Official website links end with .gov.sg
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Secure websites use HTTPS
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon: Official Dinner for International Hague Network of Judges and ASEAN Judges
Official Dinner for International Hague Network of Judges and ASEAN Judges
Welcome Remarks
Thursday, 22 May 2025
The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
Supreme Court of Singapore
My fellow Judges
Members of the 4th Global Meeting of the International Hague Network of Judges (or “IHNJ”)
Delegates of the 3rd ASEAN Family Judges Forum
Members of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices’ Working Group on Cross-border Disputes Involving Children (or “CBDIC”)
Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law Christophe Bernasconi and members of the Permanent Bureau
Distinguished guests
Ladies and gentlemen
I. Introduction
1. A very good evening to you. Let me first extend a very warm welcome to our colleagues and friends from abroad, who have travelled to Singapore for this week’s meetings. While we come from different countries and backgrounds, what unites us all is our shared conviction that the increasingly transnational nature of many family disputes demands that our judiciaries take a similarly transnational perspective in resolving them. In line with this, it is cause for celebration that this is just such an international gathering – I understand there are 68 delegates from 40 jurisdictions here tonight. Each of you brings your own unique perspectives, and it is this diversity of views and experiences that makes all our interactions and exchanges so very enriching.
II. The rise of the international family
2. An international outlook is especially important today because of the rise of the phenomenon that we refer to as the international family. For much of its history, family law and practice were woven with the needs and concerns of individual communities and countries, and largely developed within the confines of national jurisdictions. This inevitably changed over the course of the last several decades with the widespread movement of people across borders, and the formation of family units that transcended national borders and cultures. But this increased mobility of people has also meant that the breakdown of such international families generates a variety of new legal and very practical issues that themselves transcend jurisdictional boundaries, and which often cannot be meaningfully or effectively resolved by a single jurisdiction working on its own. At the same time, the resolution of these issues is critical to the people who find themselves embroiled in these disputes – not only divorcing spouses, but also and especially the children who are caught in the midst of their disputes, and whose wellbeing and futures may be indelibly affected by how this trying time in their lives unfolds.
3. These challenges have compelled the international community to seek collaborative solutions, not only through the development of a body of international family law, but also through the establishment of frameworks and fora to co-develop procedures for resolving international family disputes.(1)
III. The role and importance of the IHNJ and the CBDIC
4. Two such fora are the IHNJ and the CBDIC.
(a) The IHNJ was formed in 1998, following a proposal made at the De Ruwenberg Seminar for Judges that was organised that year by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (or “HCCH”). Its aim was to facilitate communications and cooperation between judges at the international level, and to assist in ensuring the effective operation of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention.(2) Today, it is widely accepted that judicial communications can play a role beyond the Child Abduction Convention,(3) and the scope of direct judicial communication under the IHNJ now also extends to matters under the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention(4) and the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.(5)
(b) In our region, the IHNJ’s work has been complemented by that of the CBDIC, which was established in 2015, and which meets annually to discuss how judiciaries can cooperate to facilitate the efficient mediation and resolution of cross-border disputes involving children in the ASEAN context. To this end, various frameworks for cooperation have been agreed upon, and training and sharing sessions have also been organised through various editions of the ASEAN Family Judges Forum.
5. While the genesis of the IHNJ and the CBDIC may differ, a common thread that runs through their work is their focus on safeguarding the welfare of children. And this is especially important amidst the challenges and complications that feature in international family disputes. The Child Abduction Convention, for example, aims to return an abducted child to the jurisdiction in which he or she has been habitually resident, on the basis that the courts in that jurisdiction are likely to be best placed to make the appropriate orders to promote the child’s welfare. This Convention is said to have greatly improved the protection of children internationally from the harmful effects of wrongful removal or retention.(6) And amongst the CBDIC’s statement of common values is the key directive that the courts should “place the best interests of children at the centre of all cross-border disputes involving children”.(7) This principle – that the welfare of the child is of paramount importance in all matters concerning the child – is the golden thread that runs throughout the family law framework of many jurisdictions,(8) and it is the driving force behind much of the work that we do as family judges.
6. Beyond enshrining a commitment to the welfare principle in the context of international family disputes, the IHNJ and the CBDIC also make key contributions to international family justice in at least three other ways.
(a) First, they facilitate judicial cooperation and communication across borders. This can greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of court proceedings, especially where there are parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. For example, the HCCH has published a set of principles governing direct judicial communications between members of the IHNJ, with the objective of addressing any gaps in the information that the judge hearing a case might have about the situation and the legal system in the State of habitual residence of the child involved in that case.(9) Similarly, the CBDIC has adopted a non-binding protocol for communications between designated Points of Liaison from each ASEAN judiciary, for the purpose of facilitating cross-border mediation.(10)
(b) Second, organisations like the IHNJ and the CBDIC foster consensus and convergence towards a model of international family justice by forging the understanding of common goals, values and norms across jurisdictions.(11) The CBDIC, for instance, has adopted a set of common values, aspirations and principles that include the importance of parental responsibility and a restorative and therapeutic approach to family justice, while recognising legitimate differences in cultures, values, societal norms and legal systems within ASEAN.(12) Convergence in substantive norms also requires a shared understanding of the relevant international instruments.(13) To this end, a valuable resource is the HCCH’s online International Child Abduction Database,(14) which provides information on how judges around the world have interpreted and applied these instruments. This can facilitate a significant degree of harmonisation and overall coherence in how these instruments are implemented. And another rich resource, of course, are the discussions that take place at international meetings and gatherings like the present.
(c) The third key contribution made by the IHNJ and the CBDIC, which is less tangible but perhaps even more fundamental, lies in promoting mutual trust between judiciaries. Effective international cooperation depends upon such trust; indeed, it has been observed that the “underlying assumption” of the Child Abduction Convention is that courts of all its signatory countries are equally capable of and committed to ensuring a fair hearing for the parties and a “skilled and humane evaluation of the issues of child welfare involved”.(15) By creating platforms for judges from different jurisdictions to meet and communicate directly with one another, the IHNJ and the CBDIC help to build trust and understanding across borders, and reaffirm the values and mission that we share despite some differences in our legal systems, backgrounds and cultures.
IV. Conclusion
7. Let me conclude. As we look back on what I have been told by so many of you was a highly productive meeting of the IHNJ earlier this week, and as we celebrate the milestone of the IHNJ’s inaugural meeting with the CBDIC at today’s HCCH Judicial Roundtable, I encourage you to consider how the IHNJ and the CBDIC can build upon the success of these meetings to further deepen cross-border judicial cooperation – perhaps through regular dialogues where we can continue to exchange our perspectives and explore innovative solutions to the challenges that we can expect to continue to face in delivering justice across borders in the context of international family disputes. With its strong sense of purpose and resourcefulness, I am confident that the international community of family judges who are represented here will be able to overcome these challenges and more, and that we can look forward to an even brighter future for international family justice.
8. Once again, it is my great pleasure to welcome all of you to Singapore, and I look forward to a wonderful evening with you. Thank you very much.
(1) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “International Family Justice as Collaborative Justice”, paper presented at the 18th Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific (18 November 2022) (“International Family Justice”) at paras 7–15.
(2) Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
(3) See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Emerging Guidance Regarding the Development of the International Hague Network of Judges and General Principles for Judicial Communications, Including Commonly Accepted Safeguards for Direct Judicial Communications in Specific Cases, within the Context of the International Hague Network of Judges” (2013) (“Emerging Guidance”) at p 7: https://assets.hcch.net/docs/62d073ca-eda0-494e-af66-2ddd368b7379.pdf.
(4) Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children.
(5) Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults.
(6) See International Family Justice at paras 55–56.
(7) See, for example, CBDIC, “Council of ASEAN Chief Justices – Common Values, Aspirations, and Principles: Concept Note” in “A Compendium of Agreed Frameworks” (2024) at p 14, para 3 (“The first proposed common value is for the courts to place the best interests of children at the centre of all cross-border disputes involving children. It is suggested that a child’s best interests refer to his/her well-being in every aspect: physical, intellectual, psychological, emotional, moral and religious well-being, both in the short term and in the long term.”).
(8) See Sundaresh Menon CJ, “Through the Eyes of A Child”, keynote address at the 8th Family Law & Children’s Rights Conference: World Congress 2021 (12 July 2021) at paras 3–4.
(9) See Emerging Guidance at pp 7 and 10 – 16.
(10) See CBDIC, “Proposed Common Procedure for Dealing with Cross-border Disputes Involving Children within the ASEAN” in “A Compendium of Agreed Frameworks” (2024) at pp 10–11.
(11) See International Family Justice at para 37 (observing that “[i]t is critical that we begin by identifying common goals, values and norms governing the model of international family justice that we aim to build. These will give direction to our efforts and enable us to create consensus on its nature and ideals.”).
(12) See CBDIC, “Council of ASEAN Chief Justices – Common Values, Aspirations, and Principles: Concept Note” in “A Compendium of Agreed Frameworks” (2024) at pp 15–18.
(13) See International Family Justice at para 78.
(14) Accessible at https://www.incadat.com/en.
(15) See P v P (minors) (child abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 155 at 158G; and International Family Justice at para 55.
2025/05/28
Share this page:
