Divorce laws vary wildly, from countries （such as Malta） that still forbid it to Islamic states where—for the husband, at least—it may be obtained in minutes. Rules on the division of property and future financial obligations vary hugely too. France expects the poorer party, usually the wife, to start fending for herself almost immediately; England and some American states insist on lifelong support. Some systems look only at the “acquest” （assets built during the marriage）; others count the lot. A few, like Austria, still link cash to blame （eg, for adultery[1]）. Japan offers a temptinglyquick cheap break, but—for foreigners—little or no enforceable contact with the kids thereafter, notes Jeremy Morley, a New York-based “international divorce strategist”. Other places may be mum-friendly when it comes to money but dad-friendly on child custody.
The European Union （home to 875,000 divorces a year, of which a fifth are “international”） is trying to tidy up its divorce laws. A reform in 2001 called Brussels II tried to stop forum shopping, in which each party sought the most favourable jurisdiction, by ruling that the first court to be approached decides the divorce. That worked—but at the cost of encouraging trigger-happy spouses to kill troubled marriages quickly, rather than trying to patch them up. This, says David Hodson, a specialist in international divorce law, favours the “wealthier, more aggressive, more unscrupulous[2] party”. It goes against the general trend towards counselling, mediation and out-of-court settlement.
An EU measure called Rome III, now under negotiation and pencilled in[3] to come into force in 2008, tries to ensure that the marriage is ended by the law that has governed it most closely.It may be easy for a Dutch court to apply Belgian law when dealing with the uncontested divorce of a Belgian couple, but less so for a Spanish court to apply Polish rules, let alone Iranian or Indonesian, and especially not when the divorce is contested.
Such snags[4] make Rome III “laughably idiotic—a recipe for increasing costs”, according to John Cornwell, a London lawyer. Britain and Ireland say they will opt out. That, says Mr Hodson, will give a further edge to London. Since a judgment in 2000 entrenched the principle of “equality” in division of maritalassets, England, home to hundreds of thousands of expatriates, has become a “Mecca for wives”, says Louise Spitz of Manches, a London law firm. David Truex, who runs a specialist international divorce outfit, reckons that at least a fifth of divorce cases registered in London's higher courts now have an international element.
