法學期刊
  • 社群分享
論著名稱:
我國具有國際裁判管轄權?-論臺美間爭奪子女事件 (Do We have International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate?: A Comment on Child Abduction Case between Taiwan and U.S.A.)
文獻引用
編著譯者: 蔡華凱
出版日期: 2007.12
刊登出處: 台灣/中華國際法與超國界法評論第 3 卷 第 2 期/223-258 頁
頁  數: 36 點閱次數: 1244
下載點數: 144 點 銷售明細: 權利金查詢 變更售價
授 權 者: 蔡華凱
關 鍵 詞: 特別情事原則涉外子女權利義務之行使與負擔國際兒童不法移送或留置一九八○年海牙子女誘拐公約一九九六年海牙保護兒童公約隱藏的反致
中文摘要: 何謂國際間誘拐兒童事件之兒童最佳利益?一九八○年海牙子女誘拐公約與一九九六年海牙保護兒童公約基於兒童最佳利益,針對國際間不法移送及留置兒童事件之處理,揭櫫立即返還被誘拐的兒童於原慣居地國(立即返還原則),與禁止庇護國對被誘拐兒童的權利義務之行使負擔問題為實體裁判(實體裁判禁止原則),即係符合國際誘拐兒童事件之兒童最佳利益之具體實踐。上開原則,亦為二○○三年歐盟布魯賽爾規則 IIA 所接受,在國際社會間可謂已經形成相當一致的私法秩序。準此言之,不論是從何種領域與角度,特別是國際私法學者與我國法院的裁判等等各種以兒童最佳利益之名為出發的見解、主張與辯論,是否理解並與國際社會的主流私法秩序一致,殊有檢討的餘地。
英文關鍵詞: International child abductionreturn of the child wrongfiilly removed or retainedthe Hague Convention of 25 October 1980the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996the Bnissels Regulation IIA
英文摘要: What is the best interest of children in international child abduction cases? It seems that some principles are no longer controversial in global community. For instance, In case of wrongful removal or retention of a child, the return of the child should be obtained without delay, and to this end the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 would continue to apply as complemented by the provisions of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996, and the Brussels Regulation IIA, The courts of the state to or in which the child has been wrongfully removed or retained should be able to oppose his or her return in specific, duly justified exception. However, such a decision could be replaced by a subsequent decision by the court of the state of habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal or retention. Should that judgment entail the return of the child, the return should take place without any special procedure being required for recognition and enforcement of that judgment in the state to or in which the child has been removed or retained.
This article reviewed the recent decision on the child abduction case between Taiwan and U.S.A., and argues that under the globally recognized principles above-mentioned, Taipei District Court should have dismissed this by lacking of international jurisdiction.
目  次: 壹、前言
貳、問題之所在
一、問題的提起
二、分析與檢討
(一)外國裁判的承認執行與國際私法學
(二)國際裁判管轄
(三)法律關係的性質決定
(四)準據法選擇
參、國際不法移送及留置兒童民事事件之處理
一、定義
二、相關之國際公約
(一)一九八○年海牙公約
(二)一九九六年海牙公約
三、小結
肆、我國法與國際公約之整合
一、法律關係之性質決定
二、國際裁判管轄
(一)國際裁判管轄之決定與例外之處理
(二)國際間不法移送及留置兒童事件之國際裁判管轄
三、準據法的選擇與隱藏的反致
伍、結論
相關法條:
相關判解:
相關函釋:
相關論著:
蔡華凱,我國具有國際裁判管轄權?-論臺美間爭奪子女事件,中華國際法與超國界法評論,第 3 卷 第 2 期,223-258 頁,2007年12月。
返回功能列