Article 23
(1)The measures taken by the authorities of a Contracting State shall be recognised by operation of law in all other Contracting States.(2)Recognition may however be refused -a) if the measure was taken by an authority whose jurisdiction was not based on one of the grounds provided for in Chapter II;b) if the measure was taken, except in a case of urgency, in the context of a judicial or administrative proceeding, without the child having been provided the opportunity to be heard, in violation of fundamental principles of procedure of the requested State;c) on the request of any person claiming that the measure infringes his or her parental responsibility, if such measure was taken, except in a case of urgency, without such person having been given an opportunity to be heard;d) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy of the requested State, taking into account the best interests of the child;e) if the measure is incompatible with a later measure taken in the non-Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child, where this later measure fulfils the requirements for recognition in the requested State;f) if the procedure provided in Article 33 has not been complied with.”22.Ms Laurent was right to point out during the course of her submissions that Art 23 contains a discretion, by its use of the term “may be refused”. However, the significance of Art 23 is that it emphasises again the fact that Contracting States to the 1996 Hague Convention have an obligation to exercise jurisdiction in respect of children only in accordance with the terms of the Convention. This point is further emphasised in the Explanatory Report on the 1996 Hague Convention at [84] as follows:“[84] The rules of jurisdiction contained in Chapter II, which have been analysed above, form a complete and closed system which applies as an integral whole in Contracting States when the child has his or her habitual residence on the territory of one of them. In particular, a Contracting State is not authorised to exercise jurisdiction over one of these children if such jurisdiction is not provided for in the Convention.”Transfer of Jurisdiction23.Art 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention provides a mechanism whereby a Contracting State with substantive jurisdiction under Art 5, based on the child’s or children’s habitual residence, can transfer that jurisdiction to another Contracting State. The Practical Handbook on the Operation of the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention paragraph 4.3 notes that Art 8 provides a further route by which a Contracting State may acquire jurisdiction in respect of the child. Art 8 of the 1996 Hague Convention provides as follows:“