Tryggare kan ingen vara? - Svenska domstolars prövning av vägransgrunder

Detta är en Kandidat-uppsats från Lunds universitet/Juridiska institutionen; Lunds universitet/Juridiska fakulteten

Sammanfattning: As a parent, it is probably one of the worst things that can happen if one’s child disappears. Certainly, it is even worse if the child is abducted or detained in another state, leaving the parent feeling nothing than hopelessness and powerlessness. Abductions and detentions have increased due to the fact that people travel more, there are more open borders and so on. In the 1970’s, abductions and detentions were seen as such a big problem that, with conventions, these problems were tried to be solved through international cooperation. This resulted among other things, in the Hague Convention 1980. An illegal abduction or detention is considered to exist in the Convention when someone robs another person of their custody or right of access. In these cases, the principal rule of the Convention is that the child is to be transferred back to the state where the child was domiciled prior to the abduction or detention. The exceptions to this are the so-called provisions. These provisions were added to avoid unreasonable transfers and should be applied restrictively. In this essay I will elucidate which these provisions are and how they have been interpreted by the Swedish courts.

  HÄR KAN DU HÄMTA UPPSATSEN I FULLTEXT. (följ länken till nästa sida)