Abstract

This LL.M. thesis provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of the adequate notice requirement in transnational service of process, examining the interplay between United States constitutional standards, European Communities conventions, and international treaty law. The work begins with a functional analysis of service of process, tracing its dual role as an assertion of territorial jurisdiction and as a mechanism for defendant notification across the American legal system, traditional English Common Law, and the Civil Law tradition. It then undertakes a detailed comparison of the "due notice" requirement under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution with the analogous protections of the Brussels Judgments Convention of 1968, analyzing the Supreme Court's "reasonableness" standard as articulated in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. and the Convention's double-check mechanism under Articles 20 and 27(2). The thesis culminates in an extensive examination of the Hague Service Convention of 1965 — its scope, methods of service through the Central Authority and alternative channels, and its "due process" guarantees embodied in Articles 15 and 16 — with particular attention to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Convention's scope in Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk. The thesis concludes that the Hague Service Convention bridges the gap between Common Law and Civil Law systems of service, establishes clear and uniform standards for adequate notice to defendants abroad, and should be ratified by more countries and liberally construed by contracting States to preserve its effectiveness.

Download

Share

COinS