Under the auspices of/Sous l'égide de - International Academy of ...

43Article 39 requires States Parties to take all appropriate measures to promote the psychological recoveryand social reintegration of a child victim of armed conflicts. Both Israel and the Palestinian Authority owea duty to promote the mental health rehabilitation of Palestinian children and both have breached that duty.The paper will be divided into five parts. Part I will examine the experiences of Palestinian children todetermine how armed conflict and occupation has affected their mental health. The analysis will start withthe first Intifada, which began in December 1987 and extend to the present crises in both the Gaza Strip andthe West Bank. Part II will explore the extent to which the Children’s Convention binds Israel, as anOccupying Power, and the Palestinian Authority, as a non-state actor, in relation to Palestinian children; itwill critically examine the claim that international human rights treaties do not apply to Israeli actions inthe occupied Palestinian territories while also defining how the Palestinian Authority, as a non-state actor,may be held accountable under the Convention. Part III will offer an interpretation of article 39 for thepurposes of determining to what extent Israel and the Palestinian Authority owe a duty under internationallaw to promote the psychological recovery and social reintegration of Palestinian children. Finally, Part Vwill explain why it is important to turn to international law in general, and the Convention on the Rights ofthe Child in particular, in order to measure the conduct of Israel and the Palestinian Authority at this criticaljuncture of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and in light of the difficult history of negotiations between theparties.If there is sufficient time, the paper will also identify and assess the mechanisms available underinternational law to secure compliance with the obligations recognized under article 39 of the Convention.10.4. Traumatic Presentations and Behaviors in Youth Exposed to Family MemberHomicidePaul T. Clements, University of New Mexico (pclements@salud.unm.edu)Homicide of a family member leaves more than just bodies behind and leaves survivors to struggle andcope with sudden and violent loss of life, crossing all cultures, races, and both genders. For youth, homicideof a family member may result in more negative post-trauma reactions than loss to natural causes sincedeaths by homicide are typically sudden and often entail human malintent directed at the deceased.Interviews conducted with children ages 8-17 years during the initial 18 months following family memberhomicide provided insight into themes of bereavement and traumatic stress. A major finding in the studieswas that witnessing or hearing the news of a family member homicide was a powerful associative factor forchildhood posttraumatic stress disorder and for complicated bereavement. Many issues for bereaved youthafter family member homicide are unique in scope. Serious consequences can occur surrounding a youth’sevolving moral reasoning, understanding of the consequences of a person’s actions, and the significant needfor family permanence. Family member homicide can confound all of these developmental taskssimultaneously. A primary issue is the helplessness of youth at having to watch or listen to the sights andsounds surrounding a violent act and being unprotected from the full emotional impact of the violence.