Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:18:32.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supreme Court of the United States: Abbott v. Abbott

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Alison Plenge  and
Diana Goff
Alison Plenge
Affiliation:
American Society of International Law.
Diana Goff
Affiliation:
American Society of International Law.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 49 , Issue 4 , August 2010 , pp. 1097 - 1117
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

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

End notes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the U.S. Supreme Court website (visited June 1, 2010) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-645.pdf.

1 Abbott v. Abbott, No. 08-645 (U.S. May 17, 2010), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-645.pdf.

2 See Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction arts.3, 5, 12, Oct. 24, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 [hereinafter Convention]; International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Pub. L. No. 100-300, 102 Stat. 437, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 11601 et seq.

3 Convention art. 5(a).

4 Abbott, No. 08-645, at 6.

5 Id. at 5.

6 Id. at 12.

7 Id. at 14.

8 Id. at 22 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

9 Id. at 23.

10 Id. at 24.

11 Id. at 25 ( “In sum, the decisions relied upon by the Court and Mr. Abbott from our sister signatories do not convince me that we should refrain from a straightforward textual analysis in this case in order to make way for a ‘universal international interpretation’ of the Convention. “).