366 The specter of international criminal responsibility should also be extended to military
commanders and other superiors. Indeed, the Rome Statute Article 28 stresses that a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed no
subordinates under his or her effective authority and control , or when it n not exercise control properly over his subordinates or if : i the superior knew that his subordinates were committing
or about to commit such crimes , or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated that [ ... ] the superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her
power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution. It is clear from reading this article that the International Criminal
Justice scheduled sanction mechanisms for recruiters, military leaders and supervisors. This second solution is to argue in favor of extending the scope of responsibility of actors other
than child soldiers, considering that they are not prosecuted in international courts. And face the ineffectiveness of enforcement of child soldiers, criminal responsibility of other
actors is still a good response from international law to this issue. Besides these two approaches is a third which tends to identify child soldiers simply liability.
2.3 The International Criminal Responsibility of Child Soldiers
As we noted earlier, the International Criminal Justice did not provide criminal mechanism to try child soldiers. One could therefore say that child soldiers should not be prosecuted as criminals.
The general trend for the proponents of non criminalization of acts of child soldiers is to treat them as victims. Victims insofar as they were not necessarily aware of the act committed. It is
assumed that this is the case for most of them, knowing that some children become soldiers of choice. Victims of the executioners are recruiters, military, etc. Which we discussed in the
previous section. But above all short victims under international law, given that most of the rights of these children were severely trampled upon, and they have probably suffered major
trauma. This logic seems not to prosecute his supporters favor the best interests of the child, to the extent
that we put forward on reintegration. It is clear that this has an impact on the interests of justice, to the extent that the ultimate goal of a post-conflict country is to regain its brands, but especially
to look to the future.
3. Preliminary Conclusion on the Responsibility of Child Soldiers
While for some the commission of an offense can not be conceived on the fringes of the establishment of the responsibility of its author, for others it is necessary to take into account the
circumstances of the offense to establish the level of responsibility or the irresponsibility of the authors.
However, this analysis, we found firstly that international judicial bodies International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Court exclude their skills prosecution of offenders under
18 who committed international crimes.
367 On the other hand, the normativity on juvenile justice asked clearly the condition of
implementation of the criminal responsibility of minors at national level but due to the inconsistency of international law regarding the age of criminal responsibility and criminal
liability , and confusion between national laws , the problem remains. From what has been seen previously, we see three different visions. A question emerges. What is
the best form of justice to address the issue of child soldiers? Justice that could be called hard, proponents of criminal accountability of child soldiers? Or shared justice, distributed, proposed
by the proponents of a broadening of the spectrum of responsibility recruiters, States , and superiors , which would have the effect of making the child soldiers responsible only to the
second degree ? Or a quasi-judicial system turned on explaining, understanding, acceptance, forgiveness, and healing? We went a little analysis in terms of the concepts of interest of justice,
the interests of the child, awareness of the act committed. But these are complex concepts, which weighed in the balance, make it more difficult consensus on the preferred approach. We put
things in a certain way, but nothing is absolute. In fact, we understand that what is perceived as the best interests of the child, for example, can not be seen as being in the interest of justice.
What is seen as not being in the interest of justice, may seem best for the child. The question of free will and consciousness of gesture in turn is highly subjective. Indeed, if the psychological
texts have made progress, to what extent can we determine such a former child soldier , when he was 16 , was aware of what he was doing when he put end the life of 6 persons?
All this to say the complexity of a multitude of issues that come into play when we want to address the question of the criminal responsibility of child soldiers. These thorny questions, we
do not pretend to be answered here . At the very least , we believe that this is how the question is asked most of the time which should be done of child soldiers which exacerbates the difficulty
of finding an agreed-upon appropriate response. The question should perhaps be: what does international justice to be able to answer questions of responsibility of child soldiers? This would
pave the way for introspection international criminal courts first and foremost are the International Criminal Court, which would lead to questioning and reflection on sensitive points,
untreated, which are far from unanimous. So the three points mentioned above, is added which is a cross: clarifications on issues of age and definition, facilitate a response to the question of the
determination and treatment of the responsibility of child soldiers. This analysis also allowed us to put the emphasis on the issues of guilt and accountability for
determining criminal responsibility of child soldiers. And the vulnerability of children under 15 years can lead to criminal incapacity requiring the
adoption of measurement purely socio -educational nature, while that of 15 to 1 18 may be considered following a criminal policy based simultaneously on stress , rehabilitation and social
rehabilitation from a special diet.
4. References
Paris Principles, Guiding Principles on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups,
February 2007,
http:www.child- soldiers.orgfrPrincipes_de_Paris_FC3A9vrier_2007.pdf , chapter 2, article 1.
UNICEF, «cape town principles and best practice on the prevention of recruitment of children
