Originally from the Journal of Enforcement of Arbitration Awards

Preview Page

One of the most discussed issues in the enforcement of international arbitration awards is whether, in enforcing the award worldwide, an award creditor is limited to relying upon the mechanisms and treaties available to enforce arbitral awards, such as the 1958 New York Convention—or whether, instead, they possess a further enforcement option.  This further option, in the eyes of some, arises when the award in question has been confirmed as a judgment in a foreign jurisdiction.  In such a situation, it is argued, the award creditor can potentially bypass the New York Convention and instead seek recognition and enforcement of the foreign court judgment.   

Within the United States, the mechanism for enforcing foreign judgments is a question of state law, and often covered by standard form legislation based upon the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act (UFCMJRA).  Such legislation creates a relatively straightforward pathway for foreign court judgments to be recognized and enforced within the United States, provided some basic criteria are met.   

The prospect of enforcing a foreign award (strictly speaking, enforcing a foreign judgment upon an award) by such means is, to some, controversial.  A recent decision of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Amaplat Mauritius Ltd. et al., Petitioners v. Zimbabwe Mining Development Corp., 143 F.4th 496 (D.C. Cir. 2025), cert. denied, No. 25-699, 2026 WL 1127199 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2026), has touched upon this issue in the context of an award enforcement action against a foreign sovereign entity.