NORDIC JOURNAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 155 a cooperative exercise for the States of the world.’104 This is also true for the Optional Protocol to the UNCRC on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, which requires that States must cooperate in the rehabilitation and social integration of children who are the victim of violations of the Protocol, where necessary through technical cooperation and financial assistance and bilateral or multilateral programmes.105 5. Recent Dutch Case Law A group of mothers and children with ties to the Netherlands who reside in camps in Northern Syria initiated preliminary legal proceedings to challenge the principally passive policy of the Dutch Government with respect to their repatriation. At the time of writing this article, the case was reviewed by both the lower District Court and the Court of Appeal and is now pending before the Netherlands Supreme Court. The group demands return to the Netherlands and substantiate their claim by arguing that conditions in the camps are poor and chances of relief non-existent. They further argue that their security is deteriorating due to Turkish military operations in the Northern part of Syria. In addition, they claim that the life-threatening situation damages the development of the child claimants, who are all Dutch nationals.106 Both the District Court and the Court of Appeal of The Hague concluded that these children cannot vindicate their rights as enshrined in the UNCRC against the Dutch Government, because they do not fall within Dutch jurisdiction. Despite the courts’ conclusions that the UNCRC cannot be invoked, they did find that the UNCRC determines the scope of the due diligence standard of Dutch tort law that both courts applied instead. On 11 November 2019 the District Court of The Hague ruled that the rights of the child enshrined in the UNCRC should be considered in the assessment whether there is merit to the claim. However, the District Court subsequently ruled that the claimants cannot exercise these rights directly against the Dutch Government because the children are located outside Dutch territory where the Dutch Government lacks ‘authority (jurisdiction)’.107 Nevertheless, it was ruled that the Dutch Government is bound by Dutch tort law (Dutch Civil Code, art 6:162), which includes a due diligence standard. According to the District Court the question to be answered is to what extent this due diligence standard requires the Dutch Government to take action. The Court considered that the fundamental rights of children as laid out in the UNCRC ‘influence to a certain extent the content and scope of this due diligence standard’.108 The District Court did not elaborate on how the due diligence standard is influenced, and by which rights of the UNCRC exactly. Cognisant of the dire situation the children find themselves in and the threats to their rights as enshrined in the UNCRC, the District Court ultimately ruled that the Dutch Government from every form of sexual exploitation and in doing so to take all fitting national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent children from being sexually abused. See also Optional Protocol to the UNCRC on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography, and the Optional Protocol on a Communication Procedure. (The Netherlands has not yet ratified this Protocol.) 104 CRC Committee (n 95) 41. 105 Protocol, art 7, on the involvement of children in armed conflicts. 106 District Court The Hague 2019 (n 5), 3.2. 107 District Court The Hague (n 5) 4.5. 108 The District Court also refers to the ECtHR at this point: see ibid. 4.7.