The issue of child soldiers lies at the intersection of two concepts: victim and perpetrator. This dual status has not only led to divergent views on their prosecution but has also posed a fundamental challenge to the international criminal justice system. This descriptive-analytical study, focusing on the Dominic Ongwen case before the ICC, examines whether the existing normative framework, particularly the Rome Statute, is effective in articulating the criminal responsibility of child soldiers and striking a balance between their status as victims and offenders.
Findings indicate that international jurisprudence, despite the prohibition on recruiting children under the age of 15, exhibits confusion and a lack of transparent standards when dealing with children above this age. The Ongwen case reveals that traditional criteria for attributing criminal responsibility and general defenses such as duress, necessity, or mental incapacity are insufficient, on their own, to explain the complex situation of these children and are applied restrictively and cautiously. The main contribution of this article is to argue for the necessity of adopting an integrated approach that, on one hand, deals realistically with the principal perpetrators of crimes and, on the other hand, protects children as the most vulnerable actors in conflicts by taking into account their specific circumstances of coercion and victimization. Consequently, evolution in judicial interpretation and normative strengthening in this area is inevitable.