There are few capitals that cannot be reached from London in a day. Within Europe, cheap flights to innumerable regional airports can be had for less than the price of a rail journey in England. The rapid development of the European Union has dismantled frontiers and given rights of residence and work throughout the region. Mobile phones put individuals in audio and video contact with those in distant lands, and now, too, there is the internet.

As a result, relationships — sexual, emotional and familial — that were once confined within parish boundaries and were almost indissoluble are conventionally accepted as dependent on the will of their creators. When relationships break down, the "victim" can easily fly "home" with his or her children.

The old territory of private international law could not meet the legal challenges these changes presented but the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention has proved a phenomenal success. Despite the lack of an international court to construe its measures and the evolutionary development of its terms being extremely difficult, it still attracts new accessions by states anxious to enjoy its ben efits. Of equal significance for us is the strong interest that EU law makers show in family law.

The impact of these factors on different jurisdictions is variable but it is likely to be greatest on our own. We have spread our language and our common law to the far ends of the Earth. Our peoples have emigrated widely. Equally, we have been liberal in our receipt of immigrants both historically and in recent years. London, which at the beginning of my life was a city largely made up of Londoners, has become a city of residents largely born elsewhere. This is a continuing process of exodus and influx.

The inevitable consequence is an increase in family proceedings with an international dimension, whether focused on children or property. In London there are family lawyers, so licitors, juniors and QCs who do only international cases. Although there is not such a degree of specialisation in the judiciary, more complex trials will be listed before one of a small band to whose jurisdiction much of the work is limited.

In recognition of this, my post of head of international family law was created in January last year by Lord Woolf, then Lord Chief Justice. Internally, my job is to focus the attention of practitioners and judges on a judicial resource that they can turn to when they encounter difficulties in their cases. But the real work of the head of international family law lies in external fields: he (or she) is the visible representative of our family justice system. He has the opportunity to make diplomatic overtures to judges of other jurisdictions with which we have a high volume of cross-border family litigation. Effective co-operation is usually based on personal relationships that generate confidence and trust in the other’s professional ability and commitment.

In family law, The Hague Permanent Bureau is the principal global institution. For some years it has been bridge-building between Islamic and non-Islamic states. It also convenes regular commissions to consider the operation of major conventions.

Within the EU we have, since 2002, the European Judicial Network. With the advent of the Regulation Brussels II, revised in March last year, the European Commission has recognised the importance of direct judicial communication and the need to adapt the European Judicial Network (EJN) to cater for cross-border family proceedings. Accordingly, Brussels’ meetings of the EJN have only family law on the agenda.

After 15 months in post it is possible to make some assessment of the nature and volume of the job. About 35 per cent of my work is given to international family law.

My expertise and experience is also available to government, whose ultimate responsibility for the development of international family is dependent on wider considerations, such as whether the UK opt in to the negotiation of a proposed EU regulation. Secondly, it is important to share information with judges and practitioners about impending developments and the outcome of international conferences.

My experience of my first year in post must include a warning. The appointment cannot be regarded as resource-neutral, to use the language of government. In other words, the consequential costs must be recognised and budgeted. The support I have drawn on has throughout been ad hoc and dependent on who from time to time has been made available to me. As a result we are just managing. But future needs must be gauged and budgeted so that when I retire I can leave my successor a well-managed post.

Explore Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Law Reports

• Student Law

Times Recommends

• Linklaters trounces rivals as UK's biggest firm
• Clifford Chance profits plunge 37 per cent
• Casual drinkers hit by spread of 'dry' zones