Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Europeanisation of International Family Law pp 1–12Cite as

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 767 Accesses

Abstract

The language of love is said to be universal: love brings people together from across the world and is oblivious to boundaries. However, from a legal perspective things are not so straightforward; law is, on the contrary, often strongly bound by borders. Especially when an international marriage breaks down complicated cross-border disputes can arise.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    On some issues of international family law international conventions have been established by for example. the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Commission Internationale de l’État Civil and the Council of Europe. See Schulz 2007, pp. 278–279 for an enumeration of the international conventions that have been established in the field of family law. However, as every sovereign state is free to decide whether or not to ratify one or more of these conventions, their application may be fairly limited (cf., the 1978 Hague Convention on Matrimonial Property Regimes, which has 3 contracting states) or even very broad (cf., the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, which has 81 contracting states).

  2. 2.

    See Reimann 1995, p. xxi. However, the situation has gradually changed: by the introduction of the Rome I, Rome II, Brussels I and the Brussels IIbis-Regulations and the Maintenance Regulation private international law in Europe is becoming more uniform and less of a jungle.

  3. 3.

    While the definition of globalisation varies depending on the context of analysis, it generally refers to an increasing interaction across national boundaries that affects many aspects of life: economic, social, cultural and political. See: http://www.genderandhealth.ca/en/modules/globalization/globalization_what_is-01.jsp.

  4. 4.

    Cf., Dethloff 2003, pp. 37–39.

  5. 5.

    See inter alia Kreuzer 2001, p. 98; Remien 2001, p. 63; Fallon/Francq 2004, p. 266.

  6. 6.

    Cf., De Vareilles-Sommières 1998, pp. 136–137: ‘dans la conception qui prévaut actuellement de l’Europe communautaire, un renforcement de l’intégration de l’ordre communautaire implique un renforcement de la coordination des ordres des États-Membres, autrement dit que plus de Communauté appelle plus de droit international privé.’

  7. 7.

    In 2004, the motto was included in the failed European Constitution (Article I-8 on the EU's symbols) and it now appears on official EU websites.

  8. 8.

    See equally Poillot-Peruzzetto 2005, p. 33.

  9. 9.

    Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen, COM(2009) 262 final, p. 11. See also Article 4(2) EU-Treaty, which purports to respect ‘the national identities of the Member States’. See further infra Sect. 8.4.2.2.

  10. 10.

    Cf., Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, p. 194.

  11. 11.

    See Tenreiro/Ekström 2003, p. 187.

  12. 12.

    Cf., Fallon 1998, p. 400: ‘L’heure n’est certainement pas à une unification des règles matérielles sur le mariage, le divorce ou la filiation.’

  13. 13.

    See Von Bar 2001, spec. pp. 130–131; Hesselink 2006.

  14. 14.

    Cf., De Oliviera 2000. Draft Council report on the need to approximate Member States’ legislation in civil matters of 29 October 2001, adopted on 16 November 2001, Document No. 13017/01 JUSTCIV 129, p. 3, where the Council states that family law is ‘very heavily influenced by the culture and traditions of national (or even regional) legal systems, which could create a number of difficulties in the context of harmonisation’. However, others have strongly opposed this ‘cultural constraints argument’; see e.g. Antokolskaia 2009.

  15. 15.

    In September 2001 the Commission on European Family Law (CEFL) was established, see: http://www.ceflonline.net/. The CEFL has so far developed principles regarding divorce and maintenance between former spouses and regarding parental responsibilities. Principles regarding property relations between spouses are currently being prepared.

  16. 16.

    See e.g. Schwenzer and Dimsey 2006. See also Killerby 1996, noticing some harmonising tendencies particularly arising from the European Convention on Human Rights.

  17. 17.

    See on the unification or harmonisation of substantive family law in general inter alia Boele-Woelki 1997; Antokolskaia et al. 1999. In this context it seems worth noting that even in federal states, such as the USA, the need to harmonise substantive family law has never arisen; see Baratta 2005.

  18. 18.

    Cf., the following statement in the Discussion Paper of the Informal Justice and Home Affairs Council of 14–16 January 2007 held in Dresden, p. 1: ‘Harmonising the provisions of substantive family and succession law is not an option, because the requisite legal foundation in the EC Treaty is lacking. This would not be desirable anyway: The diverse values inherent in national family and succession law represent a key aspect of Europe’s cultural diversity.’ See further Pintens 2003, p. 22; Dethloff 2004, p. 565.

  19. 19.

    See Thue 2007, p. 95. See also Muir Watt 2005, p. 9.

  20. 20.

    See Koch 1995. See also Van Erp 2002.

  21. 21.

    Cf., Curry-Sumner 2005, p. 533.

  22. 22.

    Substantive law and private international law are often to a large extent interrelated: if the substantive law supports a certain policy, this policy is often reflected in the choice of law rules as well. See on this interconnection in general inter alia Siehr 1973; De Boer 1993.

  23. 23.

    The Hague Programme, p. 13. However, the objectives set out in the Hague Programme seem to be too ambitious; it is not to be expected that the mentioned instruments are completed in 2011.

  24. 24.

    See Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament establishing for the period 2007–2013 a framework programme on Fundamental Rights and Justice, COM(2005) 122 final, p. 67.

  25. 25.

    See e.g. Eyl 1965.

  26. 26.

    Another term is ‘communitarisation’, referring to the replacement of national legal provisions by Community law. However, the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009, has abolished the European Community. Using the term communitarisation is, therefore, currently less accurate. Cf., Von Hoffmann 1998, p. 15 and Pocar 2000, pp. 873–884.

  27. 27.

    Cf., Boele-Woelki 2008b, p. 4.

  28. 28.

    Siehr 2003, p. 421. See equally Waaldijk 2005.

  29. 29.

    Boele-Woelki 2008a, p. 783.

  30. 30.

    See equally De Boer 2008, p. 323.

  31. 31.

    Council Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L343/10.

References

Regulations and Other Documentary Sources

  • Brussels I-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2001] OJ L12/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Brussels IIbis-Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters and Matters of Parental Responsibility, [2003] OJ L338/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Brussels IIter-Proposal. Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 as regards jurisdiction and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters, COM(2006) 399 final

    Google Scholar 

  • EU-Treaty. Treaty on the European Union of 7 February 1992, [1992] OJ C191/1 (original version), [2010] OJ C83/13 (consolidated version)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hague Programme. The Hague Programme: Strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union, [2005] OJ C53/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Maintenance Regulation. Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, [2009] OJ L7/1

    Google Scholar 

  • Proposal on enhanced cooperation in the field of divorce. Council Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, OJ L343/10

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome I-Regulation. Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I), [2008] OJ L177/6

    Google Scholar 

  • Rome II-Regulation. Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II), [2007] OJ L199/40

    Google Scholar 

Books and Articles

  • Antokolskaia MV (2009) Family law and national culture. Arguing against the cultural constraints argument. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Debates in Family Law around the Globe at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 37–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Antokolskaia MV, De Hondt W, Steenhoff G (1999) Een zoektocht naar Europees familierecht. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Baratta B (2005) Verso la “comunitarizzazione” dei principi fondamentali del diritto di famiglia. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 41:573–606

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (1997) The road towards a European family law. Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 1.1:1–12. Available at: www.ejcl.org/11/art11-1.html

  • Boele-Woelki K (2008a) To be or not to be: enhanced cooperation in international divorce law within the European Union. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 39:779–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Boele-Woelki K (2008b) What comparative family law should entail. Utrecht Law Review 4(2):1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Curry-Sumner I (2005) All’s well that ends registered? Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (1993) De wisselwerking tussen materieel recht en conflictenrecht, Preadvies voor de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtsvergelijking. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer ThM (2008) The second revision of the Brussels II regulation: jurisdiction and applicable law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Sverdrup T (eds) European challenges in contemporary family law. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 321–341

    Google Scholar 

  • De Oliviera G (2000) A European family law? (play it again, and again … Europe!). FJR 272–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethloff N (2003) Arguments for and against unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the harmonisation and unification of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 37–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethloff N (2004) Europäische Vereinheitlichung des Familienrechts. Archiv für die civilistische Praxis 204:544–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vareilles-Sommières P (1998) Un droit international privé européen? In: De Vareilles-Sommières P (ed) Le droit privé européen. Economica, Paris, pp 136–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyl HR (1965) Internationale echtscheiding in Nederland. Scheltema & Holkema N.V, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon M (1998) Droit familial et droit des Communautés européennes. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Familial 1998(3):361–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Fallon M, Francq S (2004) La coopération judiciaire civile et le droit international privé. Vers un droit proprement communautaire des conflits de lois ou de juridiction. In: De Schutter O, Nihoul P (eds) Une Constitution pour l’Europe. Réflexions sur les transformations du droit de l’Union européenne. Larcier, Brussel, pp 239–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesselink MW (ed) (2006) The politics of a European civil code. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Jänterä-Jareborg M (2003) Unification of international family law in Europe—a critical perspective. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 194–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Killerby M (1996) The council of Europe’s contribution to family law (past, present and future). In: Lowe N, Douglas G (eds) Families across frontiers. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, pp 13–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch H (1995) Private international law: a ‘soft’ alternative to the harmonisation of private law? European Review of Private Law 3:329–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreuzer K (2001) La communautarisation du droit international privé: les acquis et les perspectives. Droit GLOBAL Law Unifier le droit: le rêve impossible?, no 2001/1, pp 97–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2005) European integration, legal diversity and the conflict of law. Edinburgh Law Review 9:6–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pintens W (2003) Europeanisation of family law. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Pocar F (2000) La comunitarizzazione del DIPrivato: una European conflict of laws revolution. Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale 36:873–884

    Google Scholar 

  • Poillot-Peruzzetto S (2005) Les enjeux de la communautarisation. In: Fulchiron H, Nourissat C (eds) Le nouveau droit communautaire du divore et de la responsabilité parentale. Dalloz, Paris, pp 13–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Reimann M (1995) Conflict of laws in Western Europe. A guide through the jungle. Transnational Publishers, Irvington

    Google Scholar 

  • Remien O (2001) European private international law, the European community and its emerging area of freedom, security and justice. CMLR 38:53–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz A (2007) The state of development of uniform law in the field of European and international family and child law. The European Legal Forum 2006(6):278–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwenzer I, Dimsey M (2006) Model family law code. From a global perspective. Intersentia, Antwerpen

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (1973) Wechselwirkungen zwischen Kollisionsrecht und Sachrecht. RabelsZ 37:466–484

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2003) Family unions in private international law. NILR 50:419–435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tenreiro M, Ekström M (2003) Unification of private international law in family law matters within the European Union. In: Boele-Woelki K (ed) Perspectives for the unification and harmonisation of family law in Europe. Intersentia, Antwerpen, pp 185–193

    Google Scholar 

  • Thue HJ (2007) European private international law as the European solution, and the European economic area (EEA/EWR) problem. In: Reichelt G (ed) Europäisches Gemeinschaftsrecht und IPR. Ein Beitrag zur Kodifikation der Allgemeinen Grundsätze des Europäischen Kollisionsrechtes. Manzsche, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bar C (2001) Le groupe d’études sur un Code civil européen. Revue international de droit comparé 53:127–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Erp S (2002) European private international law as a transition stage? Electronic Journal of Comparative Law. Available at: www.ejcl.org/61/editor61.html

  • Von Hoffmann B (1998) European private international law. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • Waaldijk C (ed) (2005) More or less together: levels of legal consequences of marriage, cohabitation and registered partnerships for different-sex and same-sex partners. A comparative study of nine European countries, Paris: INED. Available at: www.ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/1034/publi_pdf1_document_de_travail_125.pdf

Download references

Authors
  1. N. A. Baarsma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C.ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Baarsma, N.A. (2011). Introduction. In: The Europeanisation of International Family Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-743-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation