Anant Gupta*& Harsimran Singh Brar**
Introduction
“Why do fireflies have to die so soon?” — Setsuko
This question by Setsuko in Grave of the Fireflies (1988) reflects the pivotal calamity of the film which also highlights the harsh reality of childhood being affected by war. The film is set around the final months of the Second World War, following Seita and Setsuko who struggle to survive the hardships caused due to the air raid which devastates their home and got separated from their family. They had to suffer several harms brough on by the war such as hunger, displacement, loss of care, inadequate shelter and deteriorating health.
This thought-provoking film raises an important question regarding child-rights law that how should the best interests of children be assessed when the damage has been inflicted from multiple forms of deprivation? The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) ensures survival, development, health, family care and living conditions of the children. However these rights are violated over and over during the time of war. This analytical piece contends that cumulative effect of harms must be considered altogether rather than examining each in isolation under the best-interests principle.
The Legal Protection of Children During War
Children are provided special protection, under International law, during war by international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 secures children as civilians who need special care. Additional Protocol I (1977), applicable to international armed conflicts, safeguards children by protecting them from recruitment and engagement in warfare. Furthermore, Additional Protocol II (1977) applies to certain non-international armed conflicts that correspondingly restrict the recruitment and involvement of children below fifteen in armed conflicts, providing special care and assistance. Moreover, CRC works for safeguarding children’s survival, development, health, family life and overall well-being.
Article 3 of the CRC highlights that the best interests of the children must be the primary consideration. Any actions or decisions impacting children must be assessed from the perspective of protection of children’s rights and well-being. This provision is strengthened by Article 6 that recognises the right to life, survival and development of children. Further, Article 24 ensures right to health, while Articles 9 and 20 acknowledge the importance of family care and provide protection to children who are separated from family. Therefore, the above mentioned provisions demonstrate that protection of children is not limited to preventing physical harm, rather it also mandates safeguarding the circumstances for children, essential to survive and strive.
The dilemma during war is that these rights are undermined altogether. Children might evade direct violence however they still could suffer with lose of food, shelter, health care and family support. Accordingly, the best-interests principle must assess not only individual violations, but how these harms cumulatively affect the survival and development of children stuck in the adverse conditions.
From Setsuko to Children Living Through War
Setsuko’s suffering in the animated movie unfolds in phases. During the air raid and bombing, she lost her mother along with their home. She and Seita were displaced and had to roam helplessly, relying on others for food and shelter. Both suffer from hunger, weakness and illness as their circumstances worsen. Simultaneously, displacement from their home, family care and sense of safety severely impacts her psychologically. Her childhood gradually becomes a struggle for survival.
These experiences have clear parallels in modern conflicts. For instance, according to UNICEF, the children in Ukraine have experienced displacements, separations from their families, disruption of education and health care services due to the ongoing turmoil. UNICEF has also noted high incidences of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress amongst children. The children of Gaza have faced the same problems but on an extremely large scale. According to UNICEF, there has been severe malnutrition of children, food and medical shortages, displacements and separations within families. As of the year 2025, there were over 520,000 children in Gaza requiring psychosocial assistance.
These examples show that the effects of war are more than physical. The body is affected by hunger and diseases; the lack of security and psychological support affects emotional well-being, while deprivation of education and stable living conditions may affect the development of a child. Moreover, the above effects may influence each other; displaced children deprived of their family will have problems accessing food and medical assistance, which, if continued, may cause mental harm.
This has an important implication for the best-interests principle. In General Comment No. 14, the CRC Committee explains that the best-interests assessment must consider the specific circumstances of the child and balance all relevant factors, including family relations, care and safety, health, education and vulnerability. The Committee also stresses that children’s rights are interdependent and interrelated and that both the short- and long-term effects on the child must be considered.
The best-interests principle cannot be reduced to asking whether a child has been directly attacked or injured. It requires an assessment of how the conflict affects the child as a whole. For a child like Setsuko, the loss of family care, food, shelter and health cannot be treated as unrelated problems. Their combined effect is precisely what determines the child’s survival and development. A cumulative assessment therefore does not create a new legal obligation; rather it applies the holistic assessment already required by Article 3 of the CRC.
Towards a Cumulative Best-Interests Approach
The analysis above implies that the best-interests principle should be used in its entirety to consider the cumulative effects of war on children. There is no need to make a new rule regarding the matter. It is important to integrate the existing child rights law in this organised way.
First, it is crucial to acknowledge indirect effects. Protection should not be based on whether the child was directly targeted or harmed physically. Destruction of housing, hospitals, schools and access to all vital needs is harmful for the survival and development of the child. In case of foreseeability of such an effect, it should be considered in the process of best interests assessment.
Second, the assessment should recognise cumulative harm. Different forms of deprivation do not seem to be significant on their own. But at the same time, in combination, they become very serious. Deprivation of family care, food, shelter and healthcare implies much more than several problems.
Third, the assessment needs to incorporate continuity of care. Stable familial and other forms of caring relations are especially vital in times of war and displacement. The CRC articles 9 and 20 already acknowledge the significance of family care and alternative care in case of separation. Thus, protection of these bonds should be regarded as an aspect of assessing the child’s best interests.
This would make the best interest assessment more relevant to the reality of the lives of children during armed conflicts. The focus of the assessment will change from “was the child directly harmed?” to a more general question of “what effects did the conflict have on the conditions required for survival and protection of this particular child?”
Conclusion
Ultimately, Grave of the Fireflies is more than the story of two children caught up in wartime. It is the story of how the very conditions that enable children to live a cheerful life can be stripped away over time. Setsuko dies not as the direct result of one violent act, but through the deprivation of home, family support, food, health and security.
This is precisely why the best interests principle should take into account the reality of children affected by war. The CRC itself guarantees the right to survival, development, good health, family care and a decent standard of living. What is needed is to consider these rights together where they come under threat at the same time.
The child may survive the bombings and yet suffer from war for years to come. Consequently, in protecting children from armed conflict it cannot be enough to protect them only from bombs and bullets. They must also be protected from the denial of the conditions necessary for their life and development.
The story of Setsuko leaves us with a simple legal question which is whether the best interests of the child are truly a primary consideration or can the law look at each harm separately when all those harms are part of the same experience? A meaningful best-interests assessment must look beyond the immediate violence and recognise the chain of deprivation that can make a child’s death possible.
* The author is a third-year Law student at Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University. The author may be contacted at anantgupta718@gmail.com
** The author is a third-year Law student at Dr. BR Ambedkar National Law University.
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Policy Chronicle.