Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Issues in Private International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Gender Perspectives in Private Law

Part of the book series: Gender Perspectives in Law ((GPL,volume 4))

  • 367 Accesses

Abstract

Private international law (PIL) per se deals with private law protection in cross-border relations. Numerous issues affected by PIL dictate consideration of a holistic approach, both in theoretical and practical terms. Human rights protection, entailing the fight against gender-based discrimination, is no exception. Moreover, abundant cross-border private situations may take gender into consideration. Feminist theories affect modern PIL legislation and interpretation. Gender mainstreaming clearly affects the methodology, understanding and interpretation of private international law. The feasibility of “blind” choice-of-law rules is challenged in light of contemporary social demands and horizontal policy objectives referring to gender equality and the right to self-determination. The gender mainstreaming is reflected in the systematic mitigation of private international law methods. Instead of only mechanical connecting factors, party autonomy is introduced. However, its feasibility to ameliorate gender based discrimination gets challenged by social reality of patriarchal culture and associated gender roles. Gender-affected private international law topics addressed by the paper range from personal effects of matrimony, in particular personal name, celebration and dissolution of a marriage, child marriage. Among international family law gender aspects are inspected in matters of parenthood in transnational surrogacy, child abduction and in the context of domestic violence. Paper addresses the above matters in member states of the Council of Europe and the European Union.

The work of doctoral student Martina Drventić has been fully supported by the “Young researchers’ career development project - training of doctoral students” of the Croatian Science Foundation.

This paper is a product of work that has been fully supported by the Faculty of Law Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, under the project No. IP-PRAVOS-23 “Contemporary Issues and Problems to the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights”.

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

Access this chapter

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 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 06 April 2023

    The book was inadvertently published without the funding note. The funding note has been added in the chapter.

Notes

  1. 1.

    United Nations. 1945. Charter of the United Nations. 1 UNTS XVI, Art. 8.

  2. 2.

    UN General Assembly. 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 217 A (III), Preamble and Article 16(1).

  3. 3.

    Article 3(3) is stating: “In all the activities referred to in this Article, the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality, between men and women.” In the Lisabon version of the Treaty the gender equality is manifested trough the Article 2.: “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.” Treaty on European Union, OJ C 191, 29/07/1992, 1-110.

  4. 4.

    European Commission, ‘Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community Policies and Activities’ COM (1996) 67 final.

  5. 5.

    Bayraktaroğlu-Özçelik (2021).

  6. 6.

    World Health Organisation (2018, 2020).

  7. 7.

    Nott (2000).

  8. 8.

    Eekelaar (2016).

  9. 9.

    Muir Watt (2013), p. 71 ff.

  10. 10.

    Michaels (2019).

  11. 11.

    Isailović (2019).

  12. 12.

    Banu (2017).

  13. 13.

    Kegel (1986), p. 15; Vischer (1993), p. 49.

  14. 14.

    Banu (2017).

  15. 15.

    Donchin (2000).

  16. 16.

    Banu (2019).

  17. 17.

    The authors are Mary Keyes, Roxana Banu and Ivana Isailović.

  18. 18.

    See: Knop et al. (2021).

  19. 19.

    Isailović (2019).

  20. 20.

    Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes OJ L 183, 8.7.2016, 1–29

  21. 21.

    González Beilfuss (2020), pp. 195–204.

  22. 22.

    Dutta (2017), p. 13.

  23. 23.

    This position was supported by the Institute of International Law with a resolution after the Krakow session in 2005. Institut de Droit International Resolution ‘Différences culturelles et ordre public en droit international privé de la famille’ 25 August 2005, Rapporteur: Paul Lagarde, https://www.idi-iil.org/app/uploads/2017/06/2005_kra_02_en.pdf.

  24. 24.

    See The International Commission on Civil Status / ICCS, available at: http://www.ciec1.org/.

  25. 25.

    Following the Garcia Avello case, it is prohibited in the event of dual or multiple EU member states nationalities. In other situations member states are still free to retain primacy. C-148/02 Carlos Garcia Avello v Belgian State (2003) ECLI:EU:C:2003:539.

  26. 26.

    Eliantonio et al. (2013).

  27. 27.

    Salerno (2019), pp. 20–25.

  28. 28.

    Fawcett et al. (2016); Župan (2020).

  29. 29.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012, 391–407.

  30. 30.

    Thoma (2017), pp. 1454–1460.

  31. 31.

    Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, Application No. 76240/01, 28 June 2007; see also infra Sect. 4.1.

  32. 32.

    Župan (2021).

  33. 33.

    Smits (2010), p. 71.

  34. 34.

    See infra Sect. 3.1.

  35. 35.

    See infra Sect. 3.2.

  36. 36.

    Bogdan (2013), p. 59; Siehr (2017), p. 699.

  37. 37.

    Mahr is usualy part of marriage contract. Mahr can be paid either at the celebration of the marriage or later. Wife is entitled to ask for her full mahr at any time during her marriage or upon its dissolution. Løvdal (2008, pp. 35–41).

  38. 38.

    Løvdal (2008), pp. 109–114.

  39. 39.

    https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/aug/16/landmark-uk-court-ruling-due-in-bride-price-dispute.

  40. 40.

    Rotten (2011), p. 145.

  41. 41.

    Lamrabet (2016), pp. 1–9; Lamrabet (2015).

  42. 42.

    Løvdal (2008), p. 122.

  43. 43.

    Løvdal (2008), p. 122.

  44. 44.

    Župan (2019), p. 547.

  45. 45.

    Pilcher (2017), p. 814.

  46. 46.

    Tirosh (2010).

  47. 47.

    Peternai Andrić (2019, p. 88 ff).

  48. 48.

    Pilcher (2017), p. 816.

  49. 49.

    Pilcher (2017), p. 816.

  50. 50.

    UN General Assembly. 1979. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, UNTS vol. 1249, 1.

  51. 51.

    Walkowiak (2016), p. 138.

  52. 52.

    Davies (2011).

  53. 53.

    Case relating to personal names of spouses of Macedonian and Croatian nationality “Valcov/a” got media coverage, see more in Župan (2012), pp. 182–183.

  54. 54.

    Connell (2010).

  55. 55.

    Walkowiak (2016).

  56. 56.

    Dutta (2017), p. 1349.

  57. 57.

    Burghartz v Switzerland, Application No. 16213/90, 22 February 1994.

  58. 58.

    Losonci Rose and Rose v Switzerland, ECHR, App. No. 664/06, 9 November 2010.

  59. 59.

    Stjerna v Finland, ECHR, App. No. 18131/91, 25 November 1994.

  60. 60.

    Tirosh (2010).

  61. 61.

    For comparative law, see: Shakargy (2020).

  62. 62.

    León Madrid v. Spain, ECHR,App. No. 30306/13, 26 October 2021.

  63. 63.

    González Beilfuss (2020), pp. 126–128.

  64. 64.

    Jänterä-Jareborg (2018).

  65. 65.

    Also called “paedogamy”. See: van Coller (2017).

  66. 66.

    Bayraktaroğlu-Özçelik (2021).

  67. 67.

    Thoma (2017), p. 1459.

  68. 68.

    Cornelup et al. (2017), p. 23.

  69. 69.

    Lambertz (2016).

  70. 70.

    De Vido (2019).

  71. 71.

    Z.H. and R.H. v Switzerland, ECHR, App. No. 60119/12, 8 December 2015.

  72. 72.

    Dawidowicz (2010), p. 678; Kosińska (2019), p. 88.

  73. 73.

    van Coller (2017), p. 366; See also Lake (2011); Sloth-Nielsen (2008).

  74. 74.

    Grover (2006), p. 74.

  75. 75.

    Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4, 2003; UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women General Recommendation No. 21.

  76. 76.

    UNICEF. 1998. Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, New York-Geneva.

  77. 77.

    Jänterä-Jareborg (2016); Dethloff (2018).

  78. 78.

    Gaffney-Rhys (2011).

  79. 79.

    Jensen and Thornton (2003).

  80. 80.

    Murphy (2000).

  81. 81.

    Murphy (2000), p. 644.

  82. 82.

    Murphy (2008); Jänterä-Jareborg (2018).

  83. 83.

    For Germany, See Rath (2019), and for Sweden, Bogdan (2019).

  84. 84.

    Case C-338/13, Marjan Noorzia v Bundesministerin für Inneres (2014) ECLI:EU:C:2014:2092.

  85. 85.

    Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 30 April 2014. Marjan Noorzia v Bundesministerin für Inneres, ECLI:EU:C:2014:288, para 42.

  86. 86.

    See: C-372/16 Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch (2017) ECLI:EU:C: 2017:988, and in particular the decision of the German Bundesgerichtshof XII ZB 158/18, 26 August 2020.

  87. 87.

    Verhellen (2014).

  88. 88.

    Ammdjadi v. Germany, Application No. 51625/08, 9 March 2010; Louwrens (2014).

  89. 89.

    Attempts at unification are ongoing in the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

  90. 90.

    Brunet et al. (2013); Igareda González (2019).

  91. 91.

    Ní Shúilleabháin (2019).

  92. 92.

    Mennesson v France, ECtHR, App. No. 65192/11, 26 June 2014; and Labassee v France, ECtHR, App. No. 65941/11, 26 June 2014.

  93. 93.

    Paradiso and Campanelli v Italy, ECtHR, App. No. 25358/12, 27 January 2015, Grand Chamber 24 January 2017.

  94. 94.

    Župan (2020); Advisory opinion P16-2018-001 Sylvie and Dominique Mennesson ECHR 132 (2019) 10 April 2019.

  95. 95.

    Advisory opinion P16-2018-001 Sylvie and Dominique Mennesson ECHR 132 (2019) 10 April 2019, para 100–101.

  96. 96.

    Rozée et al. (2020), pp. 2–14.

  97. 97.

    Rozée et al. (2020), p. 2.

  98. 98.

    Borrillo (2019).

  99. 99.

    Hague Conference on Private International Law is working on a surrogacy global convention since 2015, see more https://www.hcch.net/en/projects/legislative-projects/parentage-surrogacy.

  100. 100.

    Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) OJ L 204, 26.7.2006, 23–36.

  101. 101.

    C-363/12 Z. v A Government Department and the Board of Management of a Community School (2014) ECLI:EU:C:2014:159.

  102. 102.

    C-167/12 C. D. v S. T. (2014) ECLI:EU:C:2014:169.

  103. 103.

    Lamont (2011), p. 369.

  104. 104.

    HCCH. 1980. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 25 October 1980, Hague XXVIII.

  105. 105.

    Child Abduction Convention, Art. 3; González Beilfuss (2017).

  106. 106.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, pp. 1–29. On 1 August 2022, this Regulation will be replaced by the Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction, OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, pp. 1–115. The revision introduces more substantiated rules on child abduction, which used to be governed by one article (Article 11), and which is now governed by the whole chapter (Chapter III).

  107. 107.

    Dyer (1978); Schuz (2013); Pérez-Vera (1982).

  108. 108.

    Lowe and Stephens (2018b, p. 9); Lowe and Stephens (2018a).

  109. 109.

    Pretelli (2021); Nishitani (2019).

  110. 110.

    Case facts in the ECHR case: Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, ECtHR, App. No. 41615/07, 6 July 2010.

  111. 111.

    Morano-Foadi (2007), p. 17; see Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy, ECtHR, App. no. 14737/09, 12 July 2011.

  112. 112.

    Keyes (2019), p. 8.

  113. 113.

    The issue has also been discussed at the meeting of the Special Commission of the Hague Conference on Private International law and is addressed in the Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, https://assets.hcch.net/docs/225b44d3-5c6b-4a14-8f5b-57cb370c497f.pdf. See also the Report on the Experts’ Meeting on Issues of Domestic/Family Violence and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, 12 June 2017, The University of Westminster, London, Information Document No 6 of the Special Commission of August 2017, https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid¼6545&dtid¼57. Accessed 20 October 2021.

  114. 114.

    Beaumont et al. (2016).

  115. 115.

    The cases of such judicial actions were identified in the national case law practice in Republic of Croatia. See the study by Župan et al. (2020).

  116. 116.

    Schuz (2013, p. 151). Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v L. E. (2010) ECLI:EU:C: 2010:544.

  117. 117.

    Beaumont and McEleavy (1999), p. 4; Trimmings (2013), p. 36.

  118. 118.

    Salter (2014), p. 23.

  119. 119.

    Shreeves and Prpic (2019), p. 2.

  120. 120.

    Martinez Garcia (2019), pp. 10–24.

  121. 121.

    Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, 2–18.

  122. 122.

    Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, 4–12.

  123. 123.

    The recently rendered Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025 calls on the Member States to further work on implementing, inter alia, the EU package of protection measures. A Union of Equality: Gender Equality Strategy 2020–2025, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Brussels COM (2020)152 final, 5.3.2020, 8.

  124. 124.

    Dutta (2016); Freixes and Román (2014).

  125. 125.

    van der Aa et al. (2014); POAM Project Team (2020).

  126. 126.

    Blázquez (2020).

  127. 127.

    Manjoo and Jones (2019); Shreeves and Prpic (2019), p. 3.

  128. 128.

    van der Aa et al. (2014), p. 242.

References

  • Banu R (2017) A relational feminist approach to conflict of Laws. Mich J Gender Law 24:1–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Banu R (2019) Gender and private international law. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. https://www.mpipriv.de/1119161/gender-and-private-international-law

  • Bayraktaroğlu-Özçelik G (2021) SDG 5. Gender equality. In: Michaels R, Abou-Nigm VR, van Loon H (eds) The private side of transforming our world - UN sustainable development goals 2030 and the role of private international law. Intersentia, Cambridge – Antwerp – Chicago. https://www.intersentiaonline.com/library/the-private-side-of-transforming-our-world-un-sustainable-development-goals-2030-and-the-role-of-p

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont P, Walker L, Holliday J (2016) Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU. J Priv Int Law 12:211–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaumont PR, McEleavy PE (1999) The Hague convention on international child abduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Blázquez B, Raquel. (2020) European judicial cooperation and protection of gender-based violence victims, fact or fiction? J Penal Law Criminol 8:95–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan M (2013) Some reflections on multiculturalism, application of Islamic law, legal pluralism and the new EU succession regulation. In: A commitment to private international Iaw. Intersentia, Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland, pp 59–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan M (2019) Some critical comments on the new Swedish rules on non-recognition of foreign child marriages. J Priv Int Law 15:247–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrillo D (2019) Disposer de son corps: un droit encore à conquérir. Éditions Textuel, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunet L et al (2013) A Comparative Study on the Regime of Surrogacy in EU Member States. Study for the JURI committee. European Parliament, Brussels. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474403

  • Connell C (2010) Doing, undoing or redoing gender? Learning from the workplace experiences of transgender people. Gend Soc 24:31–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornelup S et al (2017) Private International Law in a Context of Increasing International Mobility: Challenges and Potential Migration, Study fot the JURI committee. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/583157/IPOL_STU(2017)583157_EN.pdf

  • Davies H (2011) Sharing surnames: children, family and kinship. Sociology 45:554–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawidowicz M (2010) The obligation of non-recognition of an unlawful situation. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S, Parlett K (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 677–686

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vido S (2019) Against a Girl’s will: child marriages, immigration and the directive on family reunification. In: Bergamini E, Ragni C (eds) Fundamental rights and best interests of the child in transnational families. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland, pp 121–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Dethloff N (2018) Child brides on the move: legal responses to culture clashes. Int J Law Policy Fam 32:302–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin A (2000) Autonomy and interdependence: quandaries in genetic decision-making. In: Mackenzie C, Stoljar N (eds) Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 236–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta A (2016) Cross-border protection measures in the European Union. J Priv Int Law 12:169–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutta A (2017) Personal status. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopaedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA, pp 1346–1350

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer A (1978) Report on International Abduction by One Parent (Legal Kidnapping). Preliminary Document 1, Actes et Documents of the XIVth Session

    Google Scholar 

  • Eekelaar J (2016) Marriage, religion and gender equality. In: Banda F, Joffe LF (eds) Women’s rights and religious law domestic and international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 32–44

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eliantonio M, Brunello S, von Freyhold H (2013) Study for the JURI Committee, European Parliament, Life in cross-border situations in the EU. A Comparative Study on Civil Status. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/etudes/join/2013/474395/IPOL-JURI_ET(2013)474395_EN.pdf

  • Fawcett JJ, Ní Shúilleabháin M, Shah S (2016) Human rights and private international law. Oxford Private International Law Series

    Google Scholar 

  • Freixes T, Román L (2014) Protection of the gender-based violence victims in the European Union. Publications Universitat Rovira I Virgili/Publicacions Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney-Rhys R (2011) International law as an instrument to combat child marriage. Int J Human Rights 15:359–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • González Beilfuss C (2017) Chapter C.8: child abduction. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopaedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA, pp 298–300

    Google Scholar 

  • González Beilfuss C (2020) Party autonomy in international family law. In: Recueil des cours 408. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • González NI (2019) Regulating surrogacy in Europe: common problems, diverse national laws. Eur J Women’s Stud 26:435–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover S (2006) Children’s rights as ground zero in the debate on the universality of human rights: the child marriage issue as a case example. Orig Law Rev 2:72–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Isailović I (2019) Gender & private international law: defining “Gender”. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. https://www.mpipriv.de/1118967/defining-gender

  • Jänterä-Jareborg M (2018) Non-recognition of child marriages: sacrificing the global for the local in the aftermath of the 2015 ‘Refugee Crisis’. In: Douglas G, Murch M, Stephens V (eds) International and national perspectives on child and family law: essays in Honour of Nigel Lowe. Intersentia, Cambridge – Antwerp – Portland, pp 267–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Jänterä-Jareborg M (2016) The child in the intersections between society, family, faith and culture. In: Jänterä-Jareborg M (ed) The child’s interests in conflict: the intersections between society, family, faith and culture. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland, pp 1–30

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen R, Thornton R (2003) Early female marriage in the developing world. Gend Dev 11:9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kegel G (1986) Fundamental approaches. In: Lipstein K (ed) International encyclopedia of comparative law, vol 3. J. C. Mohr, Tübingen, pp 1–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes M (2019) Woman in private international law. In: Rimmer SH, Ogg K (eds) Research handbook on feminist engagement with international law. Research handbooks in international law series. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, pp 103–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Knop K, Ralf M, Riles A (2021) From multiculturalism to technique: feminism, culture, and the conflict of laws style. Stanford Law Rev 64:589–656

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosińska AM (2019) Cultural rights of third-country nationals in EU law. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lake A (2011) Adolescence: an age of opportunity. The state of the world’s children. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambertz G (2016) Child marriages and the law - with special reference to Swedish developments. In: Jänterä-Jareborg M (ed) The child’s interests in conflict. The child’s interests in conflict addresses the conflicting demands on children from minority groups or children born to parents of different cultural or faith backgrounds. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland, pp 85–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamont R (2011) Mainstreaming gender into European family law? The case of international child abduction and Brusses II revised. Eur Law J 17:366–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lamrabet A (2015) What kind of liberation are we talking about? From the Introduction of “The Qur’an and Women: A Reading of Liberation”. https://karamah.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/What-Kind-of-Liberation-Are-We-Talking-About.pdf

  • Lamrabet A (2016) Women in the Qurʼan: an emancipatory reading. Am J Islam Soc Sci 35:68–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Louwrens KR (2014) The impact of the European convention on human rights on private international law. Springer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Løvdal L (2008) Private international law, Muslim laws and gender equality: the adjudication of mahr in Scandinavian, English and French courts. Det juridiske fakultet. Master thesis. https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/21802/86632.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

  • Lowe N, Stephens V (2018a) Global trends in the operation of the 1980 Hague abduction convention: the 2015 statistics. Family Law Q 52:350–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe N, Stephens V (2018b) Part I — A statistical analysis of applications made in 2015 under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — Global report – provisional edition, pending the completion of the French version (Preliminary Doc No 11A) (Revised version, February 2018) https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d0b285f1-5f59-41a6-ad83-8b5cf7a784ce.pdf

  • Manjoo R, Jones J (2019) The legal protection of women from violence. Normative gaps in international law. Routhledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez Garcia E (2019) The construcion of Europe through judicial cooperation in matters of protection of victims of domestic violence. Tirant lo Blanch, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels R (2019) Gender and Private International Law. Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law. https://www.mpipriv.de/gender-and-pil

  • Morano-Foadi S (2007) Problems and challenges in researching bi-National Migrant families within the European Union. Int J Law Policy Fam 21:1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2013) Concurrence ou confluence? Droit international privé et droits fondamentaux dans la gouvernance globale. Revue internationale de droit économique 1–2:59–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy J (2000) Rationality and cultural pluralism in the non-recognition of foreign marriages. Int Comp Law Q 49:643–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ní Shúilleabháin M (2019) Surrogacy, system shopping and Article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Int J Law Policy Fam 33:104–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nishitani Y (2019) Identité culturelle en droit international privé de la famille. Recueil des cours 401:127–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Nott S (2000) Accentuating the positive: alternative strategies for promoting gender equality. In: Stephen K, Beveridge F, Nott S (eds) Making women count. Integrating gender into law and policy-making. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez-Vera E (1982) Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=publications.listing&sub=2

  • Peternai Andrić K (2019) Pripovijedanje, identitet, invaliditet (Storytelling, Identity, Disability). Meandarmedia, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilcher J (2017) Names and doing gender: how forenames and surnames contribute to gender identities, difference, and inequalities. Sex Roles 77:812–822

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • POAM Project Team (2020) Best practice guide: protection of abducting mothers in return proceedings: intersection between domestic violence and parental child abduction. University of Aberdeen. https://research.abdn.ac.uk/poam/

    Google Scholar 

  • Pretelli I (2021) Three patterns, one law - plea for a reinterpretation of the Hague child abduction convention to protect children from exposure to sexism, mysogyny and violence against women. In: Pfeiffer M et al (eds) Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerova. Wolters Kluwer, Praha, pp 363–393

    Google Scholar 

  • Rath C (2019) Underage, married, separated. A German law abolishes child marriages in general - not always in the interest of those affected, Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, https://www.mpg.de/12797223/childmarriage-legislation-germany

  • Rotten S (2011) The struggle of emebding the Islamic Mahr in a Western legal system. In: Mehdi R, Nielsen JS (eds) Embedding mahr: (Islamic dower) in the European legal system. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozée V, Unisa S, de La Rochebrochard E (2020) The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018. BMC Womens Health 20:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salerno F (2019) The identity and continuity of personal status in contemporary private international law. Recueil des Cours:395

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter M (2014) Getting Hagued: the impact of international law on child abduction by protective mothers. Altern Law J 39:19–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuz R (2013) The Hague child abduction convention - a critical analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakargy S (2020) You name it: on the cross-border regulation of names. Am J Comp Law 68:647–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shreeves R, Prpic M (2019) Violence against women in the EU. State of play. European Parliamentary Research Service

    Google Scholar 

  • Siehr K (2017) Evasion of laws (Fraus Legis). In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopaedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA, pp 698–709

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sloth-Nielsen J (2008) Children’s rights in Africa: a legal perspective. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Smits JM (2010) Beyond Euroscepticism: on the choice of legal regimes as empowerment of citizens. Utrecht Law Rev 6(3):68–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thoma I (2017) Public policy. In: Basedow J, Rühl G, Ferrari F, de Miguel Asensio P (eds) Encyclopaedia of private international law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton MA, USA, pp 1454–1460

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirosh Y (2010) A name of one’s own: gender and symbolic legal personhood in the European court of human rights. Harv J Law Gend 33:247–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimmings K (2013) Child abduction within the European Union. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon

    Google Scholar 

  • van Coller A (2017) Child marriage – acceptance by association. Int J Law Policy Fam 31:363–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Aa S et al (2014) Mapping the Legislation and Assessing the Impact of Protection Orders in the European Member States. http://poems-project.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Intervict-Poems-digi-1.pdf

  • Verhellen J (2014) Real-life international family law. A Belgian empirical research on cross-border family law. In: Boele-Woelki K, Dethloff N, Gephart W (eds) Family law and culture in Europe, developments, challenges and opportunities. Intersentia, Cambridge-Antwerpen-Portland, pp 328–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Vischer F (1993) General course on private international law. In: Recueil des cours, vol 232. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston/London

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkowiak BJ (2016) Personal name policy: from theory to practice. Wydział Neofilologii UAM w Poznaniu, Poznan

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organisation (2018) Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240022256

  • World Health Organisation (2020) COVID-19 and Violence Against Women. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-SRH-20.04

  • Župan M. 2012. Normiranje mjerodavnog prava za osobno ime - novina hrvatskog Zakona o međunarodnom privatnom pravu. In Recent trends in European private international law – challenges for the national legislations of the south east European countries, ed. u: Toni Deskoski. 179–193. Skopje: Faculty of Law Iustinianus Primus Skopje

    Google Scholar 

  • Župan M (2019) Identity of a child in cross-border legal transit (naming law at focus). In: Pavlović Z (ed) Yearbook - human rights protection: protection of the Right’s of the child “30 Years After the Adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child”. Provincial Protector of Citizens - Ombudsman; Institute of Criminological and Sociological Research in Belgrade, Novi Sad, pp 545–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Župan M (2020) Utjecaj ljudskih prava na suvremeno međunarodno privatno pravo. In: Barbić J, Sikirić H (eds) Međunarodno privatno pravo – interakcija međunarodnih, europskih i domaćih propisa. Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb, pp 25–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Župan M, Drventić M, Kruger T (2020) Cross-border removal and retention of a child – Croatian practice and European expectation. Int J Law Policy Fam 34:60–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Župan M (2021) Identitet – novo mjerilo prekograničnog priznanja statusa? In: Barbić J, Župan M (eds) Identitet u prekograničnim privatnopravnim odnosima. Hrvatska akademija znanosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Faculty of Law, Osijek, Croatia

    Mirela Župan & Martina Drventić

Authors
  1. Mirela Župan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Drventić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Drventić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. LUMSA University, Palermo, Italy

    Gabriele Carapezza Figlia

  2. University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

    Ljubinka Kovačević

  3. Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Eleonor Kristoffersson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Župan, M., Drventić, M. (2023). Gender Issues in Private International Law. In: Carapezza Figlia, G., Kovačević, L., Kristoffersson, E. (eds) Gender Perspectives in Private Law. Gender Perspectives in Law, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14092-1_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14092-1_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-14091-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-14092-1

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation