In March 2023, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Children’s Rights Commissioner Maria Lvova-Belova, charging both with the war crimes of unlawful deportation or transfer of Ukrainian children from occupied areas of Ukraine. Behind these legal indictments lies an ongoing humanitarian crisis: Ukrainian authorities documented more than 20,600 children forcibly displaced or deported from occupied territories —systematically targeted to erase their national identity and sever ties with their homeland. As international bodies increasingly classify these forced transfers as crimes against humanity, the imperative to understand and enforce international humanitarian law has never been more urgent.

International expert commissions have echoed these findings. In March 2026, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded Russian authorities had committed the crimes against humanity of deportation, forcible transfer and enforced disappearance of children, verifying more than 1,200 cases across five Ukrainian regions. In July 2026, the OSCE Moscow Mechanism mission reached a similar conclusion. The UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine (HRMMU) has documented patterns of forced displacement, barriers to return and coercive measures affecting children in occupied territory.

These indictments and reports are built upon decades of international laws designed to protect children during wartime. Let’s take a look.

The Core Legal Concept: “Double Protection”

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), children fall under a legal framework often described as “double protection.”

First, children enjoy general protection as civilians. For instance, as civilians they are protected under the core principles of distinction and proportionality. These rules require warring parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, refrain from deliberately targeting civilians or taking action that would disproportionately affect civilians, and take steps to minimize civilian harm.

But IHL goes further. Because children face heightened physical and psychological vulnerability in conflict, children are entitled to “special respect” and protection.[i] This requires parties to a conflict to safeguard children’s physical safety, preserve family unity, protect their developmental and educational needs, and strictly prohibits their unlawful recruitment or use in hostilities.

Comparable precedents in international justice — from post‑World War II prosecutions to more recent cases before ad hoc tribunals addressing forcible transfer, have consistently affirmed that the protection of children is a cornerstone of accountability frameworks.[ii]

Key Treaty Protections: The Rules on Paper

The rules safeguarding children are codified across several international treaties. Here are some of the key rules.

International law prohibits the deportation of protected persons, including children, out of occupied territory and their forcible transfer within it.[iii] The only exception to this is if the security of the population is at risk in which case temporary evacuation is permitted. Those affected must be returned to their homes as soon as it is safe to do so. In other words, evacuation is meant to be protective and reversible, not permanent. If children must be evacuated, the evacuating State should maintain their contacts with their families and ensure they receive religious and moral education consistent with their background.[iv]

Indeed, IHL emphasizes preserving a child’s identity and family ties. Occupying powers must take all necessary steps to identify children, and prohibits them from altering a child’s identity—including nationality, name, date and place of birth, or family relationships.[v]

An occupying power must “facilitate the proper workings” of schools and “respect…the laws in force in the country.”[vi] Consequently, it may not weaponize schools to compel allegiance or funnel children into its own military structures, including military clubs or youth groups.[vii] Instead, it must provide for children’s education, if possible by persons of the same nationality, language and religion. And of course, warring parties must take measures to ensure children under 15 do not join their armed forces or participate in conflict.[viii]

Regional instruments, such as the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, reinforce these obligations by safeguarding family unity, prohibiting inhuman treatment, and affirming children’s right to identity and education.[ix]

Why Child Protection Cases Are Complex to Prosecute

While the rules are clear, proving violations in court presents significant challenges. For example, in cases of alleged deportation or forcible transfer, investigators must collect sufficient evidence to demonstrate the relocations were part of a systematic policy of unlawful deportation or forced transfer, rather than temporary humanitarian evacuations.

In cases involving altering a child’s identity, investigators must unscramble altered names, adoption decrees and falsified birth certificates to discover the true identity of each child; connect each case to a broader pattern indicating a systematic effort to erase the children’s identity;  determine who is criminally responsible for participating in that effort; and collect sufficient evidence to prove them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In Ukraine, a lack of access to the occupied territories, combined with Russia’s deliberate policy of changing children’s personal data and placing them in Russian families scattered across the country, severely obstructs investigations and family reunification.

In such cases, child-friendly justice standards are essential to protect children during criminal proceedings and ensure the collection of high-quality evidence. Given the long timelines of international justice, creating the proper conditions now is crucial for ensuring evidence remains useable for years to come.

Enforcing the Law on the Ground

Holding perpetrators accountable for crimes against children requires connecting international law and evidence collected on the ground. The allegations facing Russian officials over Ukraine’s children are a test of whether decades-old protections can still deliver accountability for the children they were written to protect.

Beyond prosecution, international law envisions reparations for child victims — including restitution, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non‑repetition — underscoring that accountability must be paired with tangible remedies for those affected.

——————

[i] Rule 135 of the ICRC’s Customary International Humanitarian Law Database and Article 77 of Additional Protocol I

[ii] ICTY Case Law Portal: Example case involving deportation/forcible transfer: Prosecutor v. Stanišić and Župljanin (Appeal Judgement, 2016) — crimes against humanity including deportation and forcible transfer. Judgement summary; Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorović (Judgement, 2001) — includes deportation and forcible transfer of civilians.

[iii] Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

[iv] Article 78 of Additional Protocol I

[v] Article 24 and Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

[vi] Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 43 of the Hague Regulations

[vii] Commentary to GCIV in the ICRC International Humanitarian Law Database (para. 3261): Furthermore, courts have held that it may not impose discriminatory measures or new curricula – including military education or propaganda – in educational institutions; change the language of instruction; prevent the transmission of data related to the care and education of children between relevant institutions; or adversely alter the accreditation or operation of existing educational institutions.

[viii] Additional Protocol I

[ix] European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Official ECHR Knowledge Sharing Portal: Article 8 — Right to respect for private and family life: Guide on Article 8 (ECHR); HUDOC Database (case law search); Convention on the Rights of the Child (full text, OHCHR).