It is

undoubtedly true that the "best interests"

What was the decision of the Maryland court?

Under

United States law it is clear that Pakistan would be the "home state"

of the child. Under the Uniform Act provisions – as well as general principles

of private international law – it is the home state or state of habitual

residence that is the appropriate court to hear a custody jurisdiction case;

moreover, under those Acts, the decree of the state or country of habitual

residence is entitled to recognition and enforcement.

In such cases the USA law recognizes the

jurisdiction of

 The

mother and father in the case were both Pakistani, and the child was born in

Pakistan. When the daughter was eight years old, the mother, Joohi, left the

marital home and moved in with her parents in Pakistan. When she realised that

her husband, Anwar, had filed custody proceedings in Pakistan, she fled to the

United States with her daughter. Nonetheless, the custody case proceeded in the

Pakistani court. The mother was represented by counsel but refused to appear in

the proceeding; she also refused to obey a court order that the child be

produced in Pakistan. The Pakistani judge considered a written statement

submitted by the mother detailing certain unsavoury aspects of the husband’s

character, but nonetheless awarded custody to the father. Using private

detectives, the father located the mother and child in Maryland two years

later. The mother then brought suit in Maryland requesting custody while the

father sought enforcement of the Pakistani order that had granted him custody.

What did the mother’s claim in Maryland concern?

 The

mother and father in the case were both Pakistani, and the child was born in

Pakistan. When the daughter was eight years old, the mother, Joohi, left the

marital home and moved in with her parents in Pakistan. When she realised that

her husband, Anwar, had filed custody proceedings in Pakistan, she fled to the

United States with her daughter. Nonetheless, the custody case proceeded in the

Pakistani court. The mother was represented by counsel but refused to appear in

the proceeding; she also refused to obey a court order that the child be

produced in Pakistan. The Pakistani judge considered a written statement

submitted by the mother detailing certain unsavoury aspects of the husband’s

character, but nonetheless awarded custody to the father. Using private

detectives, the father located the mother and child in Maryland two years

later. The mother then brought suit in Maryland requesting custody while the

father sought enforcement of the Pakistani order that had granted him custody.

What was the subject of judicial proceedings?

The first Convention (1864) was initiated by what is now

the International Committee for the Red Cross and Red Crescent (ICRC). This

convention produced a treaty designed to protect wounded and sick soldiers

during wartime. The Swiss Government agreed to hold the Conventions in Geneva,

and a few years later, a similar agreement to protect shipwrecked soldiers was

produced. In 1949, after World War II, two new Conventions were added, and the

Geneva Conventions entered into force on 21 October 1950.

The Geneva Conventions provide for universal

jurisdiction, as opposed to a more traditional (and limited) territorial

jurisdiction that was designed to respect the sovereignty of States over their

citizens.  The doctrine of universal

jurisdiction is based on the notion that some crimes, such as genocide, crimes

against humanity, torture, and war crimes, are so exceptionally grave that they

affect the fundamental interests of the international community as a whole. It

renders the convicts or accused of such crimes to the jurisdiction of all

signatory States, regardless of their nationality or territoriality of their

crime.

Every State bound by the treaties is under the legal

obligation to search for and prosecute those in its territory suspected of

committing such crimes, regardless of the nationality of the suspect or victim,

or of the place where the act was allegedly committed. The State may hand the

suspect over to another State or an international tribunal for trial. Where

domestic law does not allow for the exercise of universal jurisdiction, a State

must introduce the necessary domestic legislative provisions before it can do

so, and must actually exercise the jurisdiction, unless it hands the suspect

over to another country or international tribunal.

The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war

between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which

predates the 1949 version.

The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict

between two or more signatory nations, even in the absence of a declaration of

war. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all

the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of

war, such as a police action (a military action undertaken without a formal

declaration of war). The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the

opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation “accepts

and applies the provisions” of the Conventions.

It is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations system made

up of 47 States responsible for the promotion and protection of all human

rights around the globe. It has the ability to discuss all thematic human

rights issues and situations that require its attention throughout the year. It

meets at the UN Office at Geneva.

 Disputes

over and about children are some of the hardest issues in the transnational

context. The questions that authorities are asked to resolve in these cases,

e.g., what particular custodial arrangements would be in the best interests of

a particular child, should a parent be permitted to relocate with a child, when

and how should a parent be permitted to exercise rights of access, do not turn

on the kinds of fact/law determinations that characterise other types of

litigation. Nor is a judicial proceeding, with its formal rules, likely to

produce an accurate snapshot of the real family dynamic. Resolution of these

matters is part of a value-laden decision-making process that necessarily

brings into play differences in culture, attitudes, and moral standards. The

role of culture and values and stereotypes is magnified even more dramatically

in the transboundary context. 

Disputes over children presuppose answering the

question about

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols

is a body of Public International Law, also known as the Humanitarian Law of

Armed Conflicts, whose purpose is to provide minimum protections, standards of

humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who

become victims of armed conflicts.  The

Geneva Conventions are a series of treaties on the treatment of civilians,

prisoners of war (POWs) and soldiers who are otherwise rendered