3Cite as: 560 U. S. ____ (2010)Syllabusmost needed. Any suggestion that a
right is a right of accessis atexual, as a
right is not even arguably a “right to take achild for a limited period of time.” Art. 5
Ms. Abbott’s argumentthat the
order in this case cannot create a right of custody isnot dispositive because Mr. Abbott asserts rights under Minors Law16,618, which do not derive from the order. Pp. 6–11.(2) This Court’s conclusion is strongly supported and informed bythe longstanding view of the State Department’s Office of Children’sIssues, this country’s Convention enforcement entity, that
rights are rights of custody. The Court owes deference to the Execu-tive Branch’s treaty interpretations. See
Sumitomo Shoji America,Inc.
, 457 U. S. 176, 185. There is no reason to doubt thiswell-established canon here. The Executive, when dealing with deli-cate foreign relations matters like international child abductions,possesses a great store of information on practical realities such asthe reactions from treaty partners to a particular treaty interpreta-tion and the impact that interpretation may have on the State De-partment’s ability to reclaim children abducted from this country.Pp. 11–12.(3) The Court’s view is also substantially informed by the viewsof sister contracting states on the issue, see
El Al Israel Airlines, Ltd.
Tsui Yuan Tseng,
525 U. S. 155, 176, particularly because theICARA directs that “uniform international interpretation” of theConvention is part of its framework, see §11601(b)(3)(B). While theSupreme Court of Canada has reached an arguably contrary view,and French courts are divided, a review of the international law con-firms that courts and other legal authorities in England, Israel, Aus-tria, South Africa, Germany, Australia, and Scotland have acceptedthe rule that
rights are rights of custody within the Conven-tion’s meaning. Scholars agree that there is an emerging interna-tional consensus on the matter. And the Convention’s history is fullyconsistent with the conclusion that
rights are just one of themany ways in which custody of children can be exercised. Pp. 12–16.(4) The Court’s holding also accords with the Convention’s objectsand purposes. There is no reason to doubt the ability of other con-tracting states to carry out their duty to make decisions in the bestinterests of the children. To interpret the Convention to permit anabducting parent to avoid a return remedy, even when the other par-ent holds a
right, runs counter to the Convention’s purpose of deterring child abductions to a country that provides a friendlier fo-rum. Denying such a remedy would legitimize the very action, re-moval of the child, that the Convention was designed to prevent,while requiring return of the child in cases like this one helps deterabductions and respects the Convention’s purpose to prevent harms