Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On May 20, 2011, Japan finally announced its intention to sign the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. To date, 84 countries are parties to this treaty, and Japan is the only G7 country not on the list. Japan has long been an unrepentant haven for child-abducting parents. The United States Office of Children's Issues has no record of any cases requesting the return of a wrongfully retained or abducted child being resolved through the Japanese court system. The only successful returns have been the result of voluntary agreements negotiated between the parties. Unfortunately, as welcome as Japan's announcement might be to the international community, its reputation as a black hole of parental child abduction might not be lost so easily.
The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.