2022 Statelessness & Citizenship Review 4(1) both individually and as imparted through their relationship with their parents, informs the notion of a child’s country of former habitual residence. Some salient observations on this topic are made in this Part. The first concerns the manner in which children establish ties to a country territory across the vector of time, as distinct to that of adults. A Child-Specific Ties to a Territory and Habituality Given the paucity of literature and refugee case law that engages with the meaning of a country of former habitual residence from a child’s perspective, it is helpful to look more broadly to other areas of law. Some helpful observations can be drawn from international family law, as both areas of law consider the protection needs of children, as guided by the CRC, and at the heart of either inquiry is the notion of a child’s habitual residence. International family law conventions which refer to the notion of a habitual residence include the 1902 Hague Convention on Guardianship,107 the 1961 Hague Convention on the Protection of Minors,108 the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘1980 Hague Convention’)109 and the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.110 As in the context of refugee law, no definition for a habitual residence is outlined in these conventions and there is no universal standard for the notion of a former habitual residence. Such has been deemed a matter of deliberate policy, aiming to leave the notion free from technical rules, which may breed rigidity and inconsistency between different legal systems.111 It has generally been conceived that the notion is heavily factintensive and cannot be reduced to a predetermined formula, varying with the circumstances of each case. As explained by Paul R Beaumont and Peter E McEleavy, to preserve its versatility, ‘the Hague Conference has continually declined to countenance the incorporation of a definition’. 112 Case law applying the 1980 Hague Convention, for example, is by no means consistent across jurisdictions when weighting factors as to the child-aspect of acclimatisation in a territory and the parent-aspect as to a settled purpose, when discerning a country of habitual residence for a child. The proportionate weight given to these two lead factors varies across jurisdictions. What is common, however, is that the principle of the best interests of the child guides the 107 See, eg, Convention of June 12, 1902 relating to the Settlement of Guardianship, opened for 108 109 110 111 112 signature 12 June 1902 (entered into force 30 July 1904) arts 2, 3. See also Protocol Concerning the Adhesion of States Not Represented at the Third Conference on Private International Law to the Convention of June 12, 1902, relating to the Settlement of Guardianship of Minors, opened for signature 28 November 1923, 51 LNTS 221 (entered into force 20 July 1926). See, eg, Convention concerning the Powers of Authorities and the Law Applicable in Respect of the Protection of Infants, opened for signature 5 October 1961, 1967 UNTS 145 (entered into force 4 February 1969) arts 4–6, 11, 13. See, eg, Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, open for signature 25 October 1980, 1343 UNTS 98 (entered into force 12 January 1983) arts 3–5. See, eg, Convention on the Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, opened for signature 29 May 1993, 1870 UNTS 167 (entered into force 1 May 1995) arts 2, 14. Re Bates (Minor) (High Court of Justice in England, Family Division, Waite J, 23 February 1989). Paul R Beaumont and Peter E McEleavy, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (Oxford University Press 1999) 89. 26