CYIL vol. 13 (2022)

CYIL 13 ȍ2022Ȏ

IRO: UNACCOMPANIED CHILDREN AND THEIR INTERESTS

5. Conclusion The present Article endeavored to share normative and factual insights, within the historical context of the international law, about the interpretation of the rule relative to unaccompanied children enshrined in Annex I of the CIRO. This non-behavioral rule provided a comprehensive definition of the term “unaccompanied children”. The necessary components of the definition have been developed through official interpretation by the IRO which, in the process, also imbued the term with greater clarity and precision. The definition stipulated, inter alia , the requirement of priority assistance to unaccompanied children; particularly, in regard to their repatriation. For a considerable group of children, voluntary repatriation was, however, not possible due to objective or subjective reasons. This circumstance gave rise to other permanent solutions such as the settlement of unaccompanied children within the country of their present place of residence or the resettlement to a third state that was willing to receive them. To this end, the IRO staff was tasked with the preparation of individual plans for a resettlement of the unaccompanied children. The IRO case workers had to ensure, in this respect, that the individual plans would sufficiently satisfy the needs of the unaccompanied children on a long-term basis. Initially, though, there was no consolidated procedure to follow in order to systematically ensure the adequacy of those plans. The ECOSOC report of 1948 finally highlighted the absence of a guiding principle. In response, the subsequent ECOSOC resolution of 1948 suggested the principle of best interests of the child as a possible determining factor. The US and British occupation authorities utilized the principle of best interests of the child when deciding on repatriation or resettlement of unaccompanied children. Its application, within the US occupation zone, was based on Article 14 of the HICOG Law No. 11. According to both the HICOG Law and the ECOSOC report, the principle possessed a multifactorial nature, i.e., listed several aspects (factors or assurances, respectively) that needed to be considered if there was no clear-cut solution to an unaccompanied child’s future place of residence. While no hierarchy existed among those aspects, they operated in a mutually reinforcing manner and formed a freely organized set.

125