Looking back, it is undeniable that despite continuous drafting efforts from the international community, there remains a significant level of legal and conceptual discrepancy within treaty law on the issue of child soldiering. It can be inferred that the problems have its roots in provision only to continue throughout the process of implementation. Further, since international Law provides that treaties are only binding to states that have acceded to them, seems to indirectly grant non-acceding states a legitimacy to escape responsibility. The mere ratification of treaties is hence insufficient to protect the rights of the child in times of conflict. Perhaps lobbying on the straight 18 position, or proposing sanctions on states that fail to accede/ improvise to treaty provisions would effectively address some of these architectural externalities and present visible progress in the advancement of protecting children in armed conflict.