Water Splash v. Menon: The Respondent’s Brief

The respondent has filed her brief in Water Splash v. Menon, the case on Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. I am not going to comment at length on the details of the brief. May I gently suggest that if you’re talking about Plato’s theory of forms or John Finnis on natural law in a brief on treaty interpretation, something has gone wrong somewhere.

The basic point of the brief is that the text of Article 10(a) is unambiguous, and that its plain meaning favors the respondent. This is highly implausible. How can it be that all the parties to a treaty, including the US government, think it means one thing, and that in fact it unambiguously means the opposite? So I think the argument fails from the get-go: the Convention is at least ambiguous. The majority rule is at least a possible reading. With that point established, there is not much else to say about the brief or its explanations about why, when a treaty’s text is unambiguous, resort to various interpretative methods is improper.

2 responses to “Water Splash v. Menon: The Respondent’s Brief”

  1. […] previewed the case at SCOTUSBlog. Her account is more sympathetic to Menon’s brief than is mine. She puts the case in a somewhat broader context, […]

  2. […] line: since I think that the petitioner’s reading of Article 10(a) is at least a permissible reading, and since […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Thank you for commenting! By submitting a comment, you agree that we can retain your name, your email address, your IP address, and the text of your comment, in order to publish your name and comment on Letters Blogatory, to allow our antispam software to operate, and to ensure compliance with our rules against impersonating other commenters.