The Un-Common Law: Emerging Differences Between the United States and the United Kingdom on the Children's Rights Aspects of the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction

2002 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-364
Author(s):  
Brian S. Kenworthy
2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (5) ◽  
pp. 873-887
Author(s):  
Linda Silberman

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided four cases under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of the International Child Abduction (hereinafter the Hague Convention), the most recent one coming this term in Monasky v. Taglieri. The Hague Convention, adopted in 101 countries, requires the judicial or administrative authority of a country that is party to the Convention to return a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained to the country of the child's habitual residence.The Convention also provides for a limited number of defenses to return. The obligation of return is a “provisional” remedy, in that the merits of any custody dispute will be determined by a court in the country of habitual residence. One of the most critical aspects of the Convention is this concept of “habitual residence,” which was the issue presented to the Court in Monasky.


2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 683
Author(s):  
Nigel Lowe

This article discusses the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction which, despite having been in existence for over 30 years, continues to present a number of uncertainties for Contracting States. The article focuses on the issues around appealing return orders after a child has been taken out of the jurisdiction, the concept of “habitual residence”, and the non-enforcement of return orders with reference to recent case law from the United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand and the European Union. 


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 764
Author(s):  
María González Marimón

Resumen: Sustracción ilícita internacional a España de dos menores residentes en Reino Unido en aplicación del Reglamento Bruselas II bis y el Convenio de La Haya de 1980 sobre los aspectos civiles de la sustracción internacional de menores. Discusión sobre si la enfermedad psiquiátrica de la madre constituye un riesgo de peligro físico o psíquico en caso de retorno de los menores, en los términos de la excepción al retorno del artículo 13 b del Convenio de La Haya de 1980.Palabras clave: sustracción internacional de menores, Reglamento Bruselas II bis, Convenio de La Haya de 1980, excepciones al retorno del menor, excepción del artículo 13 b.Abstract: International child abduction to Spain of two minors residing in United Kingdom under the Brussels II Regulation and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduc­tion of 1980. Discussion about if the psychiatric illness of the mother is considered as a risk of physical or psychological harm in case of return of the minors, in terms of the article 13 b return exception of the 1980 Hague Convention.Keywords: international child abduction, Brussels II bis Regulation, 1980 Hague Convention, exceptions to the return of the minor, article 13 b exception.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 671
Author(s):  
Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís

Resumen: Sustracción internacional a España de menor residente en Suiza en aplicación del Con­venio de La Haya de 1980 sobre los aspectos civiles de la sustracción internacional de menores. Discre­pancia sobre la residencia habitual del menor. No se aprecian motivos de no retorno.Palabras clave: sustracción internacional de menores, Convenio de La Haya sobre sustracción, Convenio de La Haya sobre responsabilidad parental y protección de menores, residencia habitualAbstract: International abduction to Spain of a minor residing in Switzerland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. Discrepancy about the habi­tual residence of the minor. No grounds for return denial are appreciated.Keywords: international child abduction, Hague Convention on Child Abduction, Hague Conven­tion on Parental Responsibility and Measures of the Protection of Children, habitual residence


Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi

This book is about the stunning birth and growth of judicial review in the civil law world, since 1945. In Volume I of this two-volume series, I showed that judicial review was born and grew in common law G-20 constitutional democracies and in Israel primarily: (1) when there is a need for a federalism or a separation of powers umpire, (2) when there is a rights from wrongs dynamic, (3) when there is borrowing, and (4) when the political structure of a country’s institutions leaves space within which the judiciary can operate. The countries discussed in Volume I were the following: (1) the United States, (2) Canada, (3) Australia, (4) India, (5) Israel, (6) South Africa, and (7) the United Kingdom....


Author(s):  
Ruth Gaffney-Rhys

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam and assignment questions. Each book includes key debates, typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary, and tips to gain extra marks. This chapter focuses on international relocation and child abduction. The first question is an essay question that considers the law relating to international relocation, ie how the English courts have dealt with applications to relocate out of the jurisdiction (eg Payne v Payne). The second is a problem question that requires the application of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction 1980 and the EU Regulations (BIIR), but also considers the law that applies if a child is taken to England and Wales from a country that has not ratified the Hague Convention.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document