Chapter 2 traces the emergence and approach of ‘global’ recognition and enforcement. These approaches are now instrumentally bifurcated, premised upon whether a decision that is to be recognised or enforced is a product of a particular dispute resolution mechanism (arbitration or litigation), and whether an exclusive choice of court has been made (or, failing such a choice, the ‘default’ operation of jurisdictional rules). The reasons for doing so are explored in the context of the modern negotiations at the Hague Conference towards a harmonised private international law approach to the recognition and enforcement and judgments. The end product of these negotiations are, of course, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Judgments Convention. In terms of their international reach and acceptance, these conventions are in an embryonic form compared to widely implemented “backbone” of arbitration recognition and enforcement (in the 1958 New York Convention).

Chapter 2 examines the background, history and assumptions which underlie the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention. The chapter considers what the Convention was intended to achieve, as well as its evolution in different jurisdictions. The relationship between the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction and Measures for the Protection of Children and the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention is also addressed as the two Conventions complement each other. Examining the two Conventions side by side illuminates how Morocco, a Muslim Family Law State, adapted its domestic laws to be more in accordance with the Convention when it comes to the interests of children. The chapter also examines fully the question of whether the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention is suited to being a universal instrument. Even if more Muslim Family Law States become party to the Convention, we show why this will not lead to the Convention functioning as envisaged between, on the one hand, Muslim Family Law States and, on the other hand, European, North American, and Australasian states.

Chapter 7 lays out our conclusions and further sets out our proposals, which may allow more easily the return of abducted children. This relates not only to abductions between Muslim-majority States, on the one hand, and, on the other, Hague Conference States, but also those abductions between Muslim-majority States. Indeed, one matter which has not been alluded to anywhere – that we are aware of – is the fact that it is inconceivable that international parental child abduction is not endemic between Muslim Family Law States. Notwithstanding the absence of any reliable statistics, it cannot be the case otherwise. The analysis in the above chapters, read in conjunction with the country case studies selected, lends itself to not only allowing us to map a route forward with regard to the abductions of children between Muslim Family Law States, on the one hand, and, on the other, Hague Conference States, but also parental child abductions between Muslim Family Law States.