Since children are particularly vulnerable in armed conflicts, they are conferred legal protection under International law, like in the International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law. Despite of international legislation, the situation of children remains critically worrying with numerous ongoing armed conflicts and instabilities globally. On the one hand, they are assumed special protection, yet on the other hand, they are commonly used as shields or forced into being combatants. The aim of the study is to outline legal areas of ambiguity or inadequacy in the legal framework and see whether they are sufficient in seeking to protect children in armed conflicts. Following relevant conceptual discussions on International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, the study employs a legal analysis in conjunction with a normative argumentation approach in reference to the works of various scholars. Based on the findings, I conclude that IHL and IHRL are often not adhered to, by state parties in armed conflicts due to a lack of binding power; hence such conventions do not produce the desired result. Since state parties are either in breach of the conventions, or have not yet ratified them, the conventions are not practically effective in protecting children.