Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 1360-9939 - ISSN (Online) 1464-3707 Published by Oxford University Press[409 journals]
Authors:Rault W. Pages: 139 - 159 Abstract: AbstractThe French Civil Union, known as PACS (civil solidarity pact) was created in 1999. At this time it was mainly viewed as a registered partnership for same-sex couples. But it has been progressively adopted by different-sex couples; PACS is now widespread among the French population. In 2016, 190,000 PACS were registered versus approximately 235,000 marriages. Through a quantitative approach using the national Study of Individual and Conjugal Trajectories Survey (2013–2014, n = 7825), this article shows that the characteristics of persons in a PACS differ from those of married persons. Those in a PACS are also more likely to report not having a religion; more likely on to be politically left-wing and have had more intimate relationships and couple relationships before the current union. The PACS is more closely associated to the couple on its own, where marriage is more associated to family and the presence of children. Then, the article shows that the choices of the PACS and of marriage are justified in different registers: the PACS is more associated to practical questions (legal, instrumental, tax) than marriage. It also compares the way civil partners and spouses give to their union a ‘public’ dimension via celebrations. The analysis enables us to understand that despite the increasing number of civil unions, the PACS is not going to replace marriage. PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz001 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Authors:Zervogianni E. Pages: 160 - 180 Abstract: AbstractSurrogacy raises admittedly a series of concerns, but it is also a reality and, as long as there are persons who cannot have children in a different way, this will not change. Pragmatic considerations call for the regulation of surrogacy; not because pragmatism overrides ethics, but because a good regulation, one that balances the interests of the parties involved, not only on paper but also in practice, can successfully address most concerns about surrogacy. In 2002, Greece was the first European country to introduce a comprehensive regulatory scheme for surrogacy, followed by Cyprus in 2015 and Portugal in 2016. This article takes a closer look at the regulation of surrogacy in these jurisdictions to draw conclusions on the lessons that can be learned from them. Our main result is that the preferable model of regulation is that of commercial gestational surrogacy, coupled with guarantees for the protection of the interests of the surrogate as well as with rules for the pre-birth allocation of parental rights to the intended parents. PubDate: Sun, 05 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz003 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Authors:Robertson L; Broadhurst K. Pages: 181 - 203 Abstract: AbstractThis article examines the use of social science research in case level decision-making and adjudication in public and private family law proceedings from the perspectives of judges and lawyers in England and Wales. To provide a context for our analysis, we first review a limited, but nevertheless important, body of international literature concerned with the place of social science in the family courts. We then turn to our empirical material, drawn from a scoping study commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation, to inform the design of a new family justice observatory for England and Wales. The study found that judges and lawyers in England and Wales described similar obstacles to the use of social science evidence at a case level as their international counterparts, despite differences in jurisdictional rules and norms. Specifically, they were concerned with due process and the admissibility of research evidence, as well as the potential for advocacy bias, given the contested nature of social science evidence. Questions about how to apply population data to the specifics of an individual case were also raised. However, analysis also revealed further contextual obstacles in England and Wales resulting from radical changes to the family justice system, following comprehensive review in 2011. Judges and lawyers indicated that a reduction in experts and far shorter timescales for the completion of public law cases, together with an influx of self-representing litigants in private law, have created a context that is less, rather than more receptive to interdisciplinary knowledge, including research evidence. PubDate: Sat, 18 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz002 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Authors:Mujuzi J. Pages: 204 - 227 Abstract: AbstractArticle 31(1) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that ‘[a] man and a woman are entitled to marry only if they are each of the age of eighteen years and above and are entitled at that age – (a) to found a family; and; (b) to equal rights at and in marriage, during marriage, and at its dissolution.’ During the making of the Ugandan constitution, some Constituent Assembly delegates argued that the constitution should expressly provide that at the dissolution of a marriage, spouses should have a right to equitable distribution of property. After a heated debate, this proposal was not included in the Constitution. However, jurisprudence emanating from Ugandan courts shows that courts have interpreted Article 31(1) to mean that at the dissolution of a marriage, spouses have a right to equitable distribution of property. A similar approach has been followed in some African countries. The purposes of this article are to demonstrate the drafting history of Article 31(1) and to discuss jurisprudence from Ugandan courts on Article 31(1). The author also demonstrates how courts in other African countries have dealt with the issue of distribution of property when a marriage is dissolved. PubDate: Sat, 25 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz005 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Authors:Jiang J. Pages: 228 - 251 Abstract: AbstractChina’s first Anti-Domestic Violence Law that took effect in March 2016 is widely praised as progress against the misuse of public power in the area of domestic violence allegations in a patriarchal society. However, empirical research points to the first contradiction in judicial practices, namely, the informal and flexible mechanism of judicial mediation that is the norm in domestic violence cases. Victims’ rights and safety are harmed under the political requirement of ‘saving and repairing the marital relationship’ or ‘maintaining social harmony.’ Facing this weakness of the judiciary and public power, Chinese civil society has been increasingly engaging in various forms of anti-domestic violence advocacy and has achieved considerable success inside and outside the courtroom. Nevertheless, in this context, the authorities have escalated suppression of the anti-domestic violence advocacy alongside its efforts of further suppressing civil society in general. Based on an analysis of these two contradictions, this article argues that the apparent contradictions reflect the inherent coherence of deploying law as an instrument serving political ends in an authoritarian context. Alongside the intensifying tension in these two contradictions is the further setback to reform, and the shrinking of the space for civil society activism. PubDate: Thu, 16 May 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz004 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Authors:Banda F. Pages: 252 - 275 Abstract: AbstractWhile the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is seen to be an African success story, in order to obtain some sense of the impact of CEDAW in African legal systems, this article considers cases in which CEDAW provisions on the family have been invoked in those jurisdictions and provides a snapshot of key issues identified by the Committee in the case law, including changes in Constitutions. This set in the context of the challenges of applying international standards to local contexts. PubDate: Wed, 19 Jun 2019 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/lawfam/ebz006 Issue No:Vol. 33, No. 2 (2019)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[409 journals]
