Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T07:17:19.333Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fourth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (Cidip-IV, Montevideo, 9–15 July 1989)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2009

Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren
Get access

Extract

The General Assembly of the Organization of American States which met in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, decided by a Resolution dated 9 December 1985, to convene a Fourth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP-IV), and not only assigned the Permanent Council to undertake all the preparatory work but also urged the Inter-American Institute of the Child (IIC) to continue the examination of matters relating to children that may be included in the Agenda of the forthcoming Conference.

Type
Articles
Information
Netherlands International Law Review , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , December 1989 , pp. 269 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Organización de los Estados Americanos. Asamblea Géneral. Décimo Quinto Período de Sesiones. Cartagena de Indias, Colombia, del 5 al 9 de diciembre de 1985. Adas y Documentos, Vol. I (1986) pp. 28–29Google Scholar. Information on the previous Inter-American Conferences may be found in Parra-Aranguren, G., Codificación del Derecho Internacional Privado en América (1982)Google Scholar; ‘Los Trabajos Preparatories de la Tercera Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado (La Paz, 1984)’, Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, No. 32 (1981–1982) pp. 73–112Google Scholar; ‘La Tercera Conferencia Especializada Interamericana sobre Derecho Internacional Privado (CIDIP-III, La Paz, 1984)’, Revista de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad Católica Andre's Bello, No. 33 (1984) pp. 9–112, No. 35 (1985) pp. 11–99Google Scholar.

2. Comité Jurídico Interamericano. Informes y Resoluciones. 1986 (1987) p. 52Google Scholar; OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc.4/88 add. 1. The Draft Convention was approved by all Members of the Inter-American Juridical Committee, but Dr. Galo Leoro-Franco abstained in a vote on the ‘Explanatory Report’, because, according to his opinion, it should have given detailed information of the discussions that took place within the Inter-American Juridical Committee.

3. OEA/Ser. G – CP/CAJP – 630/86, 29 April 1986.

4. Organizatíon de los Estados Americanos. Asamblea General. Décimo Sexto Período Ordinario de Sesiones. Ciudad de Guatemala, Guatemala, Del 11 al 15 de noviembre de 1986. Actas y Documentos, Vol. I (1986) pp. 67Google Scholar.

5. OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc.2/89.

6. OEA/Ser. G, CP/Doc.1887/88, add. 1, corr. 1.

7. The Ad-Hoc Working Group was composed of: Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the United States of America and Venezuela.

8. The Ad-Hoc Working Group met six times, starting on April 12, 1988, and on May 31, 1989, its President gave an overview of its activities to the Permanent Council (OEA/Ser. G – CP/1986/89).

9. The Inter-American Institute of the Child invited the following jurists: Alicia Perugini de Paz (Argentina); Victor Pérez Vargas and Rita Marcela de Carranza (Costa Rica); Ricardo Abarca-Landero, José Luis Siqueiros and Alejandro Manterola (Mexico); Williams de Souza (Panama); Friedrich K. Juenger (USA); Didier Opertti-Badán, Manuel A. Vieira, Eduardo Vaz Ferreira and Eduardo Tellechea-Bergman (Uruguay). In addition, the Meeting was attended by Pedro Pablo Miralles-Sangro (Spain), Adair Dyer (The Hague Conference on Private International Law), Enrique Lagos Letelier (Legal Adviser of the Legal Department of the Organization of American States) and Ubaldino Calvento Solari (Head of the Legal Section of the Inter-American Institute of the Child). There were also observers present: Neidy Maria Garbanzo (Children's Judge, Costa Rica), Olga González (International Social Service, Venezuelan Section), Olga Marta Muñoz González (Patronato National de la Infancia, Costa Rica) and Nydia Sánchez Boschini (Officer of the Court on Family Matters, San José, Costa Rica). The present writer was invited by the Inter-American Institute of the Child but could not attend because of the postponement of the Meeting: originally it was scheduled for 3 April but at the very last moment it was suspended.

10. Reunión de Expertos sobre Secuestro y Restitución de Menores y Obligaciones de Alimentos. 22 al 26 de mayo de 1989, San José – Costa Rica (1989) p. 25.

11. OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc 20/89.

12. ‘Informe Final’, supra p. 13.

13. ‘Informe Final’, supra pp. 13–14.

14. OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc. 17/89.

15. The Permanent Council of the Organization of American States accepted on 30 March 1988, the offer of the Uruguayan Government to celebrate in Montevideo the Fourth Inter-American Specialized Conference on Private International Law (CIDIP-IV) (OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc. 12/89).

16. The information regarding the countries attending the Conference is found in the ‘List of Participants’ (OEA/Ser. K/XXI.4 – CIDIP-IV/doc 25/89, rev. 2).

17. Panama formulated a reservation to Art. 2 based on reasons of public policy. In the first place, because the question whether a person is of full age shall be decided by the legislation determined by a conflict rule, and not by a material norm that fixes a certain number of years. Also, the fixing of a certain age to consider a person as a minor ‘contradicts constitutional and legal rules of Panamanian law relating to children’.

18. Panama formulated a reservation to Art. 26 because it contradicts the objective of the Convention, aiming only to regulate the civil aspects of the restitution. Besides, it leaves to the requested authority the determination whether the unlawful removal or retention is to be considered a criminal offence, in opposition to generally accepted principles of international criminal law, according to which such determination is to be made by the lex loci delicti commissi. The article was also objected to because it presumes that the person who removed or retained the child has committed a criminal offence without being heard or without any due process of law.

19. There are some bilateral conventions in force in the American hemisphere entered into between Uruguay, on the one side, and, on the other, Argentina (1981), Chile (1982) and Peru (1989).

20. Guatemala made an interpretative declaration regarding paragraphs (e) and (f) of Art. 11 in the sense that it shall be understood that the judgment was not rendered by default and that the State of origin grants reciprocity, permitting the extraterritorial effect of judgments rendered by the courts of Guatemala.