Using child soldiers is a form of civilian abuse. While academic coverage of the issue of child soldiers is relatively new, scholars have explored the general issue of civilian abuse quite expansively. This literature focuses on elite decisions about when to abuse and when to refrain. It suggests that while in some cases decisions to defy
international (and local) norms are made by the individual, generalizable theory should focus on the leaders. One set of explanatory factors of civilian abuse focuses on group characteristics, with unit discipline identified as the strongest factor (Humphreys and Weinstein 2006). This position reinforces the idea that many rebel leaders do not want their troops to abuse civilians because it is costly in the long run. A second line of inquiry suggests that international institutions, both formal and informal, can influence when civilians will be abused by offering incentives and disincentives for combatants. These trends in the literature, internal and system-level explanations, serve as a guide to the study of child soldiers.
Internal Explanations
One consensus in this literature is the power of internal group characteristics to influence behavior. Within an organization, decisions must be made that reconcile or coordinate the group’s objectives with those of the individual fighter. These are not always the same. For example, Humphreys and Weinstein (2006) explore the level of
leaders, even those within the infamous RUF, did not always want to pillage and plunder. In purely pragmatic terms, it may cost them supply bases and future support (Valentino, Huth, and Balch-Lindsay 2004). Where discipline can be maintained, violence will be less common than where violations go unpunished (Humphreys and Weinstein 2006). Rebels may also avoid civilian abuse for fear of damaging the productive capacity of their areas of operation (Bates, Greif and Singh 2002). Some groups will even go as far as providing local public goods to enhance their areas (Lichbach 1994; Wickham-Crowley 1992).
The environment may also affect levels of civilian abuse. There are two
conflicting approaches to this view. Particularly wealthy areas may be seen as valuable and therefore witness high contestation and thus greater collateral damage among civilian populations (Ross 2004b). At the same time, Gates (2002) argues that rebels may avoid recruiting in contested areas because those troops are more likely to defect, with
conscription and other violence more likely to occur outside of these places. Competing interests between leadership and the rank and file may also result from these
environmental features. Groups can become inundated with opportunists that are unlikely to consider the overall aims and motivations of the rebellion. These elements feel they can benefit financially from the continued conflict (Dishman 2001). This situation most likely occurs when short-term rewards are offered for joining the rebellion (Weinstein 2005; Cornell 2005).
Taken together, internal explanations of civilian abuse can be extended to the study of child soldier at least three ways. First, child soldiering should be more (or less) common when either the rebel leadership or the rank-and-file have strong incentives to
do so. Second, wealth can also play a role in leadership decisions and decisions from the lower ranks. Finally, it is also valuable to consider monitoring and discipline problem when trying to explain child soldiering.
Systemic Explanations
Treaties that aim to curb civilian abuse may be effective for a number of reasons. First, treaty signing is a deliberative process. States often go to great lengths to carefully consider the consequences of signing international agreements. Therefore, they will likely adhere to civilian protection because it is legitimate long before the agreement is signed (Franck 1990). Second, international social pressure can also be conducive to protection (Lipson 1991). Targeting civilians may be militarily prudent, but will bear long-term consequences. Action today may make it difficult to maintain the prohibition in the future. Reputation is linked to action in conflict. Being seen as an abuser of civilians may allow other state actors to doubt your commitment to international law. Finally,
agreements can clarify what cooperation means by explicitly spelling out appropriate behavior. Treaties can coordinate action and identify punishment for abrogation (Chayes and Chayes 1993).
These external factors influencing civilian abuse might also affect child soldiering among non-state actors as well. Rebel groups cannot sign treaties, but this does not stop them from considering their implications. For example, one Italian NGO advised the leadership in Iraqi Kurdistan to sign a plethora of human rights treaties. The signature was not binding, but the act of offering support would, following careful consideration of the implications would signal commitment to international standards. Second, as argued
commitments instill pressure for action or restraint, some non-state actors might also be constrained. Third, that reputation is influential even in matters of security, suggests that even where giving weapons to children can inflict damage, it may not be worth the social costs. Finally, when child soldiering was codified in agreements such as the CRC,
OPCAC and various other agreements, this offered clear proscriptions on appropriate behavior.
Both internal and systemic-level explanations of civilian abuse can be used to identify the areas of study to consider for the current project investigating child soldiers. Incentives and discipline should be explored to determine when and how child soldiering is valuable. At the same time, international treaties and social pressure should be
considered as additional costs associated with rebel behavior.