The introduction sets out the scope and objectives of the study, locating it within the relevant literature and diplomatic context of State Party negotiations over parental child abduction.

Chapter 4 examines the historic Islamic Law rules and assumptions which underpin issues relating to the custody of children. These historic rules have over time evolved into the modern Family Law of many, if not all, Muslim Family Law States on matters pertaining to child custody. The assumptions about, amongst others, what is in the ‘best interests’ of the child, the role of the mother and the obligations and duties of fathers are unpacked through a close reading and analysis of these rules, from both the pre-modern legal tradition and through two extended case studies (Qatar and Pakistan). Only once the assumptions underlying these rules on jurisdiction and custody, now adopted in Muslim Family Law States, are duly understood can we appreciate the obstacles that need to be tackled on parental child abduction matters. Examining how courts in Pakistan and Qatar approach the issue at hand, we identify how the historical rules have manifested themselves in practice in modern nation states.

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 3 examines which states are parties to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention and why most Muslim Family Law States are not. Second, we use the law and practice of Muslim Family Law States with regard to reservations under human rights treaties to illustrate the dilemmas and issues they are dealing with in this area of law, but we also seek to better understand the policy and approach of these States. We further examine how certain States that are party to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention deal with children abducted to or from those Muslim Family Law States that are not party to the Convention. Ad hoc methods such as bilateral memoranda of understanding, for example, have been adopted vis-�is certain States in an attempt to replicate in practice the assumptions of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention without the Convention’s requisite institutional machinery incumbent on its parties. Through this analysis of both the Hague Conference conventions and human rights treaties, the chapter illustrates how both European and Islamic exceptionalisms operate in International Law and animate the international debate on how best to redress parental child abduction cases.