Talk:Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and Protection of Children

Improve the Article

The article describes an important bit of international legislation which one would hope that between the time it was created and now, someone with an interest and knowledge of the subject would have devoted time in expanding to be a more worthwhile source of information on this convention.

However, as at today, there has been no interest apart from adding templates and removing a line which explains why its implementation has been in limbo in the European Union.

Its shameful that this treaty has been delayed because of the reasons given and its also a shame that nobody else here cares to assist in reformatting and improving the quality of the Wikipedia article. --Gibnews 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and almost two years after your comment, the article does not have a list of signators. We need to get a list of countries that have signed at a level of confidence in the reference that far exceeds the norm at WP. We also need to know through court cases whether the signatures of various countries is enforced in law in those countries. Signing means nothing; practical implementation at the level of courts and resolution of disputes in a lawful and fair manner is the ultimate test. Doug youvan (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

updated; will provide a country list as well. Reduced the quotation by the UK MP a bit and stated only the facts for this (regrettable) delay. It seems now things are moving! L.tak (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

specific case

How shall we decide if and how we will report individual cases? Often those get news reports (at least in the 1980 convention they do),and those reports are almost always one-sided and might leave to continuing the dispute here. In the case before for example, it is possible that under the 1980 convention return was refused; or the US woman did not want to start proceedings in Russia...

On the other hand they provide useful insight in the workings of the convention. My suggestion is to use those additions to see where the article lacks general info (in the case of the article today: the discussion, which is reported in reliable sources) of the choice for the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and this convention in terms of range (1996 convention wins) and speed (1980 convention (should) win). Only extremely widely discussed cases should be added; or those leading to significant case law…. Ideas welcome! L.tak (talk) 09:17, 13 October 2013 (UTC)