The Hague Convention and Transnational Custody Disputes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adopted on October 24, 1980, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was designed to address the problem of international parental child abduction. More than 90 States are contracting parties to the Convention, making it one of the most important and successful family law instruments completed under the auspices of the Hague Convention on private international law. The Convention places a premium on prompt return in circumstances where a child was removed from one jurisdiction by a parent – the jurisdiction of “habitual residence” – in breach of the custody rights of the “left behind” parent. Once returned, custody can be determined by the relevant authorities in the jurisdiction of habitual residence. Habitual residence is central to the operation of the Convention, since the return mechanism in art. Twelve will only be triggered when a child is wrongfully removed from their State of habitual residence. The Supreme Court of Canada applies the “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence, which treats the circumstances of the children and the intentions of the parties as factors to be considered in achieving a just result which fulfills the objectives of the Hague Convention. Under the hybrid approach, the court has the task of determining the focal point of the child's life immediately prior to the removal or retention. The child's perspective is thereby put squarely at the centre of Convention applications. Canada's approach represents an evolution from the formalism of early cases to a recognition that the best interests of children generally is not a substitute for the best interests of the particular children before the court.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".