Search

The aim of this article is to critically examine the universalisation of treaties such as the Hague Convention to highlight the tension it brings out between women's rights and children's rights by blindsiding gender-related issues and cultural realities. Written in the context of Ariha Shah in Germany and the Bhattacharya case in Norway, this article aims to map the landscape of international child abduction and repatriation attempts by parents in India, as well as the Indian legislative attempt to tackle the issue of abduction through the draft of the Civil Aspects of International Parental Abduction Bill, 2016. Viewed critically through a child rights perspective, the article considers whether the positioning of the Abduction Bill from a feminist viewpoint does justice to the agency of children involved, and makes recommendations on how their position can be strengthened further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Brussels IIb Regulation, dealing with proceedings in matrimonial matters, those of parental responsibility and international child abduction cases, is the newest instrument of the European Union in international family law. The article critically evaluates its most significant changes compared to its predecessor, the Brussels IIa Regulation, in the fields of jurisdiction and of recognition and enforcement. In addition, it analyses how the Brussels IIb Regulation optimises the provisions of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction between the member states of the European Union. The article argues that the regulation is overall a helpful and welcome addition to international family law because it strengthens the welfare of the child and enhances the practical functionality and normative structure of its predecessor. Nevertheless, scope for further improvements in another recast regulation is identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In cases brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) and its implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), the foremost concern is whether a wrongfully removed child may be safely repatriated into their country of habitual residence. When courts determine there is a "grave risk of harm" facing the child upon their return, the key inquiry becomes whether courts are required to identify and analyze any potential "ameliorative measures" that could be imposed to ensure the safety of the child. The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Golan v. Saada to resolve the circuit split concerning the proper consideration of ameliorative measures in these cases. The Court's 2022 opinion held state and federal courts have discretion to analyze ameliorative measures in cases where there is a "grave risk of harm" to the child. To guide future courts in exercising this discretion, the Court opined that courts ordinarily should address ameliorative measures raised by parents or as evidenced by the circumstances of the case. Specifically, courts should consider whether ameliorative measures are (1) intended to prioritize the child's physical and psychological safety, (2) without usurping the role of foreign countries in resolving the underlying custody issues, and (3) while moving as "expeditiously as possible.". In the year since the Golan opinion was released, courts are already grappling with how to interpret the Supreme Court's guidance. The Hague Convention and ICARA are notably silent on procedural matters, leaving courts with wide discretion on how to adjudicate child abduction cases. The gap in the plain language of the Hague Convention, ICARA, and existing case law is particularly amplified when analyzing cases where the taking parent is a victim of domestic violence. This Article surveys cases decided prior to and following Golan and advances a proposed two-stage judicial framework for court proceedings to promote consistent and expedient adjudication of international child abduction cases. Initially, a court should expedite the case, enter a case management order after consideration of written proofs of the parties, make a finding of whether the abducted child has been exposed to domestic violence, and appoint an attorney for the child. This Article argues that further consideration of ameliorative measures is not necessary in cases where the court initially finds that a child has been exposed to or is a victim of domestic violence. At the final trial, the court should contemporaneously determine the separate issues of (1) whether the petitioner establishes a prima facie case, (2) if so, whether the respondent can establish the child faces a "grave risk of harm" if returned, and (3) in cases without a preliminary finding of domestic violence, whether there are enforceable protective measures that can ameliorate that risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The suspension of the enforcement of a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and EU law, as well as the admissibility of modifying such an order, remains one of the most sensitive matters in cross-border family disputes. The article analyses EU Council Regulations 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa) and 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb) in terms of the objectives set by the EU legislator: strengthening the protection of the interests of the child and mutual trust of Member States in their justice systems. The text also refers to Polish law as an example of the evolution of the approach to the analysed issues. It presents its development, highlights the solutions concerning the competences of the Ombudsman for Children, and provides an assessment of the current legal situation in the context of Brussels IIb. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction aims to protect children from international abduction and establish uniform procedures to ensure prompt return to their habitual country. The Convention requires judges to weigh the divergent goals of protecting children and respecting state sovereignty when the taking-parent alleges grave risk to the child. This Note focuses on the difficulty American courts have when determining whether there is a sufficiently grave risk to a child, particularly when judges must consider cultural attributes of the habitual state. This Note advocates that American courts abandon application of ameliorative measures and consideration of protective abilities to better protect victims of abuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article addresses the social management of legal figures in trials for female abduction. The chosen setting corresponds to the Maule province, in the central zone of Chile, during the first half of the 19th century. In this context of "justice of proximity" the research aims are to analyze the relationship between the use of these legal resources and the social interests that motivated them. The investigation examined a sample of 16 court records for female abduction, selecting a representative case study. The work contributes to the discussion on judicialization of intra-family conflicts in contexts of proximity justice. It emphasizes the links between pre-existing interests and practical knowledge of women litigants, to understand the origin and course that this type of trial had. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses that U.S. international family law litigation involves the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Abduction Convention) and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA). It mentions Abduction Convention operates to promptly return children to their habitual residence. It also mentions removal or retention is only wrongful if the left-behind parent had a right of custody.

Adopted on October 24, 1980, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was designed to address the problem of international parental child abduction. More than 90 States are contracting parties to the Convention, making it one of the most important and successful family law instruments completed under the auspices of the Hague Convention on private international law. The Convention places a premium on prompt return in circumstances where a child was removed from one jurisdiction by a parent – the jurisdiction of "habitual residence" – in breach of the custody rights of the "left behind" parent. Once returned, custody can be determined by the relevant authorities in the jurisdiction of habitual residence. Habitual residence is central to the operation of the Convention, since the return mechanism in art. Twelve will only be triggered when a child is wrongfully removed from their State of habitual residence. The Supreme Court of Canada applies the "hybrid approach" to determining habitual residence, which treats the circumstances of the children and the intentions of the parties as factors to be considered in achieving a just result which fulfills the objectives of the Hague Convention. Under the hybrid approach, the court has the task of determining the focal point of the child's life immediately prior to the removal or retention. The child's perspective is thereby put squarely at the centre of Convention applications. Canada's approach represents an evolution from the formalism of early cases to a recognition that the best interests of children generally is not a substitute for the best interests of the particular children before the court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides a primer on the Hague Convention on international child abductions and the court case Monasky v. Taglieri which addressed the subject of habitual residence. Topics discussed include a brief background of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the affirmative defenses under the Hague Convention, and the three ways developed by U.S. courts that lead to a child's habitual residence.

While creating a new notion of everyday life, the COVID-19 pandemic also affects the resolution of cross-border family disputes, including the international child abduction cases. The return of an abducted child to the country of his or her habitual residence is challenged by travel restrictions, international border closures, quarantine measures, but also by closed courts or cancelled hearings. Those new circumstances that befell the whole world underline two issues considering child abduction proceedings. The first one considers access to justice in terms of a mere possibility of the applicant to initiate the return proceeding and, where the procedure is initiated, in terms of the manner of conducting the procedure. The legislation requires a quick initiation and a summary resolution of child abduction proceedings, which is crucial to ensuring the best interests and well-being of a child. This includes the obligation of the court to hear both the child and the applicant. Secondly, it is to be expected that COVID-19 will be used as a reason for child abduction and increasingly as justification for issuing non-return orders seen as a "grave risk" to the child under Article 13(1)(b) of the Child Abduction Convention. By analysing court practice from the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020 to March 2021, the research will investigate how the pandemic has affected child abduction proceedings in Croatia. Available national practice of other contracting states will also be examined. The aim of the research is to evaluate whether there were obstacles in accessing the national competent authorities and courts during the COVID-19 pandemic, and in which manner the courts conducted the proceedings and interpreted the existence of the pandemic in the context of the grave risk of harm exception. The analyses of Croatian and other national practices will be used to gain an overall insight into the effectiveness of the emerging guidance and suggest their possible broadening in COVID-19 circumstances or any other future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A key interpretation and application issue in the scheme of Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention is whether judges should investigate first the merits of the defence before considering whether protective measures are adequate or whether they should first consider the adequacy of protective measures. There is no generally accepted international practice nor is there clear authority on the appropriate or preferred approach. This article argues that judges should always undertake an effective examination of the allegations of domestic violence first before considering whether, if there is merit to the allegations and they are substantiated, adequate protective measures can sufficiently ameliorate the grave risk of harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

First, the article addresses the claims that Allen and Pardo make on the abductive nature of fact-finding in the framework of relative plausibility, and it considers also whether abduction and inference to the best explanation (IBE) can be taken as the same. Second, the article addresses the critique that IBE/relative plausibility is too weak to comply with the criminal standard of proof. On these issues the article argues that it is inappropriate to equate abduction and IBE (the former is just a component of the latter), which also means that the relative plausibility account is better construed as an IBE claim rather than as abduction; and it argues that the relative plausibility account survives the critique based on the criminal standard of proof, because, simply put, fact-finders need to consider whether the best explanation of the evidence meets the relevant standard of proof. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on U.S. international family law litigation involves the Child Abduction Convention (CAC) and its implementing legislation, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. It mentions CAC operates to promptly return children to their habitual residence and parties agreed to change the child's habitual residence, the court must often sort through conflicting testimony. It also mentions nonabducting parent is clearly on notice that the abducting parent.

The protection of children’s rights constitutes the subject matter of various private international law instruments within both the international and the EU frameworks. The paper focuses on their relevant provisions regarding child abduction, which pose a number of problematic issues as to their interpretation and practical application. Against the existing background, future legislative developments are assessed with a view to proposing a provisional evaluation as to their effectiveness and actual improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Hague Child Abduction Convention aims to secure the speedy return of abducted children. Judges can use a limited number of grounds for refusal. They may not make an in-depth assessment of the merits of any custody issue. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. This article analyses the use that judges make in their decisions on the concept of “the best interests of the child”. For this purpose it scrutinizes the case law on international child abduction of the Netherlands and England and Wales. By using software designed for qualitative research, the authors are able to make an objective and systematic analysis. This article confirms the hypothesis that the concept of the best interests of the child is often used without substance, and sometimes only to endorse conclusions that would have possibly been reached in any event. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses how location and forced movement are defined under robbery abduction enhancement provisions within the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Topics discussed include provisions of the U.S. Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) related to robbery abduction enhancement; circuit split and approaches used by the circuits; and distinction between sentencing enhancements for robbery crimes involving abduction and physical restraint.

In becoming a signatory to The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, the United States agreed to expeditiously return all internationally abducted children to the country of their habitual residence, such that that nation may determine the merits of any underlying custody disputes. The Convention failed, however, to instruct American courts as to how to determine a child's habitual residence. This has resulted in a split among circuits as to whether habitual residence should be determined using objective evidence of the child's perspective, subjective evidence of parental intent, or some combination. In 2017, the Eighth Circuit held in Cohen v. Cohen that a child's habitual residence should be determined according to the child's perspective with some, albeit lesser, deference given to parental intent. This Comment argues that American courts should adopt a uniform approach to determining a child's habitual residence by examining objective, child-centered evidence regarding habitual residency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to apply equitable tolling to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act's (ICARA) one year filing period in Lozano vs. Montoya Alvarez is an unconstitutional violation of the due process rights of the custodial parent. Topics discussed include the creation of ICARA, how equitable tolling is a matter of procedural due process, and how parental rights are protected as a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment.

It has been more than three decades since the international community attempted to address international parental child abduction through the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention. Despite this, the problem persists and, indeed, has been exacerbated by an increasing number of removals to countries that have not yet acceded to the Convention. One such non-signatory country is India, where the courts have applied the domestic law to treat wrongful removal disputes as custody disputes based on the criteria of the best interest of the child or the welfare of the child, in contrast to the return-based approach of the Convention. This research paper seeks to map Indian law in this area and critiques India's first attempt at accession to the Convention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the prevention of international child abduction. Topics discussed include issues surrounding international child abduction, both around the globe and European Union, along with laws governing the same; ways for adopting and implementing the Great Britain's preventative measures effectively; and enactment of Child Abduction and domestic laws and international agreements governing the same.

The article talks about purpose of the Hague Child Abduction Convention , a treaty aimed to prevent parents from wrongfully removing their child to another country, to retain custody of the child in an American court. Topics discussed include misinterpretation of the Convention in the U.S. court case "Janakis-Kosten v. Janakis;" the convention's purpose is to protect the interests and safety of the child; and intent to ensure the safety of the abducted child.

The article discusses the various court cases related to internal abduction with comparison of laws regarding child abduction in Great Britain and New Zealand. It reports on Kacem v Bashir case in the New Zealand Supreme Court on child's relocation disputes, and Kaufusi v Klavenes case in which the court is tempted to adopt international abduction principles.

This article reflects on both the current operation and potential future application of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In particular, it explores the significance of the 'grave risk' exception contained in Article 13(1)(b) for cases of alleged domestic violence. The deliberations of an international working group (of which the author is a member) tasked with developing a Guide to Good Practice on the interpretation and application of Article 13(1)(b) highlight some of the profound difficulties in finding a way forward on this important issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past few years, the number of cases involving international child abduction has risen significantly. But the primary purpose of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is to protect children against wrongful removal or retention by one parent against the will of the other parent. Under the Convention, the relevant courts are charged with determining where the child's habitual residence is and whether the child should be returned to the left-behind country. However, in making this determination, courts have faced criticism due to the lack of consideration for the child's best interests, an international principle typically mandated for any action concerning children. This Comment examines past scholarship on reconciling the child's best interests principle and the Convention before furthering current understandings through the examination of two other international procedures involving children. This Comment offers another solution to the conflict between the child's best interests principle and the Hague Convention on Child Abduction by drawing from the Hague Adoption Convention and the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Guidelines, both of which require a central authority figure to provide a neutral consideration of what is best for the child in the situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article contains the final findings from a research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted by the authors on “Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction”. Such “conflicts” were deliberately created by the EU legislature when it created a power in Article 11(6)-(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation for the courts of the habitual residence to insist on the return of a child that has been abducted after a court in the State where the child was abducted to has refused to return the child on the basis of one of the exceptions to the duty to return provided for in Article 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. It will reveal how infrequently used and largely ineffective the Article 11(6)-(8) system is and will make proposals for law reform in the current revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Around the world, an increasing number of married couples have at least one person who is not a citizen of their spouse's country. The global growth in transnational families has necessitated the development of international legal agreements to address issues that have arisen upon the dissolution of these relationships. Of particular note to feminist scholars has been the issue of domestic violence in these relationships and how these circumstances are addressed under international agreements such as the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In 2013, Japan became the last of the major industrialized countries to sign on to the Hague Convention. This comparative, case-based policy analysis centers concerns about domestic violence in the development and implementation of the Hague Convention in Japan and the United States. Although Japan has a much shorter legislative history regarding domestic violence (DV), it has taken a much stronger position about DV in its adoption of the Hague Convention. Based on this analysis we propose methods for addressing domestic violence in Hague cases in both countries that prioritize the safety needs of abused mothers and their children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This narrative offers an alternative Jewish Israeli 'duration' of the abduction described by Dalsheim. It agrees that the weight of past experience shapes both present perception and future imagination, reproducing the sense of 'intractable' conflict but argues that subjective and collective experience is mediated by what C. Wright Mills called the 'cultural apparatus'. Taking the case of Israeli Jews who work in solidarity with Palestinian activists, some of whom were raised in extremely right-wing Zionist backgrounds, it shows how subjectivity is shaped by the 'received interpretations' of others. More significantly, it shows how this acculturated sense of self can be transcended by the human faculties described by Hannah Arendt as thinking and judging. Drawing upon his own experiences with these activists in the summer of 2014, the author argues as a sign of hope, that thinking and judging enable a divestment of received interpretations of the cultural apparatus, which define and reproduce the conflict as intractable. Sadly, this duration also describes a period when thinking outside the collective became taboo and Jewish compassion for the deaths of Palestinian women and children was vilified and violently opposed by fellow Jewish countrymen and women. With Israel's cultural apparatus unable to accommodate compassion, there may indeed always be a Gaza War. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case "Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez." It reports in the case the court held that of the Hague Convention of International Child Abduction's Article Twelve's one year deadline is not subject to equitable tolling because equitable tolling is contrary to the intent of the parties to the Convention.

The article reports the failure of the U.S. in returning abducted children to their parents in other countries due to practical and legal issues in international and domestic laws as well as the practical aspects of family law courts in the U.S.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses several reports published within issue on topics including Court's Parens Patriae obligations, the Hague Convention on child abduction, and Russia's ban on child adoptions by U.S. citizens.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the U.S. legislative framework concerning the parenting time adjustment in child support awards. Topics discussed include the shared custody of child. laws regarding the shared custody adjustment in different U.S. states; child support guidelines; and income-shares child support guideline.

The article examines the U.S. legislative framework concerning the shared custody of child. Topics discussed include different laws regarding the shared custody adjustment in different U.S. states; child support guidelines; shared custody laws in Maryland and New Jersey; and income-shares child support guideline.

The article discusses how Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is better than the abduction convention concerning international adduction of children. Topics discussed include laws regarding international movement of children; 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; and enactment of the UCCJEA in the U.S. as measures for the protection of children.

Abduction (ἀπαγωγή, in ancient Greek, often translated as “leading away” or “reduction”) is a procedure in which something that lacks classical explanatory epistemic virtue can be accepted because it has virtue of another kind: Gabbay and Woods [15] contend (GW-schema) that abduction presents an ignorance-preserving or (ignorance-mitigating) character. From this perspective abductive reasoning is a response to an ignorance-problem; through abduction the basic ignorance – that does not have to be considered a total “ignorance” – is neither solved nor left intact. Abductive reasoning is an ignorance-preserving accommodation of the problem at hand. Is abduction really ignorance-preserving? To better answer this question I will introduce (and take advantage of) an eco-cognitive model (EC-Model) of abduction. It will be illustrated that through abduction, knowledge can be enhanced, even when abduction is not considered an inference to the best explanation in the classical sense of the expression, that is an inference necessarily characterized by an empirical evaluation phase, or an inductive phase, as Peirce called it. To further deepen the eco-cognitive character of abduction a simple genealogy of logic is provided: Aristotle clearly states that in syllogistic theory local/environmental cognitive factors – external to that peculiar inferential process, for example regarding users/reasoners, are given up. Indeed, to define syllogism Aristotle first of all insists that all syllogisms are valid and contends that the necessity of this kind of reasoning is related to the circumstance that “no further term from outside (ἔξωθɛν) is needed”, in sum syllogism is the fruit of a kind of eco-cognitive immunization . At the same time Aristotle presents a seminal perspective on abduction: the second part of the article considers the famous passage in Chapter B25 of Prior Analytics concerning ἀπαγωγή (“leading away”), also studied by Peirce. I contend that some of the current well-known distinctive characters of abductive cognition are already expressed, which are in tune with the EC-Model. By providing an illustration of the role of the method of analysis and of the middle terms in Plato's dialectic argumentation, considered as related to the diorismic/poristic process in ancient geometry – also, later on, emphasized by Proclus – I maintain that it is just this intellectual heritage which informs Aristotle' Chapter B25 on ἀπαγωγή. Even if, in general, Aristotle seems to sterilize, thanks to the invention of syllogistic theory, every “dialectic” background of reasoning, nevertheless in Chapter B25 he is still pointing to the fundamental inferential role in reasoning of those externalities that substantiate the process of “leading away” (ἀπαγωγή). Hence, we can gain a new positive perspective about the “constitutive” eco-cognitive character of abduction, just thanks to Aristotle himself. Finally, the paper presents an excursus on Aristotle's enthymemes from signs, disregarded by Peirce, but extremely important to stress the Aristotelian treatment of what I have called selective abduction . A forthcoming companion paper [35] will further deepen the EC-Model of abduction stressing stricter logical aspects: the first result will be that, contrarily to the classical logical view, relevance and plausibility in abductive reasoning have to be relativized and so the epistemologically embarrassing concepts of irrelevance and implausibility exculpated: they are not always offensive to reason. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We can witness the recent surge of interest in classifying different patterns or types of abduction. Many philosophers have suggested their own classifications emphasizing different aspects of abduction. Such a development is remarkable, in view of the fact that until quite recently the focus of the research on Peircean abduction was to identify its logical form. Another agenda in the recent attempts to classify abduction is whether to allow non-explanatory abductions. In order to resolve these two closely related issues, I propose to examine how Peirce would have responded to them. In particular, I suggest to do this in connection with Peirce's another life-long project, the classification of sciences. In this examination, it will be shown that Peirce struggled with the problem of conflating induction and abduction. I shall discuss how this problem influenced both Peirce's views on the interrelationship between abduction, deduction, and induction on the one hand, and his many classifications of sciences on the other. Also, the implication of the fundamental change in Peirce's views of abduction, deduction, and induction to the problem of the classification of sciences will be uncovered. Finally, I shall discuss whether inference to the best explanation is abduction. Insofar as this problem has bearing on the two controversial issues in classifying abduction, my negative answer will demonstrate that classifying abduction is yet to get off the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction, which operates through the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) in the U.S. Topics discussed include the U.S. United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 'Cantor v. Cohen;' aims of the Hague Convention; and need of amendment to the Hague Convention that would prevent decisions in which federal courts dismiss visitation claims under ICARA for lack of jurisdiction.

The article examine the AMBER Alert or a Child Abduction Emergency, a child abduction alert system in the U.S., mentions the failure of the system aimed to children's wellbeing and safety, and reports the dangers of overselling the program.

The objective of this article is to discuss and analyse the practice of Brazil in complying with the obligations imposed by articles 7 and 21 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, in the light of the new recommendations of the Hague Conference regarding the use of mediation and other alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms. This work first presents an overview of this Hague treaty, explaining its mechanisms and objectives and briefly discussing some of the main problems regarding its implementation. It then analyses why and how the use of ADR in child abduction cases has been addressed by the Hague Conference and goes on to explain the implementation of the Convention in Brazil: main actors, procedures, and problems faced during the first 10 years of its application (2002-2012). Finally, it addresses the use of ADR in child abduction cases in Brazil, discussing its main advantages, disadvantages, limitations and conformity with the national legal framework and analysing the role of the Central Authority in promoting voluntary agreements. Based on statistics of the Brazilian Central Authority, which shows that a high number of international child abduction disputes are solved by agreements, either before or after adjudication, it is concluded that Brazil should invest on the improvement on the use of ADR in Hague cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the findings of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry Human Rights in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which reflected the crimes of abduction or enforced disappearance of South Korean citizens by the government of North Korea during Korean War.

The article look at the scope and judicial use of international comity in the interpretation and application of the Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980 in the U.S. Topic discussed include use of number of bilateral and multilateral treaties as instrument for governing the recognition of foreign judgments, judicial use of comity in abduction convention cases and objectives of the abduction convention.