A/HRC/37/60 financial incentives, and which in practice exploited the vulnerability of birth parents.42 In response, the international community has insisted that the best interests of the child be the “paramount consideration” in regard to adoption, 43 created standards requiring strict regulation of the financial aspects of intercountry adoption,44 sought to protect vulnerable birth families, and denied that prospective adoptive parents have a right to a child. 45 Implementation of these norms in relation to adoption has been difficult, but significant progress has been made in terms of standard-setting, monitoring and compliance.46 26. Yet, the commercial surrogacy industry and its advocates have insisted that the kinds of systems rejected by the international community in regard to adoption be accepted in regard to surrogacy systems. Hence, the commercial surrogacy industry and its advocates insist that commercial surrogacy be accepted worldwide as a market-based system designed to respond primarily to adult demands for children, whereby parentage is determined primarily by contract. For example, the American Bar Association, which represents over 400,000 attorneys, 47 advocates for commercial surrogacy nationally and internationally. 48 The stance of the American Bar Association is of international significance because it advocates for commercial international surrogacy arrangements and for intermediaries who practise globally. 27. The American Bar Association notes that “it is undeniable that the commissioning of children through surrogacy — for money — represents a market”. 49 The American Bar Association praises this “market”, noting that “market-based mechanisms have allowed international surrogacy to operate efficiently”. 50 The American Bar Association rejects application of the best interests of the child standard to surrogacy,51 rejects most forms of suitability review and evaluation of parental fitness of intending parents,52 rejects caps for compensation for surrogate mothers and gamete donors,53 rejects licensing requirements for surrogacy agencies,54 rejects rights to birth records or origins information,55 rejects the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of Intercountry Adoption, of 1993, as a “model for a surrogacy convention”, 56 and rejects bilateral treaties on surrogacy. 57 The American Bar Association states that “any focus on regulating the international surrogacy market itself is misguided”.58 Indeed, the American Bar Association urges that any international instrument on surrogacy not address human rights concerns;59 hence, it rejects “regulation of the surrogacy industry for the purpose of reducing human rights violations”.60 If this position is endorsed, the gains in developing child rights norms 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 8 See, for example, Saclier, “Children and adoption”, pp. 12–13; and van Loon, “Report on intercountry adoption”. See the Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 21. Ibid., art. 21 (d); 1993 Hague Convention, arts. 4 (c) (3), 8 and 32; and HCCH, “Note on the financial aspects of intercountry adoption (2014), available from https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-andstudies/details4/?pid=6310. See the 1993 Hague Convention, art. 4; and Saclier, “Children and adoption”, pp. 12–13. See the Convention on the Rights of the Child, arts. 20–21; the 1993 Hague Convention; and A/HRC/34/55. See https://www.americanbar.org/about_the_aba.html. See American Bar Association report and resolution. It should be noted that the Association does not represent the Government of the United States and that there are both permissive and prohibitionist jurisdictions in the United States. See Joslin, footnote 7. American Bar Association report, p. 9. Ibid., p. 11. Ibid., pp. 15–16. Ibid., pp. 4, 17–18. Ibid., pp. 20–21. Ibid., p. 20. Ibid., pp. 21–22. Ibid., p. 15. Ibid., pp. 4–5. Ibid., p. 14. Ibid., p. 1. Ibid., p. 7.