Suchergebnisse

This report provides an overview of the Hauge Convention Implementation Legislation, included is an analysis of the provisions of the Bill.

The Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, and the conventions they produced, opened the doors—just barely—to the era of arms control. But they did so in a way that would not have been expected. Arms control can be understood as having two main branches—the quantitative and the qualitative. "Quantitative"refers to controls that permit a given category of weapons—such as batdeships, nuclear warheads, and andballistic missile systems—but restrict the number that each of the participating powers may hold. "Qualitative" refers to prohibitions on the use of specified items—such as explosive bullets, poison gas, and bacteriological weapons. Curiously, it was the matter of quantitative control—the desire to check the costs of the arms race—that led to the calling of the Hague Conferences, but their only arms control outcome concerned qualitative limitations. One can trace influences of the Hague experience in this regard on both sides of the arms control movement after World War I and more faintly after World War II, though its descent is less clear than that of the prisoner-of-war conventions and other law of war rules. The inclination of scholars and policymakers to neglect the arms control efforts made between the two world wars has tended to obscure the indirect influence of the Hague Conferences.

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.

The States Parties to the present Convention, Desiring to promote international trade and investment through enhanced judicial co-operation,Believing that such co-operation can be enhanced by uniform rules on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters,Believing that such enhanced co-operation requires in particular an international legal regime that provides certainty and ensures the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to commercial transactions and that governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments resulting from proceedings based on such agreements,