Why do you think successive Japanese governments have refused to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which seeks to ensure that the rights of access of both parents are protected?

Monday 05th October, 10:47 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 54 Total Comments Show All

bemused at 10:54 AM JST - 6th October

Why does Japan need to be pressured to sign something that every other developed nation is a signatory to? Most societies agreed to this because it's obviously fair and good, not because of pressure.

Oh, well. Fathers get more or less screwed everywhere in the event of divorce, so I guess that's how it is in the world.
Betting at 11:59 AM JST - 6th October

Have you ever asked a Japanese, "Who is most qualified to raise children, men or women?". I have and it was something I also studied at university in Japanese sociology (minor subject for me though). The overwhelming majority will say, "Of course women are most qualified". As women have the babies, the courts award the children to their mothers.

I think most people here will think that line of thinking is something from a much older age and very antiquated, but that is the Japan we are stuck with for the time being.
illsayit at 12:30 PM JST - 6th October

I disagree. I think women are accepted for what is best when raising a child. Naturally. Children though, are very much a part of the male lineage and responsibilities. So signing the Hagues Convention is really pointless, as you would have to start to define the dynamics of a family. Usually it is agreed that it is best left to the people involved. Where two countries are involved, you would think the parties concerned would face that responsibility as part of their own decision making and choices.....
Osakadaz at 12:46 PM JST - 6th October

Japan appears to be neither a member nor a non-member..that is strange. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24#nonmem Japan refuses to sign for Japan's presumed benefit,just as Japan refused to sign the geneva convention during WW2.What I would like to know is how many children have been abducted from Japan to other non-member states?
Osakadaz at 12:49 PM JST - 6th October

although if you believe this, then japan may sign the treaty in 2010. http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2008/05/japan-to-sign-parental-abduction-treaty.html
dolphingirl at 02:50 PM JST - 6th October

techall: I was wondering the same thing. How did the woman leave the country with her kids in the first place? I don't know the answer to this. Azrael: You raised some good points. Mixed marriages and mixed kids are still not totally accepted in Japan.

Why have they refused to sign? I suppose to protect their out-dated beliefs that one is only fully Japanese if born to two Japanese parents on Japanese soil and that women should be the primary caregiver. Both of these beliefs are discriminating and should be a thing of the past.
Altria at 03:42 PM JST - 6th October

Because they misread it as the HAGE CONVENTION, of which they are already members.
GW at 04:32 PM JST - 6th October

altria, hahahaha nice one!
Hephatsheput at 05:42 PM JST - 6th October

Because we won't be told what to do by foreigners.
Nessie at 07:32 PM JST - 6th October

Altria, did they ever get around to ratifying the Bar Code codicil of the Hage Convention?
paloduro at 11:21 PM JST - 6th October

because it's unfair for people who are ordered by the court to be stuck somewhere for 20 yrs, their freedom is severely restricted, and that could be inhumane. Imagine you married a foreigner and moved to a foreign country and lived there for a while. Suddenly you got dumped by your spouse for infidelity,that is hard enough, and you got ordered to live close to your former spouse and cannot even leave the country,or to return to your home country to get support from your own family. Esp. if you became a single mom or dad and didn't have any means to support yourself, financially and mentally( no family, no friends), it's not hard to imagine their living condition would suffer miserably in a foreign country. There are many people who are being trapped like that . The Hague convention helps the people who married a foreigner and lived in their own country, but if the Hague sends the kids back to a"habitual residence" , still the issues of those who live overseas remain. If one got divorced in a foreign country, one has to lose the rights to choose where one wants to live?
idicemic at 01:11 AM JST - 7th October

-->hokkaidoguy and timor, great points!

Our personal angsts about Japanese "racism" and xenophobia aside (while there may be cause), plenty of recently elected officials recognize the growing importance of foreign integration. That said, lawmakers are faced with a tough choice to sign the Hague Convention, and therefore set into motion a domino effect of reform that would upend the socio-cultural paradigm of family life in Japan. Or, not sign and therefore bolster Japan's international independance where it doesn't hurt their standing with key partners (like the US).

Reforming the Koseki is a scary proposition. It's rooted so far into their fabric, it's not really a conceivable option.

The next hurdle is finding common ground between Japanese courts and the courts of the Hague Convention signatories. But before finding common ground, what's culturally acceptable and unacceptable among the member signatories would need addressing.

The Hague Convention is for the benefit of children, indeed protection. Not parental rights (as much as I would like, as a parent myself). The notion of what's best for children is debatable in different hemispheres.
idicemic at 01:16 AM JST - 7th October

Making no mistake, what Christopher did was a valiant thing, albeit illegal in Japan. The Hague Convention would have diffused this before it happened. Japan needs to draw consistent lines in its immigration policies, among which is the Hague.
JmannGod at 05:26 AM JST - 7th October

@ Hep "Because we won't be told what to do by foreigners."

Why break the habits of a lifetime?
JmannGod at 05:29 AM JST - 7th October

on a serious note - as I understand there is a clause in the Hague Convention that allows for the 'safety of the child' to be paramount. Any court could claim this as a reason to not return the child to the site of the abduction - like those poor Savoie children that were kidnapped from the US and before the father failed in his valiant repatriation attempts.