CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

DALIBOR JÍLEK – JANA BALIŠOVÁ CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ was implemented in cooperation with voluntary organizations that operated in some of the occupation zones; most notably, within territories under the US and British control. Voluntary organizations mainly assisted in drawing up plans for the resettlement of refugee children outside their country of origin. The organizations’ activities and projects greatly differed in personal scope. Some of them attended to all unaccompanied children under the age of eighteen, while others solely focused on particular groups. Beside age, ethnic and religious affiliations also served as criteria in this regard. Thus, certain voluntary organizations only provided assistance to, e.g., younger children under the age of ten or full orphans of Jewish origin. The number of children to be resettled was limited in certain countries by an immigration quota system. 65 The resettlement plans prepared under the auspices of the IRO were intended as a long term solution for the non-repatriable and otherwise unclaimed unaccompanied children. Provisions and protections proposed therein had to meet the crucial requirement of permanence. As stated in the report discussed in the ECOSOC in June 1948, the plans needed to be supported by assurances. 66 These assurances were meant to safeguard the existential and psychological needs and interests of unaccompanied children in the receiving state. As the primary instrument of child protection served legal guardianship. Physical custody was to be assumed by a natural or legal person designated by a court until the ward attained the age of majority. The guardian’s primary responsibilities towards the entrusted children included care and sustenance, representation, as well as decision-making on their behalf as regards protection, upbringing, education, and discipline. In the context of refugee children, guardians were additionally tasked with assisting the presumably traumatized wards with adjustment to the new, unfamiliar environment. A further of the aforementioned assurances realized the principle of family unity. According to this principle, family was to be considered the most elementary social unit, whose wholeness should have been preserved and kept undivided by naturalization. As a status assurance, naturalization assumed that the receiving state would provide the resettled children with the opportunity to acquire its nationality. In order to avail themselves of this opportunity, however, the children could not have stayed in the receiving state’s territory as aliens without permanent residence. This form of residence constituted a distinct connecting factor between the children and the state of resettlement. Another intrinsic assurance was to provide the children with an opportunity to acquire an education. In this respect, education did not represent a hedonistic value, but rather a genuine promise of comprehensive development, access to valuable skills and knowledge as well as an avenue for enculturation 65 ECOSOC report pp. 50-51. 66 Ibid: “Plans for settlement of unaccompanied children must afford continued protection for them and must provide the following assurances: (a) that an individual or responsible agency will be appointed as guardian to protect the interests of each unaccompanied child until he is of age, (b) that members of the same family group will not be separated, (c) that the country of resettlement will provide opportunity for the child to become a citizen, (d) that educational opportunities available to other citizens will be available to him also, (e) that continued supervision will be maintained by the guardian so that adjustment of the child to his new surroundings can be followed, (f ) that the financial position of the sponsor is sound and that resources are sufficient to meet the costs of maintenance, education, and medical care during the period of the child´s minority.

118