I am a big fan of Alternative Dispute Resolution ("ADR"), especially in matters involving cross-border business transactions.  Among other reasons, ADR provisions can be used to preempt many of the obstacles that arise in seeking recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments internationally.  One would think that it would be easier to enforce a judgment from a court than an arbitral award issued by a private arbitration panel.  This is not the case when a party is seeking a recovery across borders.

Incredibly, because no treaty exists for the enforcement of foreign judgments between the United States and any other country, a foreign arbitral award is generally more easily enforceable than the judgment of a foreign court.  See U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Enforcement of Judgments (visited January 11, 2007) http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_691.html    Accord, David J. Levy, International Litigation: Defending and Suing Parties in U.S. Federal Courts at 176, 361 (2003, American Bar Association).  By contrast, more than 120 countries have entered into the U.N. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, opened for signature, June 10, 1958, 21 U.S.T. 2517, T.I.A.S. No. 6997, 330 U.N.T.S. 38 (known as, and hereinafter referred to as, the "New York Convention").  The New York Convention requires that "[e]ach Contracting State shall recognize arbitral awards as binding and enforce them in accordance with the rules of procedure of the territory where the award is relied upon..."  The goal of the New York Convention "was to encourage the recognition and enforcement of commercial arbitration agreements in international contracts and to unify the standards by which agreements to arbitrate are observed and arbitral awards are enforced in the signatory countries."  Scherk v. Alberto-Culver Co., 417 U.S. 506, 520 n. 15 (1974); Bautista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1299-1300 ("In pursuing effective, unified arbitration standards, the Convention's framers understood that the benefits of the treaty would be undermined if domestic courts were to inject their 'parochial' values into the regime.")  Based on this reasoning, "the enforcement of international arbitral awards enjoys relatively widespread acceptance..." in courts worldwide.  See Kam-Tech Systems Ltd. v. Yardeni, 774 A.2d 644, 648 n.3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).