HCCH - Explanatory Report on the 1970 HCCH Divorce Convention

HAGUE CONFERENCE ONPRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW CONVENTION ON THE RECOGNITIONOF DIVORCES AND LEGAL SEPARATIONS DRAFT ADOPTED BY THE ELEVENTH SESSIONAND EXPLANATORY REPORT BY MESSRS. P. BELLET AND B. GOLDMAN (ENGLISH TRANSLATION) PERMANENT BUREAU OF THE CONFERENCE2c, Javastraat, The Hague, January 19712 The Hague Conference on Pr Interable framework Tor ith this matter andwith this question inception, So long1902 its Member States signed a Convention tcand jurisdiction in this field, Unfor telConvention eatedly occurred 4to preva b and to-=cItaly, L Neo therlandsmoreover i botweentime, enlarged itsimportant ac ax ation sincejoining of the United of Ameriven a voice to countries of the Conto draw up a Convention, the ConfeResolutions of its on, at whichthe Conve Recognition anddec! 1 to draw wp j ary draft codecrees of divorce, separation and theA Special Commission, under the Chairmanshisentative, Mr Graveson, was engage 1965 to 1967, andthe text which it prepared was in i to the Delegatwho met in tague for the Eleventh + om of the Conference, Thepresent tex ich excludes from its the nullity of riagol, isT discussions that were held durin, | Session, underthe Chairmanship of de Graveson, between the representatives of twenty-fivecountries. ional Law provides a favour-it has concerneditselfeed, as 12th JuneLicts of lene of theless adaptedonly on Eungary,and E 1.thouk, meland the1968nece. y ce it ement of Judgmethe recognition United Kingdom repre~ ithors of the Convention was essen ly, as itsfacilitate the recognition of divorcesany means imply that they werethey are, and since divorcesnecessary to Limit social

3 The object of thepreamble laconically reminds us, toand legal separations’.favourable to 3 henomenon byYd conssequen’ sly desi thatthin theall others .founda t ternati law, ay the require: > ans some sacrifice of d in foreicoun tri n ofotgree of cgoope action, ve forgotten that divorce is often followed by re-consequently as much tter of facilitatingvaliditty of the second me 1iging thevalidity of vores, This is, of course, | . r inportancefor the child is second union, to whom no blame attaches for thequarrels that broke up the first marriage and. whose rights are morallygreat as thoseof tl hildren of that marriage. Marriage and 1 Poland has, moreofrom tet June 1974, ned that +Y,impossiblemust know thatwhicof a multilatera:States nad thdspecific selves,articles untor hina tole, and 2 estoo that Y tuna tedivorcewillthewh ich isadopt inpracticas ude which Article i7 Lucas ashall not pr "thethe recognition of forel59 below). . providing CouventionLOL... Ofalos of law more urable toivoroes and 1 1 separations" (see paragraph The desire to facilitate thetions has thua prevailed over theBut it ean be said that the Conwithout imposing any Limit onminimum which all States must observe o rorees and gal separaire to achieve a uniform solution.already ensures uniformity, since,reality of $ la it lays down a Finally, article 18, by safeguarding the working of otherfuture conventions on this matter, once again w ees ensstabli ad by the authors of the Convention, but it below).not far to se preesent orfront Por train order to ob tainingenious

e divorce Las between The Co avention ,the risk of fostditions imposed2A € € belowIt is « oque nt restalledparagraphsany "dodggenet . 1888 at thetentions divorceEn decisions not their Mor eov “Ie provea uns themade.opinion of embrace VOTO necesa"no more ofor not they are convert: con¿ut Only ain foreof laws,most 189cons delive boimpo in rules.addresses pil leaves mor but VOR CE Sa tL those arti livered. have api e to omit aConvention, "nanifeaphs 4 PeGoOsRve SOURCES i 25Convention wi11 only 3 between StatesConventions 1 o A zConvention; it le n intended to constitute Confer ar acoed PLOY. 2, iformemployment for obtalr » a divorceaspect of 2 allows €of the Convention, for cable, a reliiglousState which does not recognize the proce odin;rat aspect of th is ement may,roceedings" are inobjective notion: to require c gs! ans E cat efuseto recogni even ie.in the resultdefined cour te. The

icansce, 1 Paot,€ ctis Lvorces byLn2 rac thescetual co sesion at thet a divorcewithout theecessary witness), wouldthe other hand, the 1)tion of repudiation — inIsraeli Delegate exlaw, there could be ispens bis part, sa devo icularplained that in his countation without the wia Rabbinical court was moreover : cithe Delegate of the United Arab stated that in his country a"Salak" necessitated ti tervention of an official of the Lstry ofBirths, Deaths, Merriages and Divorces and that the decision was, furthermore, always notified to the wife, ln the it was decided not todeal specifically with repudiation el the by expressly including it inthe field of application of the Conve 1 expressly excluding itsbut it mist be recogniz that it % L 3sible for it to enjoybenefits of recognition if it involves the intervention ofor religious authorities can be regarded as "proceedings", dadoand according to Mo 14 Article 7 limits the field of ar Convention tove” in the StatemhichLon. ofobtainedor becausethem) even was divorces and legal separations thatin which they have been obtained.16 in cludeswhich are(6.8.7 because they|appeal withthey were ob?probably alreactionsorde, court but it seemed pre with divorcees (or leexcludes from yU been obtained, tion. In other vision deliwould not, by virtu f the Convention, cons tit any obs: for diverce or »biondecieion in a Contract separa~ State= toin anotherthe effect of beinggeneral body ofsought to attri~ £ private internatiobute the effect State only insofof the county .judicata to iu so proviides,me 7

mao ivoree, It E ctholenot recorefuse toincipl The recog divorces on ofution orfeult or aneill condes iped by the Conv aver declareto one orin other oO oon LOWS annul~- Te? 11which States onOca factorWE GOHeacontinuedanoills ation prov ca0notha

COMVERSS 4

Lumhate1 NLY EcPOP aSRO.accord nto ¡UN al.albed. open ODTHOROY ven no CO 18008DOS)cords m Lo Ona or underor Y 2 conceivable $ 20RDnak ocu be le conconstituteprovi ordervoked under no hatig bet Conve 1 recognitionConventiondeliberately. accordund both on Statand upon en other drebs.below).Pence COMGP 06 abo ACCOLNSLyoroe Or be recogbut notLarner “LVvorenot beshould of vote wantaadCLESie. 2:EE 5 mo >rtu o policy (ordre public) (Nosto 50) lio policy ( oneONE a more VI DECLARACONT'RACTIA VIIT Index according to 52to54