U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Unitrans International Corporation, Docket No. 21-2132

International Treaty and Other International Agreements

 

Interpretation

 

 

 

(…) Though the Montreal Convention does not further define “contracting carrier,” the President included a “detailed article-by-article analysis” of its text – prepared by the Secretary of State – when transmitting the treaty to the Senate. See Cong. Rsch. Serv., Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate 118 (2001) (explaining how “all treaties are transmitted to the Senate in the President’s name” and are typically accompanied by a letter from the Secretary of State that provides a “detailed description and analysis of the treaty”), 

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/pdf/CPRT-106SPRT66922.pdf

[https://perma.cc/JX6P-CX4W].

 

 

 

(U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, April 4, 2024, Indemnity Insurance Company of North America v. Unitrans International Corporation, Docket No. 21-2132)

 

Abbott v. Abbott

Child: Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention) and the implementing statute, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), 42 U. S. C. §11601 et seq.  A parent has a right of custody under the Convention by reason of that parent’s ne exeat right (the authority to consent before the other parent may take the child to another country); Mr. Abbott’s ne exeat right is best classified as a “joint right of custody,” which the Convention defines to “include rights relating to the care of the person of the child and, in particular, the right to determine the child’s place of residence,” Art. 5(a); the Court owes deference to the Executive Branch’s treaty interpretations. See Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U. S. 176, 185 (U.S.S.Ct., 17.05.10, Abbott v. Abbott, J. Kennedy).

Enfant : aspect civil de l’enlèvement international d’enfants (Convention) et sa loi d’application (ICARA). Un parent bénéficie du droit de garde au sens de la Convention du fait du droit ne exeat de ce parent (l’autorité d’autoriser l’autre parent à passer la frontière avec l’enfant). Le droit ne exeat de M. A. est qualifié le mieux possible par l’expression suivante : un droit de garde conjoint, que la Convention définit de sorte à inclure les droits relatifs aux soins personnels dus à l’enfant, et, en particulier, le droit de déterminer le lieu de résidence de l’enfant. La présente Cour doit déférence à l’interprétation des traités par l’autorité exécutive fédérale.