在国际儿童绑架的背景下保护母亲免受家庭暴力:在戈兰诉萨达和布鲁塞尔二-欧盟法规之间

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Laws Pub Date : 2023-09-19 DOI:10.3390/laws12050079
Costanza Honorati
{"title":"在国际儿童绑架的背景下保护母亲免受家庭暴力:在戈兰诉萨达和布鲁塞尔二-欧盟法规之间","authors":"Costanza Honorati","doi":"10.3390/laws12050079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The need to protect victims of domestic violence is becoming increasingly more important in many States. The 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction, which in principle requires the child’s return and apparently leaves little scope for protecting the child’s mother, is at times perceived as being at odds with this need. The 2022 US Supreme Court’s judgment in Golan v Saada is set to become a leading case with regard to abductions occurring against the backdrop of domestic violence. Although the USSC, out of necessity, considers the issue from the viewpoint of the US legal system, the impact of the decision will be felt well beyond the country’s borders. This paper will start by analysing the legal arguments developed by the USSC in finding that ameliorative measures are not required by the 1980 Hague Convention, but lie at the discretion of the courts, as well as the general principles laid down by the USSC to guide the exercise of that judicial discretion. Furthermore, the rationale for—discretionary, but still relevant—protective measures will be measured against the Brussels II-ter EU Regulation, which has established a different legal framework for EU Member States. In contrast to the position under pure Hague cases, the EU Regulation now clearly calls on the courts of the State of refuge to guarantee the child’s physical and psychological safety by directly adopting provisional measures, which will apply to the child upon return to the State of habitual residence and which are recognizable and directly enforceable in that Member State. It will be argued in this paper that ameliorative/protective measures offer a means for filling a gap that is increasingly being felt within public opinion, but that could undermine the efficacy of the 1980 Hague Convention. The best way of ensuring that domestic violence cases are not neglected, while at the same time remaining within the confines of the 1980 Hague Convention, would be to adopt expeditious, substantively well-defined, and effective protective measures.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Protecting Mothers against Domestic Violence in the Context of International Child Abduction: Between Golan v Saada and Brussels II-ter EU Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Costanza Honorati\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/laws12050079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The need to protect victims of domestic violence is becoming increasingly more important in many States. The 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction, which in principle requires the child’s return and apparently leaves little scope for protecting the child’s mother, is at times perceived as being at odds with this need. The 2022 US Supreme Court’s judgment in Golan v Saada is set to become a leading case with regard to abductions occurring against the backdrop of domestic violence. Although the USSC, out of necessity, considers the issue from the viewpoint of the US legal system, the impact of the decision will be felt well beyond the country’s borders. This paper will start by analysing the legal arguments developed by the USSC in finding that ameliorative measures are not required by the 1980 Hague Convention, but lie at the discretion of the courts, as well as the general principles laid down by the USSC to guide the exercise of that judicial discretion. Furthermore, the rationale for—discretionary, but still relevant—protective measures will be measured against the Brussels II-ter EU Regulation, which has established a different legal framework for EU Member States. In contrast to the position under pure Hague cases, the EU Regulation now clearly calls on the courts of the State of refuge to guarantee the child’s physical and psychological safety by directly adopting provisional measures, which will apply to the child upon return to the State of habitual residence and which are recognizable and directly enforceable in that Member State. It will be argued in this paper that ameliorative/protective measures offer a means for filling a gap that is increasingly being felt within public opinion, but that could undermine the efficacy of the 1980 Hague Convention. The best way of ensuring that domestic violence cases are not neglected, while at the same time remaining within the confines of the 1980 Hague Convention, would be to adopt expeditious, substantively well-defined, and effective protective measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30534,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laws\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laws\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12050079\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws12050079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在许多国家,保护家庭暴力受害者的需要正变得越来越重要。1980年关于国际儿童诱拐的《海牙公约》,原则上要求儿童返回,显然没有留下保护儿童母亲的余地,有时被认为与这种需要不一致。2022年美国最高法院对戈兰诉萨达案的判决将成为在家庭暴力背景下发生的绑架案件的主要案例。尽管USSC出于必要,从美国法律体系的角度考虑这个问题,但这一决定的影响将远远超出美国的国界。本文将首先分析USSC在发现1980年《海牙公约》不要求采取改进措施时所提出的法律论据,而在于法院的自由裁量权,以及USSC为指导行使司法自由裁量权而制定的一般原则。此外,自由裁量但仍然相关的保护措施的理由将根据布鲁塞尔II-ter欧盟法规进行衡量,该法规为欧盟成员国建立了不同的法律框架。与纯粹海牙案件下的立场相反,欧盟条例现在明确要求避难国的法院通过直接采取临时措施来保障儿童的身心安全,这些措施将在儿童返回惯常居住国时适用,并在该成员国可识别和直接执行。本文将指出,改善/保护措施提供了一种手段来填补公众舆论中日益感受到的空白,但这可能会破坏1980年《海牙公约》的效力。确保家庭暴力案件不被忽视,同时又保持在1980年《海牙公约》范围内的最佳办法是采取迅速、实质界定明确和有效的保护措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Protecting Mothers against Domestic Violence in the Context of International Child Abduction: Between Golan v Saada and Brussels II-ter EU Regulation
The need to protect victims of domestic violence is becoming increasingly more important in many States. The 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction, which in principle requires the child’s return and apparently leaves little scope for protecting the child’s mother, is at times perceived as being at odds with this need. The 2022 US Supreme Court’s judgment in Golan v Saada is set to become a leading case with regard to abductions occurring against the backdrop of domestic violence. Although the USSC, out of necessity, considers the issue from the viewpoint of the US legal system, the impact of the decision will be felt well beyond the country’s borders. This paper will start by analysing the legal arguments developed by the USSC in finding that ameliorative measures are not required by the 1980 Hague Convention, but lie at the discretion of the courts, as well as the general principles laid down by the USSC to guide the exercise of that judicial discretion. Furthermore, the rationale for—discretionary, but still relevant—protective measures will be measured against the Brussels II-ter EU Regulation, which has established a different legal framework for EU Member States. In contrast to the position under pure Hague cases, the EU Regulation now clearly calls on the courts of the State of refuge to guarantee the child’s physical and psychological safety by directly adopting provisional measures, which will apply to the child upon return to the State of habitual residence and which are recognizable and directly enforceable in that Member State. It will be argued in this paper that ameliorative/protective measures offer a means for filling a gap that is increasingly being felt within public opinion, but that could undermine the efficacy of the 1980 Hague Convention. The best way of ensuring that domestic violence cases are not neglected, while at the same time remaining within the confines of the 1980 Hague Convention, would be to adopt expeditious, substantively well-defined, and effective protective measures.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信