In­ternational child litigation is increasing worldwide. The possibility of submitting cross-border dis­­putes to cross-border tribunals, typically through ar­bi­tra­tion, is gene­rally de­nied to the parents and the child, the notion of ‘ar­bi­tra­bi­lity' being traditionally based on the pa­­­tri­­mo­nial nature of the claims being litigated. The talk pur­ports to review the argu­ments un­der­lying that po­sition and to show that most of them, including the public policy component of, and the state in­te­rests in­vol­ved in, child disputes, lead both to question the neutrality of ‘mo­no-na­­tio­nal' tri­b­unals and to realise the potential for a 'conflict of public policies' and of ‘state interests' that may arise when it comes to children with ties to two or more countries. To the ex­tent that they re­flect the dual or mul­tiple iden­tity of the child and his or her pa­rents – cul­­tural, lin­guistic, so­me­times religious –, international (arbitration) courts pro­­­mise to have a grea­­­ter le­­­­­­giti­macy in the eyes of the individuals and to deliver a more even-han­ded jus­tice to them. Re­liance on that justice may reduce abduc­tions which are now fuelled by the per­­cep­tion of forum bias atta­ching to ‘mono-na­­tio­nal' jus­tice.