Britain's child soldiers: should the enlistment age be raised?
Veterans argue signing up offers young people a better life, but campaigners say it's unethical and exploitative
Campaigners are taking legal action over the terms of enlistment for minors in the British army, accusing the Ministry of Defence of "exploiting" young recruits.
Child Soldiers International (CSI) is calling for a judicial review over what it calls "unethical and unlawful age discrimination". Their lawyers argue that soldiers who enlist at 16 are forced to serve for longer under army rules.
Teenagers cannot see active service until they are 18, but all soldiers must be available for deployment for four years. So a 16-year-old who joins the army cannot leave until that are 22.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
"These young soldiers will be forced to put their lives on the line against their will during those two extra years, all because of a decision they made at 16 and later regretted," said CSI director Richard Clarke.
The latest move by the campaign group has reignited the debate about the enlistment age in the UK and comes as an independent survey found that 78 per cent of people believe it should be raised. "There is overwhelming public support in this country for a minimum enlistment age of 18," said Clarke.
The UK is the only country in Europe and the only country among the permanent members of the UN Security Council to recruit 16-year-olds into its armed forces. It is also just one of 17 countries in the world to do so, alongside North Korea, Pakistan and Iran.
Early enlistment has been associated with greater risk on the front line. According to research by the charity Forces Watch, the risk of fatality in Afghanistan for recruits who enlisted aged 16 is twice as high as for those who enlisted at 18 or older.
Veteran David Buck, who joined the army aged 17 and was deployed to Kosovo aged 19 told Sky News he was ill-prepared for war and now suffers from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. "I didn't expect to see what I saw. Being such a young age it is hard to make an informed decision," he said.
"If you join or deploy when you're a bit older then you've got a bit more life experience under your belt."
The MoD points out minors make up a small minority of all soldiers - just 1.3 per cent of all military personnel. And while they can join the army at 16, they need full parental consent and will not be deployed until they reach 18.
It says its enlistment policies are fully compliant with United Nations guidelines and there are no plans to change the minimum enlistment age.
Another former serviceman who joined the army when he was 16 told the BBC "it gives you self-confidence, self-discipline and certain self-determination".
"A career in the Armed Forces provides young people with a wealth of benefits and opportunities, equipping them with valuable and transferable skills for life," the MoD said in a statement to Channel 4 News. It says it is "encouraging" that recruits continue to recognise this "and are coming forward to serve their country."
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
How safe are cruise ships in storms?
The Explainer The vessels are always prepared
By Devika Rao, The Week US Published
-
What message is Trump sending with his Cabinet picks?
TODAY'S BIG QUESTION By nominating high-profile loyalists like Matt Gaetz and RFK Jr., is Trump serious about creating a functioning Cabinet, or does he have a different plan in mind?
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Wyoming judge strikes down abortion, pill bans
Speed Read The judge said the laws — one of which was a first-in-the-nation prohibition on the use of medication to end pregnancy — violated the state's constitution
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published