Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

Lara Walker, Paul Reid Beaumont

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article discusses the diverging case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the child abduction aspects of the EU Brussels IIa Regulation. It does this by analysing the two latest decisions from these courts, Raban and Aguirre Zarraga. It is considered that the European Court of Human Rights is placing too much emphasis on the best interests of the child, while the European Court of Justice is relying too much on the principle of mutual trust and neglecting human rights. The inconsistency between these two major courts needs to be rectified in order to protect the uniform interpretation of the Convention and an appropriate application of the Regulation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)231-249
Number of pages19
JournalJournal of Private International Law
Volume7
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 10 Aug 2011

Fingerprint

abduction
European Court of Justice
human rights
regulation
case law
EU
interpretation

Keywords

  • child abduction
  • Court of Justice of the European Union, European Court of Human Rights
  • right to be heard
  • best interests of the child

Cite this

Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention : The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. / Walker, Lara; Beaumont, Paul Reid.

In: Journal of Private International Law, Vol. 7, No. 2, 10.08.2011, p. 231-249.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ce833bc8441c41f6bc1f1f583a7bbf3c,
title = "Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice",
abstract = "This article discusses the diverging case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the child abduction aspects of the EU Brussels IIa Regulation. It does this by analysing the two latest decisions from these courts, Raban and Aguirre Zarraga. It is considered that the European Court of Human Rights is placing too much emphasis on the best interests of the child, while the European Court of Justice is relying too much on the principle of mutual trust and neglecting human rights. The inconsistency between these two major courts needs to be rectified in order to protect the uniform interpretation of the Convention and an appropriate application of the Regulation.",
keywords = "child abduction, Court of Justice of the European Union, European Court of Human Rights, right to be heard , best interests of the child",
author = "Lara Walker and Beaumont, {Paul Reid}",
year = "2011",
month = "8",
day = "10",
doi = "10.5235/174410411796868689",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "231--249",
journal = "Journal of Private International Law",
issn = "1744-1048",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention

T2 - The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

AU - Walker, Lara

AU - Beaumont, Paul Reid

PY - 2011/8/10

Y1 - 2011/8/10

N2 - This article discusses the diverging case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the child abduction aspects of the EU Brussels IIa Regulation. It does this by analysing the two latest decisions from these courts, Raban and Aguirre Zarraga. It is considered that the European Court of Human Rights is placing too much emphasis on the best interests of the child, while the European Court of Justice is relying too much on the principle of mutual trust and neglecting human rights. The inconsistency between these two major courts needs to be rectified in order to protect the uniform interpretation of the Convention and an appropriate application of the Regulation.

AB - This article discusses the diverging case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the child abduction aspects of the EU Brussels IIa Regulation. It does this by analysing the two latest decisions from these courts, Raban and Aguirre Zarraga. It is considered that the European Court of Human Rights is placing too much emphasis on the best interests of the child, while the European Court of Justice is relying too much on the principle of mutual trust and neglecting human rights. The inconsistency between these two major courts needs to be rectified in order to protect the uniform interpretation of the Convention and an appropriate application of the Regulation.

KW - child abduction

KW - Court of Justice of the European Union, European Court of Human Rights

KW - right to be heard

KW - best interests of the child

U2 - 10.5235/174410411796868689

DO - 10.5235/174410411796868689

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 231

EP - 249

JO - Journal of Private International Law

JF - Journal of Private International Law

SN - 1744-1048

IS - 2

ER -