Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-254_5iel.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

Cite as:  581 U. S. ____ (2017) 

9 

Opinion of the Court 

A  few  months  before  the  Convention  was  signed,  he  pub­
lished  an  article  describing  and  summarizing  it.    In  that 
article, he stated that “Article 10 permits direct service by
mail  . . .  unless  [the  receiving]  state  objects  to  such  ser­
vice.”  The  Proposed  International  Convention  on  the
Service  of  Documents  Abroad,  51  A. B. A. J.  650,  653 
(1965).4 

Along  similar  lines,  the  Rapporteur’s  report  on  a  draft
version of Article 10—which did not materially differ from
the final version—stated that the “provision of paragraph 
1 also permits service . . . by telegram” and that the draft­
ers  “did  not  accept  the  proposal  that  postal  channels  be 
limited to registered mail.”  1 Ristau §4–3–5(a), at 149.  In 
other  words,  it  was  clearly  understood  that  service  by
postal  channels  was  permissible,  and  the  only  question
was whether it should be limited to registered mail.

The  Court  also  gives  “great  weight”  to  “the  Executive
Branch’s interpretation of a treaty.”  Abbott v. Abbott, 560 
U. S.  1,  15  (2010)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).  In 
the  half  century  since  the  Convention  was  adopted,  the 
Executive  has  consistently  maintained  that  the  Hague 
Service Convention allows service by mail.

When President Johnson transmitted the Convention to 
the Senate for its advice and consent, he included a report
by Secretary of State Dean Rusk.  That report stated that
“Article  10  permits  direct  service  by  mail  . . .  unless  [the
receiving]  state  objects  to  such  service.”    Convention  on 
the  Service  Abroad  of  Judicial  and  Extrajudicial  Docu­
ments in Civil or Commercial Matters: Message From the
President  of  the  United  States,  S.  Exec.  Doc.  C,  90th 
Cong., 1st Sess., 5 (1967). 

—————— 

4 Two years later, Amram testified to the same effect before the Sen­
ate  Foreign  Relations  Committee.    S.  Exec.  Rep.,  at  13  (stating  that
service by central authority “is not obligatory,” and that other available
techniques included “direct service by mail”).