Date:Notification of a Lawsuit - Yemen Lawsuit

The question of whether to notify the defendant using the embassy channels or find the person directly responsible weights both sides as the judges argue. First I would partially agree with Sotomayor argument that serving the defendant, in this case, the foreign minister, in person is the best channel. This is because there are circumstances when the defendants may claim never to have been served nor aware of any suit against their country. Therefore, serving the defendant in person removes such doubts for both the defendant and the offended. In doing so, it also fulfills the requirement of the suit being 'addressed and dispatched' to the foreign minister as required by the American federal law.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

However, I would argue that since the role of the embassy is to represent the interests of its country in the foreign land, there is no harm in presenting the suit through the embassy. Besides, if the suit is directed to the state, whether the minister of foreign affairs is present or not, the embassy is supposed to receive the complaints and inform its government to handle the matter. Though the foreign affairs minister is directly related to such issues, the suit remains valid in court whether present or not. Also, it would become cumbersome if every national oppressed was to travel to the sued country to address the issue to the foreign affairs minister wherever he/she might be found. In most cases, it is difficult to fit in the schedule of the foreign minister who usually has many embassies worldwide to address their concerns.

By delivering the suit through the embassy, it saves time for both the oppressed and the defendant country oppressor to find justice or reach an agreement. The government should put enough measures to ensure that there are appropriate and effective channels of handling notification regarding such suits. Also, whether the country is being sued by another country or by a person from a foreign country, it is easier to approach the embassy than communicating through emails between the countries. Usually, states receive dozens of mails in a day at their home offices. Such emails are treated with less urgency. By delegating such duties to the embassies, the system becomes more efficient. Besides, recalling William Penn's phrase justice delayed is an injustice, a speedy trial provides justice to the oppressed.

Using the case of Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, No. 16-1094, Sudan embassy in America acknowledged receipt of the suit but only claimed that the head of the foreign affairs of Sudan was not addressed using any form of signed receipt.

An embassy is a place of contact regarding any issue, and just as the embassy is responsible of addressing matters related to their citizens in the foreign country, and take actions against mistreatment of their citizens, they should also be quick to resolve complaints and suits presented before them regarding the state it represents.

It is usually a common practice for the government sued to inquire if the embassy was ever notified of the impending lawsuit in the foreign country. This is to say, relaying the message directly to the country being sued is not enough, and the embassy should be made aware whether the foreign affairs minister is available or not. Matters regarding security are very sensitive, and the government finds it easier if such information and complaints are addressed through the fastest and correct channels.

Work Cited

Adam, Liptak. A Thought Experiment at the Supreme Court Over How to Sue a Country, The New York Times, 2018.