Theory and Practice of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments

It is generally believed that, as a sovereign act, the effect of judgment is limited to the sovereignty of the country where the judgment is made and has no direct legal effect outside its territory. As the winning party, the most convenient and efficient way to achieve the result of the judgment is to obtain the recognition and enforcement of the applicant country. However, different countries have different development stages and levels of economic, cultural, and legal systems, especially the lack of mutual trust. As a result, in the process of judicial cooperation between countries, the international community has given too much consideration to the sovereign nature of the judiciary and placed too much emphasis on the protection of national interests in recognition and enforcement, thus makes the free flow of judgments in the international community difficult. At present, the EU has not only made remarkable achievements in economic integration but also achieved fruitful results in the unification of private international law, especially the unification of civil and commercial jurisdiction rules. From the signing of the Brussels Convention in 1968 to the adoption of the Brussels Rules in 2000, the EU has formed a unique set of rules concerning jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, ensuring the mobility of judgments among member states. However, on a global scale, this is clearly a problem. On February 1, 1971, the Hague Conference on Private International Law adopted the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. The United States signed the Convention as a negotiating country, but in the end, only four countries ratified the Convention, which resulted in the Convention ultimately not coming into force. Since then, at the initiative of the US government in 1992, the Hague Convention on Private International Law began to formulate an international convention on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, but the effort ultimately failed. In January 2003, at the suggestion of the President of the Hague Convention on Private International Law, the Hague Convention on Private International Law decided to renegotiate and discuss the issues in which there were disagreements. After compromise, the parties agreed to formulate a convention on the choice of court by agreement in the field of civil and commercial contracts. The result of the final consultation was the adoption of the Convention on Choice of Court Agreements on June 30, 2005. In a certain sense, the Convention has played a positive role in strengthening international judicial cooperation and exchanges, but as a clear, specific, and easy-to-operate international convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, it is not considered a success. Therefore, similar to the European Union, in a regional context with roughly the same economy and culture, the formulation of a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments is a feasible method and can be effectively implemented. However, in a global context, due to the imbalance and differences in economic and cultural development, as well as the lack of support and leadership from institutions such as the European Union, it is not easy to reach a universally accepted international convention on the free flow of judgments. Some foreign scholars believe that if economic and cultural differences are ignored, it is impossible to establish a special convention on jurisdiction and judgment enforcement, and even if it is established, it will not play a positive role.