A few weeks ago, as a panelist at a symposium on Japan's accession to the Hague Convention on international child abduction, I found it hard to disguise my ire. One of the speakers was a lawyer opposed to Japan joining the convention, and who refused to even use "abduction" to discuss what she called "moving with your children." Another was a law professor who declared that parents had only duties, not rights, when it came to their children.
This was annoying because (a) the Hague Convention specifically uses the term "abduction" in its title, so trying to discuss it in other terms is simply disingenuous, and (b) Japan's Civil Code plainly states that parents have both rights and duties when it comes to raising and educating their children.
As a lawyer who has drafted hundreds of contracts, I appreciate that the ability to define things is a source of power. The reframing that takes place in academic debates like this, however, is often maddening. On one level it can devolve into futile discussions about a particular word means ("abduction" vs. "moving"). Yet if the attempt at reframing debate is successful, things can lurch off into an often unhelpful direction (i.e., goodbye, parental rights . . .).