International Service of Process by Mail Under the Hague Service Convention
Cooper, L. Andrew
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Most recently cited by1
- 1997EOI Corp. v. Medical Marketing Ltd. D.N.J.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
This Note addresses the article 10(a) controversy and argues that the provision should be interpreted as not authorizing service by mail. Part I establishes that application of the Convention is mandatory, and that it supersedes inconsistent methods of service authorized by federal or state law. Part I then discusses the proper methods of interpreting international treaties. Part II applies these methods of treaty interpretation to the article 10(a) controversy, and argues that the article does not authorize service by mail.
Part III addresses other considerations for courts and practitioners, including the availability of mail service under article 19 whenever mail service is permitted by the internal law of the receiving nation. Part III argues that such considerations favor interpreting article 10(a) not to authorize service of process by mail.