Talk:Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

message: I would suggest to mark also French Guyana in blue. It is part of France, which signed the convention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.223.245.146 (talk) 13:01, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map update 

message: Would the article benefit from mention of Japan's not having signed on? That could be seen as singling out one country, but Japan seems a notable exception especially in light of recent cases, and there are plenty of reliable sources that have singled out Japan. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the map, it look like the division between the West (signatory) and the rest (non signatory). Given the ease of divorce and large number of immigration by marriage, the initial custody ruling must happen in the West. Not many countries willingly sign up to a treaty which doesn't favour them. Vapour (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt that this article should have a section "Critics & Dicsussions"; one issue is "domestic violence" and another issue is inconsistency to "Convention on the right of child". In such section, discussions both in signatory and non signatory can be discussed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.39.190.151 (talk) 16:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Specific criticism-sections are discouraged on wikipedia, as the criticism should already be present in the text. That is now absent. So feel free to add some sentences (with sources!)... L.tak (talk) 17:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It has been added now (the way the table is made is a bit problematic, but I have created a temporary fix). Thanks for the notification! L.tak (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan 

message: Is there a reference/citation for the signatory countries? Also, how about a list instead of a dodgy map? My geography isn't really that grand, which are the middle east countries signed up?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.94.115 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatory Countries 

message: This page is woefully lacking in the area of the practical and historical application of this convention.  This convention was signed in 1980, presumably there is also some historical context as to why it was drafted then as well, but it's, as of this writing, 2010.  It's been 30 years and the questions bear asking, what are the results of this convention?  Are parents more or less likely to get back their children than they were in 1980?  Has this convention been a "success" in achieving it's goals?  Some key studies indicate it's a wash.  What about the rampant non-compliance of some signatories?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 20:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practical Application and History 

message: As alluded to in the Talk Section on "Practical Application and History" this section is of critical importance to any real article on the Hague Convention.  Without a significant expansion of this section the article should be considered a stub.  I removed references to several abduction cases in that section that do not meet the noteworthy requirements of Wikipedia articles independently and shouldn't be listed in a general article on the Convention itself specifically (as opposed to article about the Convention and its implementation in Brazil where, even there, they would be a stretch).  Because of the worldwide media attention to the Goldman case I have left reference to it in the section though, in spite of it being noteworthy, it probably shouldn't be listed either.--Cybermud (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Compliance section 

message: This section uses language which appears to be from the ICARA US implementing legislation for the HC.  Specifically things like "clear and convincing evidence" or "by a preponderance of the evidence."  The Hague Convention does not use this language and neither do its translations.  This needs to be rewritten in a way that calls attention to the actual text used in the corresponding articles of the Convention text.  As it stands today the article presents a US biased interpretation of the exceptions to return.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cybermud (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited Defenses to Return 

message: Brazil must be coloured blue on the map. It is part to the convention.
 86.121.72.104 (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I may change it, but feel free to do so in the mean time.... L.tak (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: Please update the map by coloring Tunisia in blue, as it has ratified.  2A02:2F01:507F:FFFF:0:0:6465:4924 (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunisia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110418205205/http://www.haguedv.org/reports/finalreport.pdf to http://www.haguedv.org/reports/finalreport.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713024028/http://www.incadat.com/index.cfm?act=search.detail&cid=301&lng=1&sl=2 to http://www.incadat.com/index.cfm?act=search.detail&cid=301&lng=1&sl=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please color Tunisia blue on the map, because it has ratified the convention. Source:  
2A02:2F01:506F:FFFF:0:0:6465:535D (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: The file is hosted on Commons; therefore, it cannot be edited here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request (Tunisia) 

message: The map must be updated with Cuba, which acceded in 2018, so it must be colored blue on the map. 2A02:2F01:52FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:4439 (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update map with Cuba 

message: Please change Guyana on the map to blue, because it acceded to the Convention in 2019. Source:  2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:51A0 (talk)
: that is an image, it can't be 'edited' you would need to create an upload a new version. — xaosflux Talk 20:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guyana on the map  

message: Going to be adding a section about the Supreme Court of Canada decision "Office of the Children's Lawyer v Balev" which is the leading case in Canada about the implementation of this convention.
Navyvezina95 (talk) 18:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? We have over 100 parties, so cannot include case law of all... Wouldn’t it be better to have a section of the conclusions of the Special commissions, which are influential regarding all countries... --L.tak (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   A courtesy notice-I've proceeded to add an discussion on the Supreme Court of Canada decision of Balev, and the EU, UK, Australia, NZL jurisprudence which echoes the Balev approach. This discussion is important to have because the international jurisprudence, as it stands, really departs from the layman's understanding of child abduction and the original intention of The Hague Convention. Parental intention really doesn't matter that much anymore. The courts decide--not the parents--as to where the parents' child should go. Do let me know your thoughts on my edits, if you disagree. Cheers. Subject to any disagreements, I will next move on to revise and update the section on the Habitual Residence, to reflect how this concept is being understood and analysed by the member states.  HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I think that makes sense and is well linked internationally. It may be good to look at the special commissions as well to obtain universal information on application (here) L.tak (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll review these publications in the near future and update this page accordingly. Thanks for pointing out. I've been personally involved in some of these Hague Convention application as counsel and I can say, there are quite some stuff to update on this page. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, this page could use some expert input I think (I am just an international treaties enthusiast ;-)); and also discussions on the role of an estoppel (ao US supreme court case of some years back) may be useful to expand on. Btw: I found the Canadian decision in INDACAT (here, but contrary to some other decisions in that database, it is not discussed how the decision is linked to other decisions in the field... L.tak (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: I'm not sure if you're aware, but there's a fairly substantial number of (white) men on the Internet who see the convention as being about protecting the "rights" of white male divorcees of Japanese women (rather than about protecting children from international child abduction). This can be seen in, for example, this case, where the Hague Convention clearly doesn't apply (both parents have lived in Japan since about a decade before the children were born, and the children do not seem to have any connection to their father's original home country, so it's purely about Japanese domestic divorce law, which typically grants full custody to the mother -- a matter on which the Hague Convention is naturally silent). Given this, it seems like a serious WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV problem to be feeding these (white) men's rights advocates with this image. I do not know if your reason for uploading only this image but seemingly no other such image was related to this matter, or if you were even aware of it (your edit history implies you are mainly interested in international treaties rather than "men's rights", "issues" affecting white men in Japan, Japanese divorce law, etc.), but if not... what do you make of it? Can you help me locate an image of another country's ratification that doesn't come with this baggage? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This was purely a practical matter. The image happened to be available. Other conventions (such as the Hague Maintenance Convention) have other signing images. The problem is that we need a pic from the depositary site, as the HCCH site has a copyright sign. I'll see what I can do if I come across a different image... L.tak (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only showing an image of Japan? 

message: Please update the map with Botswana and Cape Verde which are now parties to the convention. Source: . 2A02:2F0F:B10E:6700:257A:F567:5E06:6F32 (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Update the map

message: The map must be updated by coloring Botswana and Cape Verde blue because they are now parties to the convention. 2A02:2F0F:B10E:6700:7198:A396:97E8:8177 (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was able to make the requested change, but WP:GL would be a better place to ask in future. small jars tc 16:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Botswana and Cape Verde on the map 

message: Hey folks, 
I plan on doing an overhaul on the structure of this page, in order to line up the headings and content with the sections of the convention itself and the INCADAT Analysis provided on the Hague Convention Website (I.e. starting with "Aims and Scope of the Convention" and moving to "Return of Children" and "Exceptions to Return", etc.). 
Under each section I will include information about the Convention - the wording and what it means, and then some examples on how countries have interpreted it. (Similar to how the current Habitual Residence section provides an example from EU, CAN and US).
I will also add a table of contents, and a section on "Domestic Legislation" that brings the Hague Convention into force in a specific State / Coutnry, where that information is available.  Dgallach (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overhaul / Re-format   

message: Hi. I'm thinking that the map may potentially be in for a change of colour, as the two similar shades of blue are relatively difficult to differentiate from each other, and if someone with visual difficulties might find it somewhat difficult to easily determine which colour is which. 
I would recommend using green for secondary color, or perhaps yellow.
No need for this to happen, rather just a suggestion.
Thanks! 131.242.7.32 (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour of the map quite diffcult to view.