SafeReturn AllianceThe lawful path homeI need help now
Home › Does Hague apply? › Fiji
Country-pair applicability

Fiji and the 1980 Hague Convention: country by country

Fiji is a Contracting Party (in force 1999-06-01, Accession). The 1980 Convention is in force between Fiji and 44 other Contracting Parties, and not in force with 57 (no Article 38 acceptance on record). This is computed from the verified HCCH acceptance data, as of 2026-07-26. It tells you whether the treaty operates for a pair — always confirm your exact case with a qualified lawyer or the official HCCH acceptance table, and note the Convention does not cover a removal that happened before it entered into force for both States.

Verified 2026-07-05·102 other Contracting Parties·Use the interactive checker →

Convention is in force (44)

The 1980 Convention operates between these two States — a return application can be made under it (subject, as always, to the facts of your case).

Argentinaratification Australiaratification Bahamasaccession Belarusaccession Belgiumratification Canadaratification Chileaccession Colombiaaccession Croatiaratification Cyprusaccession Czechiaratification Finlandratification Franceratification Georgiaaccession Germanyratification Greeceratification Hondurasaccession Hungaryaccession Icelandaccession Irelandratification Israelratification Italyratification Japanratification Luxembourgratification Mexicoaccession Monacoaccession Netherlands (Kingdom of the)ratification New Zealandaccession Norwayratification Panamaaccession Polandaccession Portugalratification Republic of Moldovaaccession Serbiaratification Slovakiaratification Sloveniaaccession South Africaaccession Spainratification Swedenratification Switzerlandratification Türkiyeratification United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandratification United States of Americaratification Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)ratification

Convention is NOT in force between these States (57)

One side joined by accession and the other has not accepted that accession, so under Article 38 the 1980 Convention does not operate between them — a return application under it would be rejected, and a different legal route is needed.

Albaniaaccession Andorraaccession Armeniaaccession Austriaratification Barbadosaccession Belizeaccession Bolivia (Plurinational State of)accession Bosnia and Herzegovinaratification Botswanaaccession Brazilaccession Bulgariaaccession Burkina Fasoaccession Cabo Verdeaccession Costa Ricaaccession Cubaaccession Denmarkratification Dominican Republicaccession Ecuadoraccession El Salvadoraccession Estoniaaccession Gabonaccession Guatemalaaccession Guineaaccession Guyanaaccession Iraqaccession Jamaicaaccession Kazakhstanaccession Latviaaccession Lesothoaccession Lithuaniaaccession Maltaaccession Mauritiusaccession Montenegroratification Moroccoaccession Nicaraguaaccession North Macedoniaratification Pakistanaccession Paraguayaccession Peruaccession Philippinesaccession Republic of Koreaaccession Romaniaaccession Russian Federationaccession Saint Kitts and Nevisaccession San Marinoaccession Seychellesaccession Singaporeaccession Sri Lankaaccession Thailandaccession Trinidad and Tobagoaccession Tunisiaaccession Turkmenistanaccession Ukraineaccession Uruguayaccession Uzbekistanaccession Zambiaaccession Zimbabweaccession

Special case — China (1)

Applies only to Hong Kong SAR / Macao SAR, not mainland China. Where in China matters decisively.

China (People's Republic of)ratification
In-force status is computed from the official HCCH Article 38 acceptance table (as of 2026-07-26); acceptances can change, so re-check the HCCH source. This is general information, not legal advice — whether the Convention helps in your specific case also depends on facts a lawyer must assess (habitual residence, custody rights, and whether the removal happened after the Convention entered into force for both States). Not affiliated with the HCCH.