.png)
Article by Audrey Cisti | February 24, 2025 | Global Rights Defenders
Children and Counterterrorism: Global Legal Frameworks
Children have increasingly become victims of terrorist and armed groups, facing abductions, forced recruitment, and exploitation. They are manipulated into becoming operatives for violent extremism, often via social media and local factors. Extremist groups view children as ideal recruits due to their ability to move undetected, using them as human shields or suicide attackers[1].
International legal frameworks, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the Geneva Conventions, and their Additional Protocols, stress the need for juvenile justice systems to protect children from recruitment and abuse in armed conflict. Despite these protections, counter-terrorism laws have led to practices like administrative detention, undermining traditional legal safeguards and raising concerns over violations of fundamental rights, as noted by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention[2].
Counter-Terrorism Legislation in the UK: Children at Risk
The UK ratified the CRC in 1991, but it has not incorporated the treaty into domestic law, making it non-justiciable. The UK’s counter-terrorism response has evolved since the Northern Ireland conflict and the rise of jihadist extremism. Legislation such as the Terrorism Act 2000, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001[3], and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 has allowed the arrest of children as young as 10 without age-specific exemptions[4]. These laws extend detention and questioning periods for minors, raising concerns about due process protections.
While the CRC defines 17-year-olds as children, exceptions in counter-terrorism laws allow for prolonged detention and questioning of minors without adequate safeguards[5], undermining their rights. International law, including the ICC’s ban on the recruitment of children under 15, conflicts with the UK’s treatment of children involved in terrorism. Cases such as Sher v UK[6] emphasize the need for specialized safeguards for children suspected of terrorism-related activities. However, a clear distinction between "child soldiers" and "child terrorists" remains elusive.
The Prevent Strategy: A Threat to Children’s Rights?
The UK’s Prevent strategy, part of its broader counter-terrorism plan (CONTEST), aims to prevent radicalization through early intervention. Referrals are made by institutions like schools, with children increasingly investigated, especially for online activities. Critics, including Amnesty International, argue that Prevent disproportionately targets Muslim and Asian children, violating their freedom of expression and privacy[7].
In 2023-2024, nearly 7,000 individuals, including children as young as 10, were referred to Prevent. Children under 15 account for 29% of Prevent referrals, while young people aged 15 to 20 make up the largest group at 30%[8]. This overrepresentation raises concerns about Prevent's compatibility with the UK's international human rights obligations. Human rights advocates highlight that the program, while intended to prevent terrorism, fosters discrimination and undermines children’s rights. Cases like that of Zain, a 14-year-old referred to Prevent after expressing stress-related comments[9], and Michael, referred for political views[10], underscore the need for a child-focused approach that prioritizes welfare over suspicion. The UN has criticized Prevent for chilling children’s freedom of expression, with Muslim and Asian children overrepresented among referrals[11].
The Prevent program has also raised concerns about data privacy, as referrals can lead to personal information being retained on multiple databases, often without parental consent[12]. The lack of transparency regarding data retention and the absence of clear consent processes are significant issues.
Policy Recommendations: Ensuring Children’s Rights in Counter-Terrorism Efforts
In conclusion, human rights organizations have strongly advocated for the abolition of the Prevent duty, calling for its replacement with ordinary safeguarding processes that prioritize children's rights. To ensure fair treatment, alternatives to the criminal justice system should be established for children accused of terrorism-related offenses. It is crucial to end the targeting of specific groups, particularly Muslim and Asian children, and to provide better training for institutions to prevent discrimination. Moreover, supporting children with neurodivergence or mental health issues is essential, along with safeguarding their right to freely express their religion. Ensuring transparency in data retention practices is vital to protect privacy and uphold non-discriminatory principles. Ultimately, a more child-centered approach is needed to balance counter-terrorism efforts with the protection of children's rights[13].
References
[1] Report on Children and Counter-Terrorism, UNICRI, 2016: https://unicri.it/report-children-and-counter-terrorism
[2] Commission on Human Rights, WG on Arbitrary Detention (2004), U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2005/6, para. 61
[3] Report on Children and Counter-Terrorism, UNICRI, 2016: https://unicri.it/report-children-and-counter-terrorism
[4] This is defined in the Terrorism Act, section 40(1)(a) or (b) as a person who has committed an offence under any of sections 1112 15-18 54 and 56-63, or is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
[5] Terrorism Act 2000, Schedule 8 para. 36.
[6] Application No 5201/11, 20 October 2015.
[7] UK: Spying and policing of young children remains the consequence of Government's proposed new counter terror measures, Amnesty International UK, Dec 2024 : https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/uk-spying-and-policing-young-children-remains-consequence-governments-proposed-new
[8] Amnesty International UK. (2023). *United Kingdom: Prevent—This is the thought police*. Amnesty International UK. https://www.amnesty.org.uk/resources/united-kingdom-prevent-thought-police-2023
[9] Amnesty International interview with ‘Jasmine’, 25 February 2023.
[10] (Amnesty International interview with ‘Michael’ and his parents, 24 February 2023.
[11] CRC Committee, Concluding Observations on the UK, 2023, CRC/C/GBR/CO/6-7.
[12] R (II) v Metropolitan Police, EWHC 2528 (Admin), 2020.
Comentarios