An annual United Nations report documented more than 38,000 verified grave violations against children in wars and armed conflicts worldwide in 2025.
For the first time in the report's 30-year history, national armies and security forces, rather than armed groups and other non-state actors, were responsible for the highest number of documented violations.
Israeli security forces were included, for the second consecutive year, on the UN's so-called "List of Shame", alongside eight other national armies and security forces, including Russia's.
In an exclusive interview with The New Arab 's Arabic-language edition, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed , the UN Secretary-General's Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Vanessa Frazier , discussed the report's key findings, the international community's failure to act, and the challenges of protecting children in conflict zones.
The interview was conducted by Ibtisam Azem, Al-Araby Al-Jadeed 's senior correspondent at the UN in New York, and has been edited for brevity and clarity. Ibtisam Azem: In your report, you note that, for the first time in the past thirty years, since the mandate was established, governments are responsible for more documented violations against children than non-state armed actors. What do you think has changed over the past thirty years to lead to this situation? Vanessa Frazier: We see a convergence of many issues. There is increased impunity regarding international law. We expect that from terrorist groups, but not from states. States try to see how much more they can get away with, and for how much longer, until finally action is taken, if it is taken. But states are bound in a different way by international law and are duty-bound to protect civilians, including children. So it is a concerning development, driven by increased impunity and a lack of accountability.
There's also been a change in warfare. Wars are taking place in more populated areas, and warring parties need to make different decisions about how they conduct war. You cannot use the same weaponry on a battlefield as you would in a highly densely populated area. But, unfortunately, that is what is being done. Even the fact that states are pulling out of very important weapons conventions, like the Cluster Munitions Convention and the Landmine Convention, means they want to use these weapons in the conflicts we are seeing. You cannot, in peacetime, join a convention agreeing not to use certain weapons, then, in wartime, withdraw from that convention in order to use them.
In addition, we are seeing more use of AI-assisted weaponry. AI-assisted weaponry can be used to ensure more precise targeting and fewer civilian casualties. But what we are seeing is that human oversight of AI-assisted weaponry is very loose, and the parameters and data given to these AI-assisted weapons are also very loose. As a result, you can end up with many civilian casualties rather than precise targeting. IA: The fact that it is being applied so loosely, do you think that is deliberate in some of these conflicts? VF: It is not necessarily on purpose, but it is part of this whole sense that we don't care anymore about civilian casualties. Decision-makers, operational commanders, and defence personnel planning an operation are giving less importance to the possibility of civilian casualties. Attacking civilian infrastructure and protected sites, like schools , hospitals and churches, is against international humanitarian law, but no one is holding anyone accountable. So they don't feel they have to consider those parameters anymore. IA: Regarding accountability, to what extent does it matter that some of the countries directly or indirectly involved in these conflicts, such as the United States, through its support for Israel, or Russia, through its invasion of Ukraine , are permanent members of the Security Council, the body responsible for maintaining international peace and security? This is particularly relevant given that many other countries, including several European states, also supply arms to some of those governments. VF: We have nine state actors listed in the Secretary-General's report on children and armed conflict as violators. There are 193 member states at the United Nations . They can raise their voices and hold these actors accountable, even if only morally, if not in court, so that these nine actors conduct warfare according to the rules of war.
Of course, as the UN, we advocate for ceasefires, negotiated solutions and dialogue wherever conflict exists, not warfare or war. But if parties resort to warfare, they should at least operate according to the laws of war, because there are rules governing war. Even war has rules. IA: In your report, you talk about more than 38,000 violations worldwide, and the Israeli army is responsible for almost more than 25% of violations worldwide, more than 12,000 violations against Palestinian children. Also, Israel is listed, for the second year in a row, on the ' List of Shame ' as described by the press, for parties to conflict, with most crimes against children. Did listing them have any consequences? VF: These should be scars on our collective conscience because of this report. The consequences are for member states to decide, not us. This report is intended to be used as a tool for accountability. We expect United Nations member states to ensure that their fellow member states, which are listed for these grave violations, abide by the rule of law and the UN Charter.
There are mechanisms within this exalted body that member states can use, taking this report as a basis for action. We have now passed the ball to them. That is their responsibility. Our responsibility is to compile the data for them to act. IA: As a matter of fact, most of these member states are not doing anything. VF: That's a question that should be asked of member states. The question for the Security Council is why there aren't resolutions, for example, to impose immediate and unconditional ceasefires. Why aren't there other resolutions to prohibit the use of certain weapons? These are in the hands of member states, not ours as the UN Secretariat. IA: How do you think the impunity for crimes committed against the Palestinian people, particularly in Gaza in recent years, has contributed to the broader erosion of accountability and the worsening of impunity worldwide? VF: We have seen this type of impunity in other wars and conflicts. We have seen government forces not being held accountable in a number of regions. The Russia-Ukraine war started before the war in Gaza. We've had conflicts in the DRC, Sudan and many of the other situations covered in our report. Myanmar , for example, is one of the largest violators. So this is not something specific to this moment or to one conflict or war. It is always an accumulation, with new conflicts adding to this.
From the very beginning of any conflict, the Security Council should at least ensure that international law and international humanitarian law are abided by. But this is not specific to one war or conflict only. IA: Despite the arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court against Netanyahu and Gallant, Netanyahu managed to visit European territory, specifically Hungary, as well as the United States. Does this concern you? VF: The US is not a party to the Rome Statute, so we cannot expect it to implement or carry out the arrest warrant . I am more concerned by the fact that there are unilateral US sanctions against the International Criminal Court. The fact that action is being taken to suffocate the court, which is an independent judicial and accountability mechanism, concerns me a great deal. IA: Next year, your agenda includes a country report on Palestine. Are you planning to visit the occupied Palestinian territories, including Gaza, as part of that process? VF: Yes, before any country report comes out, it is appropriate to visit. IA: Are you optimistic that the Israeli authorities will allow you to visit the occupied Palestinian territories, including the Gaza Strip ? VF: I will do my duty and inform them that I wish to travel there and liaise with the appropriate government officials. If they don't allow it, they cannot complain about what is in the report. They will have the opportunity to engage with us, to show us their perspective and give us their version of events while we are on the ground. If they don't want to do that, then they can't complain about what they see [in the report]. IA: Has the Israeli government shown cooperation so far? VF: We have continuous dialogue with all parties, especially the government. We have dialogue with the Israelis. IA: But was that effective in preventing [war] crimes? VF: We seem to go around in circles talking about prevention. Prevention is up to member states. It is member states that have to ensure other states live up to their obligations. There have to be [consequences]. IA: It does not appear that the key member states are concerned with this, and the question that arises is: Is the current international system, including the United Nations, effective? VF: The UN works exceptionally well. On the Secretariat side, we issue the report, we name and shame, and we put the violations down in black and white in a very neutral way. I remind people that we are not a mandate against member states. We are a mandate for children, and that is our focus, irrespective of who the violator is, or even whether they are under attack and defending themselves.
We do not take those kinds of considerations into account in our reporting. We don't consider whether you are the victim or whether you have an Article 51 right of self-defence under the UN Charter. It has nothing to do with our reporting in any of the cases we cover.
For us, it is only about the children, wherever they are and on whichever side of the front lines they happen to be. We report in a very neutral and factual way on what children are enduring.
Action plans for countries that cooperate are very important. But even if we sign action plans, it is the member states that have to make sure they are implemented by those countries. A signature alone is not enough. A country can say, "Okay, let's shut her up and sign a plan with them." That is not enough. It is a time-bound action plan that needs to be verified. We do our part. The press also plays an important role in amplifying our messages and holding member states responsible.
I think the political will is not there. It has nothing to do with the UN. The international laws already exist. We do not even need new laws. What we need is the political will from member states to use the tools that are already available. IA: In your report, you speak about your desire to see your office's mandate evolve in a way that provides greater protection for boys and girls. How do you intend to achieve that? VF: [The Security Council] has identified six grave violations against children, and we are entrusted to monitor and report on them. A trend of violations in five of the six triggers a listing in the annex of the Secretary-General's report. Unfortunately, to date, the denial of humanitarian access does not trigger a listing. That is concerning, and it is a step that needs to be taken.
We are seeing more denial of humanitarian assistance . It is the third most common violation that we report on, and it is one that is mainly carried out by state actors. Yet we cannot quantify the impact it has on children. While our report says that 24,000 children have been affected, that figure does not include the number of children affected by the denial of humanitarian access. You may have 200 children going hungry, but we don't quantify that. We quantify the single event, the denial.
Take, for example, an attack on a power plant that causes electricity to go out. We have no way of quantifying the multiplier effect that has on children. Babies in incubators may die if there is no electricity in hospitals. Children who need dialysis, for example, may not receive it because there is no power. There are many consequences.
So the number of children affected by the grave violations is, in reality, much higher than our figures show. For killing and maiming, rape and sexual violence, and recruitment, we record both the incident and the corresponding number of children affected. For the denial of humanitarian aid, we don't. Nor does it trigger a listing, even though we are seeing more of it. So, it is time that it is also considered a trigger for listing. IA: And how can this be achieved? VF: We are a Security Council mandate. There is a need to pass a UNSC resolution. Everything that we do is defined through Security Council resolutions. But that’s up to member states. IA: You mentioned that, for monitoring and verification, you rely on, among other entities, other UN organizations operating on the ground. Many of these organisations are facing massive funding cuts from donor nations, led by the United States. How does this affect your work? Also, if we take Sudan, for instance, your report documents approximately 1,900 verified violations committed there, a high figure. Yet, the situation on the ground in Sudan suggests that this does not fully reflect reality. Could you speak to the challenges involved in gathering and verifying information there too? VF: Challenges vary depending on the situation. In some places, they are related to a lack of access or the security situation on the ground. We rely on our UN partners who are on the ground to collect and verify data. We have witnessed, over the last few years, huge funding cuts across the board. That means that, for workers on the ground, it comes down to some very simple decisions sometimes. In a country like Sudan, which is massive, UNICEF or any other organisation facing funding cuts has to make a decision while looking at the budget: do I deliver humanitarian aid to the northeast of the country, for example, or do I go and verify a sexual violence allegation in the northwest of the country? They will have to decide which is lifesaving. It's as simple as that. This is why we tell donors that our partners on the ground also need funding. They need funding that is secure so they can carry out their work. Many of these countries are vast, and so they have to make these decisions. Sudan is just one example where delivering humanitarian assistance and saving lives is much more important. IA: What are the repercussions of these cuts, whether in the context of Sudan or elsewhere, on children in general, and specifically regarding your reports on the monitoring of violations against them? VF: In addition to what I said above, there are other exponential effects. So, for example, if the World Food Programme (WFP) used to be able to deliver food aid to Darfur five times a week and now can only do it twice because of budget cuts by donors, that means children are more vulnerable to violations. Why? Not only are they hungry, but they might even become vulnerable to prostitution or join armed groups in order to ensure they have a reliable source of food. So, the lack of resources and funding cuts have a direct effect on the numbers that we see in our report.