Lara Walker

Cheshire, North and Fawcett: Private International Law

PART I: INTRODUCTION PART II: PRELIMINARY TOPICS PART III: JURISDICTION, FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND AWARDS PART IV: THE LAW OF OBLIGATIONS PART V: FAMILY LAW PART VI: THE LAW OF PROPERTY

CHILD ABDUCTION: RECENT JURISPRUDENCE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

This article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU

This article contains the final findings from a research project funded by the Nuffield Foundation and conducted by the authors on “Conflicts of EU Courts on Child Abduction”. Such “conflicts” were deliberately created by the EU legislature when it created a power in Article 11(6)-(8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation for the courts of the habitual residence to insist on the return of a child that has been abducted after a court in the State where the child was abducted to has refused to return the child on the basis of one of the exceptions to the duty to return provided for in Article 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention 1980. It will reveal how infrequently used and largely ineffective the Article 11(6)-(8) system is and will make proposals for law reform in the current revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation.

Party autonomy, inconsistency and the specific characteristics of family law in the EU

Party autonomy is becoming more prevalent in substantive family law, and therefore private international law should find a method of incorporating party autonomy into family law. This should be done in a way that takes account of the specific characteristics of family life. Currently the EU Regulations take a disjointed and incoherent approach to party autonomy in family law, and do not consider specific issues relating to the family. There is no clear explanation of why this is and it appears to be related to the fragmented development of the EU family law instruments. This inconsistency is not only apparent across the instruments but also within the instruments, suggesting that the discrepancies are not context-specific. This article argues that it is possible to have a consistent approach to party autonomy across all areas of family law while catering for family specific issues. A consistent approach will allow families to resolve their disputes within one legal system, rather than the more complicated situation which confronts some families due to the fragmentation of jurisdiction required by the current legal rules.

The right to health and access to health care in Saudi Arabia with a particular focus on women and migrants

This chapter focuses on the right to health in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and looks specifically at the position of vulnerable groups when it comes to the realisation of the right to health. The groups considered are women and migrant workers. The chapter looks at the underlying determinants of the right to health in relation to these groups, specifically the determinants that arise from the concept or practice of gender inequality. In the context of the Kingdom, these inequalities arise from traditional, cultural, and social practices that may affect the health of women and migrant workers. The chapter begins by examining the overall human rights protection in the Kingdom and discusses a variety of disadvantages faced by these groups, which are generally caused by cultural and social practices. It then explains how these disadvantages can have a negative impact in a variety of aspects of these groups’ lives and focuses specifically on the right to health. The chapter shows that it is impossible for the ‘right to the highest attainable standard of health’ to be achieved for these groups unless there are fundamental changes in social and cultural practices that are deeply embedded in the traditions and laws of the Kingdom.