Contents
In brief
The 1996 Hague Convention governs jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, enforcement and cooperation in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children.
It does not replace the 1980 Convention on the return of wrongfully removed or retained children; it addresses a broader range of child protection issues.
Russia is a party to the 1996 Convention; for a specific case it is important to consider the status of the other state, the date the Convention entered into force, any declarations by states, and practical applicability.
- Subject matter
- child protection measures and parental responsibility
- Russia
- party since 1 June 2013
- Does not replace
- the 1980 Convention on the return of children
This page explains when the 1996 Convention may matter, and why it should not be confused with the child-return procedure under the 1980 Convention.
This material is for information only and is not individual legal advice.
How the 1996 Convention differs from the 1980 Convention
The 1980 Convention is aimed primarily at the prompt return of a child to the state of habitual residence and at protecting rights of access.
The 1996 Convention is broader. It may be relevant to questions of jurisdiction, measures for the protection of the child, parental responsibility, recognition and enforcement of protective measures, and cooperation between the competent authorities of different states.
For this reason the two Conventions are best considered separately: they have different aims, different mechanisms and different practical consequences.
When the 1996 Convention may matter
Potential situations include a dispute over parental responsibility with an international element, a foreign protective measure for a child, the need to recognize or take account of a foreign decision, parallel proceedings in different countries, and questions of jurisdiction when the child's residence changes.
Each situation must be assessed separately. The 1996 Convention cannot be applied automatically to every cross-border family dispute.
Russia and the United States
According to the status table of the Hague Conference, the Russian Federation is a party to the 1996 Convention with an entry-into-force date of 1 June 2013. The United States is listed as a state that has signed the Convention but without an entry-into-force date.
The practical conclusion: for a Russia-US pairing one cannot automatically state that the 1996 Convention is in force between two contracting states, unless the status has changed.
What is important for the reader to understand
The page explains what the 1996 Convention is for, how it differs from the 1980 Convention, when it may be useful, why the status of a specific country matters, and what child protection measures are.
It is also important to show the Convention's connection to the recognition of foreign decisions and to the need to coordinate with a lawyer in another country.
Questions and answers
Does the 1996 Convention replace the 1980 Convention?
No. The 1980 Convention is aimed at the return of wrongfully removed or retained children, while the 1996 Convention governs a broader range of issues of child protection, jurisdiction and recognition of protective measures.
Is Russia a party to the 1996 Convention?
According to the status table of the Hague Conference, Russia is a party to the 1996 Convention with an entry-into-force date of 1 June 2013.
Can the 1996 Convention be applied between Russia and the United States?
This cannot be assumed automatically: as checked, the United States is listed as a state that has signed the Convention but without an entry-into-force date.
Sources
- Hague Conference: status table of the 1996 Convention — status of Russia, the United States and other states
- Hague Conference: full text of the 1996 Convention — official text of the Convention
Related materials
Author
Artur Kuznetsov
Attorney with international family, inheritance and litigation practice. This material is not individual legal advice.
About the office