Right to education in armed conflict: a human rights imperative

The Special Rapporteur thanks the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict and experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Geneva Call, the Geneva Global Hub for Education in Emergencies, the Global Survivors Fund, the Right to Education Initiative, War Child International and Watchlist on Children and Armed Conflict for contributions and reviews.

In armed conflict, education is a life-saving right and a strategic investment in peace.¹ The right to education, guaranteed under international human rights law, remains fully applicable during emergencies, including armed conflict.²

1. See A/74/243. ↩
2. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/publications/special-issue-publications/international-legal-protection-human-rights-armed-conflict. ↩

Education must be recognized as a core humanitarian priority, an essential service delivered alongside food, water, shelter and healthcare. Education fosters the values essential for post-conflict recovery, such as mutual respect, human dignity, social cohesion and adherence to international norms.³ Education can serve to repair harms resulting from the gross violations of human rights and serious violations of humanitarian law that are often inflicted on children during conflict.

3. See A/HRC/59/33. ↩

Ensuring the continuity and safety of quality education in conflict settings is therefore not only a legal obligation of States, but also a vital investment in stability, prosperity and future peace. Safe access to education during armed conflict protects children from recruitment and use by armed forces and groups, child labour, exploitation, early and forced marriage, sexual violence and other abuses. Continuity of safe learning offers children a sense of normalcy, psychosocial support and recovery from trauma while building key skills for recovery and long-term peace. Schools and other learning spaces are protective environments that uphold children’s rights and well-being. They are also key entry points for identifying vulnerable children, delivering care and connecting children to essential services.

Safeguarding education requires proactive measures, including risk-informed planning, contingency strategies and clear protection measures. Educational facilities must be protected from attack and military use and teachers and education personnel must be safeguarded, in accordance with international humanitarian law. Girls, displaced children, children with disabilities and vulnerable groups need particular attention, as they face the greatest risks of exclusion.

In recent years, global conflict has intensified, with nearly 130 armed conflicts recorded in 2024⁴ and with attacks rising on schools and protected civilian school personnel, many involving government forces. In 2024, the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack identified around 6,000 reported attacks on schools, universities, students and educators and cases of military use of educational facilities,⁵ a 166 per cent rise since 2021.⁶ Globally, an estimated 234 million school-aged children and adolescents are affected by crises, including armed conflict. Alarmingly, this number has increased by at least 35 million over the past three years.⁷ In 2024, over 52 million children in conflict-affected countries were out of school.⁸

4. See https://www.icrc.org/en/report/icrc-annual-report-2024; and S/2025/271. ↩
5. See https://protectingeducation.org/publication/education-under-attack-2024/. ↩
6. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Summary-of-the-Annual-Report-of-the-Secretary-General-on-Children-and-Armed-Conflict-2021-3.pdf, childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Summary-of-the-Annual-Report-on-Children-and-Armed-Conflict.pdf, p. 3, and https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf. ↩
7. See https://www.educationcannotwait.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/global_estimates_report_2025.pdf. ↩
8. See https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/12/1158561; A/HRC/58/27, para. 72; A/HRC/59/26, paras. 28–35 and 76–82; and www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/form/2025-03-21-ohchr-report-children-s-rights-in-ukraine.pdf, paras. 52–55. ↩

Education systems are targeted deliberately (referred to as “scholasticide”),⁹ especially in protracted crises. Violations undermining the right to education include the military use of learning spaces, the recruitment of children, conflict-related sexual violence against girls, the ideological manipulation of curricula¹⁰ and the banning of the use of local languages of instruction and textbooks in occupied territories.¹¹ Moreover, violations of the rules protecting civilian objects under international humanitarian law may deprive children of access to essential services and expose them to direct harm. When homes, schools and playgrounds become unsafe,¹² children cannot exercise their right to play and leisure, which are essential for their well-being, resilience and recovery.¹³

9. See https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/04/un-experts-deeply-concerned-over-scholasticide-gaza. ↩
10. CRC/C/RUS/CO/6-7, paras. 39 and 40, and CRC/C/PRK/CO/5, paras. 47 and 48. ↩
11. CRC/C/RUS/CO/6-7, paras. 47 and 48, and CRC/C/ISR/CO/5-6, para. 41. ↩
12. See A/HRC/59/41. ↩
13. On the impact of armed conflict on the rights of the child, see A/HRC/60/51. ↩

Armed conflicts unfold within a broader landscape of multiple intersecting crises: rising political attacks on the multilateral system and international law; overly permissive interpretations of international humanitarian law and the non-observance of civilian protection; the justification of non-compliance on counter-terrorism or self-defence grounds; and a widespread disregard for human rights. In addition, dramatically reduced government funding for human rights and social sectors, including education,¹⁴ accompanies rising militarization, defence spending and intensifying climate change impacts.¹⁵

14. See www.unicef.org/press-releases/global-funding-cuts-could-force-6-million-more-children-out-school-coming-year. ↩
15. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Final-Climate-Brief-GCPEA.pdf. ↩

These trends, documented in the Secretary-General’s reports on the protection of civilians in armed conflict¹⁶ and children and armed conflict,¹⁷ reveal record civilian casualties, grave violations of children's rights and unprecedented numbers of children out of school.

16. See S/2025/271. ↩
17. See A/79/878-S/2025/247. ↩

The field manual for the monitoring and reporting mechanism on grave violations against children in situations of armed conflict defines attacks against schools as the targeting of schools that are civilian objects, resulting in their compromised functioning, partial damage or total destruction, as well as against related protected persons as non-combatant civilians (incidents which include killing, injury, abduction and use as human shields).¹⁸ Other interference in the normal operation of the facility may include the occupation or shelling of schools or their personnel, the targeting of them for propaganda purposes or otherwise causing harm to them. The term “school” denotes a recognizable education facility or learning site. Education facilities and learning sites must be recognized and known by the community as learning spaces and marked by visible boundaries.¹⁹

18. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf, p. 29. ↩
19. See www.mrmtools.org/files/MRM_Field_5_June_2014.pdf, p. 9. ↩

The Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack defines attacks on education as any intentional threat or use of force against students, teachers, academics, education personnel or education buildings, resources or facilities (including school buses).²⁰ The Global Coalition categorizes attacks into five types (attacks on schools; attacks on students and personnel; recruitment of children; abduction and sexual violence; and attacks on higher education) and monitors the military use of schools and universities.²¹ This categorization usefully highlights both the interdependence of the right to education with other human rights and the causal link between the military use of and targeted attacks against educational facilities.

20. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Toolkit-for-Collecting-and-Analyzing-Data-March-2021.pdf. ↩
21. Ibid. ↩

The protection of the right to education during armed conflict is guided by three intersecting bodies of international law: international human rights law, international humanitarian law and international criminal law.²²

22. For detailed analysis, see https://www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/PEIC_BIICL_international_law_handbook_2020_en.pdf. ↩

The fundamental right to education has been consistently reaffirmed and reinforced in international human rights law, both as a right in itself and as an enabling right indispensable for the realization of all other human rights.²³ It is enshrined in key international human rights instruments, including article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has come to be regarded as an authoritative articulation of customary international law;²⁴ article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; articles 28 and 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and article 10 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. At the regional level, African, Inter-American, European and Arab regional human rights systems contain binding provisions recognizing the right to education²⁵ and confirming the justiciability of this right,²⁶ including through relevant case law.

23. For details, see https://doi.org/10.54675/ZMNJ2648 and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 13 (1999), para. 1. ↩
24. See https://academic.oup.com/book/39904/chapter-abstract/340150337?redirectedFrom=fulltext. ↩
25. Protocol No. 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), art. 2; European Social Charter, arts. 17 and 10; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, art. 17 (1); African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, art. 11; Charter of the Organization of American States, art. 49; Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 13; and Arab Charter on Human Rights, art. 41. ↩
26. See A/HRC/23/35. ↩

Under international human rights law, States have obligations to respect (not interfere with access), protect (prevent violations by third parties) and fulfil (adopt all necessary measures to facilitate and provide) the right to education. States must ensure that education remains available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable²⁷ and must guarantee non-discrimination and equal treatment in access and quality for all learners. They are required to provide free and compulsory primary education as an immediate obligation while progressively realizing universal access to secondary and higher education and refraining from measures that undermine or degrade educational access and quality.²⁸

27. E/C.12/1999/10, para. 46. ↩
28. Ibid., paras. 43–45. ↩

These obligations remain in force during armed conflict, as consistently confirmed by international human rights mechanisms.²⁹ The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has clarified in its general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations that minimum core obligations, including the provision of “the most basic forms of education”, must be fulfilled without delay.³⁰ In Minimum Standards for Education: Preparedness, Response, Recovery, a handbook issued by the Inter-Agency Network for Education in Emergencies, concrete steps are outlined for achieving the minimum level of educational quality and access in emergencies through the recovery stage.³¹

29. For analysis, see www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf. ↩
30. E/1991/23, para. 10. ↩
31. See https://inee.org/minimum-standards. ↩

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has linked the destruction of schools with violations of economic, social and cultural rights in the context of armed hostilities.³² The Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that States prioritize the rehabilitation of school buildings and facilities and ensure that school infrastructure damaged as a result of military occupation is promptly and fully restored.³³ It should be noted that neither the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights nor the Convention on the Rights of the Child have a derogation clause allowing States Parties to temporarily suspend some of their obligations during a crisis.³⁴ In addition, existing declarations and reservations to the two treaties do not refer to education in armed conflict.³⁵

32. See, for example, E/C.12/AZE/CO/4, para. 6. ↩
33. See, for example, CRC/C/OPAC/IRQ/CO/1. ↩
34. See https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/9/4/557/683696 and www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf. ↩
35. See https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?src=treaty&mtdsg_no=iv-3&chapter=4. ↩

International humanitarian law protects civilians and civilian objects during armed conflict, including students, teachers, non-teaching staff and educational facilities, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare. Although international humanitarian law does not specify any elements of the right to education, by prohibiting certain conduct, many rules of international humanitarian law are intended to ensure that students, educational staff and educational facilities are protected and that education can continue.³⁶ Parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between civilian objects (including schools) and military objectives, and attacks must be carried out in a manner that respects the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions.³⁷

36. See www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/PEIC_BIICL_international_law_handbook_2020_en.pdf, p. 110. ↩
37. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), arts. 48, 51, 52 and 57; and Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), art. 13. ↩

International humanitarian law, which encompasses treaties and customary rules, regulates the conduct of hostilities and limits the effects of armed conflict on civilians and civilian objects, both in international armed conflicts between States (regulated by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)) and in non-international armed conflicts between States and non-State armed groups or among armed groups themselves (regulated by common art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II).³⁸ Children affected by either international or non-international armed conflict are entitled to special respect and protection, including in terms of access to education.³⁹ International humanitarian law applies equally to States and to non-State armed groups in situations of armed conflict.

38. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf, p. 25. ↩
39. See https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule135. ↩

In parallel, the provisions of international humanitarian law impose specific education-related duties on parties to an armed conflict. Article 24 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention) requires States to ensure that children under 15 years of age who are orphaned or separated are provided with maintenance, religious practice and education, preferably by persons of similar cultural tradition. Under article 50, an occupying Power must facilitate the proper functioning of all institutions devoted to children’s care and education, and, if local institutions prove inadequate, it must arrange for the maintenance and education of children who are orphaned or separated. With respect to occupied territories, the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1907 (the Hague Regulations), in its article 56, reinforce this framework by prohibiting the seizure or destruction of institutions dedicated to education, religion, charity and science, requiring that such property be treated as private property even when it belongs to the State. The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions reinforce these protections: article 78 of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 requires that evacuated children continue to receive education with the greatest possible continuity, while article 4 (3) of Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 obliges Parties to provide children with education, including religious and moral instruction consistent with parental wishes. Customary international humanitarian law further strengthens the protection of educational infrastructure as cultural property: rules 38 and 40 of the customary law study of the International Committee of the Red Cross require parties to take special care in military operations to avoid damage to educational buildings and prohibit the seizure, destruction or wilful damage of such buildings and acts of theft, pillage or vandalism directed against them.⁴⁰

40. For further guidance, see https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icrc-international-humanitarian-law-and-challenges-contemporary-armed-conflict-2019; and www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/Activities/icrc_framework_for_access_to_education.pdf. ↩

International humanitarian law and international human rights law have mutually reinforcing and complementary roles in times of armed conflict, as clearly confirmed in legal and jurisprudential developments over the past 15 years.⁴¹ Decisions by judicial and treaty bodies further clarify the extent of lex specialis in armed conflict.⁴² In addition, article 38 (4) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child reinforces international humanitarian law obligations and provides for special protection for children in armed conflict.

41. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226, para. 25; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, para. 106; and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168, para. 216. ↩
42. See www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Publications/HR_in_armed_conflict.pdf, p. 55. ↩

International criminal law establishes individual responsibility for serious violations. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court expressly criminalizes as war crimes the intentional directing of attacks against buildings dedicated to education in international and non-international armed conflicts (provided that they are not legitimate military objectives).⁴³

43. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, arts. 8 (2) (b) (ix) and 8 (2) (e) (iv). ↩

Attacks on education may also amount to the particular crimes against humanity listed in article 7 of the Rome Statute if perpetrated as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population.⁴⁴

44. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Accountability-for-Attacks-on-Education-1.pdf, p. 43. ↩

In cases where education-related crimes are motivated by discrimination aimed at preventing a particular group from accessing education on the basis of, inter alia, their gender, ethnicity or religious identity, this may constitute the crime of persecution. Article 7 (2) of the Rome Statute defines persecution as the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity,⁴⁵ as recognized in recent jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court.⁴⁶

45. Ibid., p. 44. ↩
46. See www.icc-cpi.int/news/statement-icc-prosecutor-karim-aa-khan-kc-applications-arrest-warrants-situation-afghanistan. ↩

Article 6 of the Rome Statue defines the crime of genocide and stresses, as an essential element of the crime, the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Previous jurisprudence already considered the destruction of historical, religious and cultural heritage of the targeted group as evidence of intent to physically destroy the group.⁴⁷

47. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 43, para. 344. ↩

It should be noted that the 2025 report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel expressly concluded that evidence of the deliberate destruction of educational, religious and cultural sites could be used to infer intent to physically destroy the group, and that the attacks on education, as well as on places of religious and cultural significance, were aimed at causing irreversible harm to Palestinians in Gaza by erasing Palestinian identity and culture.⁴⁸ The Commission noted, importantly, that the destruction of the education system and the denial of educational opportunities had contributed to the inhumane conditions of life imposed on many Palestinians in Gaza calculated to bring about the physical destruction of the group. It concluded that, by destroying the education system in Gaza, thus crippling the Palestinians’ ability to preserve their identity as a people, the Israeli authorities deliberately inflicted on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, in violation of article II (c) of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

48. A/HRC/60/CRP.3, paras. 146, 161 and 189. ↩

Over recent decades, critical milestones have strengthened the global commitment to protecting the right to education in armed conflict:
(a) In 2010, the General Assembly, in its resolution 64/290, affirmed that the right to education does not disappear in emergencies and condemned attacks on schools and their use for military purposes;
(b) In 2011, the Security Council, in its resolution 1998 (2011), formally requested the systematic monitoring of and reporting on the military use of schools and established attacks on schools as a trigger for the listing of parties in the annexes to the Secretary-General’s annual report on children and armed conflict.⁴⁹ The guidance note on Security Council resolution 1998 (2011) is an important tool for the monitoring and reporting of such attacks;⁵⁰
(c) In 2015, the adoption of the Safe Schools Declaration marked a milestone in global consensus and in the commitment to protect education from attack and restrict the military use of schools. Advancing the normative framework, it reinforced both legal obligations and practical safeguards. To date, 121 States have endorsed it⁵¹ and have committed to using the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict;⁵²
(d) The inclusion of an indicator on attacks on education under Sustainable Development Goal 4 on inclusive and equitable quality education (indicator 4.a.3) underscored global accountability efforts.⁵³

49. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/document-type/annual-reports/. ↩
50. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf. ↩
51. See https://ssd.protectingeducation.org/endorsement/. ↩
52. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/documents/documents_guidelines_en.pdf. ↩
53. See https://databrowser.uis.unesco.org/browser/EDUCATION/UIS-SDG4Monitoring/t4.a/i4.a.3. ↩

Further milestones include General Assembly resolution 74/275 on the International Day to Protect Education from Attack (2020); Security Council resolution 2601 (2021) and other resolutions on children and armed conflict that reiterate the complementarity of international humanitarian law and international human rights law and reaffirm the right to education in armed conflict; Council resolution 2573 (2021) addressing the protection of essential services in armed conflict; and the 2022 Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.⁵⁴

54. See https://ewipa.org/the-political-declaration. ↩

Building on the legal framework and urgent challenges outlined above, the following brief contains eight proposed priority actions for States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society when it comes to closing protection gaps, strengthening accountability and translating existing commitments into concrete measures to safeguard education in armed conflict.

Directing attacks against civilian objects, including schools, unless they become military objectives, is prohibited under treaty and customary international humanitarian law, and indiscriminate attacks are strictly prohibited.⁵⁵ Article 52 of Protocol I prohibits attacks on civilian objects that are not military objectives, which are defined as those that, by their nature, location, purpose or use, make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. In a case of doubt about a school’s use, it must be presumed to be a civilian object.⁵⁶

55. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 11. ↩
56. Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, art. 52 (3). See also www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Protection%20of%20Education%20in%20Armed%20Conflict_Summary%20Report.pdf. ↩

Under international criminal law, intentional attacks on educational buildings that are not military objectives in international and non-international armed conflicts amounting to a serious violation of the laws and customs applicable to armed conflict are war crimes listed in the Rome Statute (arts. 8 (2) (b) (ix) and 8 (2) (e) (iv)).⁵⁷

57. See also https://protectingeducation.org/publication/enhancing-accountability-for-attacks-on-education/, p. 43. ↩

The fundamental principle of distinction requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants. Parties are prohibited from attacking the civilian population and protected objects. The principle of distinction, and the protection it affords, applies in international and non-international armed conflicts. Education staff and students are protected by the principle of distinction as long as they are civilians and do not take a direct part in hostilities.⁵⁸

58. See www.right-to-education.org/sites/right-to-education.org/files/resource-attachments/PEIC_BIICL_international_law_handbook_2020_en.pdf, p. 169. ↩

It is widely recognized that, when schools or other educational institutions are used for military purposes, they may lose their protected civilian status and become legitimate military targets. This transformation exposes teachers, students and other civilians, who would otherwise be protected, to heightened danger of potential harm.⁵⁹ The presence of armed forces or groups within schools not only disrupts education but also fundamentally undermines the right of students, educators and non-teaching staff to safety, dignity and uninterrupted learning.⁶⁰ It exposes children and young people to threats of sexual and other violence, harassment and recruitment⁶¹ and severely restricts access to education, especially for girls and marginalized groups.

59. Ibid., pp. 56–58, and https://shop.icrc.org/childhood-in-rubble-the-humanitarian-consequences-of-urban-warfare-for-children-pdf-en.html. ↩
60. See A/HRC/59/41. ↩
61. See www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/principles-vancouver-principes-pledge-engageons.aspx?lang=eng. ↩

While international humanitarian law balances humanity and military necessity, its credibility requires that this balance be applied in good faith: exceptions that accommodate necessity must not be manipulated to erode civilian protection or to normalize attacks on educational institutions. In practice, the principle of distinction is often applied inconsistently and in an overly permissive manner, with some military actors adopting expansive interpretations of what constitutes a lawful target and justifying attacks on vague grounds of military advantage. As documented in the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack reports Education under Attack 2024 and Global Estimates Report 2025, such interpretations have led to the growing military use of schools and attacks on education, exposing students, teachers and non-teaching staff to grave risks.⁶² The protective effect of international humanitarian law is undermined when notions of “military objective” and “proportionality” are broadly interpreted in such a way that allows civilian harm to be rationalized, or allows human rights violations and long-term or reverberating effects to be excluded from any assessment of unacceptable incidental damage.

62. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/eua_2024.pdf and https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Accountability-for-Attacks-on-Education-1.pdf. ↩

The military use of educational institutions is not expressly prohibited in international law,⁶³ but, since it potentially triggers loss of protection and endangers civilians, it thereby potentially violates other international humanitarian law obligations, such as the obligations to ensure the continued functioning of institutions essential to children’s well-being in situations of occupation, including schools; to facilitate access to education during armed conflict; and to take feasible precautions to avoid harming civilians and civilian objects. It also potentially violates the international human rights law obligations to protect children in armed conflict (Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 38) and to provide education (International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, art. 13, and Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 28).

63. See https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/Bart_Ambiguous_Protection_of_Schools_-_Time_for_Parity_2009.pdf. ↩

Evolving international commitments, such as the Safe Schools Declaration and the accompanying Guidelines require parties to armed conflicts to refrain from using schools and universities for any purpose in support of the military effort. This widely endorsed political commitment operationalizes international humanitarian law and human rights law obligations to safeguard education. An increasing number of States integrate explicit prohibitions into domestic military doctrine and legislation, creating binding national rules aligned with the Guidelines. Recent regional initiatives, such as the new general comment of the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, directly prohibits the use of institutions of learning for any military use and prohibits targeted attacks on them during conflicts.⁶⁴ These positive examples should be highlighted and supported against the worrying trend of non-compliance with international norms, as well as growing dismissive interpretations and carelessness by parties to the conflict, both States and non-State actors.

64. African Committee on Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, document ACERWC/GC/9/25, para. 9. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Ratify and fully implement international legal instruments relevant to the protection of children in war, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and the Rome Statute;
(b) Endorse the Safe Schools Declaration and implement its Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict, which should be seen as the minimum standards with regard to the restriction of military use of educational facilities. Endorse other relevant soft law instruments, including the Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups and the Paris Commitments to protect children from unlawful recruitment or use by armed forces or armed groups (Paris Principles and Commitments),⁶⁵ the Vancouver Principles on Peacekeeping and the Prevention of the Recruitment and Use of Child Soldiers⁶⁶ and the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas.⁶⁷ States that have endorsed these frameworks should share lessons learned and good practices for their implementation;
(c) Strictly comply with Security Council resolution 2601 (2021) and other resolutions on the protection of education during conflict;
(d) Step up efforts to accelerate the strengthening and implementation of international standards and jurisprudence urging States to explicitly and unconditionally prohibit the military use of educational facilities during armed conflict, including through regional coordination;
(e) Respect the protection of schools and educational facilities run by the United Nations from attack.

65. See www.unicef.org/media/113631/file/UNI-Paris-Principles-and-Commitments-FAQ-21.pdf. ↩
66. See www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/human_rights-droits_homme/principles-vancouver-principes.aspx?lang=eng. ↩
67. See https://ewipa.org/the-political-declaration. ↩

Few States have explicitly incorporated education-related crimes into their domestic legal frameworks. The continued reliance on general provisions that prohibit attacks on civilian objects fails to reflect the specific nature and gravity of attacks on education.⁶⁸ Consequently, prosecutions are rare, charges diluted and the distinct harm to the right to education obscured.

68. For analysis and examples, see www.hrw.org/report/2011/07/20/schools-and-armed-conflict/global-survey-domestic-laws-and-state-practice; https://protectingeducation.org/publication/enhancing-accountability-for-attacks-on-education/; https://watchlist.org/wp-content/uploads/bringing-multilateralism-back-home-integrating-international-legal-and-policy-instruments-relevant-to-the-uns-children-and-armed-conflict-agenda-into-domestic-law.pdf; and Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, Lessons in War: Military Use of Schools and Other Education Institutions during Conflict (New York, 2012). ↩

International humanitarian law and international criminal law explicitly require States to adopt domestic legislation to give effect to their obligations in procedure and substance. For example, article 146 of the Fourth Geneva Convention on the protection of civilians requires States Parties to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering the commission of, any of the grave breaches of the Convention. Attacks on education may fall under this category if committed against children, schools or persons or property protected by the Convention, as in, for example, cases of the wilful killing of protected persons or extensive destruction of protected property not justified by military necessity.

The Rome Statute requires States Parties to incorporate international crimes in domestic law, to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over those responsible for crimes and to strengthen their own criminal justice systems.⁶⁹ The International Criminal Court is complementary to national criminal jurisdictions (art. 1), as prosecution at the Court is triggered only when domestic authorities are unwilling or unable to act. Hence, States Parties have the primary duty under international law to investigate and prosecute international crimes. Complementarity thus places a positive obligation on States Parties to ensure that their national legal frameworks criminalize such acts and that credible investigations and prosecutions are undertaken domestically before the Court may step in.

69. See www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Joining-Rome-Statute-Matters.pdf. ↩

In the Safe Schools Declaration, States commit to reviewing and reforming domestic policy, military doctrine and operational frameworks to incorporate, as far as possible, the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict.⁷⁰ Most recently, the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 59/9 on the right to education, urged States to take measures to criminalize and deter the military use of schools and universities with a view to preventing attacks on education, ending impunity and ensuring accountability and access to justice.

70. See guideline 6. ↩

The treaty bodies of the Human Rights Council have also called for attacks on education to be criminalized in domestic legislation.⁷¹ For example, the Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that States promptly criminalize, investigate and prosecute attacks against schools⁷² and enact legislation and issue military directives prohibiting and sanctioning attacks against schools and their use for military purposes.⁷³ The African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child model law on children affected by armed conflict in Africa can offer useful guidance.⁷⁴

71. See www.geneva-academy.ch/joomlatools-files/docman-files/Protection%20of%20Education%20in%20Armed%20Conflict_Summary%20Report.pdf. ↩
72. CRC/C/OPAC/IRQ/CO/1, para. 18 (b); and CRC/C/CAF/CO/2, para. 63. ↩
73. CRC/C/SYR/CO/5, para. 44. ↩
74. Available at www.acerwc.africa/sites/default/files/2023-07/Model%20Law%20on%20CAAC_2023_English.pdf. ↩

Criminal justice by itself cannot offer complete answers to the complex problem of attacks on education in armed conflict. Nevertheless, criminalization can serve broader goals beyond those of providing recognition and redress to individual victims as rights holders. Enforcing and upholding the rule of law can prevent and deter future attacks by sending a strong public message that such acts are unlawful and will not be tolerated.⁷⁵ In addition, domestic criminalization is the type of State practice that may, in the long term, help to crystallize the prohibition of attacks on and military use of educational facilities as customary international law.

75. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/Accountability-for-Attacks-on-Education-1.pdf. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Explicitly prohibit and criminalize military attacks on schools and other education facilities, students, teachers and other educational personnel as stand-alone offences in domestic law, using, at the very least, the definitions of war crimes and crimes against humanity set out in the Rome Statute and in Elements of Crimes;⁷⁶
(b) Explicitly prohibit and criminalize in domestic law the military use of educational facilities, including universities, while used for educational purposes, and treat such use as an aggravating factor violating the right of children to life, health and education;⁷⁷
(c) Incorporate the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict into military doctrine and manuals, rules of engagement, operational orders, training materials and other means of dissemination;⁷⁸
(d) Incorporate into domestic frameworks key principles from the Rome Statute, including irrelevance of official capacity, command responsibility and exclusion of defences such as orders from superiors; and remove barriers such as statutes of limitations or immunity from jurisdiction over education-related crimes;
(e) Integrate specific child protection provisions into military doctrine and the standard operating procedures and rules of engagement of the military and security forces and reinforce implementation through training;⁷⁹
(f) Define “child” in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (i.e. as persons under 18 years of age) and expressly criminalize the recruitment and use of children by armed forces and armed groups in line with the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict;
(g) Ensure that domestic frameworks apply to both State and non-State armed forces and allow for extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction;
(h) Ensure that education-related crimes are addressed through transitional justice mechanisms, especially truth commissions, reparations programmes and national consultations.

76. See www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/Publications/Elements-of-Crimes.pdf. ↩
77. A/HRC/60/51, para. 49; Security Council resolutions 2601 (2021) and 2573 (2021); and A/HRC/59/26, paras. 98 (b), 98 (c) and 100 (b). ↩
78. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf, annex V (draft operational strategy for the prevention of military use of schools). ↩
79. A/HRC/60/51, para. 89 (b). ↩

While international accountability mechanisms have a key role to play, States have the primary obligation under international law to investigate and prosecute (or extradite for prosecution) a wide range of education-related crimes,⁸⁰ of which the Human Rights Council treaty bodies systematically remind them.⁸¹ Yet, at the national level, education-related crimes are under-investigated and under-prosecuted.

80. See, for example, Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1949), arts. 146 (1) and 146 (2); International Committee of the Red Cross, Customary International Humanitarian Law, rule 158; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, arts. 4, 5 (1), 6 and 7; International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, art. 9 (1), 10 and 11; Reservations to the Convention on Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 23; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 595, para. 31; and Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 422. ↩
81. CRC/C/OPAC/COL/CO/1, para. 40; CRC/C/OPAC/YEM/CO/1, para. 30; and CRC/C/OPAC/IND/CO/1, para. 29; CRC/C/ZWE/CO/2, para. 69 (d); CRC/C/COD/CO/3-5, para. 48(c); and CRC/C/CAF/CO/2, para. 63. See also Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, Protecting Schools from Military Use: 2021 – Law, Policy and Military Doctrine (New York, 2021). ↩

Barriers to accountability for attacks on education include a lack of awareness and expertise among investigators and prosecutors, a tendency to overlook these crimes, and persistent perceptions that the right to education is aspirational or non-justiciable.⁸² Investigative teams often lack child rights expertise and avoid engaging child witnesses due to concerns about reliability, trauma or procedural complexity.⁸³ The 2025 report of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, Enhancing Accountability for Attacks on Education: Guidance on Investigating and Prosecuting Education-Related Crimes, is an important practical tool for addressing accountability gaps at the national level.

82. See A/HRC/23/35. ↩
83. See https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26343312/. ↩

Importantly, many investigators fail to treat education-related violations as part of the evidentiary scope of relevant crimes. The destruction or military use of schools may be excluded from evidence collection or treated as collateral, despite their potential to amount to war crimes or persecution as a crime against humanity or to be assessed in the context of genocidal intent. Without proper investigation, victims are denied redress and perpetrators enjoy impunity, weakening both justice and deterrence. As observed by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, holding those who target schools accountable may be the best deterrent to attacks on schools.⁸⁴

84. Office of Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, “Accountability best defence for deterring attacks on schools: Leila Zerrougui”, 9 October 2015. ↩

The right to reparation of child victims of gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of humanitarian law is guaranteed. In particular, article 39 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child requests States Parties to take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of armed conflicts.⁸⁵ Such recovery and reintegration should take place in an environment that fosters the health, self-respect and dignity of the child. The Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law⁸⁶ is a comprehensive tool for responding to serious violations, including attacks on education.

85. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 5 (2003), para. 24. ↩
86. General Assembly resolution 60/147. ↩

From the right to education perspective, the provision of education itself is a form of reparation⁸⁷ often prioritized by victims.⁸⁸ Relevant guidance is provided in the 2025 toolkit developed by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, which is designed to support teachers and educators working with children and young people affected by armed conflict, particularly those formerly associated with armed forces and armed groups.⁸⁹ Education as a form of reparation requires explicit acknowledgement of the harms suffered by child victims and that education measures are designed to help repair wrongdoing. Such measures must go beyond what States are already obligated to provide, such as access to free primary education, and require trauma-responsive approaches, flexible, accessible and inclusive learning environments, financial support and engagement with caregivers and communities.

87. See https://www.globalsurvivorsfund.org/ and Francesca Capone and others, Education and the Law of Reparations in Insecurity and Armed Conflict, (Protect Education in Insecurity and Conflict and British Institute of International Comparative Law, 2014. ↩
88. See https://www.globalsurvivorsfund.org/how-we-work/global-reparations-study/. ↩
89. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ID9102-Teacher-Guide-for-printing.pdf. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Establish effective national mechanisms to investigate, prosecute and sanction perpetrators of education-related crimes and other gross violations of human rights law and international law disrupting children’s access to education during armed conflict, ensuring access to justice and reparation for victims,⁹⁰ with special reparation guarantees for child victims;⁹¹
(b) Prioritize the investigation of incidents that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, including, for example, indiscriminate attacks that damage schools or that result in civilian casualties amounting to serious violations; and train investigators and prosecutors to identify and document education-related elements of broader violations, such as deprivation of education as a form of persecution;
(c) Develop specialized, child-sensitive investigative protocols for education-related crimes, drawing on trauma-informed, survivor-centred approaches;⁹²
(d) Work with civil society to collect and preserve evidence, support victim participation and contextualize community impact, noting that local organizations often provide the first or only documentation of crimes and can help to identify witnesses and survivors;
(e) Guarantee access to remedies and reparation through judicial and administrative schemes that include restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, with education itself recognized as a form of reparation through flexible learning programmes that address children’s physical and emotional health, social and financial concerns;⁹³
(f) Provide adequate resources, technical support and witness protection, and cooperate with international accountability mechanisms, including by granting them unhindered access to affected sites;⁹⁴ and ensure access of victims to independent, impartial international investigative bodies.

90. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 5 (2003), para. 24. ↩
91. See https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/21/justice-children-future-crimes-against-humanity-treaty. ↩
92. See https://www.unodc.org/unodc/justice-and-prison-reform/investigative-interviewing.html. ↩
93. See https://www.globalsurvivorsfund.org/latest/articles/reparative-education-as-a-path-to-healing-in-nigeria/. ↩
94. A/HRC/60/51, para. 89 (c). ↩

Education is often the first service disrupted in crises and the last restored, with insecurity, displacement and collapsed infrastructure severely obstructing the delivery of education and essential child protection services.⁹⁵ Despite being a core humanitarian and human rights priority, education is still treated as secondary in emergency preparedness and response, as many States fail to integrate it into disaster risk reduction and crisis strategies, resulting in prolonged learning interruptions, increased protection risks and long-term exclusion, in violation of obligations under international human rights law. Each day schools remain closed during or after an armed conflict heightens risks of abuse; recruitment; child, early-age and forced marriage; sexual violence; and exploitation.

95. Ibid., para. 72. ↩

The Safe Schools Declaration, Minimum Standards Handbook and UNESCO Comprehensive School Safety Framework 2022–⁠2030 all provide widely endorsed operational guidance for integrating education into emergency planning. In her 2025 annual thematic report, the Special Rapporteur addressed the right to be safe in education as a critical element of the right to education, which itself requires an all-encompassing rights-based approach to safety, for all rights-holders, in all contexts and with respect to all hazards,⁹⁶ as echoed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 59/9.

96. See A/HRC/59/41, para. 96. ↩

In its 2011 guidance on integrating conflict and disaster risk reduction into education sector planning,⁹⁷ UNESCO provides a practical model for how States can operationalize crisis-sensitive education planning.⁹⁸ It emphasizes that conflict and disaster risk reduction is not an add-on but a core requirement for building resilient education systems. The process involves identifying hazards and vulnerabilities, conducting conflict-sensitive analysis and integrating preparedness, mitigation and recovery strategies directly into education sector plans and budgets.⁹⁹

97. See https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000228650. ↩
98. See https://education4resilience.iiep.unesco.org/en/crisis-sensitive-educational-planning. ↩
99. See www.globalpartnership.org/content/guidance-note-strengthening-coordination-fragile-and-conflict-affected-contexts. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Make education a core part of national emergency preparedness, humanitarian response and post-conflict recovery plans, including early recovery, with crisis-sensitive education planning institutionalized at the national, sub-national and local (school and community) levels;¹⁰⁰
(b) Ensure that any analysis of challenges and gaps in the education sector takes into account the actual or potential impact of armed conflict (e.g. repairs to and reconstruction of damaged schools, replacement of lost educational material) and considers the costs of implementing enhanced safety measures;
(c) Build ministry leadership and coordination capacity, including risk management units able to work with humanitarian and development partners and coordinate across sectors and levels;¹⁰¹
(d) Secure predictable financing by protecting education budget lines, ensuring multi-year emergency funding and strengthening donor coordination;
(e) Ensure equity and inclusion by prioritizing marginalized groups, girls, children with disabilities, displaced learners and minorities, while ensuring their meaningful participation in planning and response, and by addressing inequitable resource distribution;
(f) Mainstream mental health support for learners and educators in emergency education plans, recognizing the dual function of schools as learning and protective environments;
(g) Strengthen the role of education for peace and social cohesion in armed conflict by making schools safe spaces for inclusion, tolerance and critical thinking, including by integrating human rights education,¹⁰² considering its critical role in humanitarian response.¹⁰³

100. See https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/Global_Education_Cluster_2011_Disaster_risk_reduction_in_education_in_emergencies.pdf. ↩
101. See https://eiehub.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/EiE-Crisis-Sensitive-Planning.pdf. ↩
102. See A/HRC/59/33, para. 56. ↩
103. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.7577/hrer.3986. ↩

States have an immediate and continuous obligation to ensure that quality education remains available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable,¹⁰⁴ without discrimination. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has no derogation clause, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not make any exception for its implementation in situations of armed conflict. Minimum core obligations, such as free and compulsory primary education and non-discrimination, are of immediate effect and not subject to progressive realization, even during armed conflict.¹⁰⁵

104. See E/C.12/1999/10. ↩
105. Ibid.; and E/1991/23. ↩

To fulfil these obligations, States must adopt legal and policy measures guaranteeing non-discriminatory access to quality education in armed conflict. Addressing intersecting barriers, such as gender-based violence, conflict-related sexual violence and forced marriage, and the recruitment and use of child soldiers, is in line with the obligation to provide inclusive, equitable education.¹⁰⁶

106. A/HRC/59/33, para. 93 (f). ↩

During armed conflict, education must be prioritized equally with other life-saving responses, as it provides protection, resilience and social cohesion. Strengthening education as a tool for peace is particularly critical in emergencies.¹⁰⁷ Conflict-sensitive education systems that are inclusive of all and locally relevant promote tolerance, critical thinking and respect for diversity. They help to address inequalities, empower marginalized groups and prevent grievances that may fuel armed conflict. In conflict zones, schools should serve as safe spaces for peaceful coexistence, fostering unity among diverse communities. Schools that remain safe and inclusive not only protect children but help to break cycles of violence by offering stability and hope.¹⁰⁸

107. Ibid., para. 56. ↩
108. Ibid., para. 58. ↩

Children with disabilities are at a particularly high risk of being left out of formal education and educational services during armed conflict and are disproportionally affected when schools are attacked.¹⁰⁹ UNICEF reported that attacks on schools can reverse progress on inclusion, pushing previously included children with disabilities into domestic isolation or exploitative work.¹¹⁰ In conflict-affected areas, discrimination, stigma and the lack of accessible facilities, adapted learning methods and assistive technologies severely limit their access to education. When schools are attacked or destroyed, these barriers are compounded, making children with disabilities disproportionately likely to be excluded from education.¹¹¹ Armed conflicts also increase the number of children with disabilities. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recommends that temporary learning environments ensure the right to education of children with disabilities, on the basis of equality with others,¹¹² in safe and accessible learning environments.¹¹³

109. See www.unicef.org/media/126116/file/Children-with-Disabilities-in-Situations-of-Armed-Conflict-Discussion-Paper.pdf. ↩
110. See www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/02/un-high-risk-conflicts-children-disabilities. ↩
111. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Towards-Greater-Inclusion-high-res-no-bleed.pdf. ↩
112. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, art. 11. ↩
113. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 4 (2016) on the right to inclusive education, para. 14. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Guarantee the continuity of learning and rapid restoration of quality, inclusive and safe education through temporary spaces, trauma therapy, accelerated and flexible, accessible and inclusive programmes, appropriate digital solutions¹¹⁴ and safe school reopening, on the basis of security assessments and dialogue with parties in conflict;
(b) Ensure inclusive access by removing barriers for girls, children with disabilities, refugees, displaced learners and minorities through targeted outreach, flexible enrolment, recognition of prior learning, including validating academic achievements gained in another country or territory, and inclusive infrastructure; and integrate refugees and displaced learners into national systems with language support, flexible documentation and tailored teacher recruitment in host regions;¹¹⁵
(c) Recognize education as a form of reparation¹¹⁶ that requires States to go beyond existing obligations by providing adequately financed, gender- and age-sensitive measures¹¹⁷ that acknowledge the harms suffered, and education measures designed to help repair wrongdoing, including psychosocial and financial support and community reintegration;¹¹⁸
(d) Build resilient education systems by training educators and humanitarian actors in trauma-sensitive education, ensuring that educators and other staff receive the necessary support, especially mental health support;¹¹⁹
(e) Secure sustainable financing for education in armed conflict by protecting national education budgets and emergency funds,¹²⁰ setting specific targets for education within humanitarian responses, developing multi-year funding for catch-up and flexible learning programmes, and mobilizing international aid and philanthropic support.

114. See A/HRC/50/32. ↩
115. See https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000366839. ↩
116. See www.globalsurvivorsfund.org/fileadmin/uploads/gsf/Documents/Resources/Reports/Task_Team_Report_Iraq_April2025_EN_web.pdf. ↩
117. A/HRC/60/51, para. 88 (d). ↩
118. See www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/articles/funding-education-crises-call-justice-and-reparation?forms_steps=articles&instance_id=9061f600-3781-4533-8a81-f47a8f034df0&step=step_2. ↩
119. See A/78/364. ↩
120. Human Rights Committee resolution 59/9, para. 1 (c). ↩

The right to education is not only a matter of access, but also of content. The Committee on the Rights of the Child specifically notes that the values embodied in article 29 (1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child are particularly important for children living in situations of armed conflict.¹²¹

121. Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 1 (2001) on the aims of education, para. 16. ↩

International law protects children from indoctrination and ideological manipulation. It establishes that education must be directed to the full development of the human personality, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and an appreciation of cultural diversity, and promote understanding, tolerance and friendship,¹²² which form part of the “acceptability” element of the right to education. It also obliges States to safeguard children’s identity, privacy, family life and cultural belonging¹²³ and to ensure freedoms of thought, expression, association and access to information.¹²⁴

122. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 13(1), Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 29(1), Convention against Discrimination in Education, art. 5(1)(a); and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 26(2). ↩
123. Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 8 and 16; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 17; and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 10. ↩
124. Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 13–15 and 17; and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, arts. 18, 19, 21 and 22. ↩

States must ensure that educational content is free from ideological indoctrination, militarization or discriminatory propaganda and that the development and operationalization of curricula are fully in compliance with human rights and a culture of peace.¹²⁵ Any manipulation of education for ideological control undermines the right to education, in particular education’s role in promoting human dignity, critical thinking and peaceful coexistence. Such manipulation can also contribute to policies of forced assimilation, cultural cleansing or warfare against a specific people or group, in whole or in part, that may constitute a crime of persecution or genocidal intent. For example, the targeted destruction of educational facilities in Gaza were considered as deliberately aiming at erasure of the Palestinian identity and thus an element of a genocidal intent.¹²⁶

125. A/HRC/59/33, para. 57. ↩
126. A/HRC/60/CRP.3, para. 146. ↩

In the context of occupation, both international humanitarian law and international human rights law apply,¹²⁷ and the occupying power has a legal obligation to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting the laws in force in the country.¹²⁸ The Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed concern over the misuse of education to promote conflict narratives, bans on local languages in occupied territories and policies that segregate minority children: practices that restrict inclusive education, entrench inequality and deepen social divisions.¹²⁹

127. E/C.12/1/Add.90, paras. 15 and 31. ↩
128. Hague Regulations (1907), art. 43. ↩
129. A/HRC/59/33, para. 32. ↩

In extreme cases, indoctrination, the erasure of cultural identity, including through education systems,¹³⁰ and discriminatory or militarized content may amount to cultural persecution or incitement to violence, especially when aimed at erasing, suppressing or forcibly replacing any identifiable group. These are recognized as a crime against humanity when involving the intentional and severe denial of fundamental rights on discriminatory grounds, as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.¹³¹ Education that erases specific cultural identities, imposes a dominant ideology or systematically excludes minority histories, languages or beliefs, may meet this threshold. For example, the International Criminal Court has recognized that the deliberate imposition of religious or ideological education while banning secular options may constitute ideologically driven persecution as a crime against humanity.¹³²

130. See https://rm.coe.int/countering-the-erasure-of-cultural-identity-in-war-and-peace/1680b00420. ↩
131. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 7(1)(h). ↩
132. International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud, Judgment, 20 November 2024. ↩

In their concluding observations, human rights treaty bodies of the Human Rights Council have expressed concern over militarization of curricula and educational content, as well as the use of education spaces for ideological indoctrination. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of the Child consider the practice of combining formal education with compulsory military training in high school incompatible with the right to education and potentially amounting to recruitment and indoctrination.¹³³ Mandatory pre-military instruction in regular schools delivered by civilian militias has been deemed as violating educational aims and risking politicizing education.¹³⁴ The Committee on the Rights of the Child considered that enforcing curricula and military training in occupied territories amounts to ideological imposition contrary to the aims of education and limits children’s access to their national education system.¹³⁵

133. See CEDAW/C/ERI/CO/6 and CRC/C/ERI/CO/5-6. ↩
134. See Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 29; and CRC/C/OPAC/VEN/CO/1. ↩
135. See CRC/C/RUS/CO/6-7. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) At the national level, audit and reform curricula and textbooks to ensure compliance with human rights standards, in particular the aims of education, including pluralism, gender equality, non-discrimination and peace education,¹³⁶ with particular attention to human rights education, history teaching¹³⁷ and memorialization;¹³⁸
(b) Prohibit in domestic legislation the misuse of education systems for inciting hatred, recruitment, promoting discriminatory ideologies or forced assimilation through legal safeguards, oversight and independent review;
(c) Demilitarize curricula by removing military content from general public schools and ensuring military-run schools comply with human rights standards;
(d) Ensure acceptability of emergency education provision by all actors, including non-State armed groups, private actors, religious or ideological providers, under appropriate oversight;
(e) Document and investigate instances of content-based violations of the right to education, including cases involving cultural erasure, forced indoctrination or assimilation or discriminatory instruction.

136. See A/HRC/59/33. ↩
137. See A/68/296. ↩
138. See A/HRC/25/49. ↩

In situations of armed conflict, robust, systematic and disaggregated data collection is vital in order to understand, prevent, address and respond to attacks on education and the military use of educational facilities, as well as to support evidence-based policymaking, early warning, accountability and the monitoring of progress to ensure the right to education amid school closures, attacks and severe teacher shortages.

National authorities bear the primary responsibility to collect data in order to monitor the realization of the right to education with a view to ensuring its progressive realization. This obligation is embedded in international human rights standards¹³⁹ and interpreted by relevant treaty bodies as necessary to fulfil the right to education.¹⁴⁰ In practice, national monitoring systems frequently overlook education-related violations or fail to address them as serious protection concerns, particularly when State actors are involved. Enhanced data quality and sharing can strengthen accountability by providing evidence for national and international investigations into and prosecutions of education-related crimes, in line with the commitments under the Safe Schools Declaration and Security Council resolution 2601 (2021).

139. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, art. 2(1); and Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 4. ↩
140. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations, para. 11; and Committee on the Rights of the Child, general comment No. 1 (2001), para. 20. ↩

At the international level, according to the monitoring and reporting mechanism on grave violations committed against children in times of armed conflict,¹⁴¹ established by the Security Council in its resolution 1612 (2005),¹⁴² attacks against schools and hospitals and protected persons in relation to them are considered one of the six grave violations that form the basis of the Council’s architecture to monitor, report and respond to abuses suffered by children in times of war.¹⁴³

141. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/tools-for-action/monitoring-and-reporting/. ↩
142. S/RES/1612 (2005). ↩
143. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/about-the-mandate/. ↩

The monitoring and reporting mechanism monitors violations attributed to all parties to armed conflict, whether State or non-State.¹⁴⁴ As regards non-State parties, the mechanism is concerned particularly with grave violations as committed by organized armed groups or elements. Typically, such groups have a discernible command structure, may exercise territorial control, are often identifiable, have the capacity to mount operations and may have a political agenda or ideology. In the annexes to the annual report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict, the listing of armed forces and groups that commit recurrent attacks against schools or protected persons in relation to schools provides an important tool for holding parties accountable through higher visibility of violations.¹⁴⁵ The 2014 Guidance Note on Attacks against Schools and Hospitals aims to ensure that everyone involved in monitoring, reporting and advocacy is equipped with the best tools to report on and advocate for ending and preventing attacks against schools.¹⁴⁶

144. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/MRM_Guidelines_-_5_June_20141.pdf, p. 8. ↩
145. As per Security Council resolution 1998 (2011). ↩
146. See https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/publications/AttacksonSchoolsHospitals.pdf. ↩

Collaboration between humanitarian and human rights actors, including United Nations agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local communities thus remains vital to ensure accurate data and enable rapid, context-sensitive responses. The global education cluster has developed a joint education needs assessment toolkit¹⁴⁷ and a short guide for rapid needs assessments to provide guidance on data collection in emergency situations.¹⁴⁸ The 2025 Right to Education Initiative brief on monitoring in conflict-affected contexts similarly stresses the need for context-sensitive, locally grounded and sustainably funded data systems to inform evidence-based responses.¹⁴⁹

147. See https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/Joint_Education_Needs_Assessment_Toolkit.pdf. ↩
148. See https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/Short_Guide_to_Education_in_Rapid_Needs_Assessments.pdf. ↩
149. See www.right-to-education.org/resource/monitoring-right-education-conflict-affected-contexts-key-insights-and-strategic. ↩

Furthermore, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics maintains country-level data about the number of attacks on students, personnel and institutions from 2015 onwards. Data is collated from the database of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, integrated with data collected in the field and from publicly available sources by partner organizations such as the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project and the Global Terrorism Database. The open-access data portal Track Attacks on Education¹⁵⁰ considers data on attacks on education as a global public good and aims not only to make reliable education and conflict-related data widely available in order to prevent further attacks, but also to include affected communities in the data collection and dissemination process.

150. See https://tracedataportal.org/. ↩

The Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Build national monitoring capacity by developing systems to collect, analyse and publish data on attacks, the military use of educational facilities and related violations, ensuring disaggregation by gender, age, disability, location, types of school and perpetrator, in line with Sustainable Development Goals indicators and human rights monitoring standards, while being mindful of protection concerns in collecting such data;
(b) Support international monitoring systems, including financially, to ensure publication of a complete, evidence-based list of perpetrators collected through objective and transparent process;
(c) Ensure that monitoring and documentation systems are designed and used not only for prevention and protection but also to support accountability processes by collecting and preserving credible, verifiable and legally relevant information that can inform investigations, prosecutions and other remedial mechanisms at the national, regional or international levels, in line with international standards on evidence collection and victim protection;
(d) Collaborate with humanitarian actors and education clusters to apply practical tools, such as the toolkit for collecting and analysing data on attacks on education of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack and the Track Attacks on Education data portal, and use conflict-sensitive methodologies, such as multi-sector needs assessments;
(e) Integrate data on attacks on education and the military use of educational facilities into national reports to treaty bodies, the universal periodic review and voluntary national reviews for the Sustainable Development Goals;
(f) Strengthen coordination with national human rights institutions, civil society and community actors to implement risk mitigation and child protection strategies through timely, disaggregated data collection and sharing.¹⁵¹

151. A/HRC/60/51, para. 88 (i). ↩

States should adopt legal and policy frameworks enabling engagement with non-State armed groups to secure commitments to protect the right to education regardless of territorial control and prevent violations in non-government-held areas.

Non-State armed groups are responsible for a significant proportion of attacks on education globally. International humanitarian law binds all parties to armed conflict, including such groups.¹⁵² When they become party to an armed conflict, non-State armed groups must respect the civilian character of educational facilities and comply with their above-mentioned international humanitarian law obligations. The Rome Statute confirms that individuals from non-State groups can be prosecuted for war crimes, such as intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to education,¹⁵³ while the Committee on the Rights of the Child considers that the Convention on the Rights of the Child applies to violations committed by non-State armed actors, as well as States.¹⁵⁴

152. Geneva Convention, common art. 3 and additional Protocol II. ↩
153. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 8(2)(e)(iv). ↩
154. A/HRC/60/51, paras. 38 and 88. ↩

As highlighted in the above-mentioned 2025 Enhancing Accountability report of the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack, national jurisdictions often lack the legal tools or political will to investigate non-State armed groups, especially when they operate in remote or contested areas. As a result, children living in areas controlled by such groups face ongoing violations of their right to education. In some cases, bureaucratic barriers, such as lack of accreditation of schools controlled by the groups or separate curricula, prevent children from continuing their education.¹⁵⁵

155. See, for example, CRC/C/SYR/CO/5, para. 43. ↩

Engagement with non-State armed groups is hindered by political sensitivities, legal ambiguities and operational barriers. Even when groups have received training on international humanitarian law, they may lack the institutional capacity to implement protections. Such groups cannot endorse the Safe Schools Declaration, but they can and should implement the Guidelines for Protecting Schools and Universities from Military Use during Armed Conflict or sign action plans with the United Nations to end and prevent attacks against schools. In situations where there is no engagement with the United Nations, non-State armed groups should be encouraged to sign the Geneva Call Deed of Commitment for the Protection of Children from the Effects of Armed Conflict.¹⁵⁶

156. See www.genevacall.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Official-DoC-Protecting-children-in-armed-conflict.pdf. ↩

Current strategies of engaging with non-State armed groups often focus on documentation and accountability, overlooking the potential of inclusive, context-sensitive engagement. Coercive approaches like “naming and shaming” are rarely effective in securing behavioural change among such groups. It should be considered that motivations behind attacks vary from opportunistic military use to ideological targeting and can only be understood through direct engagement. In this context, dialogue, persuasion and cooperation, grounded in trust and tailored to local realities, can leverage meaningful protection commitments.¹⁵⁷

157. See www.icrc.org/en/publication/4352-roots-restraint-war. ↩

Community-level actors or international NGOs often serve as intermediaries, mediating dialogue, advocating for safe education and reporting violations. Yet their role remains underutilized and undersupported. Durable protection of education depends on placing children at the centre of engagement strategies and on leveraging local knowledge, legitimacy and networks.

As recommended by the Global Coalition to Protect Education from Attack¹⁵⁸ and Geneva Call,¹⁵⁹ the Special Rapporteur recommends that States, international and regional organizations, United Nations entities, donors and civil society:
(a) Create or revise legal frameworks that allow for constructive engagement with non-State armed groups on protecting and realizing human rights without implying political recognition or violating counterterrorism norms, to enable humanitarian dialogue and concrete protection outcomes in non-government-controlled areas. For example, legal provisions should be considered that allow for flexible funding and resources to support education delivery in these areas without breaching sanctions;
(b) Encourage adherence to humanitarian norms. Where non-State armed groups are listed in the annual report of the Secretary-General on children and armed conflict, support the development and implementation of action plans with the United Nations to prevent and respond to attacks against schools. Otherwise, encourage the signature of the above-mentioned Geneva Call Deed of Commitment, which offers a legitimate, accessible path for non-State armed groups to commit to protecting education;
(c) Adopt context-specific approaches by analysing the political, social and territorial dynamics of each non-State armed group, their motivations, constituencies and internal structures, and pursue incremental improvements (e.g. limiting school use, suspending recruitment near schools), balancing incentives with accountability for violations, particularly where attacks on education may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity;
(d) Strengthen monitoring and credibility through a three-tier system of self-reporting, partner collaboration and field verification, publicizing positive conduct when safe to do so;
(e) Provide technical assistance, training and materials to help non-State armed groups fulfil their commitments, including by equipping community leaders to deliver education-focused messages. Consider innovative modalities or community-based education delivery to maintain education continuity while minimizing risk;
(f) Keep the best interest of the child in mind and develop strategies for the non-discriminatory transition and integration of children from areas controlled by non-State armed groups into State-led education systems;
(g) Foster community-based engagement by supporting teacher unions, religious leaders and local mechanisms to mediate dialogue, influence the behaviour of non-State armed groups and co-develop localized protection norms.

158. See https://protectingeducation.org/wp-content/uploads/GCPEA_NSAG_ScopingPaper.pdf; and https://blogs.icrc.org/app/uploads/sites/102/2023/09/Protecting-education-from-non-state-armed-group-attacks.pdf. ↩
159. See www.protecthumanitarianspace.com/resources/supporting-engagement-armed-groups-and-de-facto-authorities-protection-and-promotion-0. ↩