Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING THEAPPLICATION OFTHECONVENTION OF 1902
GOVERNIIVI TGHEGUARDIANSHIP OFINFANTS
Judgmentof28November 1958
The caserelatingto the applicationof tht:Conventionofofchildrenand youngpersons.
1902 governing the Guardianship ofInfants, betweenthe On June 2nd, 1954,the Amsterdam CantonaCl ourthad
Netherlands andSweden,wasconcernedwiththevalidity of institutedguardianshipaccording to Netherlalaw. The
the measureof protective upbringing(s/qlddsuppfostran) fatherandthedeputy-guardianhadthenappealedfortheter-
taken by the Swedishauthoritiesin respect of an infant,minationof the protective upbringing,buf.thisappealwas
MarieElisabethBoll,ofNetherlands nationalityr,esidinginrejectedby theroviincialGovernmentof Ostergbtland.On
Sweden.Alleging thatthis measurewas incompatible with August5th, 1954,theCourtof FirstInstanceof Dordrecht,
the provisionsof TheHagueConventionof 1902governing upon the applicationof the GuardianshipCouncilof that
the guardianshipof infants, accordingto which it is thetown andwiththeconsentofthefather,dischargedthe latter
nationallawoftheinfant that isapplicable,tlheNetherlandfromhisfunctionsasguardianand appointedin his placea
intheir Applicationinstitutingproceedings,.askedtheCourfemaleguardianandorderedthatthe childshouldbehanded
todeclarethat themeasureofprotectivebringingisnotin .over to the latter.On September 16th.1954,the Swedish
conformitywiththeobligationsbindinguponSwedenbyvir- Court atNo~~kopingcancelled thepreviousregistrationof
tue of the Conventionand to order the tenninationof thethe guardianshipof the fatherand dismissedan application
measure. fortheremovalofthe:Swedishgodman. Lastly,onFebruary
Bytwelvevotes tofour, theCourtrejectedthisrequest. 21st, 1956,theSwedishSupremeAdministrativCeourt,bya
JudgesKojevnikov and Spiropoulosappenddeclarations final judgment, maintained the measure of protective
fortheJudgmentofthe Court. upbringing.
TheJudgmentof the International Courtof Justicestates
JudgesBadawi, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht,MorenoQuin- that, of alltheisionsgiveninSweden andintheNether-
tana, WellingtonKooand Sir PercySpender,availingthem- lands,thosewhichrelatetothe organisationofguardianship
selvesof the right conferreduponthemby Axticle57of the donotconcernthe Court.Thedisputerelatesto the Swedish
their separateopinions.udgmentf theouivtstatementsof decisions which instituted and maintainedprotective up-
bringing.ItisonlyponthemthattheCourtiscalleduponto
Vice-PresidentZafrullaKhanstates thathe agreesgener- adjudicate.
allywithJudgeWellingtonKoo. In the opinionofheGovernmentof the Netherlands, the
JudgesWiniarskiand Cordovaand M. Oflerhaus,Judge Swedish protective upbringing prevents the infantm
ad hoc,availingthemselvesoftherightconferreduponthem beinghandedovertctthe guardian,whereasthe 1902 Con-
by Article57 of the Statute,append to the Judgtf the ventionprovides thatthe guardianshipof infants shallbe
Court statementsoftheir dissentingopinions. governedbytheirnationallaw.TheexceptiontowhichArti-
Recallingtheessentialandundisputedfacts underlyingthecle 7 of the Conventionrelates is not applicable because
case, theJudgmentstatesthattheNetherlands infant Marie Swedishprotectiveupbringingisnotameasure permittedby
ElisabethBollwasbornofthemamageofJolbannesBoll,of that Articleandecausethe condition ofurgencyrequired
Netherlandsnationality,andGerdElisabeth Lindwall,who was notsatisfied.
died on December 5th, 1953. On the applicationof the For itspart, theGovernmentof Sweden doesnotdispute
father, the Swedishauthorities had, inthe first place, one factthat protectiveupbringing temporarilyimpedes
March 18th, 1954,registered theguardiansh.ipof the latterrciseofcustodytowhichthe guardian isentitledbyvirtue
and appointedagod manof theinfant,pursuantto Swedish ofDutchlaw,butcontendsthatthismeasuredoesnotconsti-
lawofguardianship.Subsequently,onApril:!6th, 1954,the tutea breach of the 1902 Convention, in the firstplace
infant was placed by the Swedish authorities under the because,whenthe measurewastaken, the rightto custody
regimeof protectiveupbringinginstitutedunderArticle22 belonging to thefather was an attributeof the puissance
(a)of the SwedishLawofJune 6th, 1924,onthe protection paternellewhichis notgovernedbythe 1902Convention;a
Continued on next pagefemale guardian having succeeded to this right,the 1902 etc., butwithout layingdown,particularlyinthedomainof
Conventiondoesnotapply i:nher caseeither.In the second therighttocustody,anyimmunityofaninfantorofa guard-
place,theSwedishLawfortheprotectionofchildrenapplies ian withrespectto the wholebody ofthe local law. The
to everyinfant residingin Sweden;theCon~~rentio governs national lawand the local lawmaypresent some pointsof
only conflictsof lawin respectof guardianship; protective contact.It doesnot follow,however, that in succasesthe
upbringing,being a measure within the categoryof ordre national lawoftheinfantmustalwaysprevailover the local
public, doesnotconstitutea breach oftheConvention.The law andthat the exerciseof the powersof a guardian is
contractingStatesretaintherighitomakethepowersofafor- alwaysbeyondthe reach oflocallawsdealingwithsubjects
eign guardian subjectto the restrictionsrequiredby ordre otherthantheassignmentofguardianshipandthedetermina-
public. tionofithepowersanddutiesofaguardian.
Withreferencetothe first ground reliuponbySweden, The locallawsrelatingto compulsory educationandthe
the Court observesthat the distinctionbetvveenthe period sanitary supervisioofchildren,professional trainiorthe
duringwhich thefatherwas investedwiththe guardianship participationof youngpeopleincertainworkareapplicable
and theperiodwhen theguardianshipwasenmste:dtoathird to foreigners. A guardian's right to custody under the
partymayleadtoadistinctiom beingdrawnbetweentheorig- national lawof the infantcannotovemdethe applicationof
inal institutionoftheregimeofprotective upbringing anits suchlawstoa foreign infant.
maintenancein face the I!~~~~~~~P 'pan a
thirdparty.The Courtdoesn,otconsiderthatit needbecon- TheJudgmentstatesthatthe SwedishLawonthe~rotec-
cernedwiththisdistinction.']hegroundsforitsdecisionare tionofchildrenandyoungpersonsisnota lawonguardian-
applicabletothe wholeofthedispute. shipandthatit isapplicablewhetherthe infat be withinthe
Injudgingofthecorrectne:sS oftheargumlsntaccordingto Conver~tioinntendedtoprohibittheapplicationofanylawon
whichprotectiveupbringingconstitutesarivalguardianship a differentsubjectmatter,theindirecteffectofwhich would
in competitionwith the Dutchguardianship, theJudgment be to ~strict, thoughnot to abolish,the guardian'srightto
notes that certainof the Swedish decisions concerningthe custody?The Courtconsidersthat to take this viewwould
administrationofthe propertyoftheinfantproceeded on the be to go beyondthe purposeof the Convention,which is
basisofrecognitionofthe Dutchguardianshiip. confinedtoconflictsoflaws.Ifthe Conventionhadintended
The judgment of the SupremeAdministrativeCourt of to regulatethe domain of applicationof laws such as the
February 21st, 1956, meiits particular mention. The SwedishLawon the protectionof children,that lawwould
SupremeAdministrative Coi~rtdid not questionthe guard- haveto be appliedto Swedishinfantsin a foreign country.
ian'scapacityto takeproceedlingsi;t thereby recognized her Butnoonehassoughttoattributetoitsuchanextratemtorial
capacity.Itdid notraiseprotectiveupbringingtothestatusof effect.
an institutionthe effect of luvhichwouldk cornpletelyto
absorbtheDutchguardianship.Itconfineditself,forreasons me Judgmentrecognisesthat andprotective
outsidethe ScopeoftheCOUI~:e'x samination,tonotcomply- upbrinl;inghavecertaincommonpurposes.~~t thoughpro-
ing with the guardian'sreqnest. Finally,under the regime tective contributestotheprotectionof thechild,
thusmaintained,the personto whomthechildwa.sentrusted itis,atthesametimeandaboveall,designedtoprotect soci-
inapplicationofthemeasureofprotectiveupbringinghasnot ,ty dangers resulting from improper upbringing,
thecapacityandrightsofagoardian. inadeqllatehygiene, ormoralcorruptionofJroungpeople.In
order to achieve itsaim ofindividualprotection,guardian-
inthecase,cannotberegardedasarivalsacguelrdiarishitothe ship,accordingto the Convention,needsto begovernedby
guardianship establishedinthe Netherlands in accordance the socialguarantee,the SwedishLawon the protectionoff
withthe 1902Convention. childrenmustapplytoallyoung peoplelivinginSweden.
Indismissingthe guardian'sclaim,theSwedishSupreme Itwascontendedthatthe 1902Convention mustbe under-
AdministrativeCourtlimited itself nodoubtto adjudicating stood as containingan impliedreservationauthorizing,on
upon the maintenanceof prl3tectiveupbringing,but, atthe thegroundofordrepublic, theoverrulingoftheapplication
sametime, itplacedanobstacleintheway ofthefiullexercise of the ,foreignlaw recognizedas normallythe properlaw.
ofthe righttocustody belongingtotheguarclian. The Courtdid notconsider itnecessaryto pronounceupon
Inorderto answertheque:~tion whethertl~isconstituteda thiscontention.Itsoughttoascertainin amoredirectmanner
failureto observethe 1902Conventionwhichprovides that whether, having regardto itspurpose, the1902Convention
"the administrationof a gua~:dianshipxtendsto theperson laysdown anyruleswhichtheSwedishauthoritieshavedis-
...oftheinfant", theCourtdid notconsidel:thatitwasnec- regardt:d.
eSSq for it to ascertainthe reasonsfor the decisionsCOm- I, doingthis, the court foundthat the 1902Convention
plainedof. Havingbeforeit a measure institutedpursuantto hadtomeetaproblem of theconflictofprivatelawrulesand
a Swedish Law, ithas to SZIYwhetherthe impositionand thatit gavethepreferenceto the national lawof the infant.
maintenanceofthismeasure areincompatiblewiththeCon- But when the questionis asked what is the domainof the
vention.TOdo that, it mustdeterminewhat are the obliga- oftheSwedishLaworoftheDutchLawonthe
tionsimposedbytheConveiation,howfartheyextend,and protectionof&ilkn, itisfoundthatthemeasuresprovided
whethertheConventionintendedto prohibi,tthe application forwe, takenin Swedenbyanadministrativeorganwhich
to a foreigninfantof a lawr~luchsthe SwedishLawOnthe act inaccordancewithitsownlaw.WhataSwedish
protectionofchildren. or Dutchcourtcan do in mattersof guardianship,namely,
The 1902Convention prc~videfsor theapplicationof the apply a foreignlaw,theauthoritiesofthosecountriescannot
nationallawof the infant, whichit expresslyextendsto the doin the matterofprotectiveupbringing. oextendthe 1902
personandtoallthe propertyoftheinfant,but itgoesnofar- Conventionto such asituationwouldleadto an impossibil-
ther than that.Its purposewas to put an end to the diver- ity.ThatConvention was designed toput anendtothecorn-
gencesofviewasto whetherpreferenceoughttobegivento petingclaimsof several laws togovern asingle legalrela-
thenationallawoftheinfant,,tothatofhisplitceofresidence, tionship.Thereare no such competingclaimsinthe case of
45lawsfor-theprotectioofchildrenandyoung:persons.Sucha would makeitanobstacleonthispoint tosocialprogress.
lawhas not andcannot haveanyextraterritorial aspiration. It thus seems tothe Court that,in spiteof their pointsof
AnextensiveinterpretationoftheConventionwould leadto contactand of the encroachmentsrevealedin practice, the
a negative solutionif the applicationof Swedishlaw was SwedishLaw onthe protectionof children doesnot come
refused to DutchchildrenlivinginSweden,sinceDutch law withinthe scopeof the 1902Convention onguardianship.
onthesamesubject couldnot beappliedtothem. The latter cannot thereforehave given rise toobligations
It is scarcely necessaryto add, saystht: Court, thatto bindinguponthesignatoryStatesinafieldoutsidethe matter
arriveat a solutionwhich wouldprevent the applicationof with whichitwasconcerned.Accordingly, theCourtdidnot,
the SwedishLaw onthe protectionof childrento a foreign in the presentcase, findany failureto observethe Conven-
infant livinginSweden,wouldbe to miscor~ceivtehesocial tiononthepartofSweden.
purposeofthatLaw.TheCourtstatedthatitcouldnotreadily Forthesereasons,theCourtrejectedthe claimoftheGov-
subscribetoanyconstructionofthe 1902Convention which ernmentoftheNetht:rlands.
Summary of the Judgment of 28 November 1958