The aim of this article is to critically examine the universalisation of treaties such as the Hague Convention to highlight the tension it brings out between women’s rights and children’s rights by blindsiding gender-related issues and cultural realities. Written in the context of Ariha Shah in Germany and the Bhattacharya case in Norway, this article aims to map the landscape of international child abduction and repatriation attempts by parents in India, as well as the Indian legislative attempt to tackle the issue of abduction through the draft of the Civil Aspects of International Parental Abduction Bill, 2016. Viewed critically through a child rights perspective, the article considers whether the positioning of the Abduction Bill from a feminist viewpoint does justice to the agency of children involved, and makes recommendations on how their position can be strengthened further.
Abduction Bill. (2016). The Protection of Children (Inter Country Removal and Retention) Bill. Law Commission of India. https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/report_twentyfirst/
2.
BajpaiA. (2013). Across the high seas: Abuse, desertion, and violence in transnational marriages in India. Violence Against Women, 19(10), 1246–1262.
3.
DesaiS. A. (2013). Mulla Principles of Hindu Law. Lexis Nexis Butterworths.
4.
EdlesonJ. L., & LindhorstT. (2010). Multiple perspectives on battered mothers and their children fleeing to the United States for safety. Final Report: Hague Convention and Domestic Violence. Research report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=612916f2c8f6c7431240c05132905f56d3250ac6
5.
GallagherE. (2014). A house is not (necessarily) a home: A discussion of the common law approach to habitual residence. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 47, 463.
6.
JohnstonJ. R., GirdnerL. K., & Sagatun-EdwardsI. (1999). Developing profiles of risk for parental abduction of children from a comparison of families victimized by abduction with families litigating custody. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17(3), 305–322.
7.
JollyS. (2017). International parental child abduction: An explorative analysis of legal standards and judicial interpretation in India. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31(1), 20–40.
8.
JollyS., & GarimellaS. R. (2018). International parental child abduction and India—Attempting engagement with the Hague Convention. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 19(1), 47–66.
9.
JollyS., & Vikram SharmaA. (2021). Domestic violence and inter-country child abduction: An Indian judicial and legislative exploration. Journal of Private International Law, 17(1), 114–146.
10.
KallivayalilD. (2010). Narratives of suffering of South Asian immigrant survivors of domestic violence. Violence Against Women, 16(7), 789–811.
11.
KissE. (1995). Alchemy or fool’s gold? Assessing feminist doubts about rights. Dissent, 42(3), 342–347.
12.
KowitzP. (2024). Rethinking the principle of Parens Patriae: The Ariha Shah case from a cultural and child rights perspective. Institutionalised Children Explorations and Beyond, 11(1), 79–94.
13.
LimH., & RocheJ. (2002). Feminism and children’s rights: The politics of voice. In FottrellD. (Ed.), Revisiting children’s rights (pp. 51–72). Brill Nijhoff.
14.
Ministry of External Affairs. (2020). Question no. 284 Indian women facing domestic violence abroad. Government of India. https://www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/32573/question+no284+indian+women+facing+domestic+violence+abroad
15.
National Commission for Women. (n.d.). Important case laws: Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev Majoo case no: Civil appeal no. 4435 of 2003 with criminal appeal no. 1184 of 2011, date of decision: 16 May 2011. https://ncwapps.nic.in/PDFFiles/ImpCaseLawsRuchiMajoo.pdf
16.
PTI. (2010). Law Min opposed to ratifying child abduction treaty. Press Trust of India.
SalterM. (2014). Getting Hagued: The impact of international law on child abduction by protective mothers. Alternative Law Journal, 39(1), 19–23.
19.
Schnitzer-ReeseE. A. (2004). International child abduction to non-Hague Convention countries: The need for an international family court. Northwestern Journal of Human Rights, 2(1), 2.
20.
SchuzR. (2001). Policy considerations in determining the habitual residence of a child and the relevance of context. Journal of Transnational Law & Policy, 11, 101.
21.
SilbermanL. (2004). Interpreting the Hague Abduction Convention: In search of a global jurisprudence. UC Davis Law Review, 38, 1049.
22.
SuraA. (2016). High court urges law commission to recommend signing of Hague Convention. Times of India. TNN. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/high-court-urges-law-commission-to-recommend-signing-of-hague-convention/articleshow/51267040.cms
23.
United Nations. (1980). Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=24
24.
VivatvarapholT. (2008). Back to basics: Determining a child’s habitual residence in international child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. Fordham Law Review, 77, 3325.
25.
WinterS. I. (2010). Home is where the heart is: Determining habitual residence under the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 33, 351.
