[283] 
MICHAEL O. ESHLEMAN* WITH JUDGE STEPHEN A. WOLAVER† 
Prego Signor Postino‡ 
Using the Mail to Avoid the Hague Service 
Convention’s Central Authorities§ 
 
I.  What is the Hague Convention? ............................................ 287 
 A. Working and Playing Well with Others ......................... 288 
 B. Making International Service Easier .............................. 292 
 C. Who Participates in the Convention? ............................. 295 
 D. How Does It Work? ....................................................... 295 
II.  Is Service Abroad Even Necessary? ...................................... 300 
 A. Service on Foreign Defendants Through Their 
American Agents ............................................................ 301 
 B. Agents for Service .......................................................... 303 
 C. Service and the Corporate Family Tree .......................... 303 
 
* Attorney, Kings Mills, Ohio.  J.D., University of Dayton School of Law; B.A. 
McMicken College of Arts & Sciences, University of Cincinnati.  Former law clerk to the 
Honorable Stephen A. Wolaver. 
†  Judge of the General Division of the Greene County Court of Common Pleas, Xenia, 
Ohio.  J.D., Valparaiso University School of Law.  B.A., Miami University. 
‡ “Please Mr. Postman” was written by Brian Holland, Freddie Gorman, William 
Garrett, and Georgia Dobbins.  BRUCE POLLOCK, ROCK SONG INDEX 284 (2d ed. 2005).  
It was first performed by The Marvelettes and released as a single in August 1961 as 
Tamla T 54046.  JOEL WHITBURN, THE BILLBOARD BOOK OF TOP 40 HITS 405 (7th ed. 
2000) (Tamla was owned by Berry Gordy and was the sister label of Motown Records.  
See David Friecke, Review of The Complete Motown Singles, Vol. 1, 1959–1961, ROLLING 
STONE, Feb. 25, 2005, at 75.)  “Postman” hit the top forty in October and was number one 
during the week of December 11.  WHITBURN, BILLBOARD BOOK at 827.  See also Richie 
Unterberger, The Marvelettes, in ALL MUSIC GUIDE TO ROCK 581 (2d ed. 1997); The 
Marvelettes in 5 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF POP MUSIC 3495 (Colin Larkin ed. 3d ed. 1998). 
§ This Article extends an opinion on the Hague Convention written by Michael O. 
Eshleman, as law clerk for Judge Stephen A. Wolaver.  The court’s revised opinion, 
Enquip Techs. Grp. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., No. 2008-CV-1276 (Greene Cty. Ct. 
Com. Pl. Aug. 24, 2009) was not reported but is available at 2009 WL 2588197. 
284 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
 D. Foreign Defendants Are Not Always Entitled to 
Central Authority Service............................................... 305 
III.  Around the World on an Envelope ........................................ 306 
 A. The Right to Object ........................................................ 308 
 B. The Swiss Stance ............................................................ 309 
 C. Electronic “Postal Channels” ......................................... 310 
IV.  Are You Being Served? ......................................................... 315 
 A. The Interpreter’s Toolkit ................................................ 316 
 B. A More Learned Approach ............................................ 317 
 C. Circuit Splittism ............................................................. 319 
V.  A Matter of Interpretation ..................................................... 321 
 A.  Imprimis ......................................................................... 322 
 B. The View from Foggy Bottom ....................................... 324 
 C. The Lawyers Weigh In at Home . . .  ............................. 327 
 D. . . . and Abroad ............................................................... 328 
 E. An Expert Opinion ......................................................... 331 
 F. Cut and Paste .................................................................. 333 
 G. An Unclean Break .......................................................... 334 
 H. Play It Again, Sam ......................................................... 335 
 I. The Official Story .......................................................... 339 
 J. Send It to the Dead Letter Office ................................... 342 
VI.  Case Study: Enquip v. Tycon ................................................. 343 
 A. Grazie, Santo Gabriel ..................................................... 345 
 B. Service Domestically Was Valid .................................... 348 
 C. The German Defendants................................................. 349 
VII.  Signed, Sealed, Delivered, You’re Served ............................ 350 
Finalmente ........................................................................................ 351 
Appendix A: Table of Jurisdictions .................................................. 353 
Appendix B: The Problem of Japan ................................................. 364 
 
The complaint has been filed.  Now it must be served.  Service of 
process must be “reasonably calculated to give [a defendant] actual 
notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard.”1  The 
 
1 Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463 (1940) (Douglas, J.).  For an overview of the 
purpose of service and how the courts have permitted it, see generally Yvonne A. Tamayo, 
Are You Being Served?: E-mail and (Due) Service of Process, 51 S.C. L. REV. 227 (2000).  
For a survey of service abroad, see also, generally, Philip A. Buhler, Transnational Service 
of Process and Discovery in Federal Court Proceedings: An Overview, 27 TUL. MAR. L.J. 
1 (2002).  For a discussion of service abroad with a focus on using e-mail, see generally 
Yvonne A. Tamayo, Catch Me If You Can: Serving United States Process on an Elusive 
Defendant Abroad, 17 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 211 (2003) [hereinafter, Catch Me]; Kevin W. 
Lewis, E-Service: Ensuring the Integrity of International E-Mail Service of Process, 13 
ROGER WILLIAMS U. L. REV. 285 (2008). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 285 
burden is on the plaintiff to show service has been perfected.2  And 
without proper service, a case is not legitimately before a court.3 
Most of the time, a certified letter or a process server is 
dispatched.4  But what to do when the defendant is outside the United 
States or outright evasive?  One wants to avoid sending a process 
server into the jungle with a machete, cornering a hostile defendant at 
Royal Ascot, catching a foreigner’s plane as it refuels, fleeing the 
bodyguards of a fugitive financier, tracking down a science fiction 
writer turned prophet, locating the cave a terrorist lurks in, or finding 
an insurance tycoon 30,000 feet over Little Rock.5 
For most of the world, a multilateral treaty, the Hague Service 
Convention, provides the answer.6  And for service directed to most 
 
2 Aetna Bus. Credit, Inc. v. Universal Decor & Interior Design, Inc., 635 F.2d 434, 435 
(5th Cir. 1981). 
3 State ex rel. Ballard v. O’Donnell, 553 N.E.2d 650, 651, paragraph one of the syllabus 
(Ohio 1990). 
4 E.g., OHIO R. CIV. P. 4.1(a) (certified letter); id. 4.1(b) (process server).  For how and 
why the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended to make mail service the norm, 
see Kent Sinclair, Service of Process: Rethinking the Theory and Procedure of Serving 
Process Under Federal Rule 4(c), 73 VA. L. REV. 1183, 1197–1212 (1987); David D. 
Siegel, Practice Commentary on Amendment of Federal Rule 4 (Eff. February 26, 1983) 
with Special Statute of Limitations Precautions, 96 F.R.D. 88 (1983).  For courts’ 
presumption that legal documents sent by mail are received, see Paul Golden, Parties Who 
Do Not Receive Mail May Have Difficulties Obtaining a Hearing on Service Issues, 74 
N.Y. ST. B. ASS’N J., Sept. 2002, at 18. 
5 See Arin Greenwood, Serving Them Right: When Taking on International Defendants, 
Expect Challenges, Even Complications, 91 A.B.A. J., June 2005, at 24 (machete); 
Maharanee Seethadevi Gaekwar of Baroda v. Wildenstein, [1972] 2 Q.B. 283 (C.A.) (Lord 
Denning, M.R.) (Indian princess sued her art dealer, a Parisian, and served him when he 
attended Royal Ascot); In re Gonzalez, 993 S.W.2d 147, 151–52 (Tex. App. 1999) (plane 
en route to Mexico stopped to refuel); Int’l Controls Corp. v. Vesco, 593 F.2d 166, 175–92 
(2d Cir. 1979) (papers served on fugitive swindler Robert Vesco in Nassau by throwing 
the papers down on the grounds of his home while evading his bodyguards); Cooper v. 
Church of Scientology of Boston, Inc., 92 F.R.D. 783, 786 (D. Mass. 1982) (ordering 
Church of Scientology to use its telex system to transmit service to L. Ron Hubbard, 
founder of the Church, because Hubbard had been evading service); Smith v. Islamic 
Emirate of Afghanistan, Nos. 01 CIV 10132(HB), 01 CIV 10144(HB), 2001 WL 1658211, 
2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21712 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 26, 2001) (service on Osama bin Laden and 
Al Qaeda via television broadcasters such as Al Jazeera because of the impossibility of 
locating either for more traditional means of service); Grace v. MacArthur, 170 F. Supp. 
442 (E.D. Ark. 1959) (insurance millionaire John D. MacArthur cornered on commercial 
flight between Memphis and Dallas). 
6 But see Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. 421, 439 (1932) (Hughes, C.J.) (the 
absence of a treaty with a particular nation does not prevent valid service from being 
effected on persons found there). 
286 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
of the nations participating in the Convention, the answer is the same 
as it is at home: service by mail.7 
Why is mail service preferred?  Because it is cheap and quick: 
“[f]ew methods of service are less expensive than direct mail, which 
costs only a few dollars for postage . . . [and] use of the mail provides 
an expeditious method of service.”8  Compare that to service through 
the Hague Convention’s “central authorities,” which can be slow and 
expensive: it takes months to execute a request, costs fees to a foreign 
government in many instances, and sometimes requires all the 
documents to be translated into a foreign tongue.9  Twenty years ago 
the cost of serving parties through the Convention’s central 
authorities was estimated at $800 to $900.10 
 The Convention was supposed to make things easier, but where 
is the love? 
Generally, it seems that U.S. lawyers, particularly those active in 
the products liability field, are less than enthusiastic about the 
Hague Convention.  Those familiar with the treaty chafe at what 
they consider time-consuming and unnecessarily complex steps 
required to accomplish what is routine in domestic litigation.  In the 
absence of energetic judicial direction, the bar has attempted to 
avoid the Convention’s procedures and, instead, use the more 
familiar domestic methods.11 
But there is nothing wrong with familiarity.12 
 
7 See discussion infra Parts I, V.  For a review of domestic mail service, see Note, 
Service of Process by Mail, 74 MICH. L. REV. 381 (1975).  Service by mail comports with 
constitutional requirements of due process.  Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 
339 U.S. 306 (1950) (Jackson, J.).  But see Robert B. von Mehren, International Control 
of Civil Procedure: Who Benefits?, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 13, 14–15 (1994) 
(noting service by mail not recognized in many nations). 
8 Franklin B. Mann, Jr., Foreign Service of Process by Direct Mail Under the Hague 
Convention and the Article 10(a) Controversy: Send v. Service, 21 CUMB. L. REV. 647, 
657 (1991).  See also 4B CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL 
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1134, at 331 (3d ed. 2002). 
9 Richard J. Hawkins, Dysfunctional Equivalence: The New Approach to Defining 
“Postal Channels” Under the Hague Service Convention, 55 UCLA L. REV. 205, 218–19 
(2007).  See also Paul Meijknecht, Service of Documents in the European Union: The 
Brussels Convention of 1997, 4 EUR. REV. OF PRIV. L. 445, 451 (1999) (stating that 
service took about four months under the Convention). 
10 Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172, 174 (8th Cir. 1989) (Gibson, J., 
concurring).  See also L. Andrew Cooper, International Service of Process by Mail Under 
the Hague Service Convention, 13 MICH. J. INT’L L. 698, 716 (1992). 
11 Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Service by Mail—Is the Stamp of Approval From the Hague 
Convention Always Enough?, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 165, 165 (1994). 
12 See Robert C. Casad, Service of Process by Certified Mail, 59 J. KAN. B. ASS’N, 
Nov.-Dec. 1990, at 25 (discussing how certified mail was made the default service regime 
in Kansas) Harry G. Fins, Service of Process By Mail, 50 CHI. B. REC. 198 (1969)  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 287 
I 
WHAT IS THE HAGUE CONVENTION? 
The formal name of the treaty is the Convention on the Service 
Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and 
Commercial Matters.13  Because it was concluded at the seat of the 
Dutch government,14 the treaty is commonly known as the “Hague 
Service Convention.”  This is one of many conventions drafted by the 
Hague Conference on Private International Law.15  The Conference 
 
(proposing certified mail to be default regime in Illinois).  Contra Ann Varnon Crowley, 
Rule 4: Service by Mail May Cost You More Than a Stamp, 61 IND. L.J. 217, 217 (1986) 
(arguing the amendment to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 adopting service by mail was costly and 
confusing); Sinclair, supra note 4, at 1212–33 (also arguing the amendment to Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 4 was costly and confusing); David S. Welkowitz, The Trouble With Service by Mail, 67 
NEB. L. REV. 289 (1988) (reviewing difficulties under new rules); Siegel, Practice 
Commentary, 96 F.R.D. 88 (faulting changes); H. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, FEDERAL 
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENTS—DELAY, H.R. REP. NO. 97-662 § 1 (1982), 
reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 595, 1982 WL 25044, and 96 F.R.D. 131 (1983) 
(discussing problems with certified mail service); Stanley E. Harper, Jr., Service of 
Process in Ohio by Certified Mail: A Critique of the Southgate Shopping Center Case, 5 
OHIO N.U. L. REV. 613 (1978) (discussing an Ohio decision invalidating service by 
certified mail). 
13 Opened for signature Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, 658 U.N.T.S. 163 (effective 
Feb. 10, 1969) [hereinafter Convention].  The full text appears in three readily available 
books: UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED in the Title 28 volume following FED. R. CIV. 
P. 4 (2010); UNITED STATES CODE SERVICE, vol. International Agreements 457 (2007); 
and MARTINDALE-HUBBELL INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST IC-1 (2006) [hereinafter 
MARTINDALE-HUBBELL].  The Convention also is printed in the official handbook to the 
Convention, HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW, PERMANENT 
BUREAU, PRACTICAL HANDBOOK ON THE OPERATION OF THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 15 
NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL 
DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS app. A (Christophe Bernasconi & 
Laurence Thébault eds., 3d ed. 2006) [hereinafter PRACTICAL HANDBOOK]; Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, Final Act of the Tenth Session, 4 I.L.M. 338, 
341–47 (1965); 2 BRUNO A. RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, CIVIL AND 
COMMERCIAL app. B (2000) [hereinafter RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL 
ASSISTANCE]; 3 TRANSNATIONAL CONTRACTS doc. X.3 (Lawrence J. Bogard & George 
W. Thompson eds. 2010) (reproducing Convention and declarations to Dec. 1997); DAVID 
EPSTEIN, JEFFREY L. SNYDER & CHARLES S. BALDWIN, IV, INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION: 
A GUIDE TO JURISDICTION, PRACTICE, AND STRATEGY app. 2[2] (3d ed. 1998); and Gr. 
Brit. T.S. No. 50 (1969) (Cmnd. 3986). 
14 In what can only be called Dutch metaphysics, Amsterdam is the “constitutional 
capital” of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as it has been since 1814, and is the home of 
the monarch, but The Hague “is the seat of the Dutch legislature, the Dutch supreme court 
. . . and foreign embassies.”  The Hague, in THE COLUMBIA ENCYCLOPEDIA 1172 
(Barbara A. Chernow & George A. Vallasi eds., 5th ed. 1993). 
15 The Hague Conference is governed by the Statute of the Hague Conference on 
Private International Law, opened for signature Oct. 31, 1951, 15 U.S.T. 2228, 220 
U.N.T.S. 121 (effective in the U.S. Oct. 15, 1964).  The Statute is discussed in Kurt H. 
Nadelmann, Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International Efforts to  
288 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
first met in 1893 and drafted a convention concerning service of 
process at that initial meeting.16  Today the Conference sponsors 
numerous treaties on subjects as diverse as taking of evidence abroad 
and international child custody.17 
A.  Working and Playing Well with Others 
When the Hague Conference held its first session after World War 
II, the American position of judicial isolationism meant it was not 
even invited.18 The Americans present at the Eighth Session in 1956 
did not represent the government, nor were they funded by it.19  The 
 
Unify Rules of Private Law, 102 U. PA. L. REV. 323, 350–352 (1954).  For a brief history 
of the Conference, see Philip W. Amram, A Unique Organization: The Conference on 
Private International Law, 43 A.B.A. J., 809, 809 (1957) [hereinafter Amram, A Unique 
Organization].  A longer history can be found in Georges A.L. Droz & Adair Dyer, The 
Hague Conference and the Main Issues of Private International Law for the Eighties, 3 
NW. J. INT’L L. & BUS. 155, 155–162 (1981) [hereinafter Droz & Dyer, The Hague 
Conference] (authors were top two officials of the Conference).  A one-hundred page 
history can be found in Kurt Lipstein, One Hundred Years of Hague Conferences on 
Private International Law, 42 INT’L & COMP. L. Q. 553 (1993). 
16 Georges A.L. Droz, A Comment on the Role of the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 3, 3 (1994) [hereinafter Droz, A 
Comment on the Role] (Droz was Secretary General of the Conference). 
17 See Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 
opened for signature Mar. 18, 1970, 23 U.S.T. 2555, 847 U.N.T.S. 231; Hague 
Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, done Oct. 25, 1980, 
T.I.A.S. No. 11,670, 1343 U.N.T.S. 89, 19 I.L.M. 1501.  See Peter H. Pfund, The Hague 
Conference Celebrates Its 100th Anniversary, 28 TEX. INT’L L.J. 531 (1993), for an article 
focusing on the Hague Conference and child custody issues.  For more on the current work 
of the Conference and the conventions it sponsors, see HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE 
INTERNATIONAL LAW, PERMANENT BUREAU, ANNUAL REPORT 2009 (2010), available at 
http://www.hcch.net/upload/annualreport2009.pdf; Christophe Bernasconi, Some 
Observations From the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 101 AM. SOC’Y 
INT’L L. PROC. 350 (2007) (author is First Secretary of the Conference). 
18 Armando L. Basarrate, II, International Service of Process: Reconciling the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 21 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L 
L. 1071, 1073 (1988).  See also Harry LeRoy Jones, A Commission and Advisory 
Committee on International Rules of Judicial Procedure, 49 AM. J. INT’L L. 379, 379 
(1955) (speaking of “juridical isolationism” of the United States, which theretofore, “of all 
the major Powers of the Western world, [was] the only one which ha[d] neither entered 
into treaties or other agreements prescribing rules for serving judicial documents” and 
other aspects of civil procedure);  Arthur K. Kuhn, The Council of Europe and the Hague 
Conferences on Private International Law, 46 AM. J. INT’L L. 515, 518–519 (1952) 
(explaining how the Conference functioned at the time of the 1951 meeting, which was the 
first session since 1928). 
19 Kurt H. Nadelmann, The United States Joins the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law, 30 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 291, 299–300 (1965) [hereinafter 
Nadelmann, The United States Joins] (author unofficial delegate); Amram, A Unique 
Organization, supra note 15, at 810 (author unofficial delegate).  For other reports on the  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 289 
same was true of the American delegates to the Ninth Session in 
1960.20 
The United States joined the Hague Conference in 1963.21  And the 
next year Congress passed a law to unilaterally provide assistance to 
foreign courts.22  These two actions ended America’s well-known 
hostility toward international judicial cooperation.23 
 
Eighth Session from the American delegation, see also Willis L.M. Reese, Some 
Observations on the Eighth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International 
Law, 5 AM. J. COMP. L. 611 (1956); Kurt H. Nadelmann & Willis L.M. Reese, The Eighth 
Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 12 REC. ASS’N B. CITY 
N.Y. 51 (1957); Kurt H. Nadelmann, The United States at the Hague Conference on 
Private International Law, 51 AM. J. INT’L L. 618 (1957); Kurt H. Nadelmann & Willis 
L.M. Reese, The American Proposals at the Hague Conference on Private International 
Law to Use the Method of Uniform Laws, 7 AM. J. COMP. L. 239 (1958); Joe C. Barrett, 
Report on the 1956 Barcelona and Hague Conferences on Unification of Law, 1957 
HANDBOOK OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE 
LAWS & PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS SIXTY-SIXTH 
YEAR 299; Philip W. Amram, Uniform Legislation as an Effective Alternative to the 
Treaty Technique, 54 AM. SOC’Y INT’L L. PROC. 62 (1960).  See Eighth Hague Conference 
on Private International Law, 5 AM. J. COMP. L. 650 (1956) for a translated reprint of the 
draft conventions approved by the Eighth Session. 
20 For reports on the Ninth Session from the Americans present, see Willis L.M. Reese, 
The Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 55 AM. J. INT’L. 
L. 447 (1961); James C. Dezendorf, The Ninth Session of the Hague Conference on 
Private International Law, 47 A.B.A. J., 909 (1961); and Philip W. Amram, The Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, 5 A.B.A. SEC. ON INT’L & COMP. L. BULL, July 
1961, at 50.  See also R.H. Graveson, The Ninth Hague Conference of Private 
International Law, 10 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 18 (1961) (author one of the British delegates).  
Graveson reproduces the draft conventions approved by the Ninth Session, following his 
article, in both the original French and a translation into English.  Id. at 36–69.  For 
another translation, see The Hague Conference on Private International Law, Ninth 
Session, 9 AM. J. COMP. L. 701, 701–11 (1960). 
21 See Joint Resolution to Provide for Participation by the Government of the United 
States in the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the International (Rome) 
Institute for the Unification of Private Law and Authorizing Appropriations Therefor, Pub. 
L. No. 88-244, § 1, 77 Stat. 775 (codified as amended at 22 U.S.C. § 269(g) (2000)).  See 
also Treaty Information, 51 U.S. DEP’T STATE BULL. 762, 762 (1964) (indicating the 
American ratification of the Hague Conference Statute was deposited on October 15, 
1964).  See generally Peter H. Pfund, United States Participation in International 
Unification of Private Law, 19 INT’L LAW. 505 (1985) (discussing twenty years of 
American participation in the Conference).  See generally Cornelius D. van Boeschoten, 
Hague Conference Conventions and the United States: A European View, 57 LAW & 
CONTEMP. PROBS. 47 (1994) (discussing American participation from a foreign 
perspective). 
22 An Act to Improve Judicial Procedures for Serving Documents, Obtaining Evidence, 
and Proving Documents in Litigation With International Aspects, Pub. L. 88-619, 78 Stat. 
996 (1964).  See also S. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN 
LITIGATION WITH AN INTERNATIONAL ASPECT, S. REP. 88-1580, at 1 (1964), reprinted in 
1964 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3782, 3794, 1964 WL 4882, 3 I.L.M. 1085 (1964); see also Philip W. 
Amram, Public Law No. 88-619 of October 3, 1964—New Developments in International 
Judicial Assistance in the United States of America, 32 J. B. ASS’N D.C. 24 (1965); Hans  
290 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
The Tenth Session in 1964 drafted the Convention.24  The nations 
participating were Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, 
France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the 
 
Smit, International Litigation Under the United States Code, 65 COLUM. L. REV. 1015, 
1016–17 (1965). 
23 See, e.g., David Welford Williams, Closing the Chasm of International Judicial 
Assistance: Extraterritorial Service of Documents, 12 HOWARD L.J. 238 (1966) 
(discussing the American unwillingness to cooperate abroad); Richard F. Gerber, 
Revitalization of the International Judicial Assistance Procedures of the United States: 
Service of Documents and Taking of Testimony, 62 MICH. L. REV. 1375, 1384 (1964) 
(quoting the State Department’s standard refusal to help foreign courts).  See generally 
Kurt H. Nadelmann, Ignored State Interests: The Federal Government and International 
Efforts to Unify Rules of Private Law, 102 U. PA. L. REV. 323 (1954) (discussing the lack 
of United States participation in international conferences on private international law 
questions).  See also Kurt H. Nadelmann, The United States and the Hague Conferences 
on Private International Law, 1 AM. J. COMP. L. 268 (1952); Nadelmann, United States 
Joins, supra, note 19, at 291–96 (discussing the lack of participation of the United States 
in the Hague Conference).  See generally Arthur K. Kuhn, Should Great Britain and the 
United States Be Represented at the Hague Conferences on Private International Law?, 7 
AM. J. INT’L L. 774, 774 (1913) (mentioning an early call for the United States to join the 
Conference). 
24 Unification of the Rules of Private International Law: Report of the U.S. Delegation 
to the 10th Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, October 7–28, 
1964, 52 DEP’T STATE BULL. 265, 265–66 (1965) [hereinafter, Report of the U.S. 
Delegation] (official report of the American delegation).  The American delegation was 
led by Richard D. Kearney, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State.  The other 
delegates were Philip W. Amram, Chairman of the Advisory Committee to the 
Commission on International Rules of Judicial Procedure and a lawyer in private practice 
in Washington, D.C.; Joe C. Barrett, a lawyer in private practice in Jonesboro, Arkansas, 
and a former president of the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State 
Laws; James C. Dezendorf, a lawyer in private practice in Portland, Oregon, and another 
former president of the National Conference; Kurt H. Nadelmann, research scholar at 
Harvard Law School; Willis Livingston Mesier Reese, Charles Evans Hughes Professor of 
Law and Director of the Parker School of International and Comparative Law, both at 
Columbia University; and John N. Washburn, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Legal 
Advisor, Department of State.  Id. at 266.  For other reports on the Tenth Session, see Kurt 
H. Nadelmann & Willis L.M. Reese, The Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on 
International Private Law, 13 AM. J. COMP. L. 612 (1964); Nadelmann, The United States 
Joins, supra note 19, at 308–15; Eighth Session, 1965 HANDBOOK OF THE NATIONAL 
CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS & PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS SEVENTY-FOURTH YEAR 114–18 (report of 
Barrett and Dezendorf); Philip W. Amram, Report on Tenth Session of the Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, 59 AM. J. INT’L L. 87 (1965) [hereinafter 
Amram, Report on the Tenth Session]; Richard D. Kearney, The United States and 
International Cooperation to Unify Private Law, 5 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 1, 4–6 (1972); 
Peter Hay, The United States and International Unification of Law: The Tenth Session of 
the Hague Conference, 1965 U. ILL. L. F. 820, 835–861; R.H. Graveson, The Tenth 
Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 14 INT’L & COMP. L.Q. 
528 (1965) (Graveson was leader of the British delegation); Kurt Lipstein, The Tenth 
Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1964, 23 CAMB. L.J. 224, 
224 (1965) (focusing on the adoption convention). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 291 
Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, 
the United Kingdom, the United States, and West Germany.25  The 
service convention was adopted unanimously; the other two 
conventions approved were not.26  The Convention was opened for 
signature in November 1965.  The United States signed on the first 
day.27  The Convention’s preamble declares: 
 The States signatory to the present Convention, [d]esiring to 
create appropriate means to ensure that judicial and extrajudicial 
documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the notice of the 
addressee in sufficient time, [d]esiring to improve the organization 
of mutual judicial assistance for that purpose by simplifying and 
expediting the procedure, [h]ave resolved to conclude a convention 
to this effect.28 
The United States was the first to ratify.29  The Foreign Relations 
Committee unanimously reported the treaty to the Senate on April 13, 
1967.30  The day after, the Senate gave its advice and consent.31  
There was no debate on the Senate floor.32  The vote in the Senate 
was 82–0.33  The majority and minority leaders stated seventeen of 
the absent senators would also have voted in favor.34  Having been 
ratified by three signatories,35 the Convention went into force 
February 10, 1969.36 
 
25 Report of the U.S. Delegation, supra note 24, at 266. 
26 Id. at 268.  See generally Hague Conference on Private International Law: Final Act 
of Tenth Session, 4 I.L.M. 338 (1965) for the texts of all three of the conventions adopted 
by the Tenth Sessions. 
27 Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on International Law, 
The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 
Civil and Commercial Matters, 22 REC. ASS’N B. CITY OF N.Y. 280, 280 (1967). 
28 Convention, supra note 13. 
29 Leonard A. Leo, The Interplay Between Domestic Rules Permitting Service Abroad 
by Mail and the Hague Convention on Service: Proposing an Amendment to the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, 22 CORNELL INT’L L. J. 335, 340 (1989). 
30 Philip W. Amram, United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on Service of 
Documents Abroad, 61 AM. J. INT’L L. 1019, 1019 (1967). 
31 Id. 
32 113 CONG. REC. 9664–65 (1967). 
33 Id. 
34 Id. 
35 Convention, supra note 13, art. 27 (stating ratification by three signatories made the 
Convention operative).  The other two initial ratifications were by Egypt and the United 
Kingdom.  Stephen F. Downs, The Effect of the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of 
Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 2 CORNELL INT’L 
L.J. 125, 128–30 (1969).  See Treaty Information, 57 DEP’T STATE BULL. 378, 378 (1967) 
(noting the American ratification was deposited with the Dutch Foreign Ministry on 
August 24, 1967).  See also Treaty Information, 60 DEP’T STATE BULL. 87, 87 (1969)  
292 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
As a ratified treaty, the Convention is the supreme law of the 
land.37  Where an international treaty exists, a state court “may not 
attempt to exercise jurisdiction by service of process in violation of 
the Convention.”38 
B.  Making International Service Easier 
[The Hague Convention] was intended to further international 
judicial cooperation among nations for the increasing number of 
cases both here and abroad that had international overtones . . . 
American plaintiffs sometimes found it difficult, or prohibitively 
expensive, to effect service in a manner that complied both with 
[domestic and international rules].  Foreign plaintiffs . . . often 
encountered difficulties because there was no central authority to 
assist them . . . Moreover, certain civil-law countries authorized 
methods of service that failed to give notice to the American 
defendant, thereby creating the risk that an American defendant 
 
[hereinafter Treaty Information (1969)] (noting President Johnson proclaimed the treaty on 
January 8, 1969). 
36 Treaty Information (1969), supra note 35, at 87. 
37 U.S. CONST., art. VI, § 1, cl. 2 (the “supremacy clause” reads “all Treaties made, or 
which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law 
of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby . . . .”).  See also Foster 
v. Neilson, 27 U.S. (2 Pet.) 253, 314 (1829) (Marshall, C.J.) (indicating that treaties are 
like laws passed by Congress); Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190, 194 (1888) (Field, J.) 
(stating that treaties and laws are “on the same footing”); American Trust Co. v. Smyth, 
247 F.2d 149, 153 (9th Cir. 1957) (stating a convention is a treaty for purposes of the 
supremacy clause); Vorhees v. Fischer & Krecke,, GmbH., 697 F.2d 574, 575 (4th Cir. 
1983) (noting the Hague Convention is self-executing and is equivalent to an act of 
Congress).  But compare Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 433 (1920) (Holmes, J.) 
(indicating treaties can grant the United States government powers not allowed to it by the 
Constitution) with Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) (Black, J.) (discussing that executive 
agreements cannot override the Constitution) and United States as the United States 
Element, Allied Kommandatura v. Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227 (U.S. Ct. Berlin 1979) (discussing 
how executive acts done under treaties cannot violate the Constitution).  For a 
comprehensive review of the Constitutional language authorizing treaties and how treaties 
should be interpreted, see Michael P. Van Alstine, The Death of Good Faith in Treaty 
Jurisprudence and a Call for Resurrection, 93 GEO. L.J. 1885 (2005). 
38 62B Am. Jur. 2d Process § 323, at 888 (2005).  For a case finding the Convention 
supersedes state service procedures, see Cipolla v. Picard Porsche Audi, Inc., 496 A.2d 
130 (R.I. 1985) (examined in Peter M. Goldberg, Method of Service of International 
Documents upon Citizens of Signatory Nations of the Hague Convention, 20 SUFFOLK U. 
L. REV. 396 (1986)).  See also Low v. Bayerische Motoren Werke, A.G., 449 N.Y.S.2d 
733, 735 (App. Div. 1982); Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche, A.G. v. Sacramento Cnty. Super. Ct., 
177 Cal. Rptr. 155, 158 (Ct. App. 1981) (discussing that when an international treaty such 
as the Convention applies, a court cannot exercise jurisdiction in contravention of it).  Cf. 
U.S. v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203, 230–34 (1942) (Douglas, J.) (stating executive agreement with 
the Soviet Union defeated New York State court proceedings). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 293 
would suffer a default judgment in that country without having had 
an opportunity to defend the claim.39 
Most notorious of these civil law practices was notification au 
parquet, also called remise au parquet, in which a copy of the suit was 
left for a foreign defendant at a local prosecutor’s office.40  The 
prosecutor was supposed to make efforts to send it abroad but there 
was no penalty—such as dismissal of the suit—if notice did not reach 
the defendant.  Nor was there a penalty if the prosecutor failed to even 
try to notify the defendant.  The U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a 
similar method of service decades before because there was no 
obligation on the part of the public official to transmit the documents 
to the defendant.41  And there was objection to this kind of service by 
the Hague Conference as long ago as its first meeting in 1893.42 
Even worse, service was considered complete when the summons 
was left at the prosecutor’s office, not when it was received by the 
defendant, thus enabling readily available default judgments against 
foreigners.43  This constructive notice regime seems comparable to 
notice to Earthlings being left in the vicinity of Alpha Centauri.44 
 
39 DeJames v. Magnificence Carriers, Inc., 654 F.2d 280, 287–88 (3d Cir. 1981).  See 
also Reply Brief for the Petitioner at 12–15, Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 
694 (1988) (No. 86-1052), 1988 WL 1031826, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1671.  For 
more on the objectives of the Convention, see Downs, supra note 35, at 125.  For the 
difficulties before the Convention was adopted, see Hans Smit, International Aspects of 
Federal Civil Procedure, 61 COLUM. L. REV. 1031, 1032–53 (1961); Harry Leroy Jones, 
International Judicial Assistance: Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 YALE 
L.J. 515 (1953) [hereinafter Jones, International Judicial Assistance]; Henry N. Longley, 
Serving Process, Subpoenas, and Other Documents in Foreign Territory, 1959 A.B.A. 
SEC. INT’L & COMP. L. PROC. 34; S. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, COMMISSION AND 
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RULES OF JUDICIAL PROCEDURE—
ESTABLISHMENT, S. REP. NO. 85-2392 (1958), reprinted in 1958 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5201, 1958 
WL 3715; S. COMM. ON THE JUDICIARY, JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, S. REP. NO. 88-1580; 
Gerber, supra note 23, at 1377–80; William B. Stern, International Judicial Assistance 
Part I: Service and Discovery Abroad, 14 PRAC. LAW., Dec. 1968, at 17 (discussing 
American litigants’ options for service just before Convention became effective).  For 
American practice on foreign requests, see Paul D. McCusker, Some United States 
Practices in International Judicial Assistance, 37 DEP’T STATE BULL. 808 (1957). 
40 Report of the U.S. Delegation, supra note 24, at 269. 
41 Wuchter v. Pizzutti, 276 U.S. 13, 25 (1928) (Taft, C.J.).  Notwithstanding Wuchter, 
similar practices continued for many years until Mullane, 339 U.S. at 306.  For a more in-
depth discussion of Mullane and acceptable methods of service of notice of suit, see 
George B. Fraser, Jr., Jurisdiction by Necessity: An Analysis of the Mullane Case, 100 U. 
PA. L. REV. 305, 316–19 (1951). 
42 Lipstein, supra note 15, at 581 n.211. 
43 Philip W. Amram, The Revolutionary Change in Service of Process Abroad in 
French Civil Procedure, 2 INT’L LAW. 650, 650–51 (1968), citing CODE CIVIL [C. CIV.] 
art. 69(1) (Fr.).  Amram noted that after the Convention was drafted, the French reformed 
notification au parquet to at least require notice be sent abroad, but still perpetuated a less  
294 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Article 15 of the Convention limits default judgments.  For 
example, a court must allow at least six months to elapse after 
dispatching service before a default may be entered.45 
In a nutshell, the Convention’s two key purposes were: “1) to 
facilitate service abroad by providing a reliable method of both 
effecting and proving service and 2) to ensure that persons affected by 
proceedings in another country would receive notice and an 
opportunity to be heard.”46 
Besides court documents such as complaints and summonses, the 
Convention also applies to “extrajudicial documents.”47 
 
than ideal regime for notice.  Id. at 654–57, citing Loi 65-1006 du 26 novembre 1965 
[Decree 65-1006], Journal Officiel de la République Française [J.O.] [Official Gazette of 
France], Dec. 2, 1965, p. 10664.  One commentator read Article 10(a) of the Convention 
as still allowing notification au parquet.  Downs, supra note 35, at 134–35.  This system 
persisted until reforms made by the European Union in the 1990’s ended the constructive 
notice of notification au parquet and made actual notice mandatory.  See Meijknecht, 
supra note 9, at 455, which discusses the Convention on the Service in the Member States 
of the European Union of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial 
Matters, done May 26, 1997, 1997 O.J. (C 261) 1.  That convention never entered into 
force and was largely enacted by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000, on the Service 
in the Member States of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial 
Matters, May 29, 2000, 2000 O.J. (L 160) 37. 
44 DOUGLAS ADAMS, THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY ch. 3 (1979), 
reprinted in DOUGLAS ADAMS, THE ULTIMATE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE 25 (1997) 
(describing how notice that the Earth was to be destroyed to make way for an interstellar 
highway was posted for fifty years in the Galactic Hyperspace Planning Council office in 
Alpha Centauri, only 4.3 light years away, and no objections having been received from 
them, thus Earthlings had no justifiable reason to complain when the construction fleet 
arrived to blow up their planet). 
45 See, e.g., Saysavanh v. Saysavanh, 145 P.3d 1166, ¶¶ 20–23 (Utah Ct. App. 2006), 
discussed in Brett R. Turner, Saysavanh v. Saysavanh: A Cautionary Tale About Serving 
Process Upon a Foreign Defendant, 18 DIVORCE LITIG, Oct. 2006, at 177. 
46 Anne-Marie Kim, The Inter-American Convention and Additional Protocol on 
Letters Rogatory: The Hague Service Convention’s “Country Cousins”?, 36 COLUM. J. 
TRANSNAT’L L. 687, 692 (1998). 
47  “Extrajudicial documents” are those which “‘emanat[e] from authorities and judicial 
officers’ of a state.  The legislative history of the convention indicates that, in European 
practice, this is intended to include the official documents of a European notary.  In 
[American] practice, and also in England and Norway, it is intended to include the official 
documents of administrative agencies and commissions.”  Statement by Philip W. Amram, 
Attorney at Law, in S. COMM. ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, CONVENTION ON THE SERVICE 
ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS, S. EXEC. REP. NO. 90-6, at 14 
(1967) [hereinafter SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORT].  They “differ from judicial documents 
in that they are not directly related to a trial, and from strictly private documents in that 
they require the involvement of [public officials and] . . . include . . . demands for 
payment, notices to quit in connection with leaseholds or contracts of employment, 
protests with respect to bills of exchange and promissory notes . . . Objections to marriage, 
consents for adoption, and acceptances of paternity are also in this class . . . .”  PRACTICAL 
HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 67.  See also 1 RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF THE FOREIGN  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 295 
C.  Who Participates in the Convention? 
About seven dozen jurisdictions are covered by the Hague 
Convention.  Some were initial signatories.  Other jurisdictions joined 
subsequently, since any nation may join provided no current member 
of the convention objects—while some jurisdictions are covered 
because the nation responsible for their foreign relations extended the 
Convention to them.  Most of America’s major trading partners—
including Canada, China, Japan, Germany, South Korea, Mexico, the 
United Kingdom, and, most recently, Australia—are participants.  (A 
complete list appears in Appendix A.) 
D.  How Does It Work? 
[The Convention] is meant to simplify service of process abroad so 
as to insure . . . documents to be served abroad are brought to the 
notice of the addressee in sufficient time, and to make one method 
of service that will avoid the difficulties and controversy attendant 
to the use of other methods.  [It] applies as to service of process if 
the internal law of the forum state defines the applicable method of 
serving process as requiring the transmittal of documents abroad but 
does not apply if the law of the forum state and due process 
considerations allow, for example, service on a domestic agent in 
lieu of foreign transmittal.48 
 
RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 471 reporter’s note 3 at 532 (1987) 
[hereinafter FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT].  Some countries, e.g., France and 
Germany, object to papers sent by administrative agencies such as the Federal Trade 
Commission.  E.g., Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-à-Mousson, 
636 F.2d 1300, 1306 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (reprinting note of protest by French Government).  
See also Kenneth B. Reisenfeld, Service of United States Process Abroad: A Practical 
Guide to Service Under the Hague Service Convention and the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure, 24 INT’L LAW. 35, 66 (1990). 
48 62B Am. Jur. 2d Process § 321, at 885 (2005).  See also Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 698 
(Convention “was intended to provide a simpler way to serve process abroad, to assure 
that defendants sued in foreign jurisdictions would receive actual and timely notice of suit, 
and to facilitate proof of service abroad”).  Schlunk, the Supreme Court’s only opinion on 
the Convention, is also examined in Alison K. Freeborn, Volkswagenwerk 
Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk—An Examination Into the Scope of the Hague Service 
Convention, 8 WIS. INT’L L.J. 421 (1990); Kenneth M. Minesinger, Volkswagenwerk 
Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk: The Supreme Court Interprets the Hague Service 
Convention, 23 GEO. WASH. J. INT’L L. & ECON. 769 (1990); Brenda L. White, Service of 
Process: Application of the Hague Convention in United States Courts, 30 HARV. INT’L 
L.J. 277 (1989); P.S. Gillespie, Volkswagenwerk Atktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk: The 
Supreme Court Defines the Scope of the Hague Service Convention, 63 TUL. L. REV. 950 
(1989); Elizabeth A. Cocanaugher, Comment, The Hague Service Convention as Enabler: 
Volkwagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 20 U. MIAMI INTER-AM. L. REV. 175 
(1988); Peter D. Trooboff & Carlos M. Vasquez, Hague Service Convention—Scope and 
Application—Role of Internal Law, 82 AM. J. INT’L L. 816 (1988). 
296 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
This is how the convention works in practice.49 
The Convention requires each country to name a “central 
authority” that receives and executes requests for service from other 
countries.  When the Convention took effect in 1969, the United 
States designated the State Department as its central authority; the 
Department’s Office of Security and Consular Affairs handled 
requests for service.50  Since December 31, 1973, the central authority 
has been the Justice Department.51  The Marshals Service, a unit of 
that Department, previously executed requests from abroad.52  The 
 
49 For other descriptions of how the Convention works in practice, see 1 RISTAU, 
INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at ch. 4; PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, 
supra note 13, Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 698–99; DeJames, 654 F.2d at 288; Shoei Kako Co. v. 
San Francisco Cty. Super. Ct., 109 Cal. Rptr. 402, 409–11 (Ct. App. 1973); Pamela R. 
Parmelee, International Service of Process: A Guide to Serving Process Abroad Under the 
Hague Convention, 39 OKLA. L. REV. 287 (1986); Basarrate, supra note 18; New York 
State Bar Ass’n, Committee on Federal Courts, Service of Process Abroad: A Nuts and 
Bolts Guide, 122 F.R.D. 63, 69–71 (1989); Mann, supra note 8; Michael L. Silhol, Service 
of Process Upon Foreign Defendants Under the Hague Convention, 28 TENN. BAR. J., 
Sept.–Oct. 1992, at 16; Bruce A. Brightwell, The Hague Convention on Service of Process 
Abroad: An Overview, 37 RES GESTAE 420 (1994). 
50 Relating to the Implementation of the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial 
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Exec. Order No. 11,471, 
34 Fed. Reg. 8,349 (May 30, 1969), reprinted in 1969 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2886.  See also 
[BRUNO A. RISTAU], REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION TO THE SPECIAL 
COMMISSION ON THE OPERATION OF THE CONVENTION OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE 
SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR 
COMMERCIAL MATTERS, THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS, 21–25 NOVEMBER 1977 (Feb. 
1978), reprinted in 17 I.L.M. 312, 313 (1978); Judicial Assistance: Multilateral 
Agreements: The Hague Service Convention, 1978 DIGEST § 6, at 865–67. 
51 The executive order signed by President Nixon authorized the Secretary of State and 
the Attorney General to transfer responsibility for the central authority.  In 1973, Secretary 
Kissinger transferred authority to the Justice Department.  Service Abroad of Judicial and 
Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters: Designation of Justice 
Department, 38 Fed. Reg. 30,115 (Nov. 1, 1973).  Acting Attorney General Bork then 
assigned the Department’s duties to the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division.  
International Judicial Assistance, 38 Fed. Reg. 32,805 (Nov. 28, 1973) (codified at 28 
C.F.R. § 0.49).  The American declaration to the Dutch Foreign Minister on the change in 
central authorities is reprinted in 908 U.N.T.S. 94 and Hal Roberts Ray, Jr., Service 
Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters Under 
the Hague Convention, 3 REV. LITIG. 493, 553–554 (1983).  A report prepared by Bruno 
A. Ristau before the 1977 Special Commission of the Hague Conference on how the 
American central authority was functioning in practice is reprinted in Judicial Assistance: 
Multilateral Agreements: The Hague Service Convention, 1977 DIGEST § 6, at 477–84 
[hereinafter 1977 DIGEST] and is excerpted as The Hague Service Convention, 72 AM. J. 
INT’L L. 130 (1978). 
52 Memorandum No. 386, Rev. 2 from Barbara Allen Babcock, Assistant Att’y Gen., 
Civil Div., U.S. Dep’t of Justice, to all United States Marshals (June 15, 1977), reprinted 
as Department of Justice Instructions for Serving Foreign Judicial Documents in the U.S. 
and Processing Requests for Serving American Judicial Documents Abroad, 16 I.L.M. 
1331 (1977), excerpted in 1977 DIGEST, supra note 51, at § 6 at 485–90 [hereinafter  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 297 
Justice Department in 2003 contracted the work to a private company 
in Seattle, Process Forwarding International.53 
Foreign authorities are usually a court official or clerk or a justice 
ministry.  For example, in England, the central authority is an official 
at the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand.54  In Italy, the central 
authority is the Registry of the Rome Court of Appeals on Julius 
Caesar Street in the Eternal City.55  As for Germany, it is a federal 
republic like the United States and has designated authorities in each 
state.56  Canada and Switzerland have also done this.57  Britain has 
named authorities in each of its overseas possessions.58 
No cover letter is necessary.59  The request to serve papers is made 
on a standard form written in English and French appended to the text 
of the Convention.60  The use of this form is mandatory.61 
 
Babcock, Justice Department Instructions].  The Marshals’ role in serving civil process 
domestically generally ended in 1983 with the adoption of amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
4(c).  See 1 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, § 4App.07[1], at 4App-29 to 4App-30 (3d ed. 
2010) (reprinting rule showing text before and after), and id. at § 4App.07[3], at 4App-33 
to 4App-36 (reprinting commentary on revised rule and Marshal Service’s role in serving 
process).  See also Sinclair, supra note 4, at 1201 (explaining rule change was because the 
Marshals Service complained of the costs of serving papers). 
53 Private International Law: Judicial Assistance: Service of Process: Change in 
Procedure in United States, 2003 DIGEST ch. 15, at 865–68; Circular Letter from Colin L. 
Powell, Sec’y of State, to Chiefs of Foreign Missions in the United States (June 4, 2003), 
excerpted in id. at 866–68, available at http://www.state.gov/s/l/2003/44337.htm; Letter 
from United States to Hague Conference Depositary (Aug. 21, 2003), excerpted at 
http://www.hcch.net/upload/outsourcing14.pdf.  For commentary on how the outsourcing 
program is functioning, see Emily Fishbein Johnson, Privatizing the Duties of the Central 
Authority: Should International Service of Process Be Up for Bid?, 37 GEO. WASH. INT’L 
L. REV. 769 (2005).  For a discussion of the adverse reaction by the Russian government 
to the outsourcing, see Spencer Willig, Out of Service: The Causes and Consequences of 
Russia’s Suspension of Judicial Assistance to the United States Under the Hague Service 
Convention, 31 U. PA. J. INT’L L. 593 (2009). 
54 MARTINDALE-HUBBELL, supra note 13, at IC-12. 
55 Id. at IC-8. 
56 Id. at IC-7. 
57 Id. at IC-3 to IC-4 (Canada); id. at IC-12 (Switzerland). 
58 Id. at IC-13. 
59 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at 176. 
60 The form may be found following the Convention in both the UNITED STATES CODE 
ANNOTATED and MARTINDALE-HUBBELL, supra note 13, and also in Cmnd. 3986, supra 
note 13, at 22–27.  The text of the form is also found at Julen v. Larson, 101 Cal. Rptr. 
796, 799 n.2 (Ct. App. 1972).  The United States Marshals Service has designated this 
Form USM-94, available at http://www.usmarshals.gov/forms/usm94.pdf.  The Hague 
Conference makes it available as a fillable PDF form at http://www.hcch.net/upload 
/act_form14e.pdf.  A trilingual version of the form in English, French, and Russian, 
appears at 2293 U.N.T.S. 117–19.  Instructions on completing the documents are in 
Reisenfeld, supra note 47, at 80–83 (including examples of completed forms), Babcock, 
Justice Department Instructions, supra note 52, at 1351–53 (also including examples of  
298 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
A party has the papers he wishes served sent directly to the central 
authority of the foreign jurisdiction; he does not go through his own 
nation’s central authority.62  The request should be sent by someone 
the local rules authorize to serve papers, e.g., a court clerk or 
attorney.63  However, to avoid unnecessary difficulties with foreign 
officials, litigants should prepare the papers and then request the court 
clerk dispatch them.64 
A nation may require the documents to be served be translated into 
its official language.65  (Translation requirements are listed in 
Appendix A.) 
A central authority that finds a request for service to be defective is 
to promptly tell the litigant of the problem.66  Otherwise, the central 
authority is to have the documents served.67 Service may be by a 
 
completed forms), and 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, 
at § 4-2-3, at 176–191. 
61 Convention, supra note 13, art. 3. 
62 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 83.  The Bulgarian, Egyptian, and 
Finnish central authorities transmit requests abroad for their citizens, as do those in some 
Swiss cantons.  Id.  And Process Forwarding can arrange for translation and transmission 
of papers to foreign central authorities.  E-mail from Rick Hamilton, Process Forwarding 
International, to Author (Apr. 1, 2009, 17:48:53 PDT) (on file with author). 
63 Convention, supra note 13, art. 3; PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 92. 
64 See Reisenfeld, supra note 47, at 62 n.33 (noting some central authorities refuse 
requests received from attorneys); Hal Roberts Ray, Jr., Service Abroad of Judicial and 
Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters Under the Hague Convention, 3 
REV. LITIG. 493, 501 (1983) (also noting that some central authorities refuse requests 
received from attorneys). 
65 Convention, supra note 13, at art. 5.  Some American courts have decided that 
documents must be translated even if the receiving nation has not required translations.  
E.g., Lobo v. Celebrity Cruises, Inc., 667 F. Supp.2d 1324, 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2009).  See 
also Marjorie A. Shields, Annotation, Requirement That Summons and Complaint Be 
Translated for Proper Service Under Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial 
and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 7 A.L.R. FED.2D 329 
(2005); Christopher Cheng, Translated Documents and Hague Service Convention 
Requirements, 14 MICH. J. INT’L L. 383 (1993). 
66 Droz, A Comment on the Role, supra note 16, at 5. 
67 Some countries have their peculiarities of what subject matter they will and will not 
serve.  See, e.g., Klaus J. Beucher & John Byron Sandage, United States Punitive Damage 
Awards in German Courts: The Evolving German Position on Service and Enforcement, 
23 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 967 (1991 (describing how in Germany, some officials 
formerly refused to serve suits seeking punitive damages).  More recent decisions have 
rejected the German position on service of suits including punitive damages because, 
while punitive damages do seek to punish wrongdoing, they are not criminal sanctions.  
See, e.g., Bundesverfassungsgericht [BverfG] [Federal Constitutional Court], Dec. 7, 1994, 
1995 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift [NJW] 649, translated as Gerhard Wegner & 
Christopher Kuner, Germany: Federal Constitutional Court Orders Concerning Service of 
Punitive Damage Claims, 34 I.L.M. 975 (1995); Oberlandesgericht München [Court of 
Appeals of Munich] [OLG], May 9, 1989, 35 Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft [RIW]  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 299 
method requested by the litigant—e.g., personal service, “nail and 
mail”—or by the methods used in the receiving nation for executing 
domestic service.  Service is still good even if the authority serves the 
complaint but fails to serve the summons.68 
Upon serving the papers, the authority prepares a certificate of 
service that includes information found on a typical process server’s 
return—including the date and place of service and the person served.  
That certificate is sent to the party requesting service.  This document 
is prima facie evidence the documents were properly served.69 
If an authority fails in its obligations, a court can order alternative 
means of service and extend the time for perfecting it.70  A failure to 
submit proof of service does not invalidate the service.71  Nor does a 
clerical mistake in the central authority’s completion of the form.72 
The American central authority serves defendants sometimes as 
soon as ten days after receipt while most foreign nations take a couple 
months; in some countries service happens on the Greek kalends.73 
Service through the central authority is not the exclusive means of 
service under the Convention.74  Countries may have their diplomatic 
and consular agents serve papers abroad.75  (The United States, 
 
489, translated as Bruno A. Ristau, Federal Republic of Germany: Court of Appeals of 
Munich Decision in X Company and Attorney Y v. Bavaria (Hague Service Convention), 
28 I.L.M. 1571 (1989).  Egypt considers divorce and family cases to be outside the 
convention’s scope because those matters are handled in Egypt’s religious courts.  REPORT 
OF THE UNITED STATES DELEGATION, supra note 50, at 320. 
68 See Phillips v. Symes, [2008] UKHL 1, [2008] 2 All E.R. 537 (appeal taken from 
Eng.). 
69 Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semillas Algodoneras Selectas, S.A., 51 
F.3d 1383, 1389–90 (8th Cir. 1995); Marine Geotechnics, LLC v. Williams, C.A. No. H-
07-3499, 2009 WL 2144278 at *2–3 (S.D. Tex. July 13, 2009). 
70 Balintulo v. Daimler, A.G. (In re S. Afr. Apartheid Litig.), 643 F. Supp.2d 423, 433 
(S.D.N.Y. 2009).  But see Leslie Blankenship, For Whom the Statue Tolls—The Statute of 
Limitations As Applied to Foreign Defendants in Countries Which Do Not Permit Service 
by Mail, 27 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 765 (1987). 
71 1 MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE, supra note 52, at § 4.104, 4-137. 
72 E.g., Greene v. Le Dorze, No. 3-96-CV-590-R, 1998 WL 158632, 1998 U.S. Dist. 
LEXIS 4093, at *8–10 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 1998). 
73 Hawkins, supra note 9, at 218.  The State Department observed that before the 
United States hired an outside contractor to execute process, it took the Marshals Service 
“anywhere from six months to one year or longer to complete” requests from abroad.  
2003 DIGEST, supra note 53, at 866. 
74 Report of the U.S. Delegation, supra note 24, at 269 (“Use of the Central Authority 
is purely optional.”). 
75 Convention, supra note 13, art. 8.  See also, e.g., McCusker, supra note 39, at 809 
(describing an example before the Convention where a court in Casablanca, French 
Morocco, had the French consul in Detroit use the police department of Columbus, Ohio, 
to serve a defendant there). 
300 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
however, does not allow its diplomats to serve process except when 
the defendant is a foreign government.)76  Diplomats may be used to 
forward documents to foreign officials to serve.77  The judicial 
authorities of the receiving nation may also serve process through 
letters rogatory.78 
And then there is article 10, a catch-all allowing other possibilities.  
But whether it authorizes service by mail is hotly disputed.  Before 
we consider that issue, we look at how in many cases the Hague 
Convention is superfluous if the foreign defendant can be served 
within the United States—which is usually going to be done by mail.  
A commentary in the Federal Rules Decisions says of the Hague 
Convention “the whole subject can become academic—happily 
academic and even irrelevant for the plaintiff—if there is any way to 
serve the foreign defendant locally.”79 
II 
IS SERVICE ABROAD EVEN NECESSARY? 
The Hague Convention applies “where there is occasion to transmit 
a . . . document for service abroad.”80  While this language is 
mandatory,81 “[t]he Hague Convention does not require that all 
citizens of the signatory nation be served according to its methods, 
since it does not state when service abroad is required.”82  The 
 
76 See 22 C.F.R. § 92.85 (describing the general prohibition on consular service of 
process ).  This has been a longstanding policy of the State Department.  See, e.g., former 
22 C.F.R. § 136.85, published as Part 136, Notarial and Related Services, 17 Fed. Reg. 
5540, 5553 (June 20, 1952).  For service upon a foreign state, see 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a) 
(2000); 22 C.F.R. § 93.1; United States: Department of State Memorandum on Judicial 
Assistance Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and Service of Process on a 
Foreign State (May 10, 1979), reprinted in 18 I.L.M. 1177 (1979). 
77 Convention, supra note 13, art. 9. 
78 Convention, supra note 13, art. 10. 
79 David D. Siegel, The New (Dec. 1, 1993) Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure: Changes in Summons Service and Personal Jurisdiction, 154 F.R.D. 441, 461 
(1994). 
80 Convention, supra note 13, art. 1.  See also Marjorie A. Shields, Annotation, When Is 
Compliance with Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial 
Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Art. 1 et seq., Required, 18 A.L.R. FED.2D 
185 (2007). 
81 Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 
482 U.S. 522, 534 n.15 (1987) (Blackmun, J.) (dicta in case about the Hague Evidence 
Convention). 
82 62B Am. Jur. 2d Process § 326 at 890.  See also Randolph v. Hendry, 50 F. Supp. 2d 
572, 575 (S.D.W. Va. 1999). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 301 
Supreme Court has held that only if the forum’s law requires 
documents to be sent abroad does the Convention become relevant.83 
 If there is no occasion for service abroad, the Hague Convention, 
by its own terms does not apply, the Convention not being 
implicated until a determination is made that service abroad is 
necessary.  If a foreign national is present in the United States, 
domestic service is possible, and there is no need to obtain service 
in accord with the Hague Convention . . . [which] applies only to 
attempt to serve process in foreign countries, and does not apply to 
service on a foreign corporation in the United States pursuant to 
[the Civil Rules].84 
The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled likewise and the official 
handbook for the Convention agrees.85  The head of the British 
delegation to the 1965 session of the Hague Conference lamented the 
ambiguity of the Convention: 
It is perhaps, unfortunate, that the Convention does not state more 
precisely the circumstances to which it shall apply, especially as 
one of its principal objects is to change the practice in which service 
of process against a defendant abroad can be made in the court of 
the plaintiff’s own country.86 
He hoped courts would apply the Convention liberally in order to 
prevent “the hardship and injustice which it seeks to relieve.”87 
A.  Service on Foreign Defendants Through Their American Agents 
Usually in this context, it is the subsidiary that is being served on 
behalf of a foreign parent.88  One treatise contends “the fact that a 
 
83 Schlunk, supra note 34, at 700. 
84 62B Am. Jur. 2d Process § 324, at 888–89, citing Daewoo Motor Am., Inc. v. 
Dongbu Fire Ins. Co., 289 F. Supp. 2d 1127 (C.D. Cal. 2001); Luciano v. Garvey 
Volkswagen, 521 N.Y.S.2d 119 (App. Div. 1987); Zisman v. Sieger, 106 F.R.D. 194 (N.D. 
Ill. 1985). 
85 HR 27 juni 1986, NJ 1987, 764 m.nt. WH Heemskerk (Segers & Rufa, 
B.V./Mabanaft, GmbH.) (Neth.), RvdW 1986, 144, reprinted as English Translation of 
Decision No. 13072 of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, 27 June 1986, 28 I.L.M. 
1585, 1586 (1989) (“The cases in which a document must be sent abroad ‘for service’ are 
not set out in the Convention.  This point is entirely left to the domestic law of the 
Contracting State of origin of the document.”); PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at 
xxv–xxvi (“The law of the State of origin . . . determines whether or not a document has to 
be transmitted abroad for service in the other state.”). 
86 Graveson, supra note 24, at 539. 
87 Id. 
88 An example is Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 104 F.R.D. 95 (S.D. Fla. 1985), 
which is examined in detail in Gloria M. Hoyal, The Hague Service Convention and 
Agency Concepts, Lamb v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 20 CORNELL INT’L L.J. 
391 (1987).  Other cases where service on the subsidiary was found to be valid service on  
302 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
subsidiary’s parent corporation does business in a given state cannot 
in itself render the subsidiary amenable to service of process and 
subject to in personam jurisdiction in that state.89  But if the corporate 
veil can be pierced through various devices—e.g., “alter ego” test or 
the complete domination of the subsidiaries by the parent—then 
service on the parent binds the subsidiary.90  Those suing foreign 
 
the parent include Sankaran v. Club Mediterranée, S.A., No. 97 Civ. 8318(RPP), 1998 WL 
433780, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11750 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 1998) (service on French parent 
by serving New York City subsidiary); Mirrow v. Club Med, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 418 (E.D. 
Pa. 1986) (service on Cayman Islands parent by serving American subsidiary); United 
States v. Toyota Motor Corp., 569 F. Supp. 1158, 1160 (C.D. Cal. 1983) (service on 
Japanese parent by serving California subsidiary); Roorda v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 481 
F. Supp. 868, 870 (D.S.C. 1979) (service on German parent by serving South Carolina 
Secretary of State who sent it to the American subsidiary and parent’s C.E.O. in 
Germany); Top Form Mills, Inc. v. Sociedad Nationale Industria Applicazioni Viscosa, 
428 F. Supp. 1237, 1250–51 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (service on Italian parent by serving its New 
York subsidiary); Tokyo Boeki (U.S.A.), Inc. v. S.S. Navarino, 324 F. Supp. 361, 366–67 
(S.D.N.Y. 1977) (service on Japanese parent by serving New York subsidiary); Handlos v. 
Litton Indus., Inc., 304 F. Supp. 347, 350–51 (E.D. Wis. 1969) (service on California 
parent by serving Wisconsin agent of its subsidiary was binding on parent because parent 
in its annual report held out to the world parent's close control over subsidiaries); United 
States v. U.S. Alkali Ass’n, [1946–1947] Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 57,481, at 58,202 (S.D.N.Y. 
1946) (service on English parent by serving New York City subsidiary); Indus. Research 
Corp. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 29 F.2d 623, 628 (N.D. Ohio 1928) (service on parent by 
serving wholly owned subsidiary that parent represented was closely controlled by it); Ex 
parte Volkswagenwerk, A.G. (Brown v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.), 443 So.2d 880, 
885 (Ala. 1983) (service on German parent by serving New Jersey subsidiary); Maunder v. 
De Havilland Aircraft of Can., Ltd., 466 N.E.2d 217, 222 (Ill. 1984) (service of Canadian 
parent by serving Illinois-incorporated subsidiary); Taca Int’l Airlines, S.A. v. Rolls-
Royce of Eng., Ltd., 204 N.E.2d 329, 331 (N.Y. 1965) (service on English parent by 
serving its New York subsidiary); Geffen Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corp. 283 N.Y.S.2d 79, 
81 (Sup. Ct. 1967) (the subsidiary actually served and the parent “are really the same 
entities in different guises” and so service on subsidiary was valid service on parent); 
McHugh v. Int’l Components Corp., 461 N.Y.S.2d 166, 168 (Sup. Ct. 1983) (service on 
Japanese parent by serving its Illinois subsidiary).  Cf. Crose v. Volkswagenwerk, A.G., 
558 P.2d 764 (Wash. 1977) (service on car dealer in which carmaker owned no stock but 
utterly dominated was valid service on carmaker); Sunrise Toyota, Ltd. v. Toyota Motor 
Co., 55 F.R.D. 519, 528–31 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (finding that a parent operating through its 
wholly owned subsidiaries does not insulate parent from suit). 
89 18A WILLIAM MEADE FLETCHER & CAROL A. JONES, FLETCHER CYCLOPEDIA OF 
THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS § 8773, at 235 (2007) (citing Uston v. Hilton Casinos, Inc., 
564 F.2d 1218 (9th Cir. 1977); Chung v. Tarom, S.A., 990 F. Supp. 581 (N.D. Ill. 1998); 
Hobbs v. Don Mealey Chevrolet, Inc., 642 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994); In re 
Crespo, 475 N.Y.S.2d 319 (Sup. Ct. 1984); Bowers v. Wurzburg, 519 S.E.2d 148 (W. Va. 
1999)). 
90 Id. at § 8773 passim.  See also Prof’l Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Roussel, 445 F. Supp. 
687, 698 (D. Kan. 1978) (“The rationale of the courts which have extended jurisdiction 
over a foreign parent corporation on the basis of a subsidiary’s ‘presence’ within the state 
is that when the parent corporation exercises such control and dominion over the 
subsidiary that it no longer has a will, mind, or existence of its own, and operates merely 
as a department of the parent corporation, both corporations should be treated as a single  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 303 
carmakers should know a federal statute requires them to appoint an 
American agent for service.91 
B.  Agents for Service 
It is not necessary for there to be a formal agency relationship in 
order to serve a foreign defendant.92  As many old cases involving 
railroad ticket agents and Western Union representatives show, it is 
not necessary that the person receiving process be designated for that 
purpose.93  In fact, some courts have held “[i]n the absence of an 
express agency agreement, the common ownership of two 
corporations ‘gives rise to a valid inference as to the broad scope of 
the agency.’”94  Likewise, on a question of providing discovery, the 
executives of a parent company were in control of their subsidiaries’ 
documents and thus were obliged to comply with subpoenas because 
of their control.95 
C.  Service and the Corporate Family Tree 
A good example of that parental control as to service of process is 
Hoffmann v. United Telecommunications.96  The plaintiff claimed 
 
economic entity.  In such a situation service of process on the subsidiary operates to 
extend jurisdiction over the parent.”).  Cf. Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 
467 U.S. 752, 771 (1984) (parent corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary could not 
conspire together to violate the Sherman Act because they were a single economic 
enterprise). 
91 49 U.S.C. § 30164 (2000).  Notice must be given to the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration.  See 49 C.F.R. § 551.45 et seq. 
92 N.Y. Marine Managers, Inc. v. The M.V. Topor-1, 716 F. Supp. 783, 785 (S.D.N.Y. 
1989) (Mukasey, J.). 
93 See E.W.H., Annotation, Service of Process Upon Actual Agent of Foreign 
Corporation in Action Based on Transactions Out of State, 96 A.L.R. 366 (1935) (many of 
which have to do with railroads and telegraph companies).  Two typical examples are 
Yockey v. St. Louis & S.F. Ry., 37 S.W.2d 694 (Ark. 1934) and Steele v. W. Union Tel. 
Co., 173 S.E. 583 (N.C. 1934).  See also FMAC Loan Receivables Trust v. Dagra, 228 
F.R.D. 531, 534 (E.D. Va. 2005) (service on Pakistani delivered to his American lawyer 
was valid and the Convention was not implicated). 
94 Jayne v. Royal Jordanian Airlines Corp., 502 F. Supp. 848, 856 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) 
(quoting Frummer v. Hilton Hotels Int’l, Inc., 227 N.E.2d 851, 854 (N.Y. 1967)).  Cf. 
Canterbury Belts, Ltd. v. Lane Walker Rudkin, Ltd., 869 F.2d 34, 40 (2d Cir. 1989) 
(subsidiaries’ activities attributed to the parent for determining personal jurisdiction); 
Milligan v. Anderson, 522 F.2d 1202, 1207 (10th Cir. 1975) (where disputed jurisdictional 
facts are intimately intertwined with the parties’ dispute on the merits “plaintiffs should 
not be required to submit proof which would, in effect, establish the validity of their 
claims and their right to the relief sought”). 
95 See In re Investigation of World Arrangements With Relation to the Prod., Transp., 
Ref., & Distribut. of Petroleum, 13 F.R.D. 280, 285 (D.D.C. 1952). 
96 Hoffmann v. United Telecomm., Inc., 575 F. Supp. 1463 (D. Kan. 1983). 
304 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
discrimination in the employment practices of the parent and 
numerous subsidiary companies of a nationwide telephone system.  
The plaintiff served the parent company and its chief executive.  The 
court found the parent utterly dominated the subsidiaries, operating 
them as a completely unified enterprise controlled from its 
headquarters.  Thus by serving the parent and the chief executive each 
of the subsidiaries was served.  This was proven by the subsidiaries 
both receiving actual notice from the parent and filing timely 
responses to the suit.97 
Treating service upon a subsidiary as service on a parent—and vice 
versa—is a rational attitude for courts as the practice does not permit 
corporations to hide from suit by a clever corporate shell game.98  
This is especially true in that many foreign corporations operate in the 
United States by “stealth,” transacting their business through a web of 
subsidiaries while the parent corporation sits in a foreign land, 
protected from the consequences of its actions—and American 
jurisdiction.99 
The Solicitor General, a friend of the Supreme Court in 
Volkswagenwerk v. Schlunk, the high court’s one decision on the 
Convention, said the Convention 
does not limit the power a contracting nation to permit service of 
foreign corporations doing business within its borders through 
delivery of a summons and complaint to domestic agents or 
subsidiaries of those corporations. Indeed, it was well established at 
the time the Convention was drafted that a foreign corporation 
doing business in the United States was properly amenable to 
service of process by delivery of a summons and complaint to an 
agent or wholly owned American subsidiary.100 
The Supreme Court agreed and held that serving the parent through 
its subsidiary—and not through the central authority mechanism—
was acceptable, a notion “shocking” to attorneys in civil law 
regimes.101  Yet the European Court of Justice in 1972 held that 
 
97 Id. at 1482–83. 
98 See Rita M. Allis, The “Mandatory” Nature of the Hague Service Convention in the 
United States is the Forum’s Victory, 23 VAND. J. TRANSNAT’L L. 179, 220 (1990). 
99 Comment, Notice Due to Stealth and Other Foreign Defendants After 
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk and Under the Hague Service Convention, 
2 TRANSNAT’L LAW. 641 (1989). 
100 Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent at 18–19, 
Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (No. 86-1052), 1988 WL 
1031822, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1669. 
101 Droz, A Comment on the Role, supra note 16, at 10 (“The ‘piercing of the corporate 
veil’ in this case was shocking to some jurists from civil law systems.”). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 305 
service on a subsidiary could be valid service on a parent, so the 
practice is not totally unknown to civilian lawyers.102 
The California Court of Appeals confronted in 2009 
[t]he question of whether a Japanese manufacturer can be served . . . 
simply by serving [its] American subsidiary.  The trial court ruled 
that [the parent] could indeed be validly served that way.  The 
method just seemed too easy a way to get around the Hague Service 
Convention . . . . On review, however, it turns out that, yes, it really 
is that easy.103 
The appellate court also held serving an American subsidiary of a 
foreign corporation provided valid service on the parent. 
D.  Foreign Defendants Are Not Always Entitled to Central 
Authority Service 
Many courts have also found service on a domestic agent is valid 
and does not implicate the Convention.104  Where the law only 
requires notice and not formal service, sending an informational copy 
of the documents abroad does not implicate the Convention.105  And 
 
102 Case 48/69, Imperial Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Comm’n, 1972 E.C.R. 619, [1972] 
C.M.L.R. 557, ¶¶ 34–44 (English company validly served with papers by the European 
Union at the offices of the company’s German subsidiary even though subsidiary had not 
been authorized to receive service of process on behalf of its parent). 
103 Yamaha Motor Co., v. Orange Cnty. Super. Ct., 94 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494, 495 (Ct. App. 
2009). 
104 Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 707; Darden v. DaimlerChrysler N. Am. Holding Corp., 191 F. 
Supp. 2d 382, 387–88 (S.D. N.Y. 2002) (while recognizing service on domestic agent 
could be valid that had not been shown in this case); Daewoo Motor, 289 F. Supp. 2d at 
1130 (service on state insurance commissioner as domestic agent of Japanese insurer); 
Sankaran, 1998 WL 433780, at *5; Pittsburgh Nat. Bank v. Kassir, 153 F.R.D. 580, 583–
84 (W.D. Pa. 1994) (foreign debtors in their loan agreement appointed an American agent 
for the receipt of process and serving the agent was proper and in compliance with 
Convention); Gallagher v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 781 F. Supp. 1079, 1082 (E.D. Pa. 
1992) (while recognizing service on domestic agent could be valid it had not been shown 
in this case); Moroz v. San Diego Cnty. Super. Ct., No. D038329, 2002 WL 16093, at *4, 
2002 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5108 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. Jan. 8, 2002) (finding Polish 
resident was served by delivery of complaint to her agent in California); Weber v. Zurich 
Fin. Servs. Grp., 18 Mass. L. Rptr. 544 (Super. Ct. 2004) (dicta allowing domestic service 
but finding service in the case invalid); Celik v. Dundar, No. CV95-0142921S, 1995 WL 
424710, at *2, 1995 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2050 (Super. Ct. July 12, 1995) (recognizing 
American distributor of Turkish magazine could be magazine publisher’s agent and calling 
for a hearing on the question); Karaszewski v. Honda Motor Co., 537 N.Y.S.2d 975, 976 
(Sup. Ct. 1989) (allowing service on foreign corporation through New York Secretary of 
State). 
105 In re Get Wet Water Sports, Inc., Civ. No. 95-6116, 1996 WL 162073, at *2, 1996 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4292 (D.N.J. Mar. 18, 1996) (limitation of liability action where notice 
was given under F. R. CIV. P. SUPP. R. ADM. & MAR. P. F(4) meant Convention not  
306 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
where a defendant’s address is unknown, the Convention does not 
apply.106 
Where service on a domestic agent [of a foreign party] is valid and 
complete under both state law and the Due Process Clause [of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, a court’s] inquiry ends and the Convention 
has no further implications . . .  [T]he Due Process Clause does not 
require an official transmittal of documents abroad every time there 
is service on a foreign national.107 
Now we consider service by mail. 
III 
AROUND THE WORLD ON AN ENVELOPE 
Send and serve.  “If [those] words are different, then the 
Convention contains no specific permission for service by mail.  If the 
words are the same, documents may be sent, and service of process 
may be effected, through use of the mails.”108  Where to begin the 
analysis?  The canons of construction are the most obvious toolkit.  
But “textual ambiguity is often created . . . when courts attempt to 
apply rules of statutory construction that are only suited to domestic 
legislation . . . [and] giving too much credit to the precise language of 
a treaty can lead a court to give too much weight to an apparent 
omission, despite the clear meaning of the text.”109 
The question of whether or not the Hague Convention allows the 
service of process by mail has divided our courts.110  The relevant 
language, Article 10, reads: 
 
implicated because the Convention addresses service of process and the Supplemental 
Rules require only notice). 
106 E.g., BP Prods. N. Am., Inc. v. Dagra, 236 F.R.D. 270, 271 (E.D. Va. 2006); People 
v. Mendocino Cnty. Assessor’s Parcel No. 056-500-09, 68 Cal. Rptr. 2d 51, 53 (Ct. App. 
1997); Kott v. L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., 53 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 220 (Ct. App. 1996) (court 
accepted service by publication could be used when defendant’s address unknown but 
invalidated it in the case because plaintiff had made insufficient efforts to learn 
defendant’s address); Eto v. Muranka, 57 P.3d 413, 423 (Haw. 2006). 
107 Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 707.  See also Delta Constructors, Inc. v. Roediger Vacuum, 
GmbH., 259 F.R.D. 245, 248 (S.D. Miss. 2009) (“[T]he fact that [defendant] is a German 
corporation and Germany is a signatory to the Hague Convention does not necessarily 
mean that [defendant] is entitled to receive all service of process at its home office in 
Germany.”). 
108 VED P. NANDA & DAVID K. PANSIUS, LITIGATION OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES IN 
U.S. COURTS § 2:6 (2d ed. 2005). 
109 David J. Bederman, Revivalist Canons and Treaty Interpretation, 41 UCLA L. REV. 
953, 965 (1994) (citations omitted). 
110 For an excellent short summary of the divide, see Eto, 57 P.3d at 423, n.6.  For a 
longer one, see EOI Corp. v. Medical Mktg., Ltd., 172 F.R.D. 133, 136–42 (D.N.J. 1997).  
See also Beverly L. Jacklin, Annotation, Service of Process by Mail in International Civil  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 307 
Provided the State of destination does not object, the present 
Convention shall not interfere with: 
(a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, 
directly to persons abroad; 
(b) the freedom of judicial officers, officials or other competent 
persons of the State of origin to effect service of judicial documents 
directly through the judicial officers, officials or other competent 
persons of the State of destination; [or] 
(c) the freedom of any person interested in a judicial proceeding to 
effect service of judicial documents directly through the judicial 
officers, officials or other competent persons of the State of 
destination.111 
 
Action as Permissible Under Hague Convention, 112 A.L.R. FED. 241 (1993) (collecting 
cases); Diane Davis, An Interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention: 
Does “Send” Mean “Serve”?, 53 ALB. L. REV. 877, 878–82 (1989) (discussing the federal 
circuit split on the question); Christine A. Elech, A Cosmopolitan Approach to Treaty 
Interpretation: Why Service by Postal Channels Should Be Permitted Under the Hague 
Convention, 36 N. KY. L. REV. 163, 167–73 (2009) (same); Sarah K. Rathke, There May 
Be an Easier Way: Serving Non-U.S. Civil Defendants With Process, 79 CLEVE. BAR. J., 
Nov. 2007, at 48 (discussing split among federal circuits, among district courts within the 
Sixth Circuit, between the Ohio federal districts, and among the Ohio appellate districts). 
111 More practically, sometimes private delivery services such as U.P.S., Federal 
Express, and D.H.L. have been found acceptable as “postal channels.”  PRACTICAL 
HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 198 states “private courier services offer the same security 
as domestic postal services while usually being faster.  In addition, pursuant to the wave of 
privitisation in the postal sector, the distinction between public and private services has 
tended to blur.  It is difficult to see, therefore, what would prevent a private courier service 
from being treated as a postal channel within the meaning of the convention.”  The 2003 
Special Commission on the Convention decided that courier services were acceptable as a 
“postal channel” under Article 10(a).  HAGUE CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE 
LAW, Oct. 28–Nov. 4, 2003, Conclusions and Recommendations Adopted by the Special 
Commission on the Practical Operation of the Hague Apostille, Evidence, and Service 
Conventions, 56 [hereinafter 2003 COMMISSION], excerpted in PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, 
supra note 13, at app. 6, available at http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/lse_concl_e.pdf.  
Service abroad by courier was found to be valid under Article 10(a) in Rogers v. Kasahara, 
No. 06-2033(PGS), 2006 WL 6312904, at *1, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74870 (D.N.J. Oct. 
16, 2006) (D.H.L. to Japan); EOI Corp., 172 F.R.D. at 142 (D.H.L. to United Kingdom); 
R. Griggs Grp., Ltd. v. Filanto, S.p.A., 920 F. Supp. 1100, 1107–08 (D. Nev. 1996) 
(Federal Express to Italy).  Contra Mezitis v. Mezitis, N.Y.L.J., Nov. 21, 1995, at 25–26 
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005) (service to Greece by D.H.L. invalid).  For cases where service by 
courier to countries outside the Convention was found to be service by “mail” under Fed. 
R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(C)(ii), see Export-Import Bank of the United States v. Asia Pulp & Paper 
Co., No. 03 Civ. 8554(LTS)(JCF), 2005 WL 1123755, at *5, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8902 
(S.D.N.Y. May 11, 2005) (service by D.H.L. to Indonesia); Power Integrations, Inc. v. 
System General Corp., No C 04-02581, 2004 WL 2806168, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25414 
(N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2004) (Federal Express to Taiwan); Dee-K Ents., Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. 
Bhd., 174 F.R.D. 376 (E.D. Va. 1997) (D.H.L. to Indonesia and Malaysia).  For an 
examination of private delivery services and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Paul 
Yowell, Through Rain, Snow, Heat, or Dark of Night: Does Private Express Delivery  
308 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
A.  The Right to Object 
Essentially, the Hague Convention provides that what is not 
expressly forbidden is implicitly allowed.112  This right of objection 
exists because in the civil law world the service of process is seen as 
an official sovereign act.  A nation is presumed sovereign in its 
territory.113  To some governments, allowing agents of foreign 
governments to act within their frontiers would be an infringement of 
their sovereignty.114  (The recent arrest and deportation of a passel of 
Russian agents in United States shows that America shares this 
disapproval.)115  But when it comes to serving process and conducting 
discovery here, the United States has for decades had no objection.116 
Professor Hans Smit feels these claims about sovereignty are a 
fiction: “the persons to whom the notices are addressed wish to create 
as many impediments as possible to their being served and call for the 
assistance of their national governments in these efforts” and 
compliant foreign governments then protest service efforts and erect 
 
Constitute Service by Mail Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5?, 46 BAYLOR L. REV. 
1147 (1994). 
112 DeJames, 654 F.2d at 289; Hui Suet Ying v. Sharp Corp., [2000] H.K.C.F.I. 624, ¶ 
22 (Feb. 15, 2000). 
113 The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116, 136 (1812) 
(Marshall, C.J.) (“The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily 
exclusive and absolute.”); The Apollon, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 362, 370 (1824) (Story, J.) 
(one nation’s laws “can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other 
nation within its own jurisdiction”). 
114 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 471 cmt. b, at 530; Robert 
W. Peterson, Jurisdiction and the Japanese Defendant, 25 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 555, 
577 (1985); John D. Gregory, The Hague Service Abroad Convention, 11 ADVOC. Q. 327, 
328 (1989).  Cf. Brief for Respondent at 5, Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 
694 (1988) (No. 86-1052), 1988 WL 1031820, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1667 
(foreign corporation “for no better reason than its own convenience, [asked the Supreme] 
Court to rewrite a convention designed to provide judicial assistance for service in foreign 
lands into a nationwide standard applicable only to foreign corporations”). 
115 See Jerry Seper, Feds Burn ‘Deep Cover’ Russian Spy Network, WASH. TIMES, June 
29, 2010, at 1; Richard A. Serrano, U.S. Charges 11 As Russian Agents, L.A. TIMES, June 
29, 2010, at A1; Bruce Golding, Andy Soltis & Cathy Burke, Spy Ring’s Femme Fatale, 
N.Y. POST, June 29, 2010, at 8; Dina Temple-Raston & Renee Montagne, F.B.I. Arrests 
10 Alleged Russian Secret Agents, MORNING EDITION (National Public Radio, June 29, 
2010); Martha T. Moore & Kevin Johnson, Pleas Set Spy Deal in Motion; U.S. Gains 
Freedom for Several Accused as Spies in Russia, USA TODAY, July 9, 2010, at 2A.  The 
foreigners in this incident were not criminally charged with espionage, despite the use of 
the word “spy” in the press, but with being unregistered foreign agents. 
116 E.g., McCusker, supra note 39, at 809. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 309 
roadblocks to expeditious service of process as protectionist measures 
to benefit their countries’ multinational corporations.117 
B.  The Swiss Stance 
Typical of this insistence that service be handled through official 
channels is the case of Switzerland.  The Swiss have been particularly 
vocal on the subject of judicial acts being performed on their territory, 
their government having repeatedly protested to the American State 
Department over attorneys and courts serving Swiss defendants by 
mail.118  It is not that the Swiss consider mail malum in se—for the 
Swiss themselves serve court documents through the mail 
domestically—but, rather, they claim foreign parties performing 
official acts such a serving process infringe on their national 
prerogatives.119 
Writes one observer, 
Switzerland’s public policy requires deep governmental 
involvement with service of process on a party residing within its 
territory.  [Because of] Switzerland’s extreme view of sovereignty   
. . . the Swiss government routinely investigates the nature of all 
documents to be served within its borders, and rejects service of any 
legal actions to which it objects.  Presently, Switzerland considers 
 
117 Smit, supra note 39, at 36 (stating that foreigners seek to use the Hague 
Conventions not to help American courts but “to protect [their companies] from U.S. 
litigation”).  Professor Smit states that, because the Convention has caused so much 
“useless” litigation over its terms, and has provided “negligible benefits,” the United 
States should denounce it.  Id. at 38–39, 44–45. 
118 See, e.g., Sovereignty: Supremacy of Territorial Sovereign—Service of Judicial 
Documents by Mail in Foreign State, 56 AM. J. INT’L L. 794 (1962) (reprinting Swiss 
protest); Judicial Assistance: Service: International Registered Mail, [2] 1981–1988 
DIGEST § 6, at 1445 [hereinafter Judicial Assistance: Service] (another Swiss protest).  See 
also Banque Commerciale Arabe, S.A., Case, as translated in 65 I.L.R. 412, 415, Tribunal 
Fédéral [TF] [Federal Supreme Court] Apr. 27, 1977, 103 Arrêts du Tribunal fédéral 
suisse [ATF] III 1 (Switz.) (“Direct notification to a foreign country by post of a summons 
. . . constitutes an act of public authority on foreign territory.”).  For an example of lawyers 
causing an international incident with the Swiss, see Jones, International Judicial 
Assistance, supra note 39, at 520 (describing how Dutch lawyers taking discovery were 
arrested and charged with economic espionage and violating Swiss sovereignty by 
performing governmental acts within Swiss territory). 
119 See Arthur R. Miller, International Cooperation in Litigation Between the United 
States and Switzerland: Unilateral Procedural Accomodation in a Test Tube, 49 MINN. L. 
REV. 1069, 1083–84 (Swiss serve documents domestically by mail).  The Swiss, however, 
have no problem in infringing American sovereignty by having their government serve 
papers in the United States by mail.  For example, in Julen v. Larson, 101 Cal. Rptr. 796 
(Ct. App. 1972), a Swiss court sent papers in the German language to the Swiss consulate 
in San Francisco which mailed them, untranslated, to a defendant in California.  The 
California court refused to enforce the resulting judgment. 
310 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
service of process by any means other than by letter rogatory 
through Swiss governmental personnel a criminal act.120 
Forty-five years ago, before the Swiss adhered to the Convention, 
Professor Arthur R. Miller wrote that 
[V]iewed from the perspective of an American litigant, the major 
obstacle appears to be Switzerland’s insistence upon strict 
compliance with its own procedures and Switzerland’s desire to 
guard against any encroachment upon its sovereignty or any other 
national policy.  As a result, it frequently is impossible or 
prohibitively expensive, in terms of time or money, to procure any 
useful aid from the Swiss authorities.121 
C.  Electronic “Postal Channels” 
The Convention was drafted in 1964, when telegrams still were 
being sent.122  This was also a time when international 
communications were made via telex machine.123  (Think of a it as a 
typewriter capable of instant messaging chats.124) 
 
120 Tamayo, Catch Me, supra note 1, at 239. 
121 Miller, supra note 119, at 1074.  The State Department notes that “past experience 
has shown that letters rogatory are delayed or have to be returned and subsequently 
resubmitted, because they do not meet the requirements of Swiss judicial authorities as to 
content and form.  The judgment of the Swiss judicial authorities on whether to proceed 
with the letters rogatory will be based largely on their understanding of the material facts 
in the case.”  Judicial Assistance: Service, supra note 118, at 1448–49 (quoting flyer on 
judicial assistance in Switzerland). 
122 Telegram service was sanctioned by some states’ civil rules.  E.g., IDAHO R. CIV. P. 
4(c)(3) (authorizing service by telegram or fax); MONT. CODE ANN. § 25-3-501 (originally 
enacted in 1895); UTAH R. CIV. P. 4(l) (repealed Apr. 1, 1990), previously codified as 
UTAH CODE § 104-43-9, previously codified as UTAH COMP. L. § 7032.  These provisions 
are now obsolete as Western Union sent its last telegram January 27, 2006.  For the end of 
American telegram service, see Dan Neil, 800 Words. R.I.P. Stop., L.A. TIMES, Feb. 19, 
2006, at I6; Don K. Ferguson, Western Union Telegrams: Now They’re a Thing of the 
Past, NEWS SENTINEL (Knoxville, Tenn.), Feb. 19, 2006, at G5; Jeff Daniel, Telegram 
Stop Dead Stop: Another Once-Universal Technology Goes on the Scrapheap, ST. LOUIS 
POST-DISPATCH, Feb. 13, 2006, at C1; Hina Alam, With Last Month’s Quiet Exit of the 
Telegram Comes the End of an Era, LUFKIN DAILY NEWS (Lufkin, Tex.), Feb. 12, 2006; 
Sam Roberts, Dot-Dot-Dot, Dash-Dash-Dash, No More, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 12, 2006, sec. 
4, at 7; Shelly Freierman, Telegram Falls Silent Stop Era Ends Stop, N.Y. TIMES, Feb. 6, 
2006, at C7; Jonel Aleccia, Telegrams a Tangible Link to Past; Region’s Residents Recall 
Messages of Joy and Sorrow Brought by Western Union Service, SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 
(Spokane, Wash.), Feb. 5, 2006, at B1; Valerie Bauerlein, Western Union’s Last Telegram 
Marks the Conclusion of an Era, WALL ST. J., Feb. 3, 2006, at B3; P. Solomon Banda, No 
Profit Stop Telegrams End Stop, CINCINNATI POST, Feb. 2, 2006, at A7.  A quarter of a 
century before, Western Union officials told The New York Times they were trying to get 
out of the telegram business and kept raising the prices to kill the service.  Andrew 
Pollack, A New Message From Western Union, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 21, 1982, at A1. 
123 A telex machine, also known as a teletype or teletypewriter, is an advanced form of 
a telegraph, which also transmits messages with electrical impulses.  The device looks like  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 311 
 
a cross between a telephone and an electric typewriter.  It placed calls, like a telephone or 
facsimile call, to other telex machines.  Each telex machine would have an individual 
number to call.  They were originally part of a special network of lines but later could be 
used through the regular telephone network.  Messages could be typed offline on paper 
tape, which would be fed through the machine once the call was placed, and the message 
would then be typed at the other end.  This would minimize the connection time, which 
was billed by the minute.  Messages could also be typed during the call and transmitted 
instantly, thus allowing a conversation to take place.  The service was always more 
popular outside the United States because of the unreliability of foreign telephone and 
postal services and was heavily used for international communications.  And as each 
machine (1) had its own identity that could not be spoofed, (2) produced an 
acknowledgment message for messages sent to it, and (3) produced a writing, this meant a 
telex could reliably be used to form binding contracts.  For descriptions of telex service, 
see NATHAN J. MULLER, DESKTOP ENCYCLOPEDIA OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS 1056–
1058 (3d ed. 2002); STEVE WINDER, NEWNES TELECOMMUNICATIONS POCKET BOOK ch. 
3 (3d ed. 2001).  For the electrical engineering behind telex, with many illustrations of the 
equipment used, see ERHHARD A. ROSSBERG & HELMUT E. KORTA, TELEPRINTER 
SWITCHING (1960).  Large organizations used them to communicate securely around the 
world and a few still do.  Old Fashioned?  Yes.  Obsolete?  Not Quite.  Stubbornly the 
Telex Endures, TORONTO STAR, Feb. 3, 2008, Ideas sec., at 12 (noting banks still use 
telexes because of their reliability and security).  Newsrooms used to use these to receive 
stories from their reporters, see, e.g., Ellen Goodman, High-Tech’s Human Gap, BOSTON 
GLOBE, June 15, 1995, at 21 (noting author’s early days in journalism filing stories by 
Western Union or telex), and the news agencies.  See, e.g., ROBERT W. DESMOND, 
WINDOWS ON THE WORLD, THE INFORMATION PROCESS IN A CHANGING SOCIETY 1900–
1920, 72–76 (1980) (describing introduction of teletype by news agencies); David 
O’Reilly, Saying Goodbye to the Teletype, PHILA. INQUIRER, Aug. 11, 1986, at E1 (noting 
the Associated Press and United Press International were phasing out their teletypes that 
year).  For examples of newsroom teletypes clattering away, see ALL THE PRESIDENT’S 
MEN (Warner Bros. 1976).  Telex services have now largely been discontinued.  See, e.g., 
Batelco Set to Phase Out Telex Service, GULF DAILY NEWS (Manama, Bahr.), Nov. 16, 
2009 (noting end of telex service in Bahrain); William Boei, Telex Machine Ticks Into 
History, VANCOUVER SUN (Vancouver, B.C.), Mar. 16, 1999, at D1 (noting end of 
commercial telex service in Canada). 
124 See, e.g., Ewart Thomas, Conference by Telecon, POPULAR MECHANICS, Apr. 1954, 
at 122 (discussing using the telex for instant messaging-like conference calls, called 
“telecons,” focusing on U.S. military’s use of the technology and accompanied by a 
photograph of military men sitting around a conference table reading the telex messages 
projected upon a screen).  For other examples, see LESLIE R. GROVES, NOW IT CAN BE 
TOLD: THE STORY OF THE MANHATTAN PROJECT 328–30 (1962) (Gen. Groves, head of 
the Manhattan Project, discusses with Gen. Curtis E. LeMay, commander of strategic 
bombing of Japan, the use of nuclear weapons in August 1945); LOWELL BENNETT, 
BERLIN BASTION: THE EPIC OF POST-WAR BERLIN 54 (1951) (American commander in 
Berlin using telecon to plan resupplying the city during the Soviet blockade in 1947); 
MARK W. CLARK, FROM THE DANUBE TO THE YALU 46–47 (1954) (Gen. Clark discusses 
telecons held about a hostage crisis during the Korean War); STANLEY WEINTRAUB, 
MACARTHUR’S WAR: KOREA AND THE UNDOING OF AN AMERICAN HERO ch. 4 (2000) 
(conferences between Gen. MacArthur and staff in Tokyo with the Pentagon in chapter 
titled “The Telecon War”); ROY E. APPLEMAN, SOUTH TO THE NAKTONG, NORTH TO THE 
YALU 38 (1960) (Gen. MacArthur and Joint Chiefs of Staff conferencing in June 1950 on 
how to react to the beginning of the Korean War); D. CLAYTON JAMES, 3 THE YEARS OF 
MACARTHUR: TRIUMPH & DISASTER, 1945–1964,  421–22 (1985) (same); DAVID A. 
KORN, ASSASSINATION IN KHARTOUM 103–04 (1993) (discussing telecons between State  
312 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
The Hague Conference says service by those methods was 
embraced by the phrase “postal channels.”125  That is logical because 
at the time telecommunications in most of the world were operated by 
the government, usually the post office.126  The Hague Conference 
does not appear to have taken a position on service by facsimile, 
however.127  Though the technology had existed in various forms for 
decades, e.g., the Associated Press’s Wirephoto service,128 the 
facsimile machines on the market at the time the Convention was 
drafted were relatively uncommon and massively expensive.129  One 
 
Department in Washington and the American embassy in the Sudan when terrorists 
kidnapped the American ambassador in 1973). 
125 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 197 (“Telegrams and telex are also to 
be treated as postal channels, even though it is difficult to imagine their frequent use in 
practice.”).  See also 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at 
373.  Telex service of process was allowed in New England Merchants Nat’l Bank v. Iran 
Power Generation & Transmission Co., 508 F. Supp. 49, 51–52 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) 
(permitting service to non-Hague country by telex because Iranian postal authorities 
refused to send back the return receipts sent with mailings); Int’l Schools Service v. Gov’t 
of Iran, 505 F. Supp. 178, 179 (D.N.J. 1981) (same); Harris Corp. v. Nat’l Iranian Radio & 
Television, 691 F.2d 1344, 1352 (11th Cir. 1982) (approving service by telex because 
notice was actually received); Cooper, 92 F.R.D. at 786 (ordering use of telex to transmit 
service to defendant evading it). 
126 See, e.g., THE STATESMAN’S YEARBOOK 1968–1969, at 123 (S.H. Steinberg ed., 
105th ed. 1968) (noting in United Kingdom the post office handled telegrams and telex 
services); id. at 272 (noting in Australia postal revenues from mail and 
telecommunications); id. at 352 (noting in New Zealand “the telephone and telegraph 
systems are governmental”); id. at 241 (noting the “Saskatchewan Government Telephone 
System”); id. at 384 (noting in India the “Posts and Telegraphs Department”); id. at 980 
(noting in Finland “the telegraph system and part of the telephone system are state 
property”); id. at 1002 (noting in France the revenues of state-owned “posts, telegraphs, 
and telephones”); id. at 1174 (noting in Israel “the Ministry of Posts controls the postal, 
telegraph, and telephone service”); id. at 1473 (noting in Switzerland the “Federal Post, 
Telephone, and Telegraph” agency); id. at 1504 (noting in Turkey the number of “post and 
telegraph offices”); Doran Howitt, Electronic Mail Takes On Telex: But Overseas Telex 
Monopolies Resist Computer Invasion, 6 INFOWORLD, Nov. 12, 1984, at 44 (noting 
foreign post offices running telex services); Smaller Means Better in Telex, 80 NEW 
SCIENTIST 936, (1978). 
127 An early article on the use of facsimile machines to serve process is David A. 
Sokasits, The Long Arm of the Fax: Service of Process Using Fax Machines, 16 RUTGERS 
COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 531 (1990). 
128 ASSOCIATED PRESS, BREAKING NEWS: HOW THE ASSOCIATED PRESS HAS 
COVERED WAR, PEACE, AND EVERYTHING ELSE 311–18 (2007) (discussing the system to 
transmit photographs operated 1926 to 1933 by the American Telephone & Telegraph Co. 
and the system the Associated Press began in 1935 to replace it; at 317 is a photograph of 
the A.P.’s transmission equipment). 
129 See generally DANIEL M. COSTIGAN, FAX: THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF 
FACSIMILE COMMUNICATION (1970), which explains the devices, illustrates many of them, 
and discusses the electrical engineering behind them (the author worked at Bell Labs).  
Costigan estimated there were 55,000 fax machines in place in the United States in 1970.   
2010] Prego Signor Postino 313 
English court has said service by fax under the Convention is 
permitted only if the recipient has consented receiving service by 
fax.130  But the same logic that holds that telegram and telex service 
are permissible as “postal channels” for purposes of service ought to 
apply to the fax machine. 
Other contemporary forms of communication should also 
acceptable channels too. 131  E-mail service abroad has been 
occasionally sanctioned, usually when the defendant is elusive and 
cannot otherwise be found.132  And some foreign courts have even 
 
Id. at vii.  Uses at the time included transmitting weather maps, railroads sending consists 
ahead of trains, bank branches verifying signatures against files at the main office, and 
newspapers transmitting typeset pages to remote printing plants.  Id. at 14–21.  A fax 
machine that could transmit an entire newspaper page cost between $30,000 and $60,000.  
Id. at 246, 250–51.  In a series of appendices, Costigan has a catalog of the devices on the 
market then.  Machines intended for general office use, often had separate units for 
transmission and reception and were costly: the least expensive was $1,200 and the most 
expensive $5,500.  Id. at 193–208.  Those prices are equivalent to $5,700 and to $26,000 
in 2010, according to the Author’s calculation.  See also RAY HORAK, 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND DATA COMMUNICATIONS HANDBOOK 156 (2007) 
(discussing early technologies and stating facsimile service as we know it did not begin 
until the 1970s). 
130 Molins, P.L.C. v. G.D., S.p.A., [2000] EWHC (Pat) 170, ¶ 14 (Ch.), aff’d [2000] 1 
W.L.R. 1741, ¶ 25 (C.A.). 
131 Cf. Timothy Coughlan, Applying the U.S. Postal Service Statutes to E-Mail 
Transmissions, 25 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 375 (1999) (making analogies 
between postal and electronic mail). 
132 See, e.g., Broadfoot v. Diaz (In re Int’l Telemedia Assocs.), 245 B.R. 713, 719–20 
(Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2000) (defendant in Singapore); Rio Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 
284 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2002) (Costa Rica); Williams v. Advertising Sex, L.L.C., 
231 F.R.D. 483, 488 (N.D.W. Va. 2005) (Australia); Hollow v. Hollow, 747 N.Y.S.2d 
704, 708 (Sup. Ct. 2002) (Saudi Arabia).  See also Int’l Raelian Movement v. Hashem, 
No. CIV S-08-687, 2009 WL 2136958, at *2–4, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60542 (E.D. Cal. 
July 15, 2009) (court must order e-mail service to Hague signatory nation and cannot grant 
permission retroactively).  At least one federal statute allows electronic service of process.  
Cf. Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(a)(ii) (2000).  
Electronic service of process was examined in Tamayo, Catch Me, supra note 1; David P. 
Stewart & Anna Conley, E-Mail Service on Foreign Defendants: Time for an International 
Approach, 38 GEO. J. INT’L L. 755 (2007); Matthew R. Schreck, Preventing “You’ve Got 
Mail” from Meaning “You’ve Been Served”: How Service of Process by E-Mail Does Not 
Meet Constitutional Due Process Requirements, 38 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 1121 (2005); 
John M. Murphy, III, From Snail Mail to E-Mail: The Steady Evolution of Service of 
Process, 19 ST. JOHN’S J. LEGAL COMMENT. 73 (2004); Terry W. Posey, Jr., “You’ve Got 
Service!”: Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 
2002), 28 U. DAYTON L. REV. 403 (2003); Aaron R. Chacker, E-ffectuating Notice: Rio 
Properties v. Rio International Interlink, 48 VILL L. REV. 597 (2003); Rachel Cantor, 
Internet Service of Process: A Constitutionally Adequate Alternative?, 66 U. CHI. L. REV. 
943 (1999); Frank Conley, :-) Service With a Smiley: The Effect of E-Mail and Other 
Electronic Communications on Service of Process, 11 TEMP. INT’L & COMP. L. J. 407 
(1997) (reviewing service by e-mail after first known case to allow it, a decision of 
England’s High Court). 
314 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
sanctioned service by Facebook133 and Twitter.134  (In only one of 
these cases, was it alleged the defendant was abroad, a case from New 
Zealand.135)  And Singapore, which is not a Convention signatory, is 
considering issuing court rules for service by social networking 
websites.136  Service by these means should be acceptable to serve 
process even in Convention member states because the Convention 
 
133 See generally, John J. Browning, Served Without Ever Leaving the Computer: 
Service of Process Via Social Media, 73 TEX. B.J. 180 (2010); Andrianna L. Shultz, 
Superpoked and Served: Service of Process Through Social Networking Sites, 43 U. RICH. 
L. REV. 1497 (2009).  The cases allowing this service are from Australia, New Zealand, 
and Canada.  The most discussed Australian case is MKM Capital Pty. v. Corbo, No. SC 
608 of 2008 (Austl. Cap. Terr. Sup. Ct.).  See also Rod McGuirk, Australian Court OK’s 
Using Facebook to Serve Foreclosure Notice, VIRGINIAN-PILOT (Norfolk, Va.), Dec. 17, 
2008, at A3; Noel Towell, You’ve Been Served: Court Approves Facebook Notice, 
CANBERRA TIMES, Dec. 16, 2008, at 1; Janet Fife-Yeomans, Writ Served Via Facebook—
Court’s Use of Facebook to Serve Documents a World First, DAILY TELEGRAPH (Sydney, 
N.S.W.), Dec. 17, 2008, at 7; Law Firm Sends Summons Via Facebook, TV WORLD NEWS 
(Special Broadcasting Service [Austl.]), Dec. 16, 2008).  Another Australian case where 
service by Facebook was allowed is Byrne v. Howard, [2010] FMCAfam 509 (Fed. Magis 
Ct. of Austl. at Adelaide).  An Australian case refusing to serve process via Facebook is 
Citigroup Pty. v. Weerakoon, [2008] QDC 174 (Queensl.), available at 
http://www.sclqld.org/au/qjudgment/2008/QDC/+100.  A Canadian case authorized 
Facebook service in Knott v. Sutherland, No. 0803 02267 (Alta. Q.B. Feb. 5, 2009).  Do 
You Use Facebook?, CLIA LOSS PREVENTION BULLETIN, No. 47, Fall 2009, available at 
http://clia.ca/eng/docenglish/LossPrevention/CLIABulletin47English.pdf. 
134 The order for service by Twitter came in a case against an imposter on Twitter and 
was issued by England’s High Court.  See Lee Moran, Twitter Writ Is Historic: Law Firm 
Principal Serves an Injunction, KENT & SUSSEX COURIER (Tunbridge Wells, Eng.), Oct. 
9, 2009, at 13; Benny Evangelista, London Court Uses Twitter to Serve Injunction on 
Impostor, S.F. CHRON., Oct. 3, 2009, at DC1; Long Arm of Law Reaches Twitter, THE 
INDEPENDENT (London), Oct. 2, 2009, at 14.  Another foreign case where Twitter was 
used to serve process was against the Pirate Bay website for file-sharing.  L. Scott Harrell, 
Service of Process Through Twitter, PURSUIT MAG.: THE JOURNAL OF PROFESSIONAL 
EXCELLENCE FOR INVESTIGATORS, Nov. 11, 2009, available at http://pursuitmag.com 
/service-of-process-through-twitter. 
135 Axe Market Gardens v. Axe, No. CIV 2008-485-2676 (H.C., Wellington, Mar. 16, 
2009) (man accused of embezzling from the family business and was thought to be in the 
United Kingdom).  New Zealand is not a Hague signatory but the United Kingdom is.  See 
also Allison Ferguson & Felicity Monteiro, High Court Allows Service of Proceedings on 
Facebook, BRANCH BRIEF (Law Society of New Zealand, Waikato Bay of Plenty Branch 
newsletter), Feb. 2010, at 4, available at http://my.lawsociety.org.nz/branches 
/waikato_bay_of_plenty/branch_brief_archives/branch_brief/february-2010.pdf; Court 
Upholds Web Notice, TOWNSVILLE BULLETIN (Townsville, Queensl.), Mar. 17, 2009, at 
12; Melanie Peters, Legal World Uses Facebook to Trap Criminals In Its Web, THE 
ARGUS (Cape Town, S. Afr.), Apr. 5, 2009, at 4. 
136 SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE, CONSULTATION PAPER: USE AND IMPACT OF 
SOCIAL MEDIA IN LITIGATION: § c (Sept. 15, 2010), available at http://app.supremecourt 
.gov.sg/data/doc/ManageHighlights/2586/Public Consultation Paper for the use of social 
media in civil litigation.pdf. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 315 
does not apply where the physical address of a defendant is 
unknown.137 
But this Article is about the most undisputed form of “the postal 
channel,” what is retronymically called “snail mail.”138 
IV 
ARE YOU BEING SERVED? 
One word in clause (a) is the source of all the trouble.  It has been 
litigated in American courts more than any other part of the 
Convention.139  Because the Convention uses the word “send,” 
whereas the word “service” is used not only in the other clauses of 
Article 10 but throughout the rest of the convention, some courts have 
applied the canons of construction to find a distinction between the 
two terms.140  A reasonable approach, especially as America’s most 
famous textualist, Justice Scalia, believes in applying those principles 
to treaties.141 
 
137 Convention, supra note 13, art. 1.  But see Mapping Your Future, Inc. v. Mapping 
Your Future Svcs., Ltd., 266 F.R.D. 305 (D.S.D. 2009) (plaintiff requested service through 
central authority of the Cayman Islands which was unable to because address supplied on 
defendant’s website registration used by plaintiff was incorrect but the federal court then 
refused to allow service by e-mail because of the holding in Bankston, 889 F.2d at 172).  
The interplay between the Convention and serving defendants online is examined in 
Charles T. Kotuby, Jr., International Anonymity: The Hague Conventions on Service and 
Evidence and Their Applicability to Internet-Related Litigation, 20 J.L. & COM. 103 
(2000). 
138 William Safire, Retronym, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 7, 2007 (Magazine), at 18. 
139 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 213; Hawkins, supra note 9, at 220; 
Gary A. Magnarini, Service of Process Abroad by the Hague Convention, 71 MARQ. L. 
REV. 649, 676 (1988). 
140 Jacklin, supra note 110, at § 2[a].  But see Escaped War Criminal (Germany) Case, 
as translated in 26 I.L.R. 707, 711 ((Ger., Fed. S. Ct., 1958) [Bundesgerichtshof [BGH] 
[Federal Court of Justice] 1959, 12 Entscheidungen des Bundesgerichtshofes in 
Strafsachen [BGHST] 36]) (“the courts are not entitled to use the technique employed in 
the interpretation of German laws when interpreting international agreements”); Public 
Trustee v. Chartered Bank of India, Australia & China, as reprinted in 23 I.L.R. 687, 699 
((Sing. Ct. Orig. Civ. Juris. 1956), [1956 S.L.R. 32]) (“the canons applicable to statutes are 
not safe guides” to interpreting treaties). 
141 See Van Alstine, supra note 37, at 1904, (citing United States v. Stuart, 489 U.S. 
353, 371 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) and Chan v. Korean Air Lines, Ltd., 409 U.S. 122, 
135 (1989) (Scalia, J.)).  For Justice Scalia’s own explanation of his philosophy on 
textualism, see ANTONIN G. SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS 
AND THE LAW (1997).  But see his opinion for a unanimous court in O’Connor v. United 
States, 479 U.S. 27 (1986), where Justice Scalia used extrinsic sources to come to a 
conclusion precisely opposite the plain text of a treaty.  His claim in Stuart, that legislative 
history for treaties is never consulted is debunked with malicious glee in Detlev F. Vagts, 
Senate Materials and Treaty Interpretation: Some Research Hints for the Supreme Court, 
83 AM. J. INT’L L. 546 (1989).  Another response to that same opinion in Stuart is Malvina  
316 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
A.  The Interpreter’s Toolkit 
Using the canons is understandable.  Chief Justice Marshall said 
“diplomatic men” choose their words carefully and the language they 
select cannot be “ascribed to inattention.”142  More recently, the 
Supreme Court said a “treaty is in the nature of a contract between or 
among sovereign nations” and the “[g]eneral rules of construction 
apply.”143 
One canon is expressio unius est exclusio alterius, i.e., “that to 
express or include one thing implies the exclusion of the other.”144  
Thus, some courts reason, by using different words the drafters must 
 
Halberstam, The Use of Legislative History in Treaty Interpretation: The Dual Treaty 
Approach, 12 CARDOZO L. REV. 1645 (1991).  Foreign courts sometimes also decline to 
look at extrinsic evidence.  E.g., Security for Costs (Germany) Case, as translated in 1 
Ann. Dig. 242, 243 (Ger. RGZ, Mar. 18, 1922) (Reichsgericht [RG] [Imperial Court of 
Justice] 104 Entscheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen [RGZ] 189). 
142 The Nereide, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 388, 419 (1815) (Marhsall, C.J.). 
143 Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corp., 466 U.S. 243, 253 (1984) 
(O’Connor, J.); id. at 262 (Stevens, J. dissenting) (citing Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 
199, 240–41 (1796) (Chase, J.)).  See also Washington v. Wash. State Commercial 
Passenger Fishing Vessel Ass’n, 443 U.S. 658, 675 (1979) (Stevens, J.); Trans World, 
supra at 262 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (with treaties “there is a strong presumption that the 
literal meaning is the true one” (quoting United States v. M.H. Pulaski Co. (The Five 
Percent Discount Cases), 243 U.S. 97, 106 (1917) (Holmes, J.))); Les Quatres Frères, Hay 
& Mar. 170, 172, 165 Eng. Rep. 40, 40 (Adm. 1778) (“there is but one way of expounding 
all grants . . . , private or public”); Marryat v. Wilson, 1 Bos. & Pul. 430, 439, 126 Eng. 
Rep. 993, 997 (Ex. 1799) (“we are to construe this treaty as we would construe any other 
instrument public or private.  We are to collect from the nature of the subject, from the 
words and from the context, the intent and meaning of the contracting parties, whether 
they are A. and B., or happen to be two independent [S]tates.”).  Cf. The Ionian Ships, 2 
Sp. Ecc. & Adm. 212, 227, 164 Eng. Rep. 394, 402-03 (Adm. Prize Ct. 1855) (Lushington, 
J.) (“I hold it to be the duty of every Court professing to administer the Law of Nations to 
carry into effect and operation the plainest terms of a treaty”); Treaty of St. Germain 
(Yugoslav Liquidations) Case, as translated in 7 Ann. Dig. 296, 297–98 (Austria, S. Ct., 
Apr. 11, 1934) [OGH] (strictly applying treaty imposed on nation).  Contra Sharma v. 
State of W. Bengal, as reprinted in 21 I.L.R. 272, 273–74 (Calcutta H.C., Feb. 11, 1954) 
[41 A.I.R. 591 (Cal.)] (“The primary rule is that a treaty has to be liberally construed so as 
to carry out the intention and purpose of the contracting parties thereto . . . In the 
interpretation of international agreements it is often necessary to adopt a more liberal 
method of construction than that which might be fairly applied in the case of private 
instruments.”). 
144 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 661 (9th ed. 2009).  See also JABEZ GRIDLEY 
SUTHERLAND, STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 325, at 410 (1st ed. 1891); 
HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, HANDBOOK ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTERPRETATION 
OF THE LAWS § 72, at 219 (2d ed. 1911).  For an example of the canon in practice, see 
State v. Chappell, 900 N.E.2d 238, ¶ 36 (Greene Cnty., Ohio Ct. Com. Pl. 2008).  For an 
example of it being used with treaties, see Tucker v. Alexandroff, 183 U.S. 424, 436 
(1902) (Brown, J.). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 317 
have meant different things by “send” and “service.”145  A minority of 
courts have found this language means “that service by registered 
mail is not a permissible method of service of summons under the 
Convention.”146  If it was allowed, they argue, the verb in clause (a) 
would be “serve” rather than “send.”147  This is a “strong technical 
argument”148 and represents the “strict constructionist view.”149  But if 
the canons of construction are an interpreter’s toolkit, using this tool 
and this one alone throws a monkey wrench into the operation of the 
Convention. Remember that the canons of construction operate like 
Newton’s third law, for each there is an equal and opposing canon.150 
B.  A More Learned Approach 
Learned Hand said the surest way to misread a document is to read 
it literally and this strict textualist approach exactly illustrates what he 
was talking about.151  To start with, the intent of the parties ought to 
be considered.152 
 
145 The leading case making this argument is Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 
F.2d 172, 174 (8th Cir. 1989).  For commentary, compare Cooper, supra note 10, at 698; 
Jeffrey S. Ahearn, Case Comment, Interpretation of the Word “Send” in Article 10(a) of 
the Hague Convention: Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corporation, 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 
1989), 14 SUFFOLK TRANSNAT’L L.J. 672 (1991); and Michael H. Altman, Case 
Comment, Mailing Service to Japan: Does Article 10(a) of the Hague Conference 
Authorize a Separate Method?: Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 
1989), 69 WASH. U. L.Q. 635 (1991) (all three agreeing with the Eighth Circuit) with 
Patricia N. McCausland, Note, How May I Serve You? Service of Process by Mail Under 
the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 
Civil or Commercial Matters, 12 PACE L. REV. 177 (1992) (disagreeing with the Eighth 
Circuit). 
146 62B Am. Jur. 2d Process § 327, at 891 (2005), (citing Bankston v. Toyota Motor 
Corp., 123 F.R.D. 595, (W.D. Ark. 1989), aff’d, 889 F.2d 172); Anbe v. Kikuchi, 141 
F.R.D. 498 (D. Haw. 1992) (abrogated by Brockmeyer v. May, 361 F.3d 1222 (9th Cir. 
2004)); Mommsen v. Toro Co., 108 F.R.D. 444 (S.D. Iowa 1985); Prost v. Honda Motor 
Co., 122 F.R.D. 215 (E.D. Mo. 1987); Ward v. Ludwig, 778 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 
2002); and Conservatorship of Prom v. Sumitomo Rubber Indus., Ltd., 592 N.W.2d 657 
(Wis. Ct. App. 1999). 
147 E.g., Okubo v. Shimizu, Greene App. No. 2001-CA-134, 2002-Ohio-2624, 2002 
WL 1042086, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 2742 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). 
148 NANDA & PANSIUS, LITIGATION OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES § 2:6.  Contra The 
Vredeburg/The Sarina Dorina, 19 I.L.R. 487, (Dist. Ct. of Rotterdam, Dec. 17, 1952) (use 
of domestic rules of construction on a treaty to subvert its purpose not permitted). 
149 Kasahara, 2006 WL 6312904, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74780, at *8 (Bankston, 889 
F.2d 172, is the “strict constructionist” view of the Convention). 
150 Karl N. Llewellyn, Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or 
Canons About How Statutes Are to Be Construed, 3 VAND. L. REV. 395, 401–06 (1949). 
151 See Guiseppi v. Walling, 144 F.2d 608, 624 (2d Cir. 1944) (Learned Hand, J., 
concurring); Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Comm’r, 159 F.2d 167, 169 (2d Cir. 
1947) (Learned Hand, J.).  See also Imperial Japanese Gov’t v. Peninsular & Oriental  
318 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
A California court closely examining the entire text of the 
Convention rejected the send-serve interpretation: 
Although there is some merit to the proposed distinction[,] it is 
outweighed by consideration of the entire scope of the convention.  
It purports to deal with the subject of service abroad of judicial 
documents.  The [disputed language] would be superfluous unless it 
was related to the sending of such documents for the purpose of 
service . . . Moreover, the reference appears in the context of other 
alternatives to the use of the “Central Authority” created by the 
treaty.  If it be assumed that the purpose of the [C]onvention is to 
establish one method to avoid the difficulties and controversy 
attendant to the use of other methods . . . it does not necessarily 
follow that other methods may not be used if effective proof of 
delivery can be made.153 
A New Jersey court felt likewise: allowing service by mail “is the 
only construction [of Article 10(a)] which will achieve the 
Convention’s stated goal of effective, expeditious[,] and inexpensive 
service.”154  The Western District of Texas called the construction 
disallowing service by mail to be a “hyper-technical interpretation.”155  
The District of South Carolina said the entirety of Article 10(a) would 
 
Steam Navigation Co., [1895] A.C. 644, 657 (P.C.) (appeal taken from Brit. Sup. Ct. for 
China and Japan) (Hershell, L.C.) (“treaties must be interpreted according to their manifest 
spirit and intent. In construing such instruments a too slavish adherence to the letter would 
be out of place”); Bukowski/Mgmt. of the Bank for Soc. Ins., as translated in 26 I.L.R. 
587, 588 (Neth. Ct. App. Admin. L., Apr. 2, 1958) [RSV, No. 16, Tijdschrift, V (1958), p. 
394] (“When interpreting the words and expressions employed in a provision of a [t]reaty, 
one should pay closer attention to the purpose of the provision, read in connection with the 
further contents of the treaty, than to the literal meaning of its terms.”); Geschäftshaus, 
GmbH. v. Schweizerische Rückversicherungs Gesellschaft, as translated in 5 ANN. DIG. 
378, 379 (Ger. Civ. Ct. Justice, Nov. 8, 1930) [Reichsgericht [RG] 130 Entscheidungen 
des Reichgerichts in Zivilsachen [RGZ] 220] (“A literal interpretation of certain words . . . 
is not admissible; rather has the true will to be sought in the circumstances of the treaty as 
a whole”). 
152 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325, at 196 (treaties to be 
interpreted “with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the 
light of its object and purpose”) (emphasis added).  See also The Twende Brodre, 4 C. 
Rob. 33, 35, 165 Eng. Rep. 525, 526 (Adm. 1801); Ships Taken at Genoa, 4 C. Rob. 388, 
399, 165 Eng. Rep. 650, 654 (Adm. 1803); Daniel v. Comm’rs for Liquidating Brit. 
Claims on Fr. (The English Roman-Catholic Colleges in France), 2 Knapp 23, 48, 12 Eng. 
Rep. 387, 397 (P.C. 1825) (appeal taken from the Comm’rs for Liquidating Brit. Claims 
on Fr.); Dürrenberg v. Polish State Treasury, as translated in 1 ANN. DIG. 339, 340 (Pol. 
Sup. Ct. 5th Div., Sept. 29, 1922) [O.S.P. II, No. 332] (looking to spirit of Treaty of 
Versailles to interpret clause therein). 
153 Shoei Kako, 109 Cal. Rptr. at 411. 
154 Gapanovich v. Komori Corp., 605 A.2d 1120, 1123 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 
1992). 
155 Smith v. Dainichi Kinzoku Kogyo Co., 680 F. Supp. 847, 850 (W.D. Tex. 1988). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 319 
be extraneous if mail service were disallowed.156  (Recall that another 
canon of construction contends that one should not read statutes in a 
way that make parts of them surplusage.)157  Thus, “[i]nterpreting one 
sub-article of the Hague Convention as addressing the sending of 
documents following service would seem to be taking that particular 
provision out of context.”158  Another analysis found that 
[d]espite the slight variation in language from “service” to “send,” it 
is implausible to suggest that the drafters of the Convention would 
abruptly switch from addressing acceptable methods of service of 
process to methods of sending post “service” documents.  Even 
more inconceivable is that the very next sentence in the same article 
would return to address the subject of service of process.  The 
Convention’s drafters could not have intended to create such an 
awkward construction.  Construing article 10(a) to merely 
encompass sending judicial documents after a plaintiff effects 
“service” and not as prescribing another acceptable method of 
service of process, ignores the context in which the word ‘send’ is 
used within the Convention.159 
An international litigation treatise observes clause (a) speaks of 
sending documents “indirectly” through the mails and finds that word 
is an important clue. 
Its use implies alternatives that would be “indirectly.”  The 
“indirectly” would be to effect the delivery through the central 
authority.  In theory, the Hague Service Convention could be 
interpreted as requiring [process] to first pass through the central 
authority. . . .  The use of the term “directly” clarifies that 
documentary communication can occur without the involvement of 
the central authority (or other judicial agency in the state addressed) 
unless the state addressed objects.160 
C.  Circuit Splittism161 
The principal case espousing the view that mail service is not 
allowed is the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Bankston v. Toyota.162  That 
 
156 Hammond v. Honda Motor Co., 128 F.R.D. 638, 641 (D.S.C. 1989).  Cf. 
SUTHERLAND, supra note 144, § 260, at 341–42; Air France v. Saks, 470 U.S. 392, 397 
(1984) (O’Connor, J.) (treaty analysis begins with text and context). 
157 Black, supra note 144, § 60, at 165. 
158 In re Harnischfeger Indus., Inc. (Beloit Liquidating Trust v. Beloit Walmsley, Ltd.), 
288 B.R. 79, 86 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003). 
159 Craig R. Armstrong, Note, Permitting Service of Process by Mail on Japanese 
Defendants, 13 LOY. L.A. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 551, 589 (1991). 
160 NANDA & PANSIUS, supra note 148, at § 2:6. 
161 See William Safire, Superdel, N.Y. TIMES, Apr. 27, 2008 (Magazine), at 16 
(examining word “splittism”). 
162 889 F.2d 172. 
320 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
decision relied on the different words used and cited two Supreme 
Court decisions on statutory construction to reach its decision but it 
did not examine any extrinsic sources nor even consider the treaty as 
a whole.163  Bankston has been erroneously relied on by many courts. 
However, most courts accept that mail service is allowed.164  If one 
shepardizes the case on Westlaw, twenty-one cases are flagged as 
disagreeing with or declining to follow it, and eighteen are listed as 
treating it positively.165  Doing the same on Lexis produces twenty-
three cases following it, twenty-two disagreeing, one questioning, and 
another criticizing.166  This is in line with a 1991 survey of the subject 
 
163 Id. at 174. 
164 Hammond, 128 F.R.D. at 641. 
165 Flagged as “disagreeing with”: Brockmeyer v. May, 361 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 
2004), opinion withdrawn and replaced by 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004); Koss Corp. v. 
Pilot Air Freight Corp., 242 F.R.D. 514, 516–17 (E.D. Wis. 2007); Randolph, 50 F. 
Supp.2d at 578; Eli Lilly & Co. v. Roussel Corp., 23 F. Supp.2d 460, 471 (D.N.J. 1998); 
Trump Taj Mahal Assocs. v. Hotel Servs., Inc., 183 F.R.D. 173, 177–79 (D.N.J. 1998); R. 
Griggs Grp., 920 F. Supp. at 1104 (“If 10(a) were intended only to preserve the right to 
use postal channels for nonservice correspondence, it would be out of place in Article 10, 
in Chapter 1, and indeed in the Convention itself.”); Patty v. Toyota Motor Corp., 777 F. 
Supp. 956, 959 (N.D. Ga. 1991) (“This Court does register its specific disapproval of the 
analysis given this question by the Eighth Circuit in Bankston.”); Harnischfeger, 288 B.R. 
at 85–86.   
 Flagged as “declined to follow”: Orms v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals Am., Inc., No. C.A. 
10-160, 2010 WL 2757760, at *2, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70298 (E.D. Ky. July 12, 2010); 
Sec. & Exchange Comm’n v. Int’l Fiduciary Corp., S.A., No. C.A. 1:06cv1354, 2007 WL 
7212109, at *4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 29, 2007); Conax Florida Corp. v. Astrium, Ltd., 499 F. 
Supp.2d 1287, 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2007); Europacific Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. Tradescape 
Corp., 233 F.R.D. 344, 348 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); Lafarge Corp. v. The M.V. Macedonia 
Hellas, No. Civ A 99-2648, 2000 WL 687708 at *11, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22437 (E.D. 
La. May 24, 2000) (“The court finds that to allow the distinction between ‘send’ and 
‘service’ to prohibit service of process directly by mail would elevate form over 
substance.”); Schiffer v. Mazda Motor Corp., 192 F.R.D. 335 (N.D. Ga. 2000); EOI Corp., 
172 F.R.D. at 140–41; Curcuruto v. Cheshire, 864 F. Supp. 1410, 1412 (S.D. Ga. 1994); 
Borschow Hosp., 143 F.R.D. at 480–81; Raffa v. Nissan Motor Co., 141 F.R.D. 45, 46 
(E.D. Pa. 1991); Denlinger v. Chinadotcom Corp., 2 Cal. Rptr.3d 530, 535 (App. Ct. 
2003); Johnson v. Pfizer, Inc., 26 Conn. L. Rptr. 690 (Super. Ct. 2000) (flag is incorrect: 
“This court . . . concludes that Article 10(a) does not permit service of process to be sent 
by mail.”). 
166 This list omits cases listed in the previous note.  Flagged as “criticizing”: Rae Grp., 
Inc. v. AIESEC Int’l, No. 08-10364, 2008 WL 4642849, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83519 
(E.D. Mich. Oct. 20, 2008); Ballard v. Tyco Int’l, Ltd., MDL No. 02-1335 & Civ. No. 04-
CV-1336, 2005 WL 1863492, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16054 (D.N.H. Aug. 4, 2005); 
Mitchell v. Theriault, 516 F. Supp. 2d 450, 453 (M.D. Pa. 2007); Kasahara, 2006 WL 
6312904, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74870; Brown v. Bandai Am., Inc., No. 3:01-CV-0442R, 
2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8664 (N.D. Tex. May 14, 2002); Zaboli v. Mazda Motor Co., No. 
1:98-CV-3210, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21756 (N.D. Ga. July 14, 1999); Dominguez v. 
Pyrgia Shipping Corp., No. 98-529, 1998 WL 204798, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5988 (E.D. 
La. Apr. 24, 1998); Honda Motor Co. v. Santa Clara Cnty. Super. Ct. 12 Cal. Rptr.2d 861,  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 321 
which found “[a] slight majority of courts that have addressed the 
issue . . . have held [the Convention] does allow for foreign service of 
process via direct mail.”167  A recent examination found that fifty-five 
percent were in favor of mail service, while forty-five percent were 
against it.168 
The leading cases permitting service by mail are the Second 
Circuit’s opinion in Ackermann v. Levine169 and the Ninth Circuit’s in 
Brockmeyer v. May.170  In Ackermann, the German plaintiff sent the 
papers to his country’s consulate in New York City, which then sent 
the papers via registered mail to the defendant’s Manhattan 
apartment.  The Second Circuit reasoned that since the United States 
had not filed an objection to service by mail, it was permissible.171  In 
Brockmeyer, the plaintiff sent the papers to the defendant by mail to 
an address in England.172  The Ninth Circuit looked at Bankston and 
rejected it.173  The Ninth Circuit considered Ackermann, the 
negotiations behind the Convention, the interpretation of other 
signatories, and the view of the State Department in reaching its 
decision that international mail service is allowed.174 
V 
A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION 
Too often, American courts have “a preference for close 
examination of individual terms and articles of the [Hague Service 
and Evidence] conventions, but with a less-than-cosmopolitan view of 
the conventions’ purposes as a whole.  In other words, when it comes 
to private law conventions, the [American judiciary] closely inspects 
the trees but has a thoroughly myopic view of the forest.”175  
 
862 (Ct. App. 1992); Rojas v. Hitachi Koki Co., 26 Mass. L. Rptr. 310 (Super. Ct. 2009).  
Flagged as “distinguished by”: Northrup King, 51 F.3d at 1389. 
167 Mann, supra note 8, at 647 n.8. 
168 Samuel R. Feldman, Not-So-Great Weight: Treaty Deference and the Article 10(a) 
Controversy, 51 B.C. L. REV. 797, 817–18 (2010). 
169 788 F.2d 830, 838 (2d Cir. 1986). 
170 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2004).  The Brockmeyer decision was examined closely in 
Yvonne A. Tamayo, Sometimes the Postman Doesn’t Ring at All: Serving Process by Mail 
to a Post Office Box Abroad, 13 WILLAMETTE J. INT’L L. & DISP. RESOL. 269 (2005). 
171 Ackermann, 788 F.2d at 839. 
172 Brockmeyer, 383 F.3d at 800–01. 
173 Id. at 801–03. 
174 Id. at 802–03. 
175 Patrick J. Borchers, The Incredible Shrinking Hague Evidence Convention, 38 TEX. 
INT’L L.J. 73, 75 (2003). 
322 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Bankston has been criticized for its shallowness, one court observing 
it and its progeny have a “paucity” of analysis.176 
The Supreme Court instructs treaties “are to receive a fair and 
liberal interpretation, according to the intention of the contracting 
parties, and are to be kept in the most scrupulous good faith.”177  
When examining any instrument, one must consider “the mischief and 
defect” that caused its making.178  Let us also examine the Convention 
as a whole,179 for “words are chameleons, [and] reflect the color of 
their environment.”180  We first look at the purposes of the 
Convention as expressed in its title and preamble.181 
A.  Imprimis 
The title of the Convention is “Convention on the Service Abroad 
of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial 
Matters.”  While at common law titles were ignored, more modern 
 
176 EOI Corp., 172 F.R.D. at 141.  For examples of this minimal analysis and research, 
see Humble v. Gill, No. 1:08-CV-00166, 2009 WL 151668, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4552 
(W.D. Ky. Jan. 22, 2009); Nuovo Pignone v. The M/V Storman Asia, 310 F.3d, 374, 384 
(5th Cir. 2002) (“we rely on the canons of statutory interpretation rather than the fickle 
presumption that the drafters’ use of the word ‘send’ was a mere oversight”); Postal v. 
Princess Cruises, Inc., 163 F.R.D. 497 (N.D. Tex. 1995); Gonnuscio v. Seabrand Shipping, 
Ltd., 908 F. Supp. 823 (D. Or. 1995); Kim v. Frank Mohn, A/S, 909 F. Supp. 474, 479 
(S.D. Tex. 1995) (Kent, J.). 
177 Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U.S. 536, 540 (1884) (Harlan, J.) (quoting 1 
JAMES KENT, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW 174 (1826)).  See also The Amiable 
Isabella, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 1, 68, 72 (1821) (Story, J.) (“scrupulous good faith” required 
in treaty interpretation and a court “is bound to give effect to the stipulations of the treaty 
in the manner and to the extent which the parties have declared, and not otherwise”); 1 
FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 321, at 190 (treaties must be 
performed in “good faith”). 
178 See Heydon’s Case, 3 Co. Rep. 7a, 7b, 76 Eng. Rep. 637, 638 (K.B. 1584). 
179 Cf. Bywater v. Brandling, 7 B. & C. 643, 660, 108 Eng. Rep. 863, 870 (K.B. 1828) 
(Lord Tenterden, C.J.) (“In construing [laws] we are to look not only at the language of the 
preamble . . . but at the language of the whole [law].  And if . . . we can collect, from the 
large and more extensive expressions used in other parts, the real intention of the 
legislature, it is our duty to give effect to the larger expressions, notwithstanding the 
phrases of less extensive import in the preamble, or in any particular clause.”); Joined 
Cases 7/54 & 9/54, Groupement des Industries Sidérurgiques Luxembougeoises v. High 
Authority of the European Coal & Steel Cmty., 1954–56 E.C.R. 175, 195, 23 I.L.R. 597, 
600 (1956) (interpreting treaty by looking at it as a whole). 
180 Comm’r v. Nat’l Carbide Co., 167 F.2d 304, 306 (2d Cir. 1948) (Learned Hand, J.). 
181 Contra Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2 of the 
Charter), Advisory Opinion, 1962 I.C.J. 151, 268 (July 20) (Koretsky, J., dissenting) 
(looking to purposes rather than strict adherence to the text is to follow the policy that “the 
ends justify the means”). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 323 
practice is to consider them in cases of ambiguity.182  If the 
Convention was intended to address the dispatch of documents other 
than service, then that fact ought to have been reflected in the title, 
perhaps by using “transmission” instead of “service.”  The former is 
used elsewhere in the Convention.183 
The preamble states the Convention’s purpose is “to ensure that 
judicial . . . documents to be served abroad shall be brought to the 
notice of’ the addressee in sufficient time.”  Treaty interpretation 
includes looking at the preamble.184  Coke said preambles were “a 
good means to find out the meaning of the statute and [are] a true key 
to open the understanding thereof.”185  Put another way, they can be 
 
182 E.g., Mills v. Wilkins, 6 Mod. 62, 62, 87 Eng. Rep. 822, 822–3 (Q.B. 1704) (Holt, 
C.J.) (“the title of an Act of Parliament is not part of the law . . . no more than the title of a 
book is part of the book”); The King v. Williams, 1 W. Bl. 93, 95, 96 Eng. Rep. 51, 53 
(K.B. 1758) (Lord Mansfield, C.J.) (“The title is no part of the law.”).  Cf. OHIO REV. 
CODE ANN. 1.01 (Lexis 2001) (titles not part of Ohio statutes).  But see Stradling v. 
Morgan, 1 Plowd. 199, 203, 75 Eng. Rep. 305, 312 (Ex. 1560) (examining the title of a 
statute to ascertain the scope of the enactment); and Sutton v. Sutton, 22 L.R. Ch. 511, 513 
(1882) (Lord Jessel, M.R.) (“the title of the Act is always upon the Roll”).  See also 
SUTHERLAND, STATUTES § 210, at 277–78 (common law); 1A NORMAN J. SINGER & J.D. 
SHAMBIE SINGER, STATUTES AND STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 18:1, at 42 (7th ed. 
2009) (modern practice); Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 234 (1998) 
(Breyer, J.) (example of modern practice considering titles). 
183 E.g., Convention, supra note 13, art. 11. 
184 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325 cmt. d, at 197 (“for the 
purpose of interpreting an agreement, the context comprises . . . the text, including its 
preamble”); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties art. 31, opened for signature May 
23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, Art. 31. (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980), reprinted in S. 
EXEC. DOC. L, 92d Cong., 1st sess. (1971) and 8 I.L.M. 679 (1969).  (The United States is 
a signatory to the Vienna Convention but has not ratified it.).  Cf. Al-Maqaleh v. Gates, 
604 F. Supp.2d 205, 225, n.17 (D.D.C. 2009) (body of international agreement should be 
given precedence over the words of a preamble). 
185 1 EDWARD COKE, THE FIRST PART OF THE INSTITUTES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND, 
OR A COMMENTARY UPON LITTLETON lib. 2, ch. 4, sec. 104, fol. 79a (First Am. ed. from 
19th Eng. ed. Francis Hargave & Charles Butler eds. 1853).  See also Cook v. United 
States, 288 U.S. 102, 112 (1933) (Brandeis, J.) (looking at preamble of treaty to aid in its 
construction); City of Dayton v. State, 892 N.E.2d 506, ¶¶ 74–78 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) 
(examining preamble of state constitution to determine the scope of legislature’s 
lawmaking powers); Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover, [1957] A.C. 
436, 467 (H.L. 1956) (appeal taken from Eng.) (opinion of Viscount Symonds) (“When 
there is a preamble, it is generally in its recitals that the mischief to be remedied and the 
scope of the Act are described.  It is therefore clearly permissible to have recourse to it as 
an aid to construing the enacting provisions.”), aff’g [1956] Ch. 188 (C.A. 1955) (also 
looking to preamble); SUTHERLAND, STATUTES § 212, at 279 (use of preambles); 1A 
SINGER & SINGER, STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION § 20:3, at 122–23 (“purposes stated in the 
preamble are entitled to weight, although they are not conclusive”).  Cf. Mills, 6 Mod. at 
63 (“the preamble . . . is no part” of a statute).  See also Anne Winckel, The Contextual 
Role of a Preamble in Statutory Interpretation, 1999 MELB. U. L. REV. 7 (examining 
preambles from a foreign common-law perspective). 
324 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
the “key to open the minds of the makers of [an] Act, and the 
mischiefs which they intended to redress.”186  Again, if the 
Convention was not meant to address the topic of service, the word 
would not have been used in the preamble. 
But more than the text ought to be considered, for the Supreme 
Court tells us “treaties are construed more liberally than private 
agreements, and to ascertain their meaning [courts] may look beyond 
the written words to the history of the treaty, the negotiations, and the 
practical construction adopted by the parties.”187  The courts that have 
disallowed mail service typically eschew the use of secondary sources 
and rely solely on the text.188 
Now to the drafting history to discover just what did the striped-
trousers brigade think they were doing in drafting the Convention? 
B.  The View from Foggy Bottom 
The views of the State Department should be given special weight 
in construing treaties.189  And it is proper to consider the “legislative 
history” of a treaty’s drafting.190 
 
186 Stowel v. Zouch, 1 Plowd. 353, 369, 75 Eng. Rep. 536, 560 (Q.B. 1562/63).  See 
also Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314, 317, 24 Eng. Rep. 404, 405 (Ch. 1716) (“The 
preamble of the act has been always thought material in the construction of it”); Pattison v. 
Bankes, 2 Cowp. 540, 543, 98 Eng. Rep. 1230, 1231 (K.B. 1777) (Lord Mansfield, J.) 
(“the preamble is certainly special and particular . . . [and] strong words in [it] may extend 
beyond the preamble.”).  Cf. The Sussex Peerage Case, 11 Cl. & Fin. 85, 143, 8 Eng. Rep. 
1034, 1057 (H.L. 1844) (Lord Tindal, C.J.) (preamble only to be consulted in cases of 
ambiguity). 
187 Choctaw Nation of Indians v. United States, 318 U.S. 423, 431–32 (1943) (Murphy, 
J.) (internal citations omitted).  See also Shanks v. DuPont, 28 U.S. (3 Pet.) 242, 249 
(1830) (Story, J.) (“If the treaty admits of two interpretations . . . why should not the most 
liberal exposition be adopted?”); Pigeon River Improvement, Slide & Boom Co. v. Charles 
W. Cox, Ltd., 291 U.S. 138, 158 (1931) (Hughes, C.J.) (practical construction should be 
examined); Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U.S. 276, 294 (1933) (Stone, J.) (diplomatic 
history and construction should be examined); Todok v. Union State Bank of Harvard, 281 
U.S. 449, 454 (1930) (Hughes, C.J.) (applying “the fundamental principle that treaties 
should receive a liberal interpretation to give effect to their apparent purpose”). 
188 NANDA & PANSIUS, supra note 148, § 2:6. 
189 See Sullivan v. Kidd, 254 U.S. 433, 442 (1921) (Day, J.); Kolovrat v. Oregon, 366 
U.S. 187, 194–95 (1961) (Black, J.); Sumitomo Shoji Am., Inc. v. Avagliano, 457 U.S. 
176, 184–85 (1982) (Burger, C.J.); Bush v. United States (The Yulu), 71 F.2d 635, 636 
(5th Cir. 1934); Rickmers Rhederei, A.G. v. United States (The Sophie Rickmers), 45 F.2d 
413, 418 (S.D.N.Y. 1930); Castro v. De Uriarte, 16 F. 93, 98 (S.D.N.Y. 1883).  See also 1 
FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 112 cmt. c, at 59 (deference given 
because the United States should speak with one voice on foreign matters); id. § 326(2) at 
202 (“courts in the United States have final authority to interpret an international 
agreement for purposes of applying it as law in the United States, but will give great 
weight to an interpretation made by the Executive Branch”).  Cf. San Lorenzo Title &  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 325 
The official report of the American negotiating team said “use of 
the central authority is purely optional . . . Articles 9 to 11 permit 
wide use of alternative channels for the transmission of the documents 
for the purpose of service except to the extent that a particular State 
formally objects to a particular method.”191 
Dean Rusk, the American secretary of state at the time the 
convention was negotiated, signed, and ratified, stated in his official 
report to President Johnson: “Article 10 permits direct service by mail 
. . . unless [the receiving] state objects to such service.”192 
Philip W. Amram was one of the American delegates and the vice-
chairman of the drafting committee that wrote the service convention; 
he was the only English-speaking member of that committee.193  
Amram told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “unless the 
requested State objects, direct service by mail” was allowed under 
Article 10 and “use of the central authority is not obligatory.”194  
 
Improvement Co. v. Caples, 48 S.W.2d 329, 331 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) (the executive 
branch’s construction of a treaty is binding upon the government but not private parties). 
190 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325 Reporters’ Note 5, at 
325 (“A court or agency of the United States is required to take into account United States 
materials relating to the formation of an international agreement . . . These may include: (i) 
Committee reports, debates, and other indications of meaning that the legislative branch 
has attached to an agreement . . . ; (ii) The history of the negotiations leading to the 
agreement . . . .”). 
191 Report of the U.S. Delegation, supra note 24, at 269 (emphasis added), reprinted in 
S. EXEC. DOC. C, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., at 20 (1967).  The portion of the report dealing 
with the Convention was written by Philip W. Amram. 
192 Letter of Secretary of State Dean Rusk to President Lyndon B. Johnson (n.d.), 
reprinted in S. EXEC. DOC. C, at 5.  This document, sent to the Senate on January 31, 
1967, contains the message of President Johnson transmitting the Convention and urging 
its ratification, Rusk’s letter, and an excerpt of the report by the United States delegation to 
the Tenth Session.  President Johnson’s letter is reprinted in 113 CONG. REC. 1976 (1967) 
and as Judicial Assistance: Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and 
Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, 61 AM. J. INT’L L. 799 (1967).  
Contra Soupart v. Houei Kogyo Co., 770 F. Supp. 282, 285, n.4 (W.D. Pa. 1991) 
(declaring that unless a Convention signatory consents to mail service it is forbidden); 
Nuovo Pignone, 310 F.3d at 384 (finding signatories are not obligated to file an objection 
under Article 10(a) because mail service in some nations is inadequate). 
193 Graveson, supra note 24, at 539.  A federal judge said Amram “enjoyed a 
distinguished career as an international lawyer, a leading member of the United States 
delegation to the Hague, and a lifetime professional in the field of civil procedure, serving 
for many years as Chairman of the Pennsylvania Civil Rules Committee.”  Joseph F. Weis, 
Jr., The Federal Rules and the Hague Conventions: Concerns of Conformity and Comity, 
50 U. PITT. L. REV. 903, 904 (1989). 
194 SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORT, supra note 47, at 13.  Judge Weis found that Amram’s 
statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was rarely cited in decisions on the 
question of service by mail, “leaving open to question the adequacy of briefing in those 
cases.”  Weis, supra note 11, at 171.  See also 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, 
supra note 47, § 314(2), at 186 (“When the Senate gives its advice and consent to a treaty  
326 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Amram had written similarly in the American Bar Association 
Journal195 and the American Journal of International Law.196  The 
chairman of the American delegation also understood the central 
authority route was to be optional unless a signatory made objections 
to other means of service.197  There is nothing in the legislative 
history to show a contrary understanding was held by the Senate. 
Thirty years ago the State Department advised the judiciary that 
mail service to only those countries which had objected under the 
Convention was not allowed.198 
What about the State Department’s more recent interpretations?  
The Department has a current circular stating unless a nation “has 
made a specific reservation . . . objecting to service by registered mail 
. . . [service] may be made by international registered mail.”199  And 
following Bankston, the State Department formally said the Eighth 
Circuit’s ruling was wrong: “the decision . . . is incorrect to the extent 
that it suggests that the Hague Convention does not permit as a 
method of service the sending of a copy of the summons and 
complaint by registered mail to a defendant in a foreign country.”200 
In 2000, the State Department had the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts write the clerks of the District Courts to inform 
them certain Convention signatories had objected to mail service; the 
implication of its statement being that defendants in countries not on 
that list could be served by mail.201  The State Department on its 
 
on the basis of a particular understanding of its meaning, the President, if he makes the 
treaty, must do so on the basis of the Senate’s understanding”). 
195 Philip W. Amram, The Proposed International Convention on the Service of 
Documents Abroad, 51 A.B.A. J., 1965, at 653 [hereinafter Amram, The Proposed 
International Convention] (“Article 10 permits direct service by mail . . . unless [the 
receiving] state objects to such service.”). 
196 Amram, supra note 24, at 90 (“Articles 9 to 11 of the convention permit wide use of 
alternative channels for the transmission of the documents for the purpose of service”). 
197 Kearney, supra note 24, at 4. 
198 Judicial Assistance: Service, supra note 115, § 6, at 1447, reprinting memorandum 
captioned “Service of Process in Foreign Countries” from the Administrative Office of the 
United States Courts to all Clerks of United States District Courts (Nov. 6, 1980). 
199 U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Overseas Citizen Services, Office 
of Citizen Consular Services, Service of Legal Documents Abroad, excerpted in Judicial 
Assistance: Service, supra note 118, § 6, at 1441–45. 
200 Letter from Alan J. Kreczco, Legal Adviser, U.S. Dep’t of State, to the 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the National Center for State Courts (Mar. 
14, 1991), excerpted as United States Department of State Opinion Regarding the 
Bankston Case and Service by Mail to Japan Under Hague Service Convention, 30 I.L.M. 
260, 261 (1991). 
201 Letter from Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director, Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, to all Clerks of United States District Courts (Nov. 7, 2000), excerpted in  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 327 
website presently advises litigants that mail service is allowed to 
Convention members that have not objected.202 
The State Department’s view is widely shared. 
C.  The Lawyers Weigh In at Home . . . 
The Supreme Court compared the draft and final language of the 
Convention and found a change was made because the conference 
delegates thought the draft “suggested that the Convention could 
apply to transmissions abroad that do not culminate in service.  The 
final text of Article 1 eliminates this possibility and thus it applies 
only to documents transmitted for service abroad.”203 
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, while specifically noting the 
existence of the Convention, allow mail service abroad.204  The 1993 
amendment to those rules continues to permit service by mail abroad, 
even to Convention members.205 
 
Consular and Judicial Assistance and Related Issues: Judicial Assistance, 2003 DIGEST ch. 
2, at 150–52, available in full at http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/process_abroad.pdf.  The 
Convention members noted in the memo as having objected were China, Czech Republic, 
Egypt, Germany, Greece, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, 
Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkey, and Venezuela.  The memo also noted that Kuwait and the 
Russian Federation, which both subsequently became Convention members, also objected 
to mail service. 
202 E.g., U.S. Dep’t of State, Service of Legal Documents Abroad, 
http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_680.html (advising litigants that only certain 
countries object to service by mail and naming them); U.S. Dep’t of State, Judicial 
Assistance United Kingdom, http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_671.html 
(“service by international registered mail is permitted”); U.S. Dep’t of State, Judicial 
Assistance Spain, http://travel.state.gov/law/judicial/judicial_684.html (“service can be 
effected by international registered mail (return receipt requested) or any of the overnight 
or rapid delivery services which provide a returned receipt as proof of service”). 
203 Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 701.  See also Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae 
Supporting Respondent at 38, Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) 
(No. 86-1052), 1988 WL 1031822, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1669 (“Given that 
service refers to the formal delivery of documents, then service abroad clearly refers to the 
formal delivery of documents in the territory of another member nation.”). 
204 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(f). 
205 For commentary on the changes, see Gary B. Born & Andrew N. Vollmer, The 
Effect of the Revised Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on Personal Jurisdiction, Service, 
and Discovery in International Cases, 150 F.R.D. 221, 235–41 (1993) and Stephen B. 
Burbank, The Reluctant Partner: Making Procedural Law for International Civil 
Litigation, 57 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 103, 114–25 (1994).  For a comment by drafters 
of the revision, see J. Dickson Phillips & Paul D. Carrington, Reflections on the Interface 
of Treaties and Rules of Procedure: Time for Federal “Long-Arm” Legislation, 57 LAW & 
CONTEMP. PROBS. 153 (1994) (Phillips was a senior circuit judge who served on the 
Advisory Committee on the Civil Rules and Carrington was a law professor who served as 
the Committee’s reporter). 
328 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
The practice note in the United States Code Annotated tells 
attorneys 
[t]he Convention is not . . . automatically preemptive of all methods 
that may be used for service abroad.  As long as the nation 
concerned has not, in its ratification or in any other part of its law, 
imposed any limits on particular methods, or made an unequivocal 
statement that only specifically listed methods may be used, other 
methods, like those set forth in [Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, which includes 
mail] may be resorted to.206 
The Committee on International Law of the Association of the Bar 
of the City of New York read the Convention as allowing mail 
service—but conceded it might be a good idea to serve through the 
central authority, just to be safe.207  A drafting note to the Alaska 
Rules of Civil Procedure observes service to Hague signatories by 
mail is allowed except when the receiving nation has objected.208  
This language also appears in the rules of several jurisdictions 
adopting the federal rules.209  And the New York State Bar 
Association’s “nuts and bolts guide” to service abroad gives the 
practical steps on how to serve by mail defendants in Hague 
Convention countries.210 
Foreign lawyers and diplomats share this understanding. 
D.  . . . and Abroad 
The “post-ratification understanding of the contracting parties” is 
relevant.211  Attention should be paid to the decisions of foreign 
courts.212  How do foreign nations treat the Convention? 
 
206 David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary, in 28 U.S.C.A. following FED. R. CIV. P. 4 
at 174 (2008). 
207 Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Committee on International Law, 
The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 
Civil and Commercial Matters, 22 REC. ASS’N B. CITY OF N.Y. 280, 286 (1967). 
208 Alaska Sup. Ct. Order 1750 (May 25, 2005), available at http://courts.alaska.gov 
/sco/sco1570leg.pdf. 
209 E.g., D.C. SUPER. CT. R. CIV. P. 4(f); GUAM R. CIV. P. 4(f); N. MAR. I. R. CIV. P. 
4(f) (service abroad may be effected by a treaty such as the Convention including sending 
mail requiring a signature unless forbidden by the receiving nation).  Cf. KY. R. CIV. P. 
4.04(8) (allowing service by mail on those outside state); ME. R. CIV. P. 4(j)(1) (allowing 
service by mail abroad but making no mention of Convention). 
210 New York State Bar Association, Service of Process Abroad, 122 F.R.D. at 83–84. 
211 Zicherman v. Korean Air Lines Co., 516 U.S. 217, 226 (1996) (Scalia, J.).  See also 
1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325(2), at 196 (“subsequent 
practice between the parties in the application of the agreement are to be taken into 
account in its interpretation”). 
212 Thirty Hogsheads of Sugar v. Boyle, 13 U.S. (9 Cranch) 191, 198 (1815) (Marshall, 
C.J.); 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 112 cmt. b, at 59. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 329 
The Ninth Circuit found it was the “essentially unanimous view of 
other member countries of the Hague Convention” that mail service 
was allowed, citing cases from the highest court of the European 
Union, the European Court of Justice, as well as Greek and Canadian 
tribunals.213  The European Court of Justice said “Article 10(a) of [the 
Hague Convention] allows service by post.”214 
The European Union has a regulation on international service of 
process, similar to the Hague Convention, which specifically allows 
service by registered mail; many Convention signatories are bound by 
this regulation.215  If mail service abroad between European countries 
is unobjectionable, why would it be problematic when done under the 
Hague Convention regime? 
In the United Kingdom, the High Court in England has permitted 
mail service from that nation to defendants in the United States and 
Japan.216  North of the Tweed, Scotland’s court rules make specific 
note of the Hague Convention central authority but explicitly permit 
service by mail to Hague signatories.217  Germany has officially 
objected to service from abroad being sent by mail, but its laws 
provide for service abroad by mail of lawsuits filed in its domestic 
courts.218  When Czechoslovakia ratified in 1982, it stated 
“documents may not be served . . . through postal channels.”219  
 
213 Brockmeyer, 383 F.3d at 802 (citing Case C-412/97, E.D., S.r.l. v. Italo Fenocchio, 
1999 E.C.R. I-3845, [2000] C.M.L.R. 855); Integral Energy & Envtl. Eng’g, Ltd. v. 
Schenker of Can., Ltd., 295 A.R. 233 (Alta. Q.B. 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 293 A.R. 
327 (Alta. Ct. App. 2001); R. v. In re Recognition of an Italian Judgment, [2002] I.L.Pr. 
15, 2000 WL 33541696 (Thessaloniki App. Ct. 2000).  While the Ninth Circuit quotes the 
Greek case as saying “[i]t should be noted that the possibility of serving judicial 
documents in civil and commercial cases through postal channels . . . is envisaged in 
Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention . . . ,” the text at the Westlaw number cited by the 
Ninth Circuit does not have that language. 
214 Italo Fenocchio, 1999 E.C.R. I-3845, ¶ 6. 
215 Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the Service in the Member States of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or 
Commercial Matters (Service of Documents), Nov. 13, 2007, 2007 O.J. (L 324) 79, Article 
14.  See also Meijknecht, supra note 9, at 453. 
216 Crystal Decisions (U.K.), Ltd. v. Vedatech Corp., [2004] EWHC (Ch) 1872, 2004 
WL 1959749, ¶ 21; Noirhomme v. Walklate, [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 427 (Q.B. 1991). 
217 SUMMARY CAUSE RULES 2002, R. 5.7(3) (Scot.). 
218 Hans-Eric Rasmussen-Bonne, The Pendulum Swings Back: The Cooperative 
Approach of German Courts to International Service of Process, 241–42, in RESOLVING 
INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS: LIBER AMICORUM TIBOR VÁRADY (Peter Hay et al. eds., 
2009).  Contra Brief for the Federal Republic of Germany as Amicus Curiae Supporting 
Petitioner at 17, Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (1988) (No. 86-1052), 
1987 WL 881149, 1986 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1073 (“German citizens are required by 
German law to use the Convention”). 
219 1279 U.N.T.S. 313, reprinted at MARTINDALE-HUBBELL IC-6 (emphasis supplied). 
330 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Pakistan’s declarations said “it has no objection to such service by 
postal channels directly to the persons concerned.”220  The civil rules 
in the Bahamas, while recognizing the Convention’s central authority 
mechanism, do not require litigants to use it.  They make no 
allowance for mail but permit service through other methods.221  The 
same is true for Belize.222  An Israeli law professor observes mail 
service under the Hague Convention is good in her nation’s courts 
unless the receiving state has objected.223 
Canada, a Hague signatory, allows service to parties abroad by 
mail; only Saskatchewan appears to require use of the central 
authority when serving papers to a Hague signatory.224  Its official 
declaration on joining the Convention stated “Canada does not object 
to service by postal channels” and “Canadian law allows the use of 
postal channels to serve Canadian documents to persons abroad.”225  
And a Canadian court found “Article 10(a) of the Hague Convention 
provides that if the state of destination does not object, judicial 
documents may be served by postal channels.”226 
And when the Dutch central authority was asked to serve a 
company located within that nation’s territory on behalf of an 
American plaintiff, the authority perfected service by domestic 
mail.227 
The Hague Conference reports that “it seems that only courts in the 
United States have had difficulties with the interpretation of this 
 
220 1541 U.N.T.S. 431, reprinted at MARTINDALE-HUBBELL IC-10. 
221 RULES OF THE SUP. CT., ORDER 11, R. 6(3) (Bah.). 
222 SUPREME COURT (CIVIL PROCEDURE) RULES 2005, R. 7.9(3) (Belize). 
223 TALIA EINHORN, PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW IN ISRAEL 314 (2009). 
224 RULES FOR REGULATING THE PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE IN THE FEDERAL COURT 
OF APPEAL AND THE FEDERAL COURT, SOR/98-106 (Can.), R. 137(2); TAX COURT OF 
CANADA RULES (GENERAL PROCEDURE), SOR/90-688a (Can.), R. 42(5); SUPREME 
COURT RULES, ALTA. RULES OF COURT, Alta. Reg. 390/68, R. 31.1; SUPREME COURT 
RULES, B.C. Reg. 221/90, R. 13(12); COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH RULES, Man. Reg. 
553/88, R. 17.05(1); RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT, 1986, S.N.L. 1986, c. 42, Sch. D 
(Nfld.), R. 6.08(2); RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, 
N.W.T. Reg. 010-96, R. 50(2); NUN. SUP. CT. R. 50(2); ONT. RULES OF CIVIL 
PROCEDURE, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, R. 17.05(3); P.E.I. RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 
17.05(3); id. R. 16.03(4); CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, R.S.Q. ch. 25-1, § 140 (Que.); 
YUKON SUP. CT. R. 13(12); id. R. 12(7); SASK. Q.B. R. 29. 
225 1529 U.N.T.S. 299, reprinted at MARTINDALE-HUBBELL IC-4. 
226 Integral Energy, 295 A.R. 233 (citing Wilson v. Servier Canada, Inc., 53 O.R.3d 
219, ¶ 44 (Ont. Super. Ct. 2000)). 
227 Fokker Aircraft, 713 F. Supp. at 395. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 331 
Article.”228  It is error to insist on reading a treaty to produce a result 
never contemplated by the contracting parties.229 
E.  An Expert Opinion 
Bruno A. Ristau was head of the State Department’s Foreign 
Litigation Unit, the original American central authority.230  When 
responsibility for the Convention was transferred to served the Justice 
Department’s Office of Foreign Litigation, Ristau became its director. 
He was the American delegate to the 1977 Special Commission on 
the Convention.231  Ristau is widely recognized as an expert on 
international law issues.232 
Ristau has written that the language of Article 10(a) regarding the 
use of “postal channels” was “intended to include service of 
process.”233  Others concur.  “It is clear that . . . every participant in 
the debates concerning Article 10(a) . . . understood the provision as 
referring to . . . the use of postal channels for the purpose of 
service.”234  Another analysis said “[p]erhaps the most compelling 
 
228 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK supra note 13, at ¶ 217 (citing Noirhomme, [1992] 1 
Lloyd’s Rep. 427; Italo Fenocchio, 1999 E.C.R. I-3845; Integral Energy, 295 A.R. 233; 
and Recognition of an Italian Judgment, [2002] I.L.Pr. 15).  The Handbook cited only 
these four decisions because “space does not allow us to refer to the numerous decisions of 
other States expressly supporting the view that Art. 10(a) allows for service of process.”  
Id. at n.275. 
229 See Maltass v. Maltass, 1 Rob. Eccl. 67, 75-6, 163 Eng. Rep. 967, 970 (Prerog. Ct. 
Canterbury 1844) (Lushington, Dean of the Arches), previous proceeding reported as 3 
Curt. 231, 163 Eng. Rep. 712 (Prerog. Ct. Canterbury 1842). 
230 Earl Weisbaum, The Hague Service Convention and C.C.P. Section 413.10, 47 L.A. 
BAR. BULL. 390, 390 n.5 (1972). 
231 Ristau’s report on the 1977 meeting is REPORT OF THE UNITED STATES 
DELEGATION, 17 I.L.M. 312. 
232 E.g., Ristau served as the assistant to Judge Herbert J. Stern while presiding over the 
United States Court for Berlin in Tiede, 86 F.R.D. 227.  Ristau is highly praised by the 
judge in his account of the proceedings, HERBERT J. STERN, JUDGMENT IN BERLIN (1984), 
where Ristau appears passim.  In the 1988 film of Judge Stern’s book—which has the 
same name—Stern is played by Martin Sheen and Ristau by veteran character actor Harris 
Yulin.  40 JOHN WILLIS, SCREEN WORLD 125 (1989).  See also TARA ARIANO & ADAM 
STERNBERGH, HEY! IT’S THAT GUY! 103 (2005) (“Yulin’s characters are quintessentially 
weary of this world, worn out by its ugliness and many disappointments.”). 
233 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, § 4-3-5 (citing 3 
CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ [HAGUE CONFERENCE ON 
INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW], ACTES ET DOCUMENTS DE LA DIXIÈME SESSION 
(NOTIFICATION) [ACTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THE TENTH SESSION (SERVICE)] 373 
(1965)). 
234 William Temple Jorden, Beyond Jingoism: Service by Mail to Japan and the Hague 
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and 
Commercial Matters, 16 LAW IN JAPAN: AN ANNUAL 69 (1983).  Jorden was responding 
to two articles that said mail service is forbidden, both by Yasuhiro Fujita: Service of  
332 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
evidence in support of the theory that Article 10(a) authorizes service 
by mail is the fact that those who actually participated in the original 
Convention . . . believe that to be the case.”235 
Ristau quoted the official report on the draft convention, which 
indicated the language of Article 10 was worded broadly.236  It is so 
broad, he writes, that it “permits service by telegram if the State 
where service is to be made does not object.”237 
Ristau’s explanation for the use of both “serve” and “send” was 
this: “The draftsmen of the Convention intended the language ‘to send 
judicial documents, by postal channels’ to include the service of 
process.  The use of different terms in the several paragraphs of 
Article 10 may well be attributed to careless drafting.”238  The Second 
Circuit has endorsed this view.239  So has a judge of the Third Circuit, 
who suggested that the unclear language of Article 10 is because it 
tracks the language of an earlier Hague Conference treaty on civil 
procedure drafted in 1954.240 
 
American Process Upon Japanese Nationals by Registered Airmail and Enforceability of 
Resulting American Judgments in Japan, 12 LAW IN JAPAN: AN ANNUAL 69 (1979), and 
Nihn no hikoku ni taisuru Amerika sojō no chokusets o yūsū to sono kōroyoku [Service by 
Direct Mail of American Complaints Against Japanese Defendants and Their Validity], 
354 HANREI TAIMUZU 685 (1978). 
235 Mann, supra note 8, at 660.  See SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORT, supra note 47, at 13 
(statement of American member of the drafting committee saying mail service was 
allowed); Amram, supra note 24, at 90; Amram, supra note 195, at 653; Kearney, supra 
note 24, at 4 (the chairman of American delegation agreeing). 
236 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at 373.  Courts 
have sometimes relied on the working papers and negotiations of treaty drafters—often 
referred to by the French phrases travaux préparatoires and procès-verbal—to analyze 
treaties, e.g., Air France, 470 U.S. at 400; Franklin Mint, 466 U.S. at 266 (Stevens, J., 
dissenting); Fothergill v. Monarch Airlines, Ltd., [1981] A.C. 251, 278 (H.L. 1980) 
(appeal taken from Eng.) (opinion of Lord Wilberforce).  See also 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS 
RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325 cmt. e, at 197 (discussing use of travaux). 
237 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at 373.  See also 
PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 197. 
238 2 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at 373.  Ristau’s 
analysis is criticized in Cooper, supra note 10, at 706–08. 
239 Ackermann, 788 F.2d at 839.  Ackermann is examined closely in Denise M. Leydon, 
International Service of Process Under the Hague Convention, 11 SUFFOLK TRANSNAT’L 
L.J. 159 (1987). 
240 Weis, supra note 11, at 170–71 (citing Hague Convention on Civil Procedure, 
opened for signature Mar. 1, 1954, 286 U.N.T.S. 265, Art. 6).  The full text of the 1954 
Convention is reprinted in 2 RISTAU, supra note 13, app. L and on the Hague Conference 
website at http://www.hcch.net/upload /conventions/txt02en.pdf.  The 1954 convention 
was written for the civil law countries of Europe, rather than the common-law nations, and 
it was not accepted by the latter.  Droz & Dyer, The Hague Conference, supra note 15, at 
162. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 333 
F.  Cut and Paste 
“One must be a wise reader to quote wisely and well.”241  The trial 
court judge in Bankston found “it inconceivable that the drafters of 
the Convention would use the word ‘send’ in Article 10(a) to mean 
service of process, when they so carefully used the word ‘service’ in 
other sections of the treaty.”242  But he did not understand the lineage 
of Article 10.  In English it reads: “Provided the State of destination 
does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with: (a) 
the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly 
to persons abroad.”  The French text of this language, which is 
equally authentic,243 reads: “La présente Convention ne fait pas 
obstacle, sauf si l’Etat de destination déclare s’y opposer: (a) à la 
faculté d’adresser directment, par la voie de la poste, des actes 
judiciaires aux personnes se trouvant l’entranger.”244 
The French text of the 1965 convention was copied from three 
earlier Hague Conference conventions, all of which were understood 
to allow service upon defendants abroad by mail.  The 1954 Hague 
Convention on Civil Procedure states: “Les dispositions des articles 
qui précèdent ne s’opposent pas: 1. à la faculté d’adresser 
directement, par la voie de la poste, des actes aux intéressés se 
trouvant à l’étranger.”245  Its predecessor, adopted in 1905, used the 
same words.246  That treaty in turn copied the language verbatim from 
the 1896 Civil Procedure Convention.247  An English translation of 
 
241 A. BRONSON ALCOTT, Quotation, in TABLE-TALK bk. 1, ch. 1, at 8 (1877). 
242 Bankston, 123 F.R.D. at 599. 
243 Signature clause of the Convention. 
244 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, citing 3 
CONFÉRENCE DE LA HAYE DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL PRIVÉ [HAGUE CONFERENCE ON 
INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW], ACTES ET DOCUMENTS DE LA DIXIÈME SESSION 
(NOTIFICATION) [ACTS AND DOCUMENTS OF THE TENTH SESSION (SERVICE)] 373 
(1965)). 
245 1954 Civil Procedure Convention, Art. 6. 
246 Convention on Civil Procedure, July 17, 1905, 50 L.N.T.S. 180, 199 Consol. T.S. 1, 
2 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 243, 99 BRIT. & FOR. ST. PAP. 990, Art. 6.  The 1905 
Convention was adhered to by Austria-Hungary (and later both Austria and Hungary), 
Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the Free City of Danzig, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, 
Rumania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia.  Judicial Assistance: 
Introductory Comment, 33 AM. J. INT’L L. SUPP. 26, 27–28 (1939); Gordon A. 
Christenson, International Judicial Assistance and Utah Practice, 7 UTAH L. REV. 478, 
478 n.4 (1961).  The full text of the 1905 Convention appears in the original French in 33 
AM. J. INT’L L. SUPP. app. VI at 148–52. 
247 Convention on Civil Procedure, opened for signature Nov. 14, 1896, 183 Consol. 
T.S. 470, 23 Martens Nouveau Receuil (ser. 2) 398, 88 BRIT. & FOR. ST. PAP. 555, Art. 6 
(the language of Art. 6 of 1905 convention verbatim).  Technical changes were made to it  
334 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
the 1896 Convention published in 1901 translates this language 
without using “service.”248  The translation uses “delivery” and 
“send,” even when it clearly is describing what we would call 
“service of process.”249 
The language in the 1896 and 1905 Conventions translates to “[t]he 
previous articles do not limit: First, the ability to directly send, by 
way of mail, notices to interested parties found abroad.”250  The 
American cases denying mail service as valid essentially are arguing 
that the Hague Conference was repudiating its previous attitude 
toward the mail. 
G.  An Unclean Break 
It would be odd if the Hague Conference after seven decades of 
having no issue with service by mail—and only a decade after the 
previous convention on this same subject—reversed itself.  Coke said 
legislative language should be read with an eye to the evil the law was 
meant to remedy.251  With that in mind, it would be even odder that, 
having made a complete reversal of its previous position, the 
Conference would seek to remedy the ill of its prior conventions in 
such an ambiguous and muddled way as is supposed by the Bankston 
line of cases.  One would expect it in drafting that repudiation to 
make a clear break from the past practice in unmistakable language.252  
Especially since the Convention states it supersedes the service 
portions of the 1905 and 1954 conventions.253 
 
by a protocol of May 22, 1897, 25 Martens Nouveau Receuil (ser. 2) 226.  The parties to 
the treaty were Austria-Hungary, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the 
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden-Norway, and Switzerland.  The Convention is 
discussed in C.D. Asser, The Convention of The Hague of 14th November 1896, Especially 
In Connection With the Execution of Foreign Judgments, in INT’L LAW ASS’N, REPORT OF 
THE TWENTIETH CONFERENCE HELD AT GLASGOW, AUGUST 20TH–23RD, 1901, at 299 
(1901).  Excerpts from the 1896 Convention, translated into English, appear in id. at 307–
09.  Excerpts in the original French appear, interlineated with the corresponding articles 
from the 1905 convention, in 33 AM. J. INT’L L. SUPP. app. VI at 148–52. 
248 Asser, supra note 247, at 306. 
249 See id. at 305–06, translating Articles 1–3 of the 1896 Convention. 
250 Translation by the Author. 
251 Heydon’s Case, 3 Co. Rep. at 7b. 
252 Cf. Chappell, 900 N.E.2d 238, ¶¶ 46–48.  See also SUTHERLAND, STATUTORY 
CONSTRUCTION § 290, at 374 (statutes in derogation of the common law to be strictly 
construed). 
253 Convention, supra note 13, art. 22. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 335 
But in the language actually used, there is no “‘clearly expressed 
legislative intention’” to change the status quo ante.254  Which is what 
one would expect to see if Bankston is correct as diplomats are 
supposed to be learned men who draft treaties with care and 
precision.255 
H.  Play It Again, Sam 
The title of the official record of proceedings for the Tenth Session 
of the Hague Conference says the meeting dealt with the subject of 
“notification,” which is not only the French term for “service” but, in 
English, its purpose.256 
What appears to have happened was the drafters took the language 
from the three Hague Civil Procedure Conventions and used it for the 
Service Convention.  All three of those were in French.  At the Tenth 
Session the Hague Conference used the English language officially 
for the first time.257  So a translation had to be made.  The previous 
conventions use the French verb adresser, a cognate of the English 
verb address in its sense of sending a communication.258 
[While] [t]he terms of the agreement are presumed to have the same 
meaning in each authentic text . . . when a comparison of the 
authentic texts discloses a difference of meaning . . . the meaning 
that best reconciles the texts, having regard to the object and 
purpose of the international agreement, is to be adopted.259 
 
254 See Bankston, 889 F.2d at 174 (quoting Consumer Prods. Safety Comm’n, 447 U.S. 
at 108). 
255 See Rocca v. Thompson, 223 U.S. 317, 331–32 (1912) (Day, J.) (“treaties are the 
subject of careful consideration before they are entered into, and are drawn by persons 
competent to express their meaning, and to choose apt words in which to embody the 
purposes of the high contracting parties”); The Neck, 138 F. 144, 147 (W.D. Wash. 1905) 
(“treaties are usually, if not invariably, prepared with great care by men of learning and 
experience, accustomed to select words apt to express precisely and fully the intention of 
the contracting parties”). 
256 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at xxv (“the French version of this 
handbook uses the term ‘notification’ for ‘service’”).  Professor Graveson, the leader of 
the British delegation to the Tenth Session, wrote about the terminology: “Where the 
French title speaks of signification and notification the English title merely refers to 
service.  Yet while no difference exists in English between signification and notification, 
the distinction is familiar in Scots law, the former representing service by an officer of the 
court while notification indicates the giving of notice of proceedings by other persons.”  
Graveson, supra note 24, at 538–39.  Ristau also notes this distinction.  1 RISTAU, 
INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, § 4-1-4(2), at 150–51. 
257 Nadelmann & Reese, supra note 24, at 614. 
258 MARGUERITE-MARIE DUBOIS, MODERN FRENCH DICTIONARY 14 (Larousse 1969). 
259 1 FOREIGN RELATIONS RESTATEMENT, supra note 47, § 325 cmt. f, at 198. 
336 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
The “send” versus “service” question arises from the use of a literal 
translation of the French words into English.  “Legal and technical 
terms do not bear exactly the same connotation in different systems, 
even where the root word is identical.  A literal rendering may 
mislead and a free translation cannot be precise.”260  The only 
English-speaking member of the drafting committee was Philip W. 
Amram.261  “Service of process” has in English a technical 
meaning.262  And there are two technical words for “service of 
process” in French, notification and signification.263  Neither was used 
here or in the prior conventions.  However, Amram, in his efforts to 
see the Convention ratified, repeatedly said the language used allowed 
service by mail.264 
One explanation for his choice of English words is that he was not 
familiar with technical legal terms in the French language.  But since 
the language used in the French version of the Convention precisely 
duplicated what had been used in three previous Hague conventions 
dating back seventy years, much more likely is that Amram and the 
drafting committee did what lawyers have done since laws were 
composed in cuneiform: they copied what had been done before.  
“The draftsman pressed for time naturally turns to any resource that 
will hasten his progress and perhaps even improve the result.”265  
Everyone recognizes “lawyers are notorious copycats.”266  (If they 
were not there would be no need for the seas of judicial decisions, 
reported and otherwise, that lawyers study.)267  As the Preacher said, 
there is nothing new under the sun.268 
 
260 Chartered Bank of India, [1956] Sing. L. Rep. 32 in 23 I.L.R. 687, 698. 
261 Graveson, supra note 24, at 539. 
262 Schlunk, 486 U.S. at 700. 
263 Graveson, supra note 24, at 588–89; 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL 
ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, § 4-1-4(2), at 150–51. 
264 SENATE EXECUTIVE REPORT, supra note 47, at 13; Amram, Report on the Tenth 
Session, supra note 24, at 90; Amram, The Proposed International Convention, supra note 
195, at 653. 
265 F. REED DICKERSON, THE FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL DRAFTING § 4.12, at 69–70 
(2d ed. 1986).  See also RICHARD H. WEISBERG, WHEN LAWYERS WRITE § 14.3, at 194 
(1987) (section “Boilerplate as a Hazard” states: “When time seems to run out, lawyers run 
to boilerplate”). 
266 Sidney G. Saltz, Drafting Made Easy, 15 PROB. & PROP., May–June 2001, at 32, 36. 
267 For the vast quantities of decisions available, see generally SUSAN W. BRENNER, 
PRECEDENT INFLATION (1992). 
268 Ecclesiastes 1:9. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 337 
This is the most logical explanation given lawyers’ ageless 
embrace of an “if it ain’t broke”269 drafting philosophy that produces 
endless recycling270 of time-tested271 (or, at least, “time-
 
269 Or as Viscount Falkland put it more artfully, “When it is not necessary to change, it 
is necessary not to change.”  See J.A.R. Marriott, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF LUCIUS CARY, 
VISCOUNT FALKLAND 200 (1907) (reprinting speech thought to have been given in 1641 
during the Long Parliament).  It is an old thought that change is inherently suspect.  Mrs. 
Piozzi reported: “[I]t is a maxim here [at Venice], handed down from generation to 
generation, that change breeds more mischief from its novelty, than advantage from its 
utility.”  HESTER LYNCH PIOZZI, OBSERVATIONS AND REFLECTIONS MADE IN THE 
COURSE OF A JOURNEY THROUGH FRANCE, ITALY, AND GERMANY 140 (1789).  “The 
common saying is, the change is seldom made for the better.”  2 GEORGE PETTIE, 
Pygmalion’s Friend, and His Image, in A PETITE PALLACE OF PETTIE HIS PLEASURE 108, 
132 (1576) (reprinted 1908, I. Gollancz ed.). 
270 E.g., Joseph Kimble, How to Write an Impeachment Order, 78 MICH. B.J. 1304 
(1999) (predicting that the next time an American president is impeached, sometime in the 
22d century, Congress’s lawyers will look back to that of President Clinton for guidance as 
to form and offering suggestions to those future copyists); Thomas J. Steuber, Due 
Diligence in Drafting: Copyrights in Legal Documents, 18 CONN. LAW., May–June 2008, 
at 30 (entire article predicated on lawyers’ endless pilfering of others’ work); Jessica Y.K. 
Young, Drafting in Unfamiliar Territories, 9 NEWCASTLE L. REV. 45, 51–53 (2006) 
(discussing Hong Kong law students’ natural inclination to simply copy from previous 
documents); Ezra Dodd Church, Technological Conservatism: How Information 
Technology Prevents the Law from Changing, 83 TEX. L. REV. 561, 594 n.248 (2004) 
(stating it is commonplace in law schools for moot court teams to find the real briefs of the 
parties in the case they are arguing and recycle those arguments); Saltz, supra note 266, at 
34 (“In preparing to draft, where do we start?” and answering the question with several 
hundred words on the use of forms); David Mellinkoff, Why I Wrote The Language of the 
Law, 79 MICH. B.J. 28, 28 (2000) (stating that when he was hired for his first job as a 
lawyer in 1939 he was told to recycle documents from the files); Michael C. Loulakis, 
Drafting a Design-Build Contract: Does It Require More Than Cut and Paste?, 20 
CONSTR. LAW., Jan. 2000, at 33 (article’s title shows presumption of recycling); SUSAN L. 
BRODY, JANE RUTHERFORD, LAUREL A. VIETZEN & JOHN C. DERNBACH, LEGAL 
DRAFTING 18 (1994) (advising drafters of the pitfalls of recycling); Brian Baillie, Legal 
Drafting—A Plea for Original Thinking, 22 HONG KONG L.J. 327 (1992) (discussing 
lawyers’ mindless copying and citing Hong Kong cases where this harmed the client’s 
suit); Justin Sweet, The Lawyer’s Role in Contract Drafting, 43 J. ST. B. OF CAL. 362, 
372–73 (1968) (discussing use of lawyers’ office form file); Carroll D. French, An 
Electronic Forms File New Assistance for Legal Drafting, 50 A.B.A. J., 41 (1964), (stating 
that in corporate legal work it is inadvisable to start afresh and discussing how firms 
recycle documents such as securities registrations); F. Reed Dickerson, Some 
Jurisprudential Implications of Electronic Data Processing, 18 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 
53, 61 (1963) (“Should lawyers refrain from using legal boilerplate?  They cannot operate 
efficiently without it. Indeed, they cannot operate even inefficiently without it”).  See also 
F. Reed Dickerson, Electronic Aids to the Drafting of Legal Instruments, 1 RUTGERS J. 
COMPUTERS & L. 75, 75 (1970) (noting the law school at which the author taught had no 
legal drafting class; thus new lawyers had little ability to do anything but copy). 
271 E.g., DAVID MELLINKOFF, THE LANGUAGE OF THE LAW § 126, at 375 (1963) (“Yet 
the lawyer’s traditional respect for the preserved word encourages him to believe that 
words uttered in court—as in some ancient temple—are sacrosanct.  Blessed with the 
ritual phrase stare decisis . . . they become ‘precise.’  It is on the strength that what is 
sanctioned by precedent is precise”).  See also WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, MERCHANT OF  
338 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
unchallenged”) language,272 even when it is so redundant and archaic 
it echoes the fourteenth century.273 
“The drafting lawyer thinks big and fast.  He wants to cover it all, 
and the quickest way to do it is in the manner it has most often been 
done before, in the manner he is most familiar with. Include!”274  The 
“lawyer has no time to question the precision of this language he has 
learned to live with,” and tells himself, “change is suspect.  Meet the 
 
VENICE Act 4, sc. 1, l. 218–19 (“. . .there is no power in Venice/Can alter a decree 
established./’Twill be recorded for a precedent,/And many an error by the same 
example/Will rush into the state”); LEMUEL GULLIVER [JONATHAN SWIFT], TRAVELS 
INTO SEVERAL REMOTE NATIONS OF THE WORLD [GULLIVER’S TRAVELS] pt. 4, ch. 5 at 
288 (4th ed. 1742) (“It is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever has been done 
before may legally be done again . . . .”); 7 AMBROSE BIERCE, THE COLLECTED WORKS 
OF AMBROSE BIERCE: THE DEVIL’S DICTIONARY 262 (1911) (“PRECEDENT, n. In Law, a 
previous decision rule or practice which . . . has whatever force and authority a Judge may 
choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases”). 
272 E.g., ADAM FREEMAN, THE PARTY OF THE FIRST PART: THE CURIOUS WORLD OF 
LEGALESE 30 (2007) (“[F]ormbooks were smash hits with the legal profession.  As a 
result, all of the linguistic oddities [of lawyers] became set in stone, carefully preserved, 
and passed on from one generation to the next”); MELLINKOFF, supra note 270, § 112, at 
275–82 (section titled “The spread of formula,” detailing lawyers’ formbooks with their 
boundless collections of rubbish included because someone somewhere had used that 
particular form of rubbish and thereby sanctified it); Charles A. Beardsley, Beware of, 
Eschew and Avoid Pompous Prolixity and Platitudinous Epistles!, 16 ST. B. J. ST. B. OF 
CAL. Mar. 1941, at 65, 66 (“An adjudicated form is a form that has attached to it a 
certificate that there is something terribly wrong with it.  If there was not something 
terribly wrong with it, it never would have been adjudicated.  And we publish these form 
books to the end that the worse mistakes in legal draftsmanship may be preserved and 
perpetuated”); BARBARA CHILD, DRAFTING LEGAL DOCUMENTS: PRINCIPLES AND 
PRACTICES 14 (2d ed. 1992) (“An attorney should not routinely rely on [formbooks] with 
confidence,” the injunction implying it is both routine and sometimes acceptable).  See 
also BRYAN A. GARNER, A DICTIONARY OF MODERN LEGAL USAGE 711 (2d ed. 1995) 
(“If there is a malady endemic in legal writing, it is the practice . . . of mechanically 
repeating previously received ideas,” defining “psittacism,” a term derived from the Greek 
for “parrot.”). 
273 E.g., MELLINKOFF, supra note 270, § 70 at 120–22 (explaining origins of 
redundantly repetitious doublets and triplets such as “goods and chattels” and “right, title, 
and interest”); id. § 122, at 345–49 (discussing valid uses of the repeated words in modern 
writing); id. § 123, at 349–62 (section “worthless doubling” referring to phrases such as 
“fit and proper,” “give, devise, and bequeath,” and “rest, residue, and remainder”); id. § 
124, at 363–64 (“The pattern of two-words-for-one”).  See also Fred Rodell, Goodbye to 
Law Reviews, 23 VA. L. REV. 38, 38 (1936) (“There are two things wrong with almost all 
legal writing.  One is its style.  The other is its content”); Kohlbrand v. Ranieri, 823 
N.E.2d 76 ¶¶ 13–17 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005) (Painter, J.) (“The Norman Conquest was in 
1066.  We can safely eliminate the couplets now”); Oliver Wendell Holmes, Path of the 
Law, 10 HARV. L. REV. 457, 469 (1897) (“It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule 
of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV”). 
274 MELLINKOFF, supra note 270, § 124, at 363–64. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 339 
deadline.  My law dictionary is somewhere in the library.”275  
Justifiable, given the “tyrannical attitude of some judges” when 
presented with anything they have not seen before.276 
And that attitude is to blame for this dispute.  It is a mistake for 
American courts to apply the canons of construction to derive a false 
technical meaning from a word translated literally and not legally 
from the French.  The drafters took the language from the prior 
conventions and rendered the terms with a translation that they 
understood to allow service of mail.  Only this and nothing more. 
The clearest indication that this whole controversy is a 
misunderstanding on the part of American lawyers is to look to the 
Hague Conference itself, which has repeatedly said service by mail is 
allowed under the Article 10 from almost the day the treaty was 
finished.277 
I.  The Official Story 
The Hague Conference believes mail service is allowed.  The 
report on the draft convention observed that mail service was to be 
allowed provided no objection was filed.  As long as the forum state 
allowed service by mail, it was irrelevant whether the receiving state 
also used service by mail.278  The secretary of the Conference wrote in 
1966 that the central authority mechanism was “non-mandatory.”279  
The top two officials of the Hague Conference wrote thirty years ago 
that use of the central authority was not required and the Convention 
allowed service by other means—”for the most part this refers . . . to 
service by mail”—and specifically called service by mail 
“permissible.”280  The official report of the 1977 Special Commission 
on the Convention observed, “[t]he States which object to the 
 
275 David Mellinkoff, The Myth of Precision and the Law Dictionary, 31 UCLA L. 
REV. 423, 425 (1983). 
276 Sweet, supra note 259, at 377. 
277 Cf. In re Int’l Bank for Reconstruction & Dev. v. All Am. Cables & Radio, Inc., 17 
F.C.C. 450, 460 (1953) (an example of an international body having binding interpretive 
authority for a treaty). 
278 1 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, § 4-3-5(2), at 205 
(quoting SERVICE CONVENTION NEGOTIATING DOCUMENT at 373).  Contra Casio 
Computer Co. v. Sayo, No. 98. Civ. 3772, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14675, at *90 (S.D.N.Y. 
Sept. 20, 1999) (quashing mail service to Japan even though that nation had not filed a 
formal objection to mail service because Court erroneously believed Japan does not use 
mail to serve suits domestically). 
279 M.L. Saunders, The Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1966 AUSTL. 
Y.B. INT’L L. 115, 124. 
280 Droz & Dyer, The Hague Conference, supra note 15, at 163, 164. 
340 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
utilisation of service by post sent from abroad are known thanks to the 
declarations made to the [Dutch] Ministry of Foreign Affairs” and 
most of the members “made no objection” to direct mail service.281  
The 1989 Special Commission meeting noted 
the postal channel for service constitutes a method which is quite 
separate from service via the Central Authorities or between judicial 
officers.  Article 10(a) in effect offered a reservation to Contracting 
States to consider that service by mail was an infringement of their 
sovereignty.  Thus, theoretical doubts about the legal nature of the 
procedure were unjustified.282 
The official guide to the Convention summed up the 1989 
commission this way: after “a lively debate the experts dismissed the 
restrictive construction of Article 10(a) in Bankston.”283 
In 1992, the first secretary of the Hague Conference wrote an 
American law professor: 
The view that Article 10(a) does not allow service of process by 
mail is, so far as we know at the Permanent Bureau, entirely 
contrary to the historical interpretation of the 1965 Convention as 
well as the similar language . . . in its predecessors, the 1954 
Convention on Civil Procedure and the 1905 Convention on Civil 
Procedure.  The idea that the Convention permits service of process 
by mail, not merely sending of documents, was implicit in the 
conclusions of the Special Commission which met in November 
1977 to consider the operation of this Convention, as well as of the 
 
281 HAGUE CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW, REPORT ON THE WORK 
OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE OPERATION OF THE CONVENTION OF 15 
NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND EXTRAJUDICIAL 
DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS (21–25 NOVEMBER 1977), reprinted in 
17 I.L.M. 319, 329 (1978) (declarations filed), available at http://hcch.e-vision 
.nl/upload/scrpt14_77e.pdf; id. at 326 (few objections).  For a case finding the declarations 
a government filed with the Dutch Foreign Ministry trumped whatever statements that 
government might say domestically, see Griffin v. Mark Travel Corp., 724 N.W.2d 900, ¶ 
15 (Wis. Ct. App. 2006) (considering differing translations of the Mexican government’s 
declarations and holding the one submitted to the Dutch Foreign Ministry in French and 
Spanish trumped the one published in Spanish in the Mexican government’s official 
gazette). 
282 HAGUE CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW, REPORT OF THE WORK 
OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSION OF APRIL 1989 ON THE OPERATION OF THE HAGUE 
CONVENTIONS OF 15 NOVEMBER 1965 ON THE SERVICE ABROAD OF JUDICIAL AND 
EXTRAJUDICIAL DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS AND OF 18 MARCH 
1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS, at ¶ 16 
(Aug. 1989), reprinted in 28 I.L.M. 1558, 1561, available at http://www.hcch.net/upload 
/scrpt1989.pdf (1989); 2 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, 
app. 4. 
283 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 216.  See also Lewis, supra note 1, 13 
at 300 (commenting on the 1989 commission report that “this interpretation effectively 
ends the dispute” on send versus service). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 341 
Special Commission of April 1989, which met to consider the 
operation of both Conventions.  Service of process by mail under 
the Convention has also been upheld by courts in Belgium and we 
at the Permanent Bureau are not aware of any case, except in the 
United States, where a court has held that the Convention does not 
allow service of process by mail abroad.284 
The 2003 special commission “reaffirmed its clear understanding 
that the term ‘send’ in Article 10(a) is to be understood to as meaning 
‘service’ through postal channels.”285 
Most recently, the report of the commission held in February 2009 
spoke of the way members could object to mail service.286  An 
American process server who observed those proceedings wrote, 
“[m]any of the countries present indicated a willingness to allow 
service by mail . . . A main point regarding mail service was that it 
did need to be generally considered a valid method of service under 
the provisions of the forum court rules.”287 
The Conference’s Practical Handbook, the official manual to the 
Convention, states: 
Service by mail under Article 10(a) is effective if (i) service by mail 
is allowed by the law of the State of origin and all the conditions 
imposed by that law for service by mail have been met, and (ii) the 
State of destination has not objected to the use of Article 10(a).288 
The Handbook goes on: 
[N]either the letter nor the history of the Hague Conventions can be 
used to support the approach used in Bankston.  Moreover, 
 
284 Letter from Adair Dyer, First Secretary of the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law, to Robert B. von Mehren (June 19, 1992), quoted in von Mehren, supra 
note 7, at 17–18. 
285 HAGUE CONFERENCE, 2003 COMMISSION, ¶ 55. 
286 HAGUE CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LAW, CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE SPECIAL COMMISSION ON THE PRACTICAL 
OPERATION OF THE HAGUE APOSTILLE, SERVICE, TAKING OF EVIDENCE, AND ACCESS TO 
JUSTICE CONVENTIONS (2 TO 12 FEBRUARY 2009), ¶ 28, available at 
http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/jac_concl_e.pdf. 
287 Celeste Ingalls, International Process Service: Progressing Toward Convenience or 
Just Lip Service, THE DOCKET SHEET: THE OFFICIAL NEWSMAGAZINE OF THE NATIONAL 
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL PROCESS SERVERS, Jan.–Feb. 2009, at 20, 21, available 
at http://www.napps.org/docket/09_jan_feb/International-Service.pdf.  Ingalls cautions, 
“HOWEVER, it is very important to point out that although ‘ALLOWED’, it must also be 
noted that such service would not always be accepted as valid for the purpose of later 
enforcing a judgment in that country, especially in default situations.”  Id. (emphasis in 
original). 
288 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 201. 
342 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
teleologically,289 there is not much point to the Bankston approach, 
since it leads to the conclusion that the Convention does not apply 
to the service of the most important instrument in any proceeding, 
the writ of summons, but that it does apply to the transmission of 
instruments of secondary importance, such as procedural 
documents.290 
The Handbook puts it bluntly: 
[The Conference] rejects Bankston . . . and advocates the reasoning 
underlying [the Second Circuit’s ruling in] Ackermann [v. 
Levine291] and clearly expressed [by the Ninth Circuit] in 
Brockmeyer [v. May292]: Service by mail under Article 10(a) is 
possible and effective under two cumulative conditions: (i) the State 
of destination must not have objected to this method; and (ii) the 
conditions set for the lex fori for valid service by mail must be 
met.293 
J.  Send It to the Dead Letter Office 
The Bankston court fails to cite any authority on how treaties 
should be interpreted.  It does not consider the document as a whole.  
Nor does it address proper rules for interpreting treaties, the history 
from the drafting of the Convention, the legislative history of the 
ratification, the opinions of the State Department, the views of other 
parties to the treaty, or the documents of the Hague Conference.294  
Bankston looks at one element in isolation and, while gazing at a 
single tree by a misguided use of one of the canons of statutory 
construction, thereby misses the forest of evidence that service of 
process by mail is allowed. 
It is the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.295  
And that duty extends to ascertaining just what treaties mean.296  
 
289 Teleology is “the belief or theory that certain phenomena or acts are to be explained 
in terms of purpose or intention.”  2 SHORTER OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON 
HISTORICAL PRINCIPLES 3199 (Angus Stevenson ed. 6th ed. 2006).  See also C.H. 
Schreuer, The Interpretation of Treaties by Domestic Courts, 45 BRIT. Y.B. INT’L L. 255, 
279–83 (1971) (section titled “The ‘Object and Purpose’ Doctrine (Teleological 
Approach)”). 
290 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 222. 
291 788 F.2d 830. 
292 383 F.3d 798. 
293 PRACTICAL HANDBOOK, supra note 13, at ¶ 223. 
294 Compare Bankston’s meager analysis, 889 F.2d 172, with two excellent opinions on 
the send/serve controversy that survey all these things: Quinn v. Keinicke, 700 A.2d 147 
(Del. Super. Ct. 1996) and The Knit With v. Knitting Fever, Inc., No. 08-4221 & 08-4775, 
2010 WL 2788203, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70412, at *16–24 (E.D. Pa. July 13, 2010). 
295 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177 (Marshall, C.J.). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 343 
Justice Blackmun observed, “relatively few judges are experienced in 
the area” of transnational litigation.297  Thus the divergent views on 
the Hague Convention are understandable.  But as “[e]very 
authoritative analysis of the Convention . . . explicitly recognizes the 
establishment of mail service by [A]rticle 10(a),”298 the only sensible 
approach is to find mail service is permissible under the Hague 
Convention.  Because of the circuit split among the Second, Fifth, 
Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, and the divergent views of state 
courts on this issue, the Supreme Court should grant certiorari to 
resolve the question.  Bankston and those cases relying upon it ought 
to be overruled.299 
VI 
CASE STUDY: ENQUIP V. TYCON 
An Ohio state trial court recently confronted the “send” versus 
“serve” issue and whether service on an American agent obviated 
service abroad.  The court was the Greene County Court of Common 
Pleas in Xenia.  The case was Enquip Technologies Group, Inc. v. 
Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l.300  It concerned a maker of glass-lined 
equipment.  In glass, said Dr. Johnson, is “concealed so many 
 
296 See The Frances Louise (United States v. 3,500 Cases of Alcohol), 1 F.2d 1004, 
1006 (D.C. Cir. 1924); United States v. Domestic Fuel Corp., 71 F.2d 424, 430 (C.C.P.A. 
1934). 
297 Société Nationale Industrielle Aérospatiale, 482 U.S. at 553 (Blackmun, J., 
concurring in part and dissenting in part).  Cf. Burbank, The Reluctant Partner, supra note 
205, at 145 (making similar observation as to the judges and other lawyers who serve on 
the committees revising rules of procedure). 
298 Magnarini, supra note 139, at 677. 
299 Bankston, 889 F.2d 172. 
300 Greene Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. No. 2008-CV-1276, originally filed as Montgomery Cty. 
Ct. Com. Pl. No. 2008-CV-5992 (Montgomery County court granted motion to transfer on 
grounds of improper venue).  Five appeals to the Second District Court of Appeals have 
been taken: Enquip Techs. Grp., Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., Greene App. Nos. 2009-
CA-42 & 2009-CA-47, 2010-Ohio-28, 2010 WL 53151, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 21 (Ohio 
Ct. App. 2010) (affirming dismissal of one third-party defendant; reversing dismissal of 
third-party defendants Thaletec, GmbH., and Karl Bergmann; and affirming an order 
compelling discovery), juris. denied 927 N.E.2d 11 (Ohio 2010); Enquip Techs. Grp., Inc. 
v. Robbins & Myers, Inc., Greene Appeal No. 2009-CA-44 (dismissed by the Second 
District on Aug. 21, 2009); Enquip Techs. Grp., Inc. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., Greene 
App. No. 2010-CA-23, 2010-Ohio-6100, 2010 WL 5123395, 2010 Ohio App. LEXIS 
5126 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. Dec. 10, 2010) (affirming dismissal of third-party defendants 
Thaletec, GmbH., and Karl Bergmann). Previously the case was filed as Naidel v. 
Wallace, No. 2007-CA-010950-NC (Sarasota Cty., Fla., Cir. Ct.), removed as No. 8:07-cv-
01827 (M.D. Fla.), and voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs.  Another proceeding 
between the parties was R&M Italia, S.p.A. v. Enquip Techs. Grp., Inc., No. D2007-1477 
(World Intellectual Prop. Org. Arbitration and Mediation Ctr. Dec. 7, 2007), available at 
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1477.html. 
344 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
conveniences of life . . . [and] a great part of the happiness of the 
world.”301 
“Some cases tax the anxious diligence of a court, not by their 
difficulty, but [by] their simplicity.”302  This was not one of them.  
The pleadings displayed a “Herculean strength of forensic ability,”303 
whose sources “from the four corners of the earth they c[a]me.”304  
The international and foreign law materials cited to the court nearly 
fill a single-spaced page in ten-point type.305 
The case arose from the breakdown in the business relationship 
between an Italian manufacturer and its North American sales 
representatives, who sold the manufacturer’s products to customers in 
the chemical and pharmaceutical businesses.306  The manufacturer, 
Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., is in the business of making glass-lined 
chemical reactors and equipment used by chemical and 
pharmaceutical makers. 
Robert W. and Jeffery L. Naidel—Robert is Jeffrey’s father—and 
their company Enquip, incorporated in Florida, were the sales 
representatives for Tycon and its corporate predecessors.  After 
several years working with Enquip, the manufacturer terminated the 
representation.  Tycon claimed Enquip had improperly entered into 
arrangements with one of Tycon’s competitors, failed to abide by 
their terms of their contract, and, in Tycon’s words, engaged in acts 
“incompatible with effective business cooperation.” 
Enquip then sued for breach of contract, failure to pay money 
owed, tortious interference, and fraud.  The defendants were Tycon; 
its immediate parent, Robbins & Myers Italia, S.r.l.; its ultimate 
parent, Robbins & Myers, Inc., based in Greene County; and a sister 
company owned by the ultimate parent, Pfaudler, Inc., which makes 
the same equipment as Tycon.307  Thanks to its subsidiaries Tycon 
 
301 SAMUEL JOHNSON, The Rambler, No. 9, Apr. 17, 1750, in 1 SAMUEL JOHNSON, 
THE WORKS OF SAMUEL JOHNSON, LL.D. 26 (3d Complete Am. ed. 1846). 
302 Wells v. City of Savannah, 13 S.E. 442, 442 (Ga. 1891). 
303 Livingston v. Jefferson, 15 F. Cas. 660, 661 (C.C.D. Va. 1811) (No. 8,411). 
304 WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, MERCHANT OF VENICE act II, sc. 2, l. 208. 
305 The full list appears at Enquip Techs. Grp. v. Tycon Technoglass, S.r.l., No. 2008-
CV-1276, 2010 WL 3720978 ¶ 1 n.1 (Greene Cty. Ct. Com. Pl. Mar. 23, 2010) (order 
appointing an expert on Italian law). 
306 Rather than add scores more footnotes to this Article, the Author notes that 
information on Enquip v. Tycon throughout Part VI is taken from the Court’s revised 
opinion on the Hague Convention, not reported, but available at 2009 WL 2588197 (Aug. 
24, 2009) (Wolaver, J.). 
307 This is the corporate family tree: Robbins & Myers, Inc., an Ohio corporation, owns 
Robbins & Myers Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which in turn owns Pfaudler,  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 345 
and Pfaudler, Robbins & Myers claims to “have the number one 
worldwide market position . . . for quality glass-lined reactors and 
storage vessels.”308 
The defendants filed counterclaims against Enquip and the Naidels.  
Tycon and Pfaudler impleaded new defendants, a German company, 
Thaletec, GmbH.,309 and a principal of it, Karl Bergmann.  They 
claimed Thaletec and Bergmann conspired with Enquip and the 
Naidels to steal their business.310 
A.  Grazie, Santo Gabriel 
Upon filing, the Clerk of Courts was instructed to serve Tycon by 
certified mail to Ron Stella, who Tycon identified on its website as its 
“technical sales representative” and apparently became the American 
contact point for Tycon after its relationship with Enquip ended.  
Stella was an employee of Pfaudler at its headquarters in Rochester, 
New York.  Tycon and Italia were to be served by registered mail at 
Tycon’s office in San Donà di Piave, Italy, a town seventeen miles 
northwest of la Serenissima, the city wedded to the sea. 
A green domestic return receipt—Postal Service Form 3811—
showed the complaint was delivered to Stella.  Two pink international 
return receipts—Postal Service Form 2865—showed the Italian postal 
service delivered the complaint to Tycon and Italia eight days after it 
 
which is incorporated in Delaware.  Holdings also owns Robbins & Myers, N.V., which is 
organized in the Dutch Antilles.  That company owns Romaco International, B.V., a Dutch 
corporation.  Romaco owns Robbins & Myers Italia, headquartered in Bologna, Italy. 
Italia owns 99 percent of Tycon, headquartered in San Donà di Piave, Italy.  Romaco also 
owns Pfaudler Werke, GmbH. 
308 ROBBINS & MYERS, INC., ANNUAL REPORT TO THE U.S. SECURITIES AND 
EXCHANGE COMMISSION ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED AUG. 31, 2009, at 5 (Oct. 
26, 2009), available at http://investorrelations.robn.com. 
309 The experts at Merriam-Webster say the city’s name should be pronounced “‘tä-lə.” 
MERRIAM-WEBSTER’S GEOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY 1177 (Daniel J. Hopkins ed., 3d ed. 
1997).  Even though the Author is not ’Enry ’Iggins, he believes the company name should 
be pronounced TAHH-lee-tek. 
310 A German member of the corporate family has lodged similar accusations against 
Thaletec in the German courts.  See Pfaudler Werke, GmbH. v. Thaletec, GmbH., 
Landgericht Mannheim [Mannheim District Court] No. 7 O 51/09 (main case, filed Mar. 9, 
2009, which is stayed as of Oct. 2, 2009, because of ongoing criminal investigation by 
German authorities); Pfaudler Werke, GmbH. v. Thaletec, GmbH., Landgerich Mannheim 
No. 7 O 137/09 (request for an injunction, filed July 3, 2009, which was denied on Aug. 
14, 2009); Pfaudler Werke, GmbH. v. Thaletec, GmbH., Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe 
[Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe], No. 6 U 142/09 (appeal of denial of injunction in 
Mannheim No. 7 O 137/09, which was affirmed Dec. 23, 2009); Pfaudler Werke, GmbH. 
v. Thaletec, GmbH., Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe No. 6 W 83/09 (appeal of stay granted 
in Mannheim No. 7 O 51/09). 
346 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
was dispatched by the Clerk.  Counsel for Tycon and Italia timely 
appeared to answer the complaint. 
Enquip then filed an amended complaint. Enquip instructed the 
Clerk to formally serve it.  The Clerk sent it via certified mail to 
Tycon and Robbins & Myers in care of Peter C. Wallace at his office.  
Wallace was the chief executive of Robbins & Myers.  Both mailings 
were returned by the post office marked “refused.”  Enquip then 
asked for service to be repeated by ordinary first-class mail.311  That 
was successful. 
Enquip also asked for the sheriff to serve the papers on Wallace to 
be absolutely sure they were received.  But the sheriff was turned 
away because nobody in the office would come out to accept the 
papers.  The defendants denied the service was refused—they claimed 
Wallace was not in the office the day the sheriff appeared, but the 
sheriff’s return says service was refused. 
Finally, Enquip had the Clerk send two more certified mailings to 
Robbins & Myers’s statutory agent, CSC Lawyers Incorporating 
Service, addressed to “Robbins & Myers, Inc., as Agent for Its 
Subsidiary” with each being named.  These mailings were 
successfully delivered. 
In their answers, all the defendants asserted the boilerplate defense 
of insufficient service of process.  The Court then ordered the 
defendants to either assert their service defenses by an appropriate 
motion or else waive them.  Because two of the defendants were 
based overseas, the court specifically asked the parties to address how 
the Hague Service Convention affected the case. 
Robbins & Myers and Pfaudler chose to waive their defenses on 
service.  Tycon and Italia both insisted registered mail service is 
forbidden under the Hague Convention and they should have been 
served through the Italian central authority.  They pointed to two Ohio 
Court of Appeals decisions from the district Greene County is situated 
in, the Second District.  Both, based on Bankston, held service by 
mail is not allowed.312  Italia objected it was served at Tycon’s 
address, claiming its registered office was in Bologna not San Donà di 
Piave.  Tycon further objected Stella is not one of its officers or 
managers, so serving him also was defective.313 
 
311 See OHIO R. CIV. P. 4.6(c). 
312 Meek v. Nova Steel Processing, Inc., 706 N.E.2d 374 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997); Okubo, 
2002-Ohio-2624. 
313 Compare OHIO R. CIV. P. 4.2(f) (service on the corporation effected “by serving the 
agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process; or by serving the  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 347 
The Second District’s decision in Meek v. Nova Steel Processing 
cites nothing but Bankston as authority.  It noted, but rejected, the 
contrary view expressed in Ackermann.314  The Second District 
revisited the issue in Okubo v. Shimizu.  That case looked back on the 
Second District’s earlier reliance on Bankston and rejected a federal 
case supporting mail service presented by the plaintiff.315 
Other Ohio courts have made similarly shallow examinations of the 
subject.  The First Appellate District in ruling mail service is 
forbidden cited only to one of the Second District decisions and a 
Northern District of Ohio decision.316  (The federal decision it cited 
did not in fact reject mail service in general but only mail service to 
Germany, correctly observing that nation had filed an objection to 
service by mail.)317  And the Ninth Appellate District looked at the 
“send” versus “service” issue only through other cases and no primary 
materials.318 
The Greene County Common Pleas Court rejected these decisions 
based on an examination of the text of the Convention as a whole, the 
views of the State Department, the legislative history, foreign 
constructions of the treaty, and the Hague Conference’s own 
statements.  (One should take “every thing from which aid can be 
derived.”)319  It held that because Article 10 allows what is not 
expressly prohibited, mail service is allowed if no objection was filed. 
The Court then turned to the specific example of Italy.  That nation 
is a party to the Convention.320  Italy could have objected to service 
by mail; however, it has not done so.321  The State Department advises 
litigants “International service of process by registered mail is 
 
corporation by certified or express mail at any of its usual places of business; or by serving 
an officer or a managing or general agent of the corporation”) with Lafayette Ins. Co. v. 
French, 59 U.S. (18 How.) 404, 408 (1855) (Curtis, J.) (valid service may be made on 
corporation’s agent even if agent not expressly designated for receipt of process). 
314 Meek, 706 N.E.2d at 376–77. 
315 Okubo, 2002-Ohio-2624, at ¶ 13, discussing Schiffer, 192 F.R.D. 335.  The Okubo 
court called Schiffer “masterful” before completely rejecting it. 
316 Collins v. Collins, 844 N.E.2d 910, ¶ 8 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006) (citing Okubo, 2002-
Ohio-2624); Lyman Steel, 747 F. Supp. 389. 
317 Lyman Steel, 747 F. Supp. at 400. 
318 In re D.C., Summit App. No. 23484, 2007-Ohio-2344, 2007 WL 1427471, 2007 
Ohio App. LEXIS 2205 ¶¶ 22–28 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). 
319 United States v. Fisher, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 358, 386 (1805) (Marshall, C.J.). 
320 2 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at A-56.  For 
cooperation on service before the Convention, see Riccardo Gori-Montanelli & David A. 
Botwick, International Judicial Assistance—Italy, 9 INT’L LAW. 717, 718–21 (1975). 
321 MARTINDALE-HUBBELL at IC-8. 
348 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
allowed in Italy.”322  Courts have found that as no objection was 
made, mail service to Italy is therefore allowed.323 
As for Italia, the court found that Tycon, a subsidiary of Italia, was 
its agent.  Tycon signed for the letter instead of refusing it.324  The 
court also felt Italia’s actual receipt of notice further proved the 
agency relationship.325 
B.  Service Domestically Was Valid 
The plaintiff alleged the defendants were the alter egos of each 
other.  Since the defendants failed to supply evidence to contradict the 
plausible and legally sustainable allegations in the complaint, the 
court assumed them to be true.326  The court assumed that all the 
defendants were operated as each other’s alter egos; their separate 
corporate existences were ignored.327  Therefore, service on one was 
service on them all.  This conclusion was supported by the fact that all 
the companies had actual notice of this lawsuit, as evidenced by their 
timely answers to it. 
As for Tycon, there was an additional basis for holding service on 
it was proper.  Tycon’s website lists Ron Stella as the company’s 
American agent.  The Clerk served Stella with the complaint.  There 
is a certified mail receipt showing he received it.  As Tycon held out 
to the world that Stella is its agent, service on him was proper.  “It is 
 
322 U.S. Dep’t of State, Italy Judicial Assistance, http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial 
/judicial_653.html. 
323 E.g., Eli Lilly, 23 F. Supp. 2d at 474; R. Griggs Grp., 920 F. Supp. at 1107–08; 
Robins v. Max Mara U.S.A., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 460, 469 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); G.A. Modefine, 
S.A. v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 164 F.R.D. 24, 25 (S.D.N.Y. 1995).  
Contra Hantover, Inc. v. Omet, S.N.C. of Volentieri & C., 688 F. Supp. 1377, 1385 (W.D. 
Mo. 1988); Nuovo Pignone, 310 F.3d at 384; Camphor Techs., Inc. v. Biofer, S.p.A., 916 
A.2d 142, 147 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007). 
324 See In re D.C., 2007-Ohio-3744, at ¶ 29 (documents addressed to party signed for at 
foreign address presumed to have been received by the party). 
325 See Case 8/56, Acciaierie Laminatoi Magliano Alpi, S.p.A. v. High Auth. of the 
European Coal & Steel Cmty., 1957–1958 E.C.R. 95, 99 (1957) (registered mail service 
upon company at an address other than of its registered office was valid because company 
acknowledged receiving it). 
326 See Byrd v. Faber, 565 N.E.2d 584, 589 (Ohio 1991) (“all the factual allegations . . . 
must be taken as true and all reasonable inferences must be drawn in favor of the 
nonmoving party”) (citing Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 532 N.E.2d 753, 756 (Ohio 
1988)). 
327 Cf. Mirrow v. Club Med, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 418 (E.D. Pa. 1986) (foreign parent 
exercised control over its subsidiary in the British Virgin Islands, to which the Convention 
applies, thus serving subsidiary served parent).  See also Canterbury Belts, 869 F.2d at 40 
(subsidiaries’ activities attributed to the parent for determining personal jurisdiction). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 349 
no different,” wrote the court, from cases “where ticket and telegraph 
agents were served process for their companies.”328 
By effectively serving Robbins & Myers, Pfaudler, and Ron Stella, 
the court found service was also perfected on the affiliated companies 
Tycon and Robbins & Myers Italia within the United States.  As 
service was made domestically there was no need to send documents 
abroad.  Thus the Hague Convention was inapplicable. 
C.  The German Defendants 
As for the defendants impleaded into the case, the court quashed 
service against them.  Thaletec and Bergmann were sent papers by 
mail per the instructions of Tycon and Pfaudler.  (The Court noted the 
incongruity of Tycon objecting to service of defendants abroad by 
using the same registered mail service it claimed was invalid as to the 
process served upon it.)  The Clerk mailed registered letters to their 
German addresses.  The German post office returned the mailing to 
Bergmann as undeliverable because the addressee was not known at 
the address used.  (The Court subsequently was told he resided in 
Switzerland and had never lived at the German address initially used.)  
There was no effective service on Bergmann.  But a return receipt 
showed the mailing to Thaletec was successful. 
Germany ratified the Hague Convention in 1979329 but has objected 
to service by mail.330  Many courts have accepted that no mail service 
to Germany is effective and have quashed such attempts at service.331  
The Greene County Court did likewise.  Unlike Tycon and Italia, no 
service had been perfected on Thaletec or its agents within the United 
States.  Mailings to Enquip and the Naidels, which attempted to serve 
them as agents for the third-party defendants, were refused by them. 
Ultimately, summonses and complaints were translated into 
German by Tycon and Pfaudler, then dispatched abroad by the Clerk 
of Courts.  Within a few weeks Thaletec and Bergmann were both 
served through the appropriate central authorities in Germany and 
 
328 Enquip, 2009 WL 2588197, at ¶ 67. 
329 Porsche, 177 Cal. Rptr. at 158.  See also 2 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL 
ASSISTANCE, supra note 13, at A-49. 
330 MARTINDALE-HUBBELL at IC-7. 
331 E.g., Collins, 844 N.E.2d 910, ¶ 9; Ward v. Ludwig, 778 N.E.2d 650 (Ohio Ct. App. 
2002); Lyman, 747 F. Supp. at 400; Porsche, 177 Cal. Rptr. 158; Brown v. Bellaplast 
Maschinenbau, 104 F.R.D. 585 (E.D. Pa. 1985); Harris v. Browning-Ferris Indus. Chem. 
Servs., Inc., 100 F.R.D. 775 (M.D. La. 1984); Kassir, 153 F.R.D. 580; Rhodes v. J.P. 
Sauer & Sohn, Inc., 98 F. Supp.2d 746 (W.D. La. 2000); Delta Constructors, 259 F.R.D. 
245. 
350 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Switzerland and the certificates were returned by the foreign officials 
to the Clerk of Courts.  Thus service was perfected on both. 
VII 
SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED, YOU’RE SERVED 
Of course, just because service may be valid in the United States 
without recourse to the Convention’s central authorities, a prudent 
attorney would be advised to use a “belt-and-suspenders” approach to 
service and effect it through international mail, a domestic agent, and 
the foreign central authority.332  (And send everything certified or 
registered mail with return receipts.)  In drafting contracts, an attorney 
should insert a clause requiring the foreign party appoint an American 
agent for receipt of process or expressly consenting to service upon 
the Secretary of State.333  One must be careful to serve the documents 
in compliance with the rules of the forum, which have tripped up 
many litigants.334  “The only universal principle guiding this choice 
[of service methods] is to exercise caution.”335 
And even where a foreign nation does not require translation,336 it 
would be advisable to translate the documents to avoid any due 
process arguments at home or abroad.337  One way the translation 
 
332 See Rathke, supra note 110, at 49; Hawkins, supra note 9, at 231–23; Peterson, 
supra note 114, at 575 (1985) (“The Central Authority mechanism is both the centerpiece 
of the Convention and probably the best way to insure adequate notice”); Reisenfeld, 
supra note 47, at 60–61 (advising counsel to use redundant methods of service); Kenneth 
B. Reisenfeld, “The Usual Suspects”: Six Common Defense Strategies in Cross-Border 
Litigation ch. 9, at 77 in INTERNATIONAL LITIGATION STRATEGIES AND PRACTICE 
(Barton Legum ed. 2005); Henry J. Moravec, Service of Process Abroad—Is There 
Anything Left After Volkswagenwerk, A.G. v. Schlunk?, 12 LOY. L.A. INT’L & COMP. L.J. 
317, 339 (1989) (warning that servic on a statutorily appointed agent, e.g., a state official, 
may make any judgment awarded invalid on due process grounds). 
333 Cf. Pittsburgh Nat. Bank, 153 F.R.D. at 584–85. 
334 E.g., Ballard v. Tyco Int’l, Ltd., MDL No. 02-1335 & Civ. No. 04-CV-1336, 2005 
WL 1863492, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16054 (D.N.H. Aug. 4, 2005) (finding mail service 
to England was permitted by the Convention but quashing service because the documents’ 
mailing did not comply with the Federal Rules). 
335 Reisenfeld, supra note 47, at 56.  See also Mark Davies & David S. Weinstock, The 
Service of Process Overseas, 11 NAT’L L. J., Oct. 3, 1988, at 15 (headline on p. 16 after 
the jump is “If In Doubt Serve Both Domestically and Abroad”). 
336 In Shoei Kako, 109 Cal. Rptr. at 402, the court ruled translation of documents served 
upon a Japanese corporation heavily involved in international trade was unnecessary 
because its management had to understand English to transact its business.  Some foreign 
companies are trying to operate exclusively in English, even for things as unrelated to 
international commerce as the menus in the company cafeteria.  Daisuke Wakabayashi, 
English Gets the Last Word in Japan, WALL ST. J., Aug. 6, 2010, at B1. 
337 Cf. Covey v. Town of Somers, 351 U.S. 141 (1956) (Warren, C.J.) (due process was 
violated when plaintiff used service by publication as sole means of notice and received  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 351 
expense can be minimized is to write the complaint as succinctly as 
possible, translate it, and then serve that document.  If the defendant 
does not appear, a default judgment can be obtained; if he does 
appear, then a detailed amended complaint can be served untranslated 
on his American counsel.  Either scenario avoids the need to translate 
a lengthy document.338 
The committee notes to the 1993 revision to Rule 4 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure suggest asking the defendant to waive 
service, otherwise he could be taxed the costs of formal service, 
including translation expenses.339  But attorneys should go ahead and 
formally serve the papers because a foreign litigant has little reason to 
sign the waiver. 
Above all, attorneys should consider this question: where are the 
defendant’s assets?  If they are outside the United States, counsel 
should jump through every hoop and dot every procedural “i” if there 
is any chance the plaintiff might enforce a judgment abroad.340  In 
other words, follow the counsel of Sgt. Esterhaus: “Let’s be careful 
out there.”341 
FINALMENTE 
The Convention was adopted to simplify service abroad, and 
reading Article 10 to require the mandatory use of the costly and 
cumbersome central authority process turns a blind eye to that 
purpose.342  Treaties should be given a liberal construction to give 
effect to the intentions of the parties.343  And they should be construed 
to “extract rules applicable to the actual problems for the solution of 
 
default judgment against a defendant the plaintiff knew was mentally incompetent and 
thus unable to respond). 
338 Peterson, supra note 114, at 575–76. 
339 See Committee Note of 1993 to Amendment, reprinted in 1 MOORE’S FEDERAL 
PRACTICE, supra note 52, § 4.App.09[2], at 4App-58.  f. Sheets v. Yamaha Motors Corp. 
U.S.A., 657 F. Supp. 319, 323 (E.D. La. 1997) (sanctioning defendant for unnecessarily 
requiring service via central authority mechanism) aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 849 F.2d 179 
(5th Cir.1988).  This case is discussed in Peter D.Trooboff & Peter J. Spiro, International 
Decision, 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 580 (1988). 
340 See Gary N. Horlick, A Practical Guide to United States Service Abroad, 14 INT’L 
LAW. 637, 638 (1980); Reisenfeld, supra note 47, at 58 (1990). 
341 See Peter Kerr, Michael Conrad, 58, Won Emmy for Role in “Hill Street Blues,” 
N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 23, 1983, at B3; David Bianculli, How Will ‘Hill Street’ Open Now?, 
PHILA. INQUIRER, Nov. 23, 1983, at D12. 
342 Armstrong, supra note 159, at 590.  See also Tamari v. Bache & Co. (Lebanon), 
S.A.L., 431 F. Supp. 1226 (N.D. Ill. 1977) (refusing to void personal service in the case or 
order defendant be served through the central authority mechanism). 
343 Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U.S. 5 (1936) (Hughes, C.J.). 
352 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
which [the treaty] was sought to provide.”344  The Supreme Court also 
tells us that America cannot have international trade solely on its own 
terms.345  But just because America operates on the world stage, its 
courts should not be required to grant foreigners special privileges.346  
Reading the Convention to require use of the central authorities runs 
counter to the purpose of the treaty, privileges foreign defendants at 
the expense of American plaintiffs, and ignores vast evidence to the 
contrary. 
 
344 Kozuh v. Uff. Stato Civile di Milano, as translated in 23 I.L.R. 322, 326, (Court of 
Appeals of Milan) Mar. 18, 1952, Foro Padano, 1952, p. 554. 
345 The M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 8–9 (1972) (Burger, C.J.). 
346 Quinn, 700 A.2d at 156 (refusing to interpret the Convention as giving a foreigner 
more rights than a citizen of Delaware).  See also Chryssikos v. Demarco, 107 A. 358 
(Md. 1919) (courts “are not required . . . to give a strained construction to the language of 
a treaty, or place an unreasonable interpretation upon it, for the purpose of securing to 
foreigners privileges which are denied citizens of this country”); Universal Adjustment 
Corp. v. Midlands Bank, Ltd., 184 N.E. 152 (Mass. 1933) (“a treaty [is] not to be given a 
strained construction or an unreasonable interpretation in order to vouchsafe to aliens 
rights and privileges denied to citizens”); Hardoy v. Universidad Nacional de Buenos 
Aires, as translated in 7 ANN. DIG. 442, 443–44 (Arg. Sup. Ct. Aug. 21, 1933) [Corte 
Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [CSJN] [Supreme Court of Justice], Colección Oficial de 
Fallos de la Corte Suprema de Justicia de la Nación [Fallos], (1933-168-414)] (treaty 
construction that would favor aliens over natives must fail). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 353 
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF JURISDICTIONS1 
It may help practicitioners to have a list of jurisdictions acceding to 
the Convention.  
After the Convention has been ratified or applied to a territory, 
“Adhere” indicates when notice of that fact was deposited with the 
Dutch Foreign Ministry.  (Dates are given in the American style, i.e. 
month/date/year.)  This date may be significantly different than the 
date the jurisdiction signed or ratified the Convention.  (For example, 
the United States signed the Convention on November 15, 1965, and 
ratified it April 14, 1967.  But the Foreign Ministry lists the date 
below—August 24, 1967—because on that day the American 
ratification was deposited.  Germany signed the treaty the same day as 
the United States but did not deposit its ratification until April 27, 
1979.)  The dates listed are also different from the dates of deposit 
recorded by the United Nations on its website; the United Nations 
gives the dates on which the U.N. Treaty Section received the 
documents from the Dutch Foreign Ministry. 
“Effective” is the effective date for the Convention in that 
jurisdiction.  For former British colonies as well as the Czech 
Republic and Slovakia, dates are given to indicate when the 
Convention was first applied to the territory. The new government’s 
accession to the Convention is indicated by the second row of dates. 
“Notice” gives volume/page references to the United Nations 
Treaty Series for the accession and initial declarations of a 
jurisdiction.  Subsequent notices are listed in this column as well, 
without effective dates. 
“Additional Information” indicates subsequent notices published in 
U.N.T.S. in the same format, along with further details keyed below.  
  
 
1 The entire United Nations Treaty Series is available in pdf format on the website of 
the United Nations at http://treaties.un.org/Pages/AdvanceSearch.aspx.  The declarations 
and central authorities are reprinted in several sources: MARTINDALE-HUBBELL 
INTERNATIONAL LAW DIGEST IC-1 (2006); 2 BRUNO A. RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL 
JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL (2000); the website of the Hague 
Conference on Private International Law, http://www.hcch.net/ index_en.php?act 
=conventions.statusprint&cid=17; and the website of the Convention’s depository, the 
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, http://www.minbuza.nl/en/Key_Topics/Treaties/Search 
_the_Treaty_Database?isn=004235.  They are listed in this table where information has 
changed from Martindale-Hubbell or is incomplete. 
354 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
Albania2 11/06/06 07/01/07 a b 
Anguilla3 08/03/82 09/28/82 1286/384 bcfi 
Antigua & 
  Barbuda4 
05/20/70 
05/01/85 
07/19/70 
11/01/81 
737/408 
1401/264 
bc 
1477/274be 
Argentina 02/02/01 12/01/01 2165/201 bhi 
Aruba 05/28/86 07/27/86 1434/261 b 
Ascension5 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Australia6 03/15/10 11/01/10 a bci 
Azores7 
 
12/27/73 
 
02/25/74 
 
955/470 
2100/104 
2057/22 
 
Bahamas  06/17/97 02/01/98 2001/402 bc 
Barbados 02/10/69 10/01/69 700/376 bc 
Belarus 06/06/97 02/01/98 8 b 
 
2 The Albanian accession is noted at Implementation of Uniform Law Instruments, 11 
UNIF. L. REV. (N.S.) 884, 885 (2006).  The Albanian Central Authority is: Ministry of 
Justice, Bulevardi Zogu I, Tirana.  Tel: (355) 4-22-59-388. 
3 The Anguillan Central Authority is: The Registrar, The Supreme Court, P.O. Box 60, 
The Valley.  Tel: (264) 497-2377.  Fax: (264) 497-5420. 
4 Antigua and Barbuda had the Convention applied to it by the United Kingdom when 
still a colony.  It became independent November 1, 1981, and subsequently filed an 
accession to the convention.  It has two central authorities: (1) The Governor-General, 
Government House, Church Street at Independence Drive, St. Johns. Tel: (268) 562-3081. 
Fax: (268) 462-2566; and (2) The Registrar, The High Court, Parliament Drive, St. Johns.  
Tel: (268) 462-0609.  Fax: (268) 462-3929. 
5 Use the St. Helena Central Authority.  E-mail from Frank Wastell, Attorney General, 
St. Helena Government, Jamestown, St. Helena, to Author (Sep. 3, 2010 08:34:33 GMT). 
Ascension has an airport but St. Helena does not. Wright v. Maersk Line, Ltd., 84 Fed. 
Appx. 123, 124 (2d Cir. 2003).  Mail to St. Helena arrives via ship, so any service through 
the central authority will take months. 
6 Australia has a national central authority and one in each state and territory.  Requests 
may be sent to either and the Australian government has no preference.  E-mail from 
Thomas John, Principal Legal Officer, Private International Law Section, Attorney-
General's Department, to Author (Sept. 28, 2010, 10:24:04 A.M. Australian Eastern Time).  
The national authority is: Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, 3-5 
National Circuit, Barton, Australian Capital Territory 2600.  Tel: (61) 2-6141-3055.  Fax: 
(61) 2-6141-5254.  The Australian declaration upon accession stated the Convention 
applies to all of its states and territories, as well as its possesions of the Ashmore and 
Cartier Islands, the Australian Antarctic Territory, Christmas Island, the Cocos Islands, the 
Coral Sea Islands, the Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and Norfolk Island. 
7 The Convention applies to the Azores, a Portuguese territory.  Use the Portuguese 
Central Authority. Letter from Bernardo Embry, American Embassy, Lisbon, to Author 
(n.d. but metered Sept. 7, 2010). 
8 Belarus’s accession was never submitted to the United Nations and thus does not 
appear in U.N.T.S.  E-mail from Bianca E. Suciu, Legal Officer, Treaty Section, Office of  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 355 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
Belgium 11/19/70 01/18/71 759/344 658/182 
Belize9 
 
05/20/70 
09/08/09 
07/19/70 
05/01/10 
737/408 
a 
bcfi 
bgg 
Bermuda10 05/20/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Bosnia & 
  Herzigovina11 06/16/08 02/01/09 
a b 
Botswana  02/10/69 09/01/69 700/376 955/470cgi 
British Virgin  
  Islands12 05/20/70 07/19/70 737/408 
bcfi 
Bulgaria  11/23/00 08/01/00 2121/294 bhi 
Canada13 09/26/88 05/01/89 1529/299 bci 
Cayman Islands14 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 1562/342 cfi 
People’s Republic 
  of China15 
05/06/91 
 
01/01/92 
 
1658/651 
2100/104 
 2100/106 h 
2133/188 
Croatia16 02/28/06 11/01/06 a bhi 
 
Legal Affairs, United Nations, New York, N.Y., to Author (Aug. 25, 2010, 10:26:59 
EDT). 
9 Belize had the Convention applied to it by the United Kingdom when it was the 
colony of British Honduras.  It became independent September 21, 1981, and subsequently 
filed an accession.  There was a dispute in the American courts over the status of the 
convention.  Compare Mayoral-Amy v. BHI Corp., 180 F.R.D. 456, 459 (S.D. Fla. 1998) 
(Belize’s status is ambiguous) with Sec. & Exchange Comm’n v. Banner Fund Int’l, 211 
F.3d 602, 613 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (Belize proven by S.E.C. to be a party to Convention) and 
with In re Jacobsen (Moser v. Coast Capital, Ltd.), No. 07-41092 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. Jan. 
23, 2009) (Belize is not a party to the Convention.).  This dispute is now moot because 
Belize has formally acceded to the Convention.  The Belizean Central Authority is: The 
Registrar General, The Supreme Court of Belize, Treasury Lane, P.O. Box 87, Belize City.  
Tel: (501) 227-2053.  Fax: (501) 227-0181.  E-mail from Velda Flowers, Registrar 
General, Supreme Court of Belize, to Author (Aug. 31, 2010 11:20:51 PDT). 
10 The Bermudian Central Authority is: The Registry, The Supreme Court, 113 Front 
Street, Hamilton HM 11.  Tel: (441) 292-1350.  Fax: (441) 292-2268. 
11 The Bosnian Central Authority is: Ministry of Justice, Square of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina No. 1, 71000 Sarajevo.  Tel: (387) 33-223-501.  Fax: (387) 33-223-504. 
12 The B.V.I. Central Authority is: The Registrar, The Supreme Court, P.O. Box 418, 
Road Town, Tortola.  Tel: (284) 494-3074.  Fax: (284) 494-6664. 
13 Canada’s translation requirements depend on the province.  For Alberta, British 
Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and 
Saskatchewan the documents must be in English.  For Manitoba, New Brunswick, the 
Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the Yukon Territory they must be in English or 
French.  For Quebec they must be in a language the recipient understands.  A translation 
will be required by Quebec into French unless the recipient speaks English. 
14 The Cayman Islands Central Authority is: The Clerk of Courts, Grand Court of the 
Cayman Islands, Edward Street, P.O. Box 495, George Town KY1–1106, Grand Cayman.  
Tel: (345) 949-4296.  Fax: (345) 949-9856. 
15 China refuses to accept requests sent to its central authority by private delivery 
services.  They must be sent via mail.  PRACTICAL HANDBOOK at ¶ 105. 
356 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
Cyprus 10/26/82 06/01/83 1318/324 1352/337 
Czech Republic17 
 
04/01/82 
01/28/93 
06/01/82 
01/01/93 
1279/313 
1717/454 
bh 
b 
Denmark 08/02/69 10/01/69 700/372 b 
Egypt  12/12/68 02/10/69 658/184 1157/443h 
Estonia 02/02/96 10/01/96 1941/389 b 
Falkland Islands 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Faroe Islands18 08/02/69 10/01/69 700/372 b 
Fiji Islands19 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
Finland20 09/11/69 11/10/69 700/376 1276/501 
France 07/03/72 09/01/72 832/354 b 
French Guinea 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
French Polynesia 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Germany 04/27/79 06/26/79 658/182 1703/424hi 
Gibraltar21 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Greece 
 
07/20/83 
 
09/18/83 
 
1330/288 
2077/275 
1562/342 
2110/257 
Greenland22 08/02/69 10/01/69 700/372 b 
 
16 The Croatian accession is noted at Implementation of Uniform Law Instruments, 11 
UNIF. L. REV. (N.S.) 884, 885 (2006).  The Croatian Central Authority is: Ministry of 
Justice, Dezmanova 6 I 10, 10000 Zagreb.  Tel: (385) 1-3710-617.  Fax: (385) 1-3710-672. 
17 Czechoslovakia deposited a ratification of the Convention on September 23, 1981, 
which was effective June 1, 1982. 1279 U.N.T.S. 313.  Czechoslovakia split into the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia on January 1, 1993, and both nations succeeded to the 
Convention on the same terms. 
18 The Convention applies to the Faroe Islands, a Danish territory.  Use the Danish 
central authority.  Letter from Richard Bell, Acting Deputy Chief of Mission, Counselor 
for Political and Economic Affairs, American Embassy, Copenhagen, to Author (Aug. 17, 
2010). 
19 The Fiji Islands had the Convention applied to them by the United Kingdom when 
still a colony.  They became independent October 10, 1970, and no formal declaration of 
accession was filed.  2 RISTAU, INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE, at A-46.  
However, they have informed the State Department of a Central Authority: Chief 
Registrar, The High Court, Government Buildings, Suva.  The country’s name is legally 
“Fiji Islands.”  FIJI ISLANDS CONST., Art. 1. 
20 The Finnish government informed the Hague Conference in 2008 that: “A translation 
is not required; however, if the addressee does not accept a document in a foreign 
language, service can only be effected if the document is translated into one of the official 
languages of Finland, i.e., Finnish or Swedish, or if the addressee must be deemed to 
understand the foreign language.  Companies with international business relations must be 
deemed to understand English, German or French.” 
21 The Gibraltarian Central Authority is: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Gibraltar, 
277 Main Street, Gibraltar.  Tel: (350) 75608.  Fax: (350) 77118. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 357 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
Guam 08/24/67 02/10/69 658/182 b 
Guadeloupe23 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Guernsey24 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Hong Kong 
 
07/07/70 
06/16/97 
07/19/70 
07/01/97 
737/408 
1984/401 
ce 
 
Hungary 07/13/04 04/01/05 2308/73 bhi 
Iceland25 11/10/08 07/01/09 a b 
India26 11/23/06 08/01/07 a bchi 
Ireland  04/05/94 06/04/94 1775/371 1941/389ch 
Israel 08/14/72 10/13/72 835/315 b 
Isle of Man 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Italy 11/25/81 01/24/82 27 b 
Japan28 05/28/70 07/27/70 737/411 bi 
Jersey29 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Kiribati30 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfig 
 
22 The Convention applies to Greenland, a Danish territory.  Use the Danish central 
authority.  Letter from Richard Bell, Acting Deputy Chief of Mission, Counselor for 
Political and Economic Affairs, American Embassy, Copenhagen, to Author (Aug. 17, 
2010). 
23 Guadalupe includes the islands of Grande-Terre, Basse-Terre, St. Martin (the 
southern third of which is Dutch and known as Sint Maarten), Marei-Galante, St. 
Barthélemy, Îles des Sainte, and La Désirade. 
24 Guernsey includes the islands of Alderney, Brechou, Herm, Jethou, Lihou, Great 
Sark, and Little Sark.  The Guernsey Central Authority is: The Bailiff, The Bailiff’s 
Chambers, Royal Court House, St. Peter Port, Guernsey, GY1 2PB, Channel Islands.  Tel: 
(44) 1481-726161.  Fax: (44) 1481-713861. 
25 The Icelandic Central Authority is: Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, 
Skuggasundi, 150 Reykjavik.  Tel: (354) 545-9000.  Fax: (354) 552-7340. 
26 The Indian accession is noted at Implementation of Uniform Law Instruments, 11 
UNIF. L. REV. (N.S.) 884, 885 (2006).  The Indian Central Authority is: The Ministry of 
Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs, 4th Floor, A-Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New 
Delhi-110001.  Tel: (91) 11-23387557.  Fax: (91) 11-23384241. 
27 The Italian ratification was never submitted to the United Nations and thus does not 
appear in U.N.T.S.  E-mail from Bianca E. Suciu, Legal Officer, Treaty Section, Office of 
Legal Affairs United Nations, New York, N.Y., to Author (Aug. 25, 2010, 10:26:59 EDT). 
28 Japan has not formally objected to service by mail under Article 10(a) but its courts 
refuse to recognize judgments obtained with such service.  See Appendix B. 
29 The Jersey Central Authority is: The Attorney General, Law Officers’ Department, 
Morier House, Halkett Place, St. Helier, Jersey JE1 1DD, Channel Islands.  Tel: (44) 
1534-441200.  Fax: (44) 1534-441299. 
30 Kiribati and Tuvalu were formerly part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.  The 
colony was divided on October 1, 1975.  The Gilbert Islands became the independent 
nation of Kiribati on July 12, 1979.  Kiribati also includes the Central and Southern Line 
Islands, which were not part of the former Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony and were 
administered from Honiara, Solomon Islands, as part of the British High Commission for  
358 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
South Korea 01/13/00 08/01/00 2121/296 bh 
Kuwait 05/08/02 12/01/02 2204/504 2331/54h 
Latvia31   03/28/95 11/01/95 1893/388 i 
Lithuania  08/02/00 06/01/01 2152/213 bh 
Luxembourg32 07/09/75 09/07/75 1088/411 1098/317 h i 
Macao 
 
02/09/99 
 
04/12/99 
 
2057/22 
2100/104 
 
Macedonia33 12/23/08 09/01/09 a b 
Madeira34 
 
12/27/73 
 
02/25/74 
 
955/470 
2100/104¶ 
2057/22 
 
Malawi 04/24/72 12/01/72 854/222 b 
Martinique 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Mayotte 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Mexico35 11/02/99 06/01/00 2117/318 bhi 
Monaco36 03/01/07 11/01/07 a bh 
Montserrat37 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Netherlands38 11/03/75 01/02/76 a b 
 
the Western Pacific.  The Central and Southern Line Islands also had the Convention 
applied to them by the United Kingdom with a different central authority than the Gilbert 
and Ellice Islands. 
31 Latvia requires translation into Latvian or a language spoken by the recipient. Latvia 
permits service by mail if translated into Latvian and sent via registered mail with a return 
receipt. 
32 Luxembourg requires translation into French or German. 
33 The Macedonian Central Authority is: Ministry of Justice, Dimitrie Cupovski no. 9, 
1000 Skopje.  Tel: (389) 3117-277.  Fax: (389) 3226-975. 
34 The Convention applies to the Azores, a Portuguese territory.  Use the Portuguese 
Central Authority.  Letter from Bernardo Embry, American Embassy, Lisbon, to Author 
(n.d. but metered Sept. 7, 2010). 
35 Mexico’s declarations are unclear because of an issue with the translation into 
English and have been disputed in American courts.  A recent law review article 
conclusively shows that Mexico should be considered as having objected to service under 
Article 10.  See Charles B. Campbell, No Sirve: The Invalidity of Service of Process 
Abroad by Mail or Private Process Server on Parties in Mexico Under the Hague Service 
Convention, 19 MINN. J. INT’L L. 107 (2010). 
36 The Monégasque Central Authority is: Direction des Services Judiciaires, Palais de 
Justice, 5 rue Colonel Bellando de Castro, Monaco-Ville MC-98000.  Tel: (377) 98-98-88-
11.  Fax: (377 ) 98-98-85-89. 
37 The Montserratian Central Authority is: The Registrar of the High Court, P.O. Box 
418, Brades.  Tel: (664) 491-3827.  Fax: (664) 491-4687. 
38 The Netherlands acceptance of the Convention did not apply it to the Netherlands 
Antilles, which consisted of the islands of Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Estatius, and Sint 
Maarten (the northern part of which is French and known as St. Martin) until it was 
dissolved October 10, 2010.  It is unclear if the Convention will be extended to the 
successor jurisidictions.  Letter from Gerard van der Wulp, Deputy Chief of Mission,  
2010] Prego Signor Postino 359 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
New Caledonia 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Northern Mariana 
  Islands 03/31/94 05/30/94 1775/372 
b 
Norway 08/02/69 10/01/69 700/374 bh 
Pakistan39 12/07/88 08/01/89 1541/431 1562/343 
Pitcairn40 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Poland 02/13/96 09/01/96 1935/429 bh 
Portugal 
 
12/27/73 
 
02/25/74 
 
955/470 
2100/104 
2057/22 
 
Puerto Rico 08/24/67 02/10/69 658/182 b 
Réunion  07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
Romania 08/21/03 04/01/04 2253/298 b 
Russia41 05/01/01 12/01/01 2165/204 2293/114hi 
St. Helena42 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
St. Lucia43 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
 
Royal Netherlands Embassy, Washington, D.C., to author, Aug. 6, 2010.  The Convention 
does, however, apply to the Dutch possession of Aruba.  Id. 
39 Pakistan allows service by mail under Article 10(a) if that is a method of service in 
the originating state of the documents. 
40 The British declaration of 1970 gave the central authority as “The Governor and 
Captain-in-Chief, Adamstown, Pitcairn Island, South Pacific Ocean.”  That is a problem as 
the governor of Pitcairn in recent years has been the British High Commissioner (i.e., 
ambassador) to New Zealand, who is 3,000 miles from Pitcairn.  The current address for 
the Governor is: The Governor of the Pitcairn Islands, c/o British High Commission, 44 
Hill Street, Wellington 6011, New Zealand.  (Mail: P.O. Box 1812, Wellington 1812.).  
Tel: (64) (4) 924 2888.  Fax: (64) (4) 473 4982.  Letters to Pitcairn can easily take six 
months to make the round trip.  Litigants are advised to send service requests not only by 
mail to Pitcairn but the Governor in Wellington. 
41 Russia refuses to comply with requests submitted under the Convention from the 
United States.  Spencer Willing, Out of Service: The Causes and Consequences of Russia’s 
Suspension of Judicial Assistance to the United States Under the Hague Service 
Convention, 31 U. PA. J. INT’L L. 593 (2009).  There is an existing bilateral accord 
between the United States and Russia—as successor to the Soviet Union’s obligations—
that provides for the use of letters rogatory.  Exchange of Notes between the United States 
and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Concerning Execution of Letters Rogatory, 
Nov. 22, 1935, 49 Stat. 3840, 167 L.N.T.S. 303.  For service to Russia outside the 
Convention, see Tatyana Gidirimski, Service of United States Process in Russia Under 
Rule 4(F) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 10 PAC. RIM L & POL’Y J. 691 (2001). 
42 St. Helena gets mail via ship because it has no airport.  World’s End in the South 
Atlantic, 9 WILDSIDE (Prestondale, S. Afr.), Spring 2009, at 60, available at 
http://www.sthelenatourism.com/data/files/ downloads/wildside2009sthelena.pdf.  Any 
service sent through its central authority will take months to make the round trip.  The 
Central Authority: The Registrar, The Supreme Court, Essex House, Main Street, 
Jamestown STHL 1ZZ.  Tel: (290) 2270.  Fax: (290) 2454.  E-mail from Frank Wastell, 
Attorney General, St. Helena Government, Jamestown, to Author (Aug. 31, 2010, 
17:08:13 GMT). 
360 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
St. Kitts44  05/01/83 1312/316 bcfgi 
St. Pierre & Miquelon 07/03/72 09/01/72 a bd 
St. Vincent45 
 
07/07/70 
01/06/05 
07/19/70 
10/27/70 
737/408 
2303/87  
bci 
a 
San Marino46 04/15/02 11/01/02 2199/133 ahi 
Serbia47 07/02/10 02/01/11 a bhi 
Seychelles 
07/07/70 
11/18/80 
07/19/70 
07/01/81 
737/408 
1240/300 
c 
1248/431 
Slovakia 
04/01/82 
03/15/93 
06/01/82 
01/01/93 
1279/313 
1745/446 
bh 
a 
Slovenia 09/18/00 06/01/01 2152/216 b 
Solomon Islands48 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
South Georgia49 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
 
43 St. Lucia had the Convention applied to it by the United Kingdom when still a 
colony.  It became independent February 22, 1979.  St. Lucia has not formally indicated its 
accession to the Convention but has informed the State Department the Central Authority 
is: The Registrar, The High Court of Justice, Peynier Street, Castries.  Tel: (758) 468-
3804.  Fax: (758) 453-2071. 
44 St. Kitts and Nevis had the Convention applied to it by the United Kingdom when 
still a colony. It became independent September 19, 1983, and has not formally indicated 
its accession to the Convention but has informed the State Department the Central 
Authority is: Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs, Government Headquarters, Church 
Street, P.O. Box 186, Basseterre, St. Kitts.  Tel: (869) 465-2521.  Fax: (869) 465-5040. 
45 St. Vincent and the Grenadines requires translations into English. In 2005, it formally 
acceded to the Convention, retroactive to its independence from the United Kingdom in 
1979.  Its Central Authority is: The Registrar, The High Court of Justice, Hinds Building, 
Halifax Street, Kingstown.  Tel: (784) 451-2945.  Fax: (784) 457-1888. 
46 The Sanmarinese Central Authority is: Tribunale Unico de la République de Saint-
Marin, Via 28 Luglio n. 194, 47893 Borgo Maggiore.  Tel: (378) 0549885435.  Fax: (378) 
0549882598. 
47 The Serbian Government informed the Hague Conference the central authority is the 
Belgrade First Instance Court but provided no address.  However, reviewing that court's 
website, http://www.prvi.os.sud.rs/korisne-informacije.html, it appears requests should be 
sent to:  Belgrade First Basic Court, ul. Ustanička no. 14, 11000 Beograd.  (In Cyrllic, 
which is used by the Court, that is Први основни суд у Београду, Устаничка 14, 11000 
БЕОГРАДУ).  Tel: (381) 11-3083-600.  Fax:  (381) 11-2451-120. 
48 The Solomon Islands had the Convention applied to them by the United Kingdom 
when still a colony.  They became independent July 7, 1978, and have not formally 
indicated their accession to the Convention.  The Central Authority named by the British 
was the Registrar of the High Court.  The current address: The Registrar, The High Court 
of Justice, Mendana Avenue, P.O. Box G21, Honiara.  Tel: (677) 21632.  Fax: (677) 
22702.  The Registrar made inquiries on behalf of the Author and could not find more 
information about whether the Solomon Islands Government considers the Convention 
binding; however, the Registrar indicated he would most likely execute requests sent to 
him.  E-mail from Gavin J. Withers, Registrar of the High Court & Court of Appeal of the 
Solomon Islands, to Author (Nov. 11, 2010, 12:38:58 P.M. Pacific/Guadalcanal Time). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 361 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
South Sandwich  
  Islands50 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 
bcfgi 
Spain 06/04/87 08/03/87 1477/274 b 
Sri Lanka51 08/31/00 08/03/01 2152/214 bchi 
Sweden 08/02/69 10/01/69 700/374 2133/190i 
Switzerland52 11/02/94 01/01/95 1841/335 bhi 
Tristan da Cunha 53 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfi 
Turkey 02/28/72 04/28/72 822/402 1318/324h 
Turks & Caicos54 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
Tuvalu55 07/07/70 07/19/70 737/408 bcfgi 
Ukraine 02/01/01 12/01/01 2165/200 2275/259h 
 
49 Use Falklands Central Authority. 
50 Use Falklands Central Authority. 
51 Sri Lanka requires translation into English. 
52 Switzerland requires translation into French, German, or Italian, depending on the 
language of the canton the papers are to be served in. Switzerland has designated a central 
authority in each of its cantons.  A locator to determine which authority applies to an 
address, and what language should be used, is at: http://www.elorge.admin.ch/. 
53 Use the St. Helena Central Authority.  E-mail from Frank Wastell, Attorney General, 
St. Helena Government, Jamestown, St. Helena, to Author (Sep. 3, 2010 08:34:33 GMT).  
Tristan has no airport.  Mail to St. Helena arrives via ship, so any service through the 
central authority will take months. 
54 The Turks and Caicos Central Authority is: The Registrar, The Supreme Court, Pond 
Street, Cockburn Town, Grand Turk.  Tel: (649) 946-1724. 
55 Kiribati and Tuvalu were formerly part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.  The 
colony was divided on October 1, 1975.  The Ellice Islands became the independent nation 
of Tuvalu on October 1, 1978.  Tuvalu had the Convention applied to it by the United 
Kingdom when part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony but has not formally indicated 
its accession to the Convention. 
362 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
Name Adhere Effective Notice Additional Information 
United Kingdom56 
 
 
 
11/17/67 
 
 
 
02/10/69 
 
 
 
658/193 
920/305 
1312/316 
1984/404 
737/408 
1268/384 
1562/342 
cfi 
United States57 
 
08/24/67 
 
02/10/69 
 
658/182 
1775/372 
759/344 
2226/32 
Venezuela 10/29/93 07/01/94 1819/505 bhi 
Virgin Islands 08/24/67 02/10/69 658/182 b 
 
 
56 The United Kingdom has extended the Convention to Anguilla, Bermuda, the British 
Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands (including South Georgia Island 
and the South Sandwich Islands), Gibraltar, Guernsey, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Montserrat, 
the Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena Island (including Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha), 
and the Turks and Caicos Islands.  It has not extended it to three of its overseas territories: 
the British Indian Ocean Territory, Letter from Joanne Yeadon, Head of British Indian 
Ocean Territory & Pitcairn Section, Overseas Territories Directorate, Foreign & 
Commonwealth Office, London, to the author, Aug. 4, 2010, the British Antarctic 
Territory, nor the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus.  The English 
Central Authority is: Foreign Process Section, Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of 
Justice, Room E12, The Strand, London, WC2A 2LL. Tel: (44) 020-7947-6394. Fax: (44) 
020-7947-6975.  The Scottish Central Authority is: Scottish Government, European Union 
& International Law Branch, 2W St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh EH1 3DG.  Tel: (44) 
131-244-2417.  Fax: (44) 131-244-4848.  The Northern Ireland Central Authority is: The 
Master (Queen’s Bench and Appeals), Royal Courts of Justice, Chichester Street, Belfast 
BT1 3JF.  Tel: (44) 28-9072-4706.  Fax: (44) 28-9023-5186. 
57 The United States did not extend the Convention to American Samoa.  At the time 
the Convention was ratified, the United States was overseeing the Trust Territory of the 
Pacific Islands under the aegis of the United Nations.  The Trust Territory consisted of 
islands that became the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the American territory of the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands.  The convention does not apply in Micronesia. Letter from 
Marianne Gustafson, Consular Officer, Embassy of the United States of America, Kolonia, 
Micronesia, to the author, Aug. 3, 2010.  It does not appear to apply to Palau or the 
Marshalls but it has been extended to the Marianas.  The American Central Authority is: 
Office of International Judicial Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, 1100 L Street, 
N.W., Room 11006, Washington, D.C. 20530.  Phone: (202) 514-7455.  Fax: (202) 514-
6584.  But requests for service from abroad should be sent to Process Forwarding 
International, 633 Yesler Way, Seattle, Washington 98204.  Tel: (206) 521-2979.  Fax: 
(206) 224-3410. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 363 
Key: 
a The notice has not appeared in the United Nations Treaty Series, whose 
publication is running three years behind the present. 
b No other documents were filed. 
c This jurisdiction is English-speaking. 
d France announced in 1972 that the Convention would apply to its overseas 
territories of French Guiana, French Polynesia, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Mayotte, 
New Caledonia, Réunion, St. Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna.  E-mail 
from Irene Rampersad, Treaties Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the 
Kingdom of the Netherlands, to Author (Nov. 5, 2010) (stating French notice 
regarding its possessions filed July 3, 1972 that was effective Sept. 1, 1972); 
French Ministère de la Justice, Direction des affaires Civiles et du Sceau, Bureau 
de l’entraide civile et commerciale internationale, Circulaire Consolidée Nos. 
CIV/20/05 & CIV/11/08 (Nov. 20, 2008) 17, available at http://www.entraide-
civile-internationale.justice.gouv.fr/ circulaire_cons_20081120.pdf.  The French 
central authority, the Justice Ministry in Paris, will act as central authority for all 
these territories.  Ministère de la Justice, supra, at 17.  This notice was never 
submitted to the United Nations and thus does not appear in U.N.T.S. E-mail from 
Bianca E. Suciu, Legal Officer, Treaty Section, Office of Legal Affairs, United 
Nations, New York, N.Y., to Author (Aug. 25, 2010, 10:26:59 EDT). 
e This notice was filed by the United Kingdom as the colonial power. 
f The United Kingdom and its colonies require translations into English. 
g This nation was formerly a colony of the United Kingdom but is now independent 
and has not filed any declarations with the Dutch Foreign Ministry as to whether it 
considers itself bound by the Convention nor has it formally supplied information 
on central authorities, translation requirements, or mail service. 
h This indicates that the jurisdiction has objected to service by mail. 
i This indicates that translations are required by the jurisdiction. 
 
364 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
APPENDIX B: THE PROBLEM OF JAPAN 
Service by mail to Japan is the subject of scores of contradictory 
opinions in the courts and in the academic press.1  The Japanese 
government has not declared its opposition to service by mail under 
Article 10(a).2  Since they have not objected, service by mail is 
technically valid.3  Though one federal court somehow has come to 
the conclusion that the Japanese government must know of this 
controversy in American courts and by failing to file a notification on 
Article 10(a), it is confirming that mail service is forbidden while 
another has come to precisely the opposite conclusion.4 
In 1989, at a special meeting of the Hague Conference working on 
the Service Convention, Japan stated: 
Japan has not declared that it objects to the sending of judicial 
documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.  In this 
connection, Japan has made it clear that no objection to the use of 
postal channels for sending judicial documents to persons in Japan 
does not necessarily imply that the sending by such a method is 
 
1 Service by mail is not allowed: Bankston, 889 F.2d at 174; Wasden v. Yamaha Motor 
Co., 131 F.R.D. 206, 209-210 (M.D. Fla. 1990); McClenon v. Nissan Motor Corp. in 
U.S.A., 726 F. Supp. 822, 826 (N.D. Fla. 1989); Prost, 122 F.R.D. at 216-217; Cooper v. 
Makita, U.S.A., Inc., 117 F.R.D. 16, 17 (D. Me. 1987); Pochop v. Toyota Motor Co., 111 
F.R.D. 464, 466 (S.D. Miss. 1986); Mommsen, 108 F.R.D. at 446; Suzuki Motor Co. v. 
San Bernardino Cty. Super. Ct. 249 Cal. Rptr. 376, 381 (Ct. App. 1988); Reynolds v. Koh, 
490 N.Y.S.2d 295, 297 (App. Div. 1985); Ormandy v. Lynn, 472 N.Y.S.2d 274, 274 (Sup. 
Ct. 1984); Fujita, supra note 234, at 72; Yoshio Ohara, Judicial Assistance to Be Afforded 
by Japan for Proceedings in the United States, 23 INT’L LAW. 10, 14; Michael H. Altman, 
Mailing Service to Japan: Does Article 10(a) of the Hague Conference Authorize a 
Separate Method?  Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1989), 69 
WASH. U. L.Q. 635, 635 (1991).  Mail service is allowed: Shoei Kako, 109 Cal. Rptr. at 
412 (Ct. App. 1973); Meyers v. Honda Motor Co., 711 F. Supp. 1001, 1007–08 (C.D. Cal. 
1989); Hammond, 128 F.R.D. at 641; Smith v. Dainichi Kinzoku Kogyo Co., 680 F. Supp. 
847, 850-851 (W.D. Tex. 1988); Newport Components, Inc., v. NEC Home Elecs. 
(U.S.A.), Inc., 671 F. Supp. 1525, 1541–42; Lemme v. Wine of Japan Import, Inc., 631 F. 
Supp. 456, 463–64 (E.D. N.Y. 1986); Zisman, 106 F.R.D. at 199–200; Weight v. 
Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd., 597 F. Supp. 1082, 1085-1086 (E.D. Va. 1984); Chrysler, 
589 F. Supp. at 1206; Nicholson v. Yamaha Motor Co., 566 A.2d 135, 143 (Md. App. 
1989); Rissew, 515 N.Y.S.2d at 355; Sandoval, 527 A.2d at 566; Armstrong, supra note 
159, at 589; Robert M. Hamilton, An Interpretation of the Hague Convention on the 
Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents Concerning Personal Service in 
Japan, 6 LOY. L.A. INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 143, 159 (1983). 
2 Armstrong, supra note 159, at 554. 
3 Craig R. Delk, Service of Process on a Japanese Defendant in Japan Under Article 
10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, 48 INTER ALIA, Nov.–Dec. 1983, at F1. 
4 Compare Anbe v. Kikuchi, 141 F.R.D. 498, 500 (D. Haw. 1992) (Japanese silence 
equals agreement with position that mail service is forbidden), with Schiffer, 192 F.R.D. at 
339 (Japanese silence equals agreement with position that mail service is allowed). 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 365 
considered valid service in Japan; it merely indicates that Japan 
does not consider it as infringement of its sovereign power.5 
This statement 
was to discourage the direct-mail practice and ‘drastically’ reduce 
the number of direct mailing of judicial documents from foreign 
countries to Japan.  In other words, what the Japanese government 
actually meant to say in its statement was that Japan does not 
consider direct mail as a valid method of service abroad.  The 
ambiguity is obviously the result of the Japanese officials’ peculiar, 
and often-criticized, general reluctance to make any clear-cut, yes-
or-no statements at any official public meeting.6 
It thoroughly muddied the waters, however, as the Hague 
Conference’s statement on it observes: 
 Japan has not declared that it objects to the sending of judicial 
documents, by postal channels, directly to addressees in Japan.  As 
the representative of Japan made clear at the Special Commission of 
April 1989 on the practical operation of the Service and Evidence 
Conventions, Japan does not consider that the use of postal channels 
for sending judicial documents to persons in Japan constitutes an 
infringement of its sovereign power. 
 Nevertheless, as the representative also indicated, the absence of 
a formal objection does not imply that the sending of judicial 
documents by postal channels to addressees in Japan is always 
considered valid service in Japan.  In fact, sending documents by 
such a method would not be deemed valid service in Japan in 
circumstances where the rights of the addressee were not respected.7 
One commentator observes the Japanese Constitution makes 
treaties superior to domestic law.8  Thus its treaty obligations would 
seem to trump whatever its civil procedure code says.  An attorney 
licensed in both Japan and California states, 
Japanese courts expect that a U.S. service of process upon a resident 
in Japan, in which the summons and complaint from the United 
States are transmitted to Japan, will be effected by two methods 
 
5 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Permanent Bureau, Report of the 
Work of the Special Commission of April 1989 on the Operation of the Hague Convention 
of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in 
Civil or Commercial Matters and of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in 
Civil or Commercial Matters, 28 I.L.M. at 1561 at ¶ 17 (1989). 
6 5 DOING BUSINESS IN JAPAN § 14.07[5][c][iii] (2010) (citing Hara, Shiho no kokusai-
teki toitsu-undo (1989-nen no tenkai) [International Unification of Private Law 
(Development in 1989)], 17 KOKUSAI SHOJI HOMU 1284 (1989)); cf. Emily Parker, Japan: 
Lost in Translation?, WALL ST. J., Sept. 18, 2010, at A15 (discussing Japanese distaste for 
going on the record about anything). 
7 Hague Conference, 2003 Commission, ¶ 57. 
8 Armstrong, supra note 159, at 596. 
366 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283 
recognized under the convention: service through the Japanese 
Central Authority (the Foreign Affairs Ministry) or the U.S. 
consular officer stationed in Japan.  Since U.S. administrative 
regulations prohibit U.S. consular officers from performing service 
of process on behalf of a private litigant, a U.S. plaintiff must 
request the Japanese Central Authority to effect service of process 
upon a resident in Japan, and the U.S. summons and complaint must 
be translated into Japanese.9 
Where service has been effected by mailing the summons and 
complaint directly to the defendant, the Japanese courts have refused 
to respect the American court judgment.10  This is in spite of the fact 
that Japan does allow service by mail for domestic lawsuits, though 
such service is effected through the court clerks.11  The documents 
must be translated into Japanese, even if the defendants understand 
English.12  Though there is also a dispute about this.13 
Japan could opt to make a clear objection to mail service by filing a 
statement with the Dutch Foreign Minister.  It has not done so.  
Therefore mail service is de jure permitted to Japan.  But, de facto, it 
is not.  If there is any possibility the judgment might need to be 
 
9 Yasuhiro Fujita, Enforcing U.S. Judgments in Japan, 27 L.A. LAW., Dec. 2004, at 19-
20. 
10 Id. at 20 (citing Chihô Saibansho [Dist. Ct.] Mar. 26, 1990, KIN’YÛ SHOJI HANREI 
[1630 HANREI JIHO 6] (Japan) (Hawaiian judgment not honored)). 
11 G. Brian Raley, A Comparative Analysis: Notice Requirements in Germany, Japan, 
Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, 10 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 301, 315 
(1993) (citing MINJI SOSHŌHŌ [MINSŌHŌ] [C. CIV. PRO.] 1996, art. 172, para. 6 (Japan) 
and TAKAAKI HATTORI & DAN F. HENDERSON, CIVIL PROCEDURE IN JAPAN § 7.01[4][d] 
(1985).  See also Outline of Civil Litigation in Japan, SUPREME COURT OF JAPAN (2006), 
§ II(B)(2)(b)(3) (2006) (“The court clerk in charge usually serves these documents by 
ordering a letter carrier . . . to deliver them to the proper recipient.”), 
http://www.courts.go.jp/english/proceedings/civil_suit_index.html. 
12 Fujita, supra note 9, app. B, at 20 (citing KŌTO SAIBANSHO [High Ct.] Sept. 18, 
1997, 1630 HANREI JIHŌ 6 [HANJI] (Japan) (refusing to enforce judgment of Ohio court)). 
13 Compare Jorden, supra note 234, at 78 (saying translations are not required), with 
Fujita, supra note 234, at 79 (saying translations are required).  Ohara, supra note 347, at 
14, gives an example of a French judgment that was not enforced in Japan because the 
documents were sent to the defendant in Japan in the French language.  See also id. at 17 
(citing CHIHÔ SAIBANSHO [Dist. Ct.] Dec. 21, 1976, KAKYŪ SAIBANSHO KEIJI SAIBAN 
REISHŪ [KAMINSHŪ] (Japan).  Robert W. Peterson, Jurisdiction and the Japanese 
Defendant, 25 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 555, 580 (1985), cites this same case to reports in 
352 HANREI TAIMUZU 246 and 22 JAP. ANN. INT’L L. 160 (1978) (English translation).  
Peterson reports an interview with officials of the Foreign Ministry, Japan’s central 
authority, who noted Japan did not require a translation in its declarations with the Dutch 
Foreign Ministry—but yet the Foreign Ministry’s actual practice has been to insist on a 
translation.  Peterson, supra note 114, at 586. 
2010] Prego Signor Postino 367 
enforced in Japan, use redundant methods of service—and translate 
the documents.14 
 
  
 
14 Cf. Fujita, supra note 9, app. B, at 20. 
368 OREGON REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LAW [Vol. 12, 283