Japan unlikely to sign Hague Convention on child abduction
20th May 2010 by: David Lillywhite
The Japan Times reported on Friday that the country is unlikely to sign The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction as Japan remains divided about the advantages of signing up to the treaty.
The convention, which aims to secure the return of children unlawfully removed from their jurisdiction of habitual residence by a parent, has long been the cause of much debate. Following the election of the Democratic Party last year, Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama asked his Foreign and Justice Ministers to reach a conclusion on the issue. While many experts argue that Japan should sign the treaty, others have cited legal and cultural differences as a roadblock to its implementation.
At present, eighty-two countries are members of the Hague Convention, among them the United Kingdom, France and the United States. The Deputy Secretary General of the Hague Convention on Private International Law, William Duncan, has indicated that there is nothing stopping Japan signing the treaty.
The Japan Times article notes that there are approximately 200 active cases concerning Japanese children. Of these, thirty-eight have a connection to the United Kingdom. If Japan was to ratify the treaty it would need to create a central authority to deal specifically with the issue of child abduction as at present, these cases require the involvement of both the Foreign and Justice Ministries. The need to invest in a substantial overhaul of the infrastructure for dealing with these cases is another reason cited for Japan’s hesitation in signing the treaty.
International child abduction is an increasing problem in the United Kingdom and reflects the growing number of relationships between partners of different nationalities. It is the purpose of the Hague Convention to make sure that disputes over access are handled by the country of origin. To ensure such an application, both countries need to be signatories. Where a child is taken to a country that has not signed up to the treaty, the resident parent will generally have no legal remedy in that country to guarantee the child’s return – proceedings need to be initiated in the foreign jurisdiction which can have a significant effect on that party’s costs.
While some in Japan argue that the country should not bow to international pressure and instead take the decision to join the treaty of its own volition, signing up to the Convention would reduce the complexity of what is already a difficult process and streamline the administrative process which will in turn speed up the legal process. A child’s perception of time often varies quite significantly to that of an adult and so any potential application must move quickly to minimise any harm to the child. The Convention is certainly compatible with the legislation of England and Wales which has enshrined within it a ‘no delay’ principle under the Children Act 1989 for proceedings involving any issue regarding a child. In the event of such proceedings, this legislation provides that “the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child” making time absolutely of the essence in resolving any issue.
The convention, which aims to secure the return of children unlawfully removed from their jurisdiction of habitual residence by a parent, has long been the cause of much debate. Following the election of the Democratic Party last year, Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama asked his Foreign and Justice Ministers to reach a conclusion on the issue. While many experts argue that Japan should sign the treaty, others have cited legal and cultural differences as a roadblock to its implementation.
At present, eighty-two countries are members of the Hague Convention, among them the United Kingdom, France and the United States. The Deputy Secretary General of the Hague Convention on Private International Law, William Duncan, has indicated that there is nothing stopping Japan signing the treaty.
The Japan Times article notes that there are approximately 200 active cases concerning Japanese children. Of these, thirty-eight have a connection to the United Kingdom. If Japan was to ratify the treaty it would need to create a central authority to deal specifically with the issue of child abduction as at present, these cases require the involvement of both the Foreign and Justice Ministries. The need to invest in a substantial overhaul of the infrastructure for dealing with these cases is another reason cited for Japan’s hesitation in signing the treaty.
International child abduction is an increasing problem in the United Kingdom and reflects the growing number of relationships between partners of different nationalities. It is the purpose of the Hague Convention to make sure that disputes over access are handled by the country of origin. To ensure such an application, both countries need to be signatories. Where a child is taken to a country that has not signed up to the treaty, the resident parent will generally have no legal remedy in that country to guarantee the child’s return – proceedings need to be initiated in the foreign jurisdiction which can have a significant effect on that party’s costs.
While some in Japan argue that the country should not bow to international pressure and instead take the decision to join the treaty of its own volition, signing up to the Convention would reduce the complexity of what is already a difficult process and streamline the administrative process which will in turn speed up the legal process. A child’s perception of time often varies quite significantly to that of an adult and so any potential application must move quickly to minimise any harm to the child. The Convention is certainly compatible with the legislation of England and Wales which has enshrined within it a ‘no delay’ principle under the Children Act 1989 for proceedings involving any issue regarding a child. In the event of such proceedings, this legislation provides that “the court shall have regard to the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the child” making time absolutely of the essence in resolving any issue.
Add new comment