies
equally to deprivation of citizenship, yet such decisions are subjected to public
international law, including customary law, and they cannot be arbitrary nor
they can lead to statelessness
not, by stripping a person of nationality, arbitrarily prevent a person from returning
to his or her country
whether the revocation was in accordance with the law, whether it was
accompanied by the necessary procedural safeguards, including whether the
62 Nottebohm Case (Lichtenstein v Guatemala)
63 Prawo międzynarodowe publiczne
everyone has the right to a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their
under its national law who are its nationals, however, this law will be accepted by other states
so far as it is consistent with applicable international conventions, customary international
No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of their nationality or of the right to change it. UN
Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, Doc. A/
64 U.
Pa. J. Int’l L
65 General comment no. 27 (67): Freedom of movement (article 12),
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
person deprived of citizenship was allowed the opportunity to challenge the
authorities acted diligently and swiftly. The International Law Commission
considers a deprivation of nationality abusive and arbitrary if it is made for the
sole purpose of expulsion.
The obligation to avoid statelessness is considered to be a part of customary
international law, yet even the existing conventions in this area provide for
Statelessness
inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to that state, has conducted himself in a
manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state. Similarly, the issue
is entitled to nationality and statelessness shall be avoided. A deprivation of
conduct of the person concerned is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of
prejudicial to interests of a state combatting terrorism and disloyal in relation to
this state.
citizenship together with rights connected therewith. As it was underlined by the
by the person concerned, to the lapse of time between the naturalisation decision
and the withdrawal decision and to whether it is possible for that person to recover
their original nationality.
as a way of protecting their nations from terrorist threat. This policy is applied by
66 Ramadan v. Malta, K2 v.
UK,
67 International Law Commission, Report of the sixty sixth session (5 May-6 June and 7 July-8
August 2014),
68
69
70 Rottman Tjebbes
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
the United Kingdom, Australia, Austria, Germany, the
United States.
Some of the above mentioned laws expressly permit a citizenship revocation
at 14 years. On the other hand, the German law provides expressis verbis that
.
. Nevertheless, this law was repealed in
. There are also states in which a constitution expressly prohibits citizenship
stripping.
citizenship. In the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State may by order deprive
is conducive to the public good if the citizenship status results from the person’s
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
the Republic of South Africa stipulates that no citizen may be deprived of citizenship.
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
to the public good because the person, while having that citizenship status, has
conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital
interests of the state and the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds for
believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside
the United Kingdom, to become a national of such a country or territory. If the
Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of national
security, they should not give the person concerned a written notice about the
order on withdrawal of citizenship. The decision may be subjected to an appeal.
demonstrates that the person has repudiated their allegiance to Australia and it
would be contrary to the public interest for the person to remain an Australian
citizen
Court of Australia.
citizen of his or her citizenship unless such withdrawal would result in
statelessness. The reasons for citizenship stripping can be conviction of a crime
. The decision
. The Austrian law provides for revocation
of an organised armed group, yet such withdrawal cannot lead to statelessness.
The procedure starts ex ocio
. Also, the German
in an armed operations of a terrorist organisation abroad, under the condition that
this would not render him or her stateless.
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
Such withdrawal of citizenship subsequently permits a state to extradite a
its territory, as since the moment of deprivation of citizenship a person becomes
right to control the entry, residence, and expulsion of aliens. These states raise
that in such circumstances withdrawal of citizenship will be in fact a result of the
.
The legality of citizenship revocation is disputable. The states that apply it
in combatting terrorism raise the national security concerns and the needs to
territory or by stopping their own nationals from joining terrorist groups.
showed the highest disloyalty towards their state of nationality. On the other
because they are disproportionate, as they cannot be seen as the least intrusive
measure available in combatting terrorism
discrimination, as they usually concern only naturalised citizens with migrant
also illusory, as they do not eliminate the terrorist threat, but they only export the
.
The Institute on Statelessness and Inclusion elaborated principles on
deprivation on nationality as a national security measure100 according to which
states, as a rule, should not refer to the revocation of citizenship to protect national
security. If they introduce exceptions thereto, they should be interpreted narrowly
in situations in which it has been determined by a lawful conviction that meets
94 A.S. v France K2 v UK,
Ghoumid and Others v France Appl.
Johansen v Denmark,
95
96
Begum v. Home
Secretary
97
IRRC
98
99
100
security measure’
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
international fair trial standards, that the person has conducted themselves in a
manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state. This possibility is
subjected to limitations that should include: the avoidance of statelessness, the
prohibition of discrimination, the prohibition of arbitrariness, the right to a fair
trial, remedy and reparation and other obligations and standards set forth in
international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international
previous conviction to strip a person of their citizenship101.
even in cases of terrorist threat deprivation of citizenship should respect human
rights laws, it shall be decided or reviewed by a criminal court, with full respect
for all procedural guarantees, it shall not be discriminatory, as it often implies
direct or indirect discrimination against naturalised citizens, it shall be
proportionate to the pursued objective, and shall be applied only if other measures
cannot be preventive in nature. As the issue raises serious legal concerns with
regard to adults, this aspect will not be discussed here further in detail, as the aim
of the article is to focus on children’s rights.
The issue of citizenship revocation appears unproblematic when discussing
interests. Although they are radicalised and some of them voluntarily travelled to
Syria, such decisions could be a result of their vulnerability and immaturity.
These children should be repatriated and relevant measures should be adopted in
but also resocialisation and reintegration. Therefore, withdrawal of citizenship
should not in any way concern minors.
in combatting terrorism and emphasises that a deprivation of nationality of a
parent must not lead to the deprivation of the nationality of his or her children,
as they should be protected against discrimination or punishment on the basis of
101
102
combat terrorism: a human rights compatible approach?’
103 ibid.
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
the activities of their parents or guardians104
accentuated that a child has its own right to nationality and should not be deprived
thereof on any ground and regardless of the status of his/her parents105. This raises
doubts as to the compatibility of Danish law with children’s rights, providing that
.
into consideration in the assessment of the child’s best interests and their evolving
capacities. To this regard, the League of Arab States even noticed that gaps in
which lead to the increase of crime and terrorism. That is why it encouraged the
member states to adopt relevant measures safeguarding the rights of the children
in the region to enjoy a legal identity, including a nationality. It can be concluded
that the League considers the maintenance of the bond of nationality with respect
to children as a way of preventing terrorism by creation of the sense of belonging
and the prolonged stay in extreme circumstances that include hunger, poverty,
. Stateless children, marginalised and
terrorist organisations and facing human rights violations110 when they should be
protected from all of it.
states should refer to citizenship revocation in the case of children, as such a
measure would be disproportional and thus arbitrary. The children held in Syrian
this way can states neutralise further security threats111. As it was emphasised by
104
105 UNCRC, Consideration of reports submitted by States parties under article 44 of the
Convention. Concluding observations: Ukraine,
106
107 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the
child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration,
GC/14.
108 League of Arab States, Arab Declaration on Belonging and Legal Identity,
109
110
111
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
.
V. Conclusion
It is beyond any doubt, that children due to their immaturity and vulnerability
deserve a special protection from the international community, especially from
This assumption is of an utmost importance when analysing states’
obligations with regard to children held in the Syrian camps being their nationals.
These children are found to be in a situation devastating to their lives, as well as
physical and mental integrity. Some of these children radicalised and went to
This very special situation of these children calls for states of their citizenship
to exercise jurisdiction over the children’s right to repatriation or, in other words,
the right to enter the territory of a state of their nationality. This interpretation of
extraterritorial jurisdiction of states is extremely extraordinary and should not be
extended to other situations.
Not only do states of nationality have jurisdiction, but they also have an
obligation to repatriate the children from the Syrian camps, as it is the only way
After their return they should be subjected to deradicalisation, rehabilitation, and
should be repatriated together with their parents to maintain family unity.
Although a withdrawal of citizenship might seem to be a tempting and an
easy policy for states to dispose of the problem, especially of radicalised minors,
it should not be applied against children, as they should be regarded as victims
and not as perpetrators. Nevertheless, some states withdraw citizenship of foreign
112
Selected issues regarding children’s rights in the war on terror with a particular focus on Syria
radicalisation. Together with a refusal to repatriate this does not contribute to
combatting terrorist threat, but it only places this threat on another territory.
References
JC&SL
https://
’
security measure’ <
International Law Commission, Report of the sixty sixth session (5 May-6 June and 7 July-8
August 2014),
League of Arab States, Arab Declaration on Belonging and Legal Identity,
Israel L Rev
combat terrorism: a human rights compatible approach?’
Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics [Vol 14:1, 2024]
Human rights and arbitrary deprivation of nationality, Doc. A/
“They have erased the dreams of my children”: children’s rights in the
Syrian Arab Republic
https://www.unicef.org/mali/
https://
UN Secretary General, Children and armed conict. Report of the Secretary General, Doc.
groups’
Human rights impact of counter-terrorism and countering
extremism policies and practices on the rights of women, girls and the family
Technical Recommendations on Human Rights and
Counter-Terrorism for the 7th Biennial Review of the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy (A/
RES/72/284),
GlobalStrategy/TechnicalRecommendations.pdf
UN Special Rapporteurs, Extra-territorial jurisdiction of States over children and their
guardians in camps, prisons, or elsewhere in the northern Syrian Arab Republic, https://www.
> accessed
