In Korean society, after the late 1980s, there was an increase in international marriage due to an increase in foreigners. But, due to cultural differences and domestic violence between international marriage couples, marital conflict can occur. Cons... In Korean society, after the late 1980s, there was an increase in international marriage due to an increase in foreigners. But, due to cultural differences and domestic violence between international marriage couples, marital conflict can occur. Consequently, there could be an increase in the phenomenon of inter- national child abduction. In international child abduction, one parent will unilaterally return to their native country with the abducted child, with the result of contact stoppage and child custody or visitation rights violation. The parent does not have a way to find the abducted child, therefore there is a rise in problem where the parent cannot exercise their custody rights. The parent with parental rights faces interference when trying to exercise his/her rights. Also, the child’s visitation rights are violated. In the 1970s, child abduction that crosses international borders started receiving attention, therefore the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the “The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the ‘Convention’). Our country started enforcing the ‘Act on the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction Implementation’ on 1 March 2013. However, domestic implementation of the Convention has all sorts of limitations. First, visitation rights in relation to the Convention stopped due to 1 provision, and the content of the provision is too abstract that practical implementation is full of difficulties. Second, in the Hague Convention’s 12 articles regarding the order to return rule, the central authority of the involved countries must secure the child’s abductee, and leading the child back to the petitioning parent or returning the child back to the original country of residence is assumed. In The Hague International Child Abduction Convention Implementation Law, in spite of the 17th provision, compulsory execution proceedings do not have a separate provision, and other than a failure of execution resulting in imposition of fines for negligence or detention, there is no different effective, legal step. Third, since the Korean government has joined the Convention, articles 24 and 26 have been in reserve, although the Convention has been ratified the applicant can face lots of fees and the logical expectation is that there will be difficulties. On the one hand, the countries that joined the Convention have considered international child abduction a serious problem for a long time, and through a variety of legislative systems the problem was handled. First, America agreed to join the Convention (signed 23 December 1981, then went into effect 1 July 1988), and through US enforced domestic law, they established the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) in 1988. On the other hand, US is making an effort to prevent child abduction through legal/institutional systems. Also, through ‘International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act’ article 1204, there is an effective enforcement application of international child abduction issues. Second, England signed the convention in 19 November 1984, and it was ratified in 1 August 1986. England, before the Convention ratification, established ‘The Child Abduction and Custody Act through the Convention’s Implementation Law. Meanwhile, England continues to aggressively utilize mediation for reunification. Also, the ‘Child Abduction Act’ was established in 1984 to rule child abduction as a criminal offense. Third, in Germany, the convention was ratified in 1 December 1990. Germany, through the Convention’s implementation law, established the SorgeUkAG in 5 April 1990, and it was enforced from 1 December 1990, until in 26 January 2005 ‘IntFamRVG’ was established and it was implemented starting 1 March 2005. Meanwhile, Germany also utilized mediation to solve the abduction problem. Also, when one parent abducts a child, that parent is punished through the German criminal law article 235. Fourth, France joined the Convention on 25 October 1980, and it was ratified on 16 September 1982. Meanwhile, France encourages utilizing mediation to urge the voluntary return of the child. Also, criminal law established that child abduction by a parent is a crime. Fifth, in Japan, before joining the Convention, parental child abduction cases were solved through municipal and domestic law. However, due to Western industrial nations’ external pressure to join the Convention, Japan finally signed on 24 January 2014. Meanwhile, in order to solve its child abduction problems, Japan operates mediation agencies. Also, of course, Japan regulates parental child abduction as a crime. Finally, to secure effective prevention of child abduction in our country, new countermeasures are required. First, if a child is abducted to a foreign country, it is difficult to find the child’s location, and a non-Convention joined country’s direct enforcement method frequently does not result in a child’s return. Therefore, raising the level of preventive protection strategy is important. In our country, to prevent child abduction in advance, from 1 July 2016 passport issuance to children under 19 years is regulated through ‘Parental Right Non-agreement Intention Management System’. Second, the Convention’s goal is to solve the problem through voluntary child return, therefore concerned parties are encouraged to discuss mediation for voluntary child return. However, in our country, family mediation is almost never used. Going forward, to actively use family mediation system in child abduction cases, private family mediation organizations must seek for solutions. Therefore, to raise the professionalism of family mediators, educational support is essential. Third, the Convention joined countries, through criminal punishment, are effectively enforcing international child abduction prevention. However, in our criminal law, there is no separate law regarding parental child abduction. And going forward, as international marriages increase, it follows that child abduction cases between international couples may keep increasing. However, if a parent with joint parental rights via legitimate methods and procedures violate the other parent’s rights and secretly take the child and leave the country, and that act is deemed non-punishable, then aspects of criminal policy can be a matter of great concern. Implementation laws independent and separate from domestic law needs to be prepared for a legal remedy. Fourth, when the Convention is in application, and the visitation rights and the child’s return is finalized, the child’s rights must be considered important. Fifth, the Convention has limited application when the child abduction case occurs between non-Convention member countries. In our country, local international marriages occur between major partners that are not Convention signed countries, therefore the possibility for different diplomatic solution through the Convention is low. To secure this Convention’s effectiveness, the majority of countries that join in international marriages with Korean people must be consistently urged to join the Convention, and countries with abduction related issues must build a cooperative system for child information sharing plans through diplomatic efforts. ，韩语论文题目，韩语论文范文 |
