The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: prioritising return or reflection?

Peter McEleavy

doi:10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z

The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: prioritising return or reflection?

Peter McEleavy (Lead / Corresponding author)

Dundee Law School

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

490 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	365-405
Number of pages	41
Journal	Netherlands International Law Review
Volume	62
Issue number	3
Early online date	5 Nov 2015
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z
Publication status	Published - Dec 2015

Keywords

International child abduction
European Convention, Article 8
European Court of Human Rights
1980 Hague Convention
UNCRC 1989
Best interests
Neulinger v. Switzerland
X v. Latvia

Access to Document

10.1007/s40802-015-0040-zLicence: CC BY

Final published version
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://?creativecommons.?org/?licenses/?by/?4.?0/?), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Final published version, 944 KBLicence: CC BY

McEleavy, Peter
- Dundee Law School - Professor (Teaching and Scholarship)
Person: Academic

Cite this

@article{1a9d202023444cb68107f1ad64b118d4,

title = "The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: prioritising return or reflection?",

abstract = "Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.",

keywords = "International child abduction , European Convention, Article 8, European Court of Human Rights, 1980 Hague Convention, UNCRC 1989, Best interests, Neulinger v. Switzerland, X v. Latvia",

author = "Peter McEleavy",

year = "2015",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z",

language = "English",

volume = "62",

pages = "365--405",

journal = "Netherlands International Law Review",

issn = "0165-070X",

publisher = "Springer Nature",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention

T2 - prioritising return or reflection?

AU - McEleavy, Peter

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.

AB - Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.

KW - International child abduction

KW - European Convention, Article 8

KW - European Court of Human Rights

KW - 1980 Hague Convention

KW - UNCRC 1989

KW - Best interests

KW - Neulinger v. Switzerland

KW - X v. Latvia

U2 - 10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z

DO - 10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z

M3 - Article

SN - 0165-070X

VL - 62

SP - 365

EP - 405

JO - Netherlands International Law Review

JF - Netherlands International Law Review

IS - 3

ER -

The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: prioritising return or reflection?

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Profiles

McEleavy, Peter

Cite this