Parental Responsibility and Children Protection: The 1996 Hague Convention vs. the 1993 Minsk Convention
Abstract
The article analyses comparatively universal and regional mechanisms, aimed at children`s rights protection, namely, the 1996 Hague Convention and the 1993 Minsk Convention (CIS). Both legal instruments create measures for the children`s best interests protection in international or cross-border conflicts between the parents, including such issues as recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning the children made by the competent judicial (primarily) and administrative authorities of one of the Member State within the territory of another. This article argues that the 1996 Hague Convention has a wider range of opportunities to protect the children`s rights, than the 1993 Minsk Convention. However, 1993 Minsk Convention remains important as most of the CIS Member States are not yet Contracting Parties to the 1996 Hague Convention. Russia, however, is a Contracting Party to both these Conventions although it has two separate Authorities to apply them. In cases falling within either Convention, it is argues that the Russian competent authorities should apply, as per 1996 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties the ‘later treaty’.
References
[2] Abashidze, A.Kh., Gugunsky, D.A., Koneva, A.E., Solntsev, A.M. 2014. Foreign experience of the application of the 1996 Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. Eurasian Law Journal, 8, 81-87.
[3] Abashidze, A.K., Gugunskiy, D.A., Koneva, A.E., Simonova, M.A., Solntsev, A.M. 2015a. Current problems of interstate cooperation of the Russian Federation for the protection of children in case of disputes between parents living in different states. Asian Social Science, 11(14), 337-342.
[4] Abashidze, A.K., Solntsev, A.M., Koneva, A.E., Gugunskiy, D.A., Grigorieva, N.A. 2015b. Current issues of application of Hague Child Protection Convention of 1996 on national level. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(4), 289-298.
[5] Atkinson, J. 2011. The meaning of habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children. Oklahoma Law Review, 63, 647-662.
[6] Beaumont, P., Trimmings, K., Walker, L., Holliday, J. 2015. Child abduction: Recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 64(1), 39-63.
[7] Bruch, C.S. 1994. The central authority`s role under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: A friend in deed. Family Law Quarterly, 28(1), 35.
[8] Dehart, G.F. 2000. The Relationship between the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Protection Convention. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 1, 83.
[9] Fiorini, A.I. 2012. Habitual residence and the new-born – a French perspective. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 61(2), 530-540.
[10] Garbolino, J.D. 2015. The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A guide for judges. In Federal Judicial Centre International Litigation Guide. Second Edition. Federal Judicial Centre.
[11] George, R. 2014. Children's state of mind and habitual residence in abduction cases. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36(3), 311-313.
[12] González, M.N. 2015. International parental child abduction and mediation. Anuario Mexicano de Derecho Internacional, 15(1), 353-412.
[13] Gration, M., Curry-Sumner, I., Williams, Q.C.D., Setright, Q.C.H., Wright, M. 2015. International issues in family law. The 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Brussels IIa. Bristol: Jordan Publishing.
[14] HCCH. 34: Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid=70 (accessed April 18, 2018).
[15] Heri, C., and Keller, H. 2015. Protecting the best interests of the child: International child abduction and the European Court of Human Rights. Nordic Journal of International Law, 84(2), 270-296.
[16] Jacobsen, A.F. 2016. Children's rights in the European Court of Human Rights - An emerging power structure. International Journal of Children's Rights, 24(3), 548-574.
[17] Jolly, S. 2017. International parental child abduction: An explorative analysis of legal standards and judicial interpretation in India. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31(1), 20-40.
[18] Lowe, N.V., Everall, M., and Nicholls, M. 2016. International movement of children: Law, practice and procedure. Second Edition. London: Family Law.
[19] Lowe, N.V., and Nicholls, M. 2012. The 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children. London: Family Law.
[20] Lowe, N.V., and Stephens, V. 2012. Global trends in the operation of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention. Family Law Quarterly, 46(1), 41-85.
[21] McEleavy, P. 2015. The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising return or reflection? Netherlands International Law Review, 62(3), 365-405.
[22] Melcher, C.C. 2013. The role of the mental health professional in assessing grave risk of harm under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. Journal of Child Custody, 10(3-4), 236-251.
[23] Ong, D.S.L. 2007. Parental child abduction in Singapore: The experience of a non-convention country. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 21(2), 220-241.
[24] Perez–Vera, E. 1982. Explanatory report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. In Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980). Tome III, Child abduction. Hague: Hague Conference on Private International Law.
[25] Pirrung, J. 2012. Improvements to international child protection as a result of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention. International Family Law, Special Issue.
[26] Rains, R.E. (Ed.). 2014. The 1980 Hague Abduction Convention: Comparative aspects. London: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing.
[27] Scarano, N. 2016. Protection of children and the 1996 Hague convention. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 38(2), 205-207.
[28] Siehr, K. 2012. The 1996 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and its application in the EU and the world. International Family Law.
[29] Yamaguchi, S., and Lindhorst, T. 2016. Domestic violence and the implementation of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: Japan and the U.S. policy. Journal of International Women's Studies, 17(4), 16-30.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.