CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ IRO: UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AND THEIR INTERESTS child, such as with parents or close relatives outside the country of origin or with adoptive parents or a foster family in the country of the actual place of residence. It should be noted however, that these alternative solutions were not meant to be administered in a solely supportive capacity. 2.2 Chronological age Annex I of the CIRO set the chronological age limit for unaccompanied children at 16 years old. Besides constituting an inherent component of a child’s personal identity, age also acted as a criterion distinguishing refugee children from adults. Momentary deprivation, along with complete loss, of an unaccompanied child’s identity was not considered a mere concomitant wartime predicament. As was evidenced by the subsequently established treaty regime relative to the protection of civilian persons during time of war, the preservation of children’s identities became an explicit concern. According to the international obligation, all children under twelve years of age were “ to be identified by the wearing of identity discs, or by some other means .” 14 Interestingly enough, Annex I laid down the age limit for unaccompanied children lower than the usual age of maturity instituted by most national legal orders. This circumstance engendered a host of adverse issues. At that age, the children had yet to acquire full legal capacity to act in their own interest. On account of being unaccompanied, they had no parents, close relatives, or guardians to represent them or act on their behalf; all these caregivers were absent, presumably missing or dead. The social and legal status of unaccompanied children were largely characterized by loneliness, vulnerability, and legal dependence. Annex I stipulated the age limit in a very concise and explicit manner: a minor would be eligible to attain the status of an unaccompanied child solely if they were sixteen years of age or under. The official interpretation by the IRO appeared more lenient and considerate towards the child victims of war; it aspired not to mete out pragmatic harshness, but to convey interpretative tenderness. This approach extended the age limit to the day of the unaccompanied child’s seventeenth birthday. In kind, the eligibility of such children to receive care, assistance as well as legal, and political protection reflected the official interpretation. The determination of the unaccompanied child’s age chiefly depended on their personal statement, but accounts of other persons familiar with the child’s life circumstances also bore significance. In respect to very young children, the determination relied primarily on physical appearance, whereas with older children the emphasis rested on an in-person interview. The social workers contracted by the IRO were obliged to conduct the determination of a child’s eligibility in accordance with the principle of human dignity. At times, children were unable to provide their age accurately or, in some cases, deliberately misled the authorities about their identity in order to attain certain benefits. 2.3 Nationality The establishment of an unaccompanied child’s nationality acted as the conditio sine qua non for any successful attempts at repatriation. However, as the advisory opinion of the PCIJ in the case of Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco (French Zone) suggested,

14 See Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (adopted 12 August 1949, entered into force 21 October 1950) 75 UNTS 287 art 24.

105