It came into existence to give litigants a reliable and efficient means of serving the documents on parties living, operating or based in another country.

States that permit parties to use these alternative means of service make a separate designation in the documents they file upon ratifying or acceding to the Convention.

The Hague Convention provides various modes of process service of documents such as by postal channel or by diplomatic/consular agents, judicial officers, officials or other competent persons.

The convention gives relief to the litigants if they have not received certificate of service or delivery from the central agency even after waiting for six months.

[1] Service by mail is possible only in states that have not objected to that method under Article 10(a) of the convention and if the jurisdiction where the court case takes place allows it under its applicable law.

It is therefore possible in France and the Netherlands but not in Germany, Switzerland, and South Korea, where incoming service is to be effected exclusively through the state's central authority.

[2] In the United States, the interpretation of a provision in Article 10(a) has long been controversial, as the judiciary in some of its jurisdictions contended that service by mail was impossible because the word "send" rather than "serve" was used in the English-language version of the convention.

The matter was finally resolved in May 2017 by the US Supreme Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, bringing the interpretation in line with parties in other US jurisdictions and the rest of the world.