Views
Much-awaited draft guidelines on the grave risk exception of the Child Abduction Convention (Art. 13(1)(b)) have been submitted for approval
After years in the making, the revised HCCH draft Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Child Abduction Convention has been completed and is accessible here. It has been submitted to the governance body of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (i.e. the Council on General Affairs and Policy) for approval.
There are five exceptions under the Child Abduction Convention and this is one of them; see also Arts 12(2), 13(1)(a), 13(2) and 20 of the Convention. Under this exception, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State may refuse to return the child to his or her State of habitual residence following a wrongful removal or retention.
According to the latest survey of the Hague Conference of applications made in 2015, the refusals on the basis of Article 13(1)(b) of the Child Abduction Convention amount to 18% of the total judicial refusals. Thus, this is the most frequently raised exception. Other grounds for judicial refusal relate to the scope of the Convention (such as the lack of habitual residence or rights of custody). See the survey available here (p. 15).
Article 13(1)(b) contains the following three different types of risk:
- a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical harm;
- a grave risk that the return would expose the child to psychological harm; or
- a grave risk that the return would otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
Particularly useful for practitioners are the examples of assertions that can be raised under this exception, which include but are not limited to (see paras 53-77):
- Domestic violence against the child and / or the taking parent
- Economic or developmental disadvantages to the child upon return
- Risks associated with circumstances in the State of habitual residence
- Risks associated with the child’s health
- The child’s separation from the taking parent, where the taking parent would be unable or unwilling to return to the State of habitual residence
- Separation from the child’s sibling(s)
In my opinion, the Child Abduction Convention, and in particular this exception, can no longer be interpreted in a vacuum and one should also look to the human rights case law which is quickly developing in this area (in addition to the applicable regional regulations).
Belgian Journal of Private International Law: Cautio judicatum solvi and surrogacy (among other things)
Please see the the last issue of 2018 of the Belgian Journal of Private International Law here.
Besides the latest judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union, it also contains case law of the Belgian Constitutional Court and courts of appeal. The cases are in Dutch or French.
The judgment of the Constitutional Court (of 11 October 2018) concerned the response to a question posed to this court by the Commercial Court of Liège (p. 14 pof the issue). It involved the so-called cautio judicatum solvi. The question was whether the fact that only foreign national plaintiffs can be requested to give a warranty for costs infringes the Belgian Constitution, particularly its Articles 10 and 11 guaranteeing equality and prohibiting discrimination. The Court referred to the limitations that the Court of Justice of the EU had already set to the application of the cautio (it cannot be used against EU citizens). Moreover, the provision only applies in the absence of international conventions eliminating the cautio.The issue in this case was that Belgian plaintiffs living abroad (in Ecuador in the current instance), even if they have no assets in Belgium cannot be subjected to such warranty. The court found that the cautia juricatum solvi (Art. 851 of the Code of Civil Procedure) infringes the Constitution. The differentiation in treatment is not justifiable as it is not the plaintiff’s nationality but his or her residence outside Belgium and lack of property in Belgium that can cause the defendant to fear that he or she will not be able to recover costs. The Court left the provision intact and gave the legislator until 31 August 2019 to fix it.
* In the meantime, on 24 Januari 2019, a legislative proposal was submitted to delete the cautio judicatum solvi from the Code of Civil Procedure.
Other judgments deal with the attribution of Belgian nationality, with parentage and with the recognition of marriages.
A judgment by the Court of Appeal of Brussels (judgment of 10 August 2018) addresses the recognition of the parentage of twins born out of a surrogate mother in California (p. 15 of the issue). The Californian judgment establishing the parentage of two men (one Belgian and one French) was at issue. The Court of appeal recognised the Californian judgment, thus recognising both fathers as parents. The Court considered two grounds for refusal (under Art. 25 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law). First it found that the recognition of the judgment would not amount to a result that was manifestly contrary to public policy. The Court on the other hand found that the intending fathers did attempt to evade the law that would have been applicable, i.e. Belgian law as the intended father whose parentage was at issue had Belgian nationality (and this law governs parentage according to Art. 62 of the Belgian Code of Private International Law). However, the Court, after considering the particular situations of the children and the facts surrounding the case, found that the best interests of the children had the result that the parentage should be recognised in this case.
* See also the case note (in French) by Patrick Wautelet entitled “De l’intérêt supérieur de l’enfantcomme facteur de neutralisation de la fraude à la loi” (On the best interests of the child as a neutralising factor for evasion of the law) at p. 61 of the issue.
The U.S. Arbitration-Litigation Paradox
The U.S. Supreme Court is well-known for its liberal pro-arbitration policy. In The Arbitration-Litigation Paradox, forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review, I argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s supposedly pro-arbitration stance isn’t as pro-arbitration as it seems. This is because the Court’s hostility to litigation gets in the way of courts’ ability to support arbitration—especially international commercial arbitration.
This is the arbitration-litigation paradox in the United States: On one hand, the U.S. Supreme Court’s hostility to litigation seems to complement its pro-arbitration policy. Rising barriers to U.S. court access in general, and in particular in transnational cases (as I have explored elsewhere), seems consistent with a U.S. Supreme Court that embraces arbitration as an efficient method for enforcing disputes. Often, enforcement of arbitration clauses in these cases leads to closing off access to courts, as Myriam Gilles and others have documented.
But there’s a problem. As is perhaps obvious to experts, arbitration relies on courts—for enforcing arbitration agreements and awards, and for helping pending arbitration do what it needs to do. So closing off access to courts can close access to the litigation that supports arbitration. And indeed, recent Supreme Court cases narrowing U.S. courts’ personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants have been applied to bar arbitral award enforcement actions. Courts have also relied on forum non conveniens to dismiss award-enforcement actions.
That’s one way in which trends that limit litigation can have negative effects on the system of arbitration. But there’s another way that the Court’s hostility to litigation interacts with its pro-arbitration stance, and that’s in the arbitration cases themselves.
The Supreme Court has a busy arbitration docket, but rarely hears international commercial arbitration cases. Instead, it hears domestic arbitration cases in which it often states that the “essence” of arbitration is that it is speedy, inexpensive, individualized, and efficient—everything that litigation is not.
(As an aside, this description of the stark distinction between arbitration and litigation is widely stated, but it’s a caricature. The increasingly judicialized example of international commercial arbitration shows this is demonstrably false. As practiced today, international commercial arbitration can be neither fast, nor cheap, nor informal.)
But in the United States, arbitration law is mostly trans-substantive. That means that decisions involving consumer or employment contracts often apply equally to the next case involving insurance contracts or international commercial contracts.
In the paper, I argue that the Court’s tendency to focus on arbitration’s “essential” characteristics, and to enforce these artificial distinctions between arbitration and litigation, can be harmful for the next case involving international commercial arbitration. It could undermine the likelihood of enforcement of arbitration awards where the arbitral procedure resembled litigation or deviated from the Court’s vision of the “essential virtues” of arbitration.
To prevent this result, I argue that any revisions of the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act should pay special attention not only to fixing the rules about consumer and employment arbitration, but also to making sure that international commercial arbitration is properly supported. In the meantime, lower federal courts should pay no heed to the Supreme Court’s seeming devotion to enforcing false distinctions between arbitration and litigation, particularly in the international commercial context.
News
Chinese Journal of Transnational Law Special Issue Call for Papers
The appeal of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms is on the rise and so is also the pull to prevent international disputes from arising altogether. In the area of cross-border commercial and investment disputes, the renewed interest in the interface between dispute prevention and alternative dispute resolution springs from a growing awareness of the need to overcome the shortcomings of arbitration. This is shown by the recent setting up of a series of new ‘global labs’ in international commercial resolution provided with new diversified and integrated commercial dispute resolution mechanisms linking ‘mediation, arbitration and litigation’ in recent years. Equally indicative of this trend is the entering into force of the UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (The Singapore Convention) in September 2020 and that ‘dispute prevention and mitigation’ has become one of the most dynamic focal points for UNCITRAL Working Group III mandated with examining the reform of investor-state dispute settlement.
However, the contemporary move towards devising more effective preventive ‘cooling off’ mechanisms, increasing the transnational appeal of mediation and, when feasible, sidestepping altogether the need to resort to third-party judicialized processes is not unique to international commercial and investor-state dispute resolution. At a time of backlash against international courts and tribunals, prevention and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms are gaining momentum across both established and emerging areas of public, private and economic international law.
Against this background, the inaugural issue of the Chinese Journal of Transnational Law to be published in 2024 invites submissions that engage critically with the on-going transformation of the transnational dispute settlement system in an increasingly multipolar international legal order in which a paradigm shift away from the Western-model of international adversarial legalism and towards de facto de-judicialization is arguably gaining hold.
Topics on which the contributions could focus on include, but are not limited to:
*Transnational Dispute Prevention and Settlement in international trade law
*Transnational Dispute Prevention and Settlement in emerging areas: cyberspace, outerspace etc.
* Transnational Dispute Prevention and Settlement in international environmental law
* Transnational Dispute Prevention and Settlement in international commercial disputes
*Transnational Dispute Prevention and Settlement in Investor-State dispute settlement
*Transnational Inter-State Dispute Prevention and Settlement in inter-state disputes under general public international law
Contributors may choose between: Research articles (up to 11,000 words inclusive of footnotes) or short articles (up to 6,000s inclusive of footnotes). Those interested, please submit your contribution before 31 Aug 2023 through the journal homepage.
UNCCA Seminar on the New York Convention
The UNCITRAL National Coordination Committee for Australia (UNCCA) is an organisation comprised of members of the Australian legal community, dedicated to promoting the work of The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) in Australia.
UNCCA invites you to our 8th annual May Seminar in Canberra celebrating the 75th anniversary of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Join us for a full day conference to celebrate this anniversary whilst learning about the work of UNCITRAL and its Working Groups. We welcome Justice Kevin Lyons KC (Supreme Court of Victoria) as our keynote speaker. Our panels will include presentations by Bronwyn Lincoln (Partner, , Thomson Geer), Romesh Weeramantry (Special Counsel, Clifford Chance), Drossos Stamboulakis (Barrister, Senior Lecturer, Monash University), Dr. Benjamin Hayward (Senior Lecturer, Monash Business School). The Attorney General’s Department will also provide a presentation on their work on international trade law.
This seminar promises to be an exciting full-day event hosted at the Ann Harding Centre, located at 24 University Drive South, Bruce ACT 2617 on the 26th of May 2023. The event will likely run from 8:30am until 4pm, with lunch included. Online attendance will also be available for our May Seminar, however, in-person participation is strongly encouraged.
You can register for tickets using this link.
Lecture on Private International Law and Voices of Children, organized in cooperation with ConflictofLaws.net
Online event
When making decisions, adults should think about how their decisions will affect children. Recent years have witnessed, in private international law cases and legislation, the protection of children is increasingly mingled with gender, indigenous issues, refugees, violence, war, surrogacy technology, etc. This is evidenced by the US Supreme Court 2022 judgment Golan v. Saada, the Australian case Secretary, Department of Communities & Justice v Bamfield, the 2023 German Constitutional Court decision, the Chinese Civil Code, the Australia Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Amendment (Family Violence) Regulations 2022, and developments at the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH Children Conventions) and the United Nations (Convention on the Rights of the Child and its additional Protocols).
On this International Children’s Day, let us join this CAPLUS webinar in cooperation with conflictoflaws.net and American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group to hear voices of children in private international law.
Speakers
- Ms. Anna Mary Coburn
After 22-years of public service as a U.S. Department of State Attorney-Advisor for Children’s Issues as well as a USAID Regional Legal Advisor/Senior Advisor for Children/Youth in Conflict, Anna has transitioned to practicing international family law with a focus on child rights cases and issues.
- Mr. Philippe Lortie
Philippe is co-head of the International Family and Child Protection Law Division at the Hague Conference on Private International Law Permanent Bureau and has more than 30 years’ experience in the field of child protection.
- Dr. Miranda Kaye
Dr Miranda Kaye is an academic at the Faculty of Law in the University of Technology Sydney in Australia and a member of Hague Mothers, a project aiming to end the injustices created by the Hague Child Abduction Convention. She also has experience in the public service (Law Commission of England and Wales) and as a practicing solicitor (family law in the UK).
- Professor Lukas Rademacher
Lukas is a Professor of Private Law, Private International Law, and Comparative Law in Kiel, Germany. He studied law at the Universities of Düsseldorf and Oxford, and received his PhD at the University of Münster. He wrote his postdoctoral thesis at the University of Cologne.
- Ms. Haitao Ye
Haitao is a lawyer at the Shanghai Office of the Beijing Dacheng Law LLP specializing in marriage and family dispute resolution, family wealth inheritance and management. She is a former experienced judge in civil and commercial trials at the Shanghai Pudong New District People’s Court in China.
Moderators/commentators
• Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang (Associate Professor at Sydney Law School, University of Sydney)
Thursday 1 June, 6-7.30pm AEST
(4-5.30am Washington D.C./9-10:30am London/10-11.30am the Hague/4-5.30pm Beijing)
Free admissions can be registered here.
This event is proudly co-presented by the Centre for Asian and Pacific Law at the University of Sydney, conflictoflaws.net and the American Society of International Law Private International Law Interest Group.