Efforts to build peace after violent conflict increasingly acknowledge the importance of including diverse voices. Yet one group remains consistently absent from formal peace negotiations: children. Although they are among those most affected by conflict and will inherit the societies reshaped by peace agreements, children’s perspectives are rarely considered during the negotiation phase. My research explores why this exclusion persists and how peacebuilding theory and practice might evolve to meaningfully incorporate children’s voices.
Despite growing recognition from international and national bodies that children should be heard in matters that affect them, including peace processes, child participation in peace processes remains largely symbolic. This article examines the promises and limitations of current approaches and offers insights into how peacebuilding theory could provide new opportunities for inclusion.
The High Stakes of Peace Agreements for Children
Peace agreements are often critical junctures that define a society’s future. They determine not only how violence will end but also how justice, governance, and social reform will unfold. These decisions shape children’s lives profoundly, often influencing everything from education and healthcare to the reintegration of former child soldiers. Yet, as research has long-demonstrated, children have little say in crafting these frameworks.
When peace agreements do reference children, the provisions tend to focus on protection: ending child recruitment, ensuring safe return of displaced children, or supporting reintegration programs. These commitments matter. But they reflect a narrow understanding of childhood, one that centres vulnerability rather than agency.
Many provisions are vague and lack practical guidance. Few agreements recognise that the needs of children should be considered, and those that do often fail to specify the processes required to support those needs in practice. One example is the Agreement on Accountability and Reconcilation between the Government of the Republic of Uganda and the Lord’s Resistance Army/Movement, which fails to recognize the processes required to support former child soldiers. These gaps help create what my research article refers to as ‘exclusionary inclusion’: children are present on paper but largely absent in practice.
Why Include Children? More Than a Moral Argument
The research, along with other bodies of work, identify several reasons why children’s participation should be taken seriously in peace processes.
- Children will inherit the post-conflict society. As future citizens and leaders, they will live longest with the consequences of decisions made today. Their insights can therefore strengthen long-term peace.
- Children understand conflict differently. A child in a rural village may experience insecurity in ways fundamentally different from an urban youth. Children from marginalized communities may identify societal grievances that adults overlook. Including their perspectives helps ensure that peace agreements reflect the realities of all affected groups.
- Children can identify overlooked issues. Their lived experiences, of displacement, disrupted education, or interactions with armed actors, offer valuable data for designing effective reforms.
Evidence from places like Northern Ireland shows how youth-led programs have helped bridge divides at the community level, even without formal representation at negotiation tables. Children’s participation can therefore support reconciliation and stability in the years after an agreement.
Why, Then, Are Children Still Excluded?
Although many scholars and child-rights advocates have proposed mechanisms to include young people, such as adapting child participation models, civil society representation, international organisations, or through mediators, these remain exceptions rather than norms. The research suggests several reasons.
1. Peace processes are elite-driven by design.
Negotiations often take place in private, involve political and military leaders, and focus heavily on security arrangements. In these high-stakes environments, including children is seen as impractical, risky, or politically sensitive.
2. The dominant peacebuilding model leaves little space for local voices.
International peacebuilding over the past three decades has largely been shaped by the ‘liberal peace’ model, which promotes democratic institutions, human rights, and market reforms. While important, this model often assumes that external actors already understand what a peaceful society should look like. As a result, local perspectives, including those of children, are sidelined. Because the liberal peace approach tends to be technocratic and template-driven, it leaves little room for the experiential knowledge children provide about what peace requires in their communities.
3. Children are often understood only as victims.
Across peace agreements in Burundi, Yemen, Angola, and beyond, children are typically portrayed as vulnerable and dependent. While this reflects real risks, it reinforces the belief that children lack capacity to contribute meaningfully.
4. Rights frameworks are emphasized—yet participation rights lag behind.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child affirms that children have the right to express their views in all matters affecting them (see Article 12). Yet in peace agreements, participation rights are rarely mentioned. Protection, important as it is, tends to overshadow other categories of rights, especially voice and agency.
Can Peacebuilding Theory Help Create New Opportunities?
One of the most promising insights from the research is the possibility of reframing child participation through emerging peacebuilding approaches, particularly those informed by Complexity Theory. This perspective sees peace processes not as linear sequences of reforms, but as dynamic systems shaped by many actors interacting at multiple levels.
This shift opens new possibilities:
- Participation becomes an ongoing process, not a single moment. Children’s views can be integrated throughout the lifespan of a peace process, not only during formal negotiations.
- Local knowledge is valued. Complexity-based approaches emphasize adaptation and responsiveness, making children’s lived experiences important sources of insight.
- Community-level initiatives matter more. Youth groups, schools, sports programs, and arts-based initiatives can feed information into national peace efforts without requiring children to sit at formal negotiation tables.
This does not eliminate challenges, but it expands the conceptual and practical space in which child participation is considered possible.
Moving Forward: Beyond Symbolic Inclusion
The research highlights the need for peace processes to move beyond symbolic child protection commitments toward meaningful inclusion. Some strategies include:
- Structured child consultations feeding directly into negotiation agendas.
- Young persons advisory bodies within peace secretariats or transitional authorities.
- Partnerships with child-focused NGOs to represent diverse perspectives.
- Acknowledgment of children’s agency, not just their vulnerabilities.
Ultimately, including children is not only about realizing their rights; it strengthens peace itself. When peace agreements reflect the experiences and aspirations of those who will inherit the future, they are more likely to endure. Without rethinking how peace is conceptualized, negotiated, and implemented, children will remain ‘living apart together’ with peace processes; deeply affected, yet structurally excluded.
