Part of the preparation of previous convention projects by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference consisted of studies which assessed the feasibility of these new projects before a topic was put on the agenda of the organisation. These feasibility studies were then used by the Hague Conference Member States to decide whether the new topic should be included in the agenda of the Hague Conference for future work, i.e. whether a new Hague instrument should be created on this topic. These studies used to analyse, for example, whether the subject matter of the future convention was a suitable one for harmonisation in the first place, or whether the potentially available methods to achieve harmonisation of the law through a Hague convention in this area were feasible methods. For the Hague Judgments Project, however, no comprehensive feasibility studies were prepared concerning the question which convention type should be pursued by the Hague Conference Member States.128 Why such feasibility studies would have been needed, and the effect of the lack of these studies on the Judgments Project will be analysed in the following.

THE NEED FOR A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON THE CONVENTION TYPE (THE SINGLE, DOUBLE AND MIXED CONVENTION)

The goal of the Hague Judgments Project was to create an international convention that would have secured the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters between the future Contracting States. Conceptually, three convention types are available to achieve this goal: a single convention, a (‘complete’ or ‘strict’) double convention, and a mixed convention.

A single convention (sometimes also referred to as ‘traité simple’ or ‘convention imparfaite’) only secures the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, without regulating the question of direct jurisdiction (the question of whether domestic courts have the power to hear the proceedings and render a judgment against the defendant) at the same time.