NORDIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 157 restraint when assessing claims of unlawfulness of actions carried out to implement (national) security and foreign policy.118 The Court of Appeal concluded that the interests related to (national) security and foreign affairs, as brought forward by the Dutch Government, justify the conclusion that it may refuse to take action to repatriate the children.119 The claimants have lodged a cassation appeal to the Netherlands Supreme Court. Days before the final version of this article was sent in, the Supreme Court confirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling.120 It rejected the argument that the children fall within Dutch jurisdiction and that the UNCRC or other human rights treaties can be invoked directly. It also found that the Dutch Government’s decision not to repatriate the women and children was not unlawful, particularly in light of the arguments presented on the basis of national security, the safety of Dutch civil servants and other parties in case of repatriation and international relations. The Supreme Court also pointed at the fact that the women had willingly travelled to ISIS-held territories. This ruling reflects a narrow interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction, contrary to the line of reasoning in this article. In addition, the Supreme Court does not seem to acknowledge that the children have their own rights and interests (i.e. independent from the rights and interests of their parents) and that they themselves have not chosen to live in (formerly) ISIS-held territories. 6. Concluding Observations It is clear that children in Syria, with ties to the Netherlands are experiencing great suffering. Being there endangers their lives. This is arguably also the case for the children trapped in Turkey and Iraq. The children concerned have entitlements under international children’s rights law, embraced by nearly all countries in the world – including the Netherlands, the States involved in the Middle East, and other (home) countries that face similar issues. Yet, the context the children find themselves in, including their association with ISIS, has resulted in ‘Western’ governments’ reluctance to actively engage with securing adequate protection of these children. Critically, governments’ and courts’ strict approach towards jurisdiction pursuant to UNCRC Article 2(1) has relegated the children to a de facto legal void, leaving them in extremely vulnerable situations. This article suggests reconsidering the restrictive interpretation of the concept of jurisdiction as a prerequisite for human rights obligations and acknowledging that a State is under obligation to protect the human rights of children with clear ties to it, particularly when the children are extremely vulnerable, their parents being unable to provide adequate protection, and their vulnerability is enhanced by the State’s passive policy of not reaching out. Obviously, the Dutch Government cannot be assumed to be accountable for direct rights violations taking place in refugee camps in Syria, Iraq, and Turkey, which seem attributable to (non-)state actors that do not operate under Dutch command or within Dutch territory. Nevertheless, the Dutch Government has various 118 Court of Appeal The Hague (n 31) 7.8. The Netherlands Government advanced various arguments that obstruct the repatriation of the children: see ibid. 7.10–7.13. 119 Ibid. 7.14. 120 The Netherlands Supreme Court, 26 June 2020, ECLI:NL:HR:2020:1148; see also R van Arik and C Paulussen, ‘Analysis: Dutch Supreme Court Rules on the Group Repatriation of the Families of IS Fighters: ‘We expect that more individual court cases will now be started’ (Asser Institute, 26 June 2020) <www.asser.nl/about-the-institute/asser-today/analysisdutch-supreme-court-rules-on-the-group-repatriation-of-the-families-of-is-fighters-we-expect-that-more-individualcourt-cases-will-now-be-started/> accessed 28 June 2020.