A/HRC/37/60 cross-border relationships.18 In addition, intending parents from China frequently engage in commercial surrogacy in South-East Asia and the United States.19 All of these patterns pose human rights concerns. 15. National laws governing surrogacy vary across a spectrum from prohibitionist to permissive. This variation occurs across national boundaries and sometimes within national boundaries, as surrogacy is sometimes regulated primarily by local law (i.e. in Australia, Mexico and the United States).20 The most prohibitionist jurisdictions, such as France and Germany, ban all forms of surrogacy, including commercial and altruistic, and traditional and gestational. 21 Most jurisdictions with laws governing surrogacy, including Australia, Greece, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom, prohibit “commercial”, “forprofit” or “compensated” surrogacy, while explicitly or implicitly permitting “altruistic” surrogacy.22 Only a small minority of States explicitly permit commercial surrogacy for both national and foreign intending parents, thereby choosing to become centres for both national and international commercial surrogacy. 23 Cambodia, India, Nepal and Thailand, and the Mexican State of Tabasco, are examples of States or jurisdictions which have served as centres for commercial international surrogacy arrangements but have recently taken steps to prohibit or limit such arrangements, generally in response to abusive practices.24 However, Georgia, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and some states in the United States, have for a sustained period of time chosen to remain centres for international surrogacy arrangements.25 16. Laws governing surrogacy also vary across a spectrum from extensive to nonexistent. 26 Although there are historical antecedents to surrogacy, 27 modern practices are related to the rise of assisted reproductive technologies, which not only offer new reproductive opportunities but also introduce new legal and ethical dilemmas. Hence, it is often said that the law is having difficulty keeping up with developing technologies and practices.28 Many countries, for example Argentina, Belgium, Guatemala, Ireland and Japan, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Ibid., pp. 311–324, 357–366 and 464–469. See also HCCH, “A preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements”, footnote 94; and HCCH, “A study of legal parentage and the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements” (March 2014), para. 130, available at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/bb90cfd2-a66a-4fe4-a05b-55f33b009cfc.pdf; and Re D (A Child) (Surrogacy) [2014] EWHC 2121 (Fam) (Georgia). See footnotes 22–24 below. See Trimmings and Beaumont, pp. 25, 256 and 257; and Courtney Joslin (reporter), Uniform Parentage Act Drafting Committee (8 February 2016), pp. 3–6, available at www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/parentage/2016feb8_AUPA_Memo_Revision%20Drafting%20Co mmittee%20Surrogacy.pdf. See Trimmings and Beaumont, pp. 119–142. Ibid., p. 454; HCCH, “A preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements”, para. 18; and Chief Judge John Pascoe (Australia), Third Annual Legalwise International Family Law Conference, Shanghai, China, 17–20 September 2014, available at www.federalcircuitcourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/fccweb/reports-and-publications/speechesconference-papers/2014/paper-pascoe-international-commercial-surrogacy. See Chief Judge John Pascoe (Australia), Third Annual Legalwise International Family Law Conference; and Trimmings and Beaumont, pp. 443–454. See “An update on the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law”, Mededelingen van de Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht, No. 144 (2017); and Audrey Wilson, “How Asia’s surrogate mothers became a cross-border business, South China Morning Post, available at www.scmp.com/week-asia/society/article/2096675/how-asias-surrogate-mothers-becamecross-border-business. See Trimmings and Beaumont, pp. 357–365 and 443. In regard to Georgia, see HCCH, “A preliminary report on the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements”, footnote 94; HCCH, “A study of legal parentage and the issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements”, para. 130; and Re D (A Child) (Surrogacy) [2014] EWHC 2121(Fam). See Trimmings and Beaumont, pp. 443–454. See David Smolin, “Surrogacy as the sale of children”, Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 43 (2016), pp. 265 and 289–302, available at https://works.bepress.com/david_smolin/19/. See, for example, Chief Federal Magistrate Pascoe, “The rise of surrogate parenting”, twenty-fourth Law Asia Conference, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 10 October 2011, at sect. 6 (quoting Justice 5