Legal Gaps in Protecting Children’s Mental Health in Armed Conflicts: Insights from Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran

[MohammadMehdi SeyedNasseri has a PhD in Public International Law from Islamic Azad University, UAE Branch (Dubai) and is a Researcher at the Center for Ethics and Law Studies, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Savalan Mohammadzadeh is a PhD candidate in public international law at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran and secretary of the Youth Committee of the Iranian Association for United Nations Studies (holding special consultative status with the ECOSOC).]

Introduction

Armed conflicts devastate societies in multiple dimensions, but perhaps no group bears the brunt of violence as acutely as children. Beyond the visible destruction of homes, schools, and communities, Wars inflict silent yet enduring wounds: the psychological scars carried by children who are exposed to violence, displacement, loss, and insecurity. The right of the child to the highest attainable standard of mental health is not a derivative right, but a core entitlement under international human rights and humanitarian law as reflected in instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Yet, in practice, this right remains systematically undermined in contemporary conflicts ranging from Gaza to Ukraine and Iran, and in the regional reverberations of protracted hostilities, including in Iran. Despite decades of normative development most notably the CRC, the ICESCR, the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, and binding Security Council resolutions the international community continues to treat the mental health of war-affected children as a secondary concern. This lacuna has profound implications: children deprived of psychological stability not only endure immediate suffering but also risk perpetuating cycles of violence, radicalization, and intergenerational trauma. This essay seeks to examine the international legal framework governing the right of children to mental health in armed conflicts, identify the gaps in protection and enforcement, and articulate practical and normative pathways toward accountability and prevention.

1.International Legal Framework for Protecting Children’s Mental Health

International Humanitarian Law: Beyond Physical Protection

IHL, particularly the Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977), establishes the obligation to protect civilians, with children accorded special protections (e.g., AP I, Arts. 77–78). These provisions are not merely about shielding children from physical harm but also about ensuring their humane treatment, evacuation, family unity, and access to education all of which have direct implications for their psychological integrity.

Human Rights Law: Mental Health Obligations

The CRC (1989) is the cornerstone of child protection in international law. Article 24 recognizes the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, explicitly including “mental health.” Articles 6 (right to life, survival, and development), 19 (protection from violence), and 39 (rehabilitation of victims of armed conflict) reinforce that psychological well-being is integral to the child’s holistic development. The Committee on the Rights of the Child has repeatedly underscored that mental health is not limited to medical treatment but extends to social, emotional, and developmental dimensions   a view articulated most clearly in General Comment No. 15 (2013) on Article 24, which interprets health as a state of “physical, mental, spiritual, moral, and social well-being.” Furthermore, the ICESCR (Art. 12) recognizes the right to health, and General Comment No. 14 (2000) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights affirms that this encompasses both physical and mental health, emphasizing that states must ensure:

“conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness”

para. 4

The Human Rights Committee, interpreting the ICCPR, has emphasized that even in states of emergency, derogations cannot negate core obligations toward children. The overlap between IHL and IHRL makes clear that mental health protections remain binding even during armed conflicts.

Security Council and Soft Law Initiatives on Child Protection

Since Resolution 1261 (1999), the Security Council has progressively developed the “children and armed conflict” agenda. Resolutions 1612 (2005), 1882 (2009), 2143 (2014), and 2601 (2021) all emphasize psychosocial support and rehabilitation. The Paris Principles (2007) and the Vancouver Principles (2017) also stress the reintegration and mental well-being of children formerly associated with armed groups.

2.Case Studies: Contemporary Conflicts and Psychological Harm

Gaza: Siege, Blockade, and Intergenerational Trauma

The situation in Gaza epitomizes the cumulative and intergenerational impact of armed conflict on children’s mental health. Decades of blockade, recurrent military assaults, and the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure have created a context where children are born into, and grow up within, a permanent state of insecurity. Reports from UNICEF, Save the Children, and the WHO document that over 80% of Gaza’s children suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and severe anxiety. From a legal perspective, these conditions represent more than collateral consequences of war. The deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure essential to children’s well-being including schools, playgrounds, and health facilities violates Article 77 of Additional Protocol I (1977), which obliges parties to afford children special respect and protection. The CRC, Articles 6 and 39, further require states to ensure recovery and reintegration of children affected by armed conflict. The denial of such recovery through ongoing siege and blockades arguably constitutes a continuing violation under both IHL and IHRL.(See here) Moreover, the psychological toll on Gaza’s children is not an unintended byproduct but a foreseeable consequence of prolonged collective punishment. This challenges the legality of such measures under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits collective penalties and acts of intimidation against civilian populations. When such measures foreseeably inflict severe psychological suffering on children the most vulnerable segment of the civilian population they transcend the threshold of humanitarian harm and engage the regime of grave breaches under Articles 146–147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The systematic erosion of children’s mental health, therefore, constitutes not merely a humanitarian concern but a violation of the fundamental protections afforded by international law.

Ukraine: War, Displacement, and Psychological Toll

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has displaced millions and exposed children to relentless bombardments, loss of family members, and prolonged uncertainty. Unlike Gaza, where the trauma is interwoven with blockade and occupation, Ukraine presents the case of a high-intensity, cross-border armed conflict within Europe. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights and UNICEF have reported sharp increases in PTSD, depression, and sleep disorders among displaced Ukrainian children. Many have lost access to education, healthcare, and community life, creating conditions that impair both immediate well-being and long-term development. From a legal standpoint, these harms engage the responsibility of the Russian Federation under both IHL (for indiscriminate attacks violating the principles of distinction and proportionality) and IHRL, particularly under the European Convention on Human Rights at least for conduct occurring prior to Russia’s withdrawal from the Council of Europe in September 2022. The European Court of Human Rights’s jurisprudence (e.g., Selçuk and Asker v. Turkey, 1998) establishes that psychological harm resulting from state violence can constitute inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the ECHR. While Russia is no longer a party to the ECHR, the substantive principles articulated in the Court’s case law continue to reflect broader customary standards prohibiting inhuman treatment. Accordingly, the mental harm inflicted on Ukrainian children through indiscriminate attacks and prolonged displacement likely amounts to a violation of non-derogable rights under international law. For those children who continue to reside outside their homes or across borders and maintain a recognized or de facto refugee status, their protection is further reinforced by Article 22 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which obliges states to safeguard the rights of refugee children. This situation highlights the intersection of humanitarian protection and refugee law obligations, emphasizing that prolonged displacement exacerbates vulnerabilities and triggers specific legal duties.

Iran: Regional Instability, Direct Attacks, and Digital Threats

Although Iran is not itself a primary battlefield of large-scale armed conflict comparable to Gaza or Ukraine, its children are nonetheless affected by both regional instability and direct hostile actions, particularly the escalation of Israeli attacks in recent years. The psychological consequences of regional instability and direct hostile actions for Iranian children are multifaceted:

• Indirect trauma from regional instability: As a neighboring state to conflict zones such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, Iran hosts millions of migrants and refugees, including children who have already experienced violence and displacement. Iranian children in border areas are exposed to heightened insecurity, experiencing spillover effects from these regional instability. This transnational instability can also indirectly affect Iranian children psychologically, as the presence and trauma of displaced children in communities contributes to social tension and collective stress.
• Direct trauma from direct hostile actions: The June 2025 Israeli attacks on Iranian territory the most significant cross-border escalation in recent years created widespread fear and anxiety among Iranian civilians, particularly children. These attacks, Israeli operations targeting Iranian infrastructure encompassing drone and missile strikes have produced cascading consequences, including widespread blackouts, disrupted public services, and heightened fears of escalation, forced families into shelters and exposed children to a new dimension of direct threat. From a legal standpoint, such acts may fall within the ambit of Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I, which prohibits acts of violence whose primary purpose is to spread terror among the civilian population. While proving “primary purpose” in practice is challenging, international jurisprudence and doctrinal commentary recognize that the foreseeable infliction of severe psychological harm on civilians, particularly on children, can constitute evidence of a measure intended to intimidate or terrorize. Children, as the most vulnerable segment of the population, are disproportionately affected by this psychological terror, which directly undermines their right to security and mental health under CRC Articles 6 and 39. Consequently, these attacks merit close scrutiny under both IHL and IHRL, particularly regarding the obligation of states to minimize harm to civilians and to avoid acts that foreseeably generate severe mental suffering.

Furthermore, the digital dimension cannot be ignored. Israeli cyber operations against Iranian infrastructure, including power grids, have created cascading effects — blackouts, disrupted services, and fear of escalation. For children, such disruptions exacerbate anxiety, uncertainty, and loss of trust in safety. These acts fall within the growing discourse of cyber operations under IHL, where the Tallinn Manual 2.0 explicitly acknowledges that cyberattacks causing severe psychological harm may breach international humanitarian obligations.

3. Gaps and Challenges in Protecting Children’s Mental Health

While international law increasingly acknowledges the psychological dimension of child protection, significant structural and normative gaps remain. The following challenges illustrate how existing frameworks fail to translate legal commitments into consistent, on-the-ground protection for children’s mental well-being:

• Normative Fragmentation: Despite overlapping treaties, there is no single binding instrument that operationalizes the right to mental health in armed conflict with concrete benchmarks.
• Weak Accountability: Although emerging jurisprudence most notably Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2022) reflects a growing recognition of psychological harm and community-based rehabilitation, such developments remain exceptional rather than systemic. International courts have yet to treat mental suffering as a consistently enforceable and autonomous category of harm, leaving a critical dimension of children’s experiences only partially addressed. A meaningful yet still limited shift in international criminal practice can be observed in Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (Reparations Order, 2022), where the International Criminal Court recognized that harm in armed conflict extends beyond the physical to the psychological and social dimensions of victims’ lives. The Court endorsed reparations that include psychosocial support and community-based rehabilitation, implemented in part through the Trust Fund for Victims, thereby acknowledging that recovery especially for children is both an individual and collective process. Yet this development also exposes a structural limitation: such recognition remains case-specific, resource-constrained, and institutionally bounded. It has not crystallized into a general, consistently enforceable legal standard. For the vast majority of children affected by contemporary conflicts, these mechanisms remain inaccessible. The Ongwen precedent thus confirms not the absence of mental health reparations, but their fragmented and still nascent character within international law.

• Underfunding of Psychosocial Programs: Less than 2% of humanitarian aid is allocated to mental health. This systemic neglect perpetuates invisibility.
• Digital Exposure: In an era of pervasive social media, children are re-traumatized through repeated exposure to violent imagery, yet international law has not adapted to this dimension.
• Cultural Stigmas: Even where programs exist, stigma around mental health impedes effective delivery, especially in patriarchal or conservative settings.

4.Legal and Policy Imperatives

Building upon the foregoing analysis, the following legal and policy imperatives are proposed to operationalize international responsibility toward the mental well-being of children affected by armed conflict. These measures aim to translate normative recognition into concrete institutional and legal action:

• Recognition of Mental Harm as Grave Breach: International criminal law should explicitly recognize systematic infliction of psychological harm on children as a war crime or crime against humanity.
• Integrating Mental Health into Ceasefire and Peace Agreements: Just as DDR (disarmament, demobilization, reintegration) has become standard, psychosocial support must be codified in peace processes.
• Reparations and Restorative Justice: Existing mechanisms have begun to acknowledge the psychological dimensions of harm. Notably, in Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (Reparations Order, 2022), the International Criminal Court incorporated psychosocial support and community-based rehabilitation into its reparations framework, implemented in part through the Trust Fund for Victims. This marks an important step toward more holistic justice. However, such efforts remain limited in scope, uneven in application, and dependent on institutional capacity. A more systematic and adequately resourced approach is required to address the scale of psychological harm experienced by children in contemporary conflicts.

Conclusion and Call for Action

What contemporary conflicts reveal perhaps more clearly than any legal text ever could is that the harm inflicted upon children does not end when the bombs fall silent. It lingers. It settles into memory, into fear, into the quiet reshaping of how a child understands safety, trust, and the world around them. International law has long recognized the need to protect children, yet only recently has it begun to confront, in a more honest way, the depth of psychological harm that war leaves behind. In this respect, developments such as Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2022) matter. Not because they resolve the problem, but because they acknowledge it. By recognizing mental suffering and supporting forms of reparation that include psychosocial care and community-based rehabilitation, the law takes an important if still tentative step toward aligning itself with the lived realities of victims. It signals an understanding that healing, especially for children, cannot be reduced to financial compensation or formal declarations. It requires time, relationships, and the rebuilding of the social worlds that violence has fractured. And yet, this recognition remains partial. For most children affected by conflict today from Gaza to Ukraine and Iran such legal advances feel distant, if not entirely out of reach. The gap, therefore, is no longer one of silence, but of scale and consistency. The law has begun to speak, but it does not yet speak loudly enough, or widely enough, to meet the magnitude of the harm. What, then, is required is not a reinvention of legal principles, but a deepening of commitment.

First, psychological harm must be taken seriously in its own right. Not as a secondary effect, not as something implied, but as a central form of injury that demands to be named, documented, and addressed. Without this, a substantial part of what children endure in war remains, in legal terms, unseen. Second, the kind of approach reflected in Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen should not remain an isolated example. It should become part of a broader, more predictable framework one that ensures access to psychosocial support and community-based recovery regardless of geography or jurisdiction. Justice cannot depend on proximity to a particular court. Third, prevention must expand beyond the visible. If international law is to remain relevant, it must begin to account for the foreseeable psychological consequences of violence, including those shaped by new forms of warfare and digital exposure. Ignoring these dimensions does not make them disappear; it only deepens their impact. In the end, the question is not whether international law is capable of addressing the mental health of children in armed conflict. It already has, in part. The real question is whether it is willing to do so fully consistently, deliberately, and at the scale that reality demands. Children do not experience war in fragments, and the law should not respond in fragments either. Taking their mental well-being seriously is not simply a matter of compassion; it is a test of whether the legal order can still speak meaningfully to the human condition it seeks to regulate.

Photo attribution: by Charlein Gracia on Unsplash