Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

Avec la croissance des familles binationales, les divorces et séparations des époux donnent souvent lieu aux problèmes d’enlèvement parental d’enfant : l'un d’eux décide de déplacer l'enfant à l'étranger sans le consentement de l'autre afin de se faire accorder le droit de garde par un juge étranger plus clément. Des instruments juridiques internationaux tendent à résoudre ce problème d’enlèvement international d’enfants par le mécanisme de retour immédiat. La Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l'enlèvement international d'enfants est l'instrument principal qui est ratifié par un grand nombre d'États. Son effectivité dépend de la conformité de l'application par les États. Autrement dit, il est important d'interpréter des termes principaux et des exceptions de la Convention de manière conforme, voire similaire. Pour ce faire, le principe est l'interprétation autonome des notions de la Convention. Outre que la question d'interprétation de la Convention, l'attention est aussi portée sur l'exécution de l'ordonnance de retour. Cette exécution est en effet encadrée par l'obligation de célérité et elle requiert en même temps une forte coopération entre les autorités judiciaires et administratives entre les deux États concernés. Les États sont donc invités à donner effet aux ordonnances de retour à travers les différentes mesures, y compris les mesures coercitives. Cependant, la remise volontaire de l'enfant reste la meilleure solution qui doit être favorisée, notamment à travers le recours à une procédure amiable telle que la médiation familiale internationale. / With the increase of binational families, the divorces and separations between the married couple always give rise to problems of parental child kidnapping: one of them decides to remove the couple's child abroad, without consent of the other, with a view to having the child custody awarded by more clement foreign judges. International legal instruments tend to solve this problem of international child abduction through the summary return mechanism. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as the main instrument, is now ratified by a great number of States. Its effectiveness depends on the compliance of the application of the Convention by member States. In other words, it is important for member States to interpret the Convention terms in the way to comply with the other. In doing so, the proposed principle must be the autonomous interpretation of the Convention terms. In addition to the issue of interpretation, attention must also be placed on the enforcement of return orders. This enforcement must be guided by the celerity obligation. At the same time, the enforcement of return orders requires a strong cooperation between judicial and administrative authorities of the States involved in each abduction case. The States are, thus, invited to give effect to return orders by taking different measures, including coercive ones. However, voluntary return of the abducted child is always the best solution that must be favored, especially through the use of amicable settlement between the parties, such as the international family mediation.

Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.