13.1 Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and Awards

The distinction first (the exam's foundation): RECOGNITION — the foreign decision's acceptance as a FACT-and-TITLE: the judgment's res judicata effect, the status' acknowledgment (no execution needed); ENFORCEMENT — the foreign decision's EXECUTION: the local court's coercive machinery set in motion (the assets seized, the sums collected). The two worlds' difference (the structural point): The foreign ARBITRAL AWARDS: the New York Convention's passport — the near-universal enforcement regime (below); the awards travel well BY DESIGN; The foreign JUDGMENTS: NO universal convention — the patchwork: the bilateral treaties (the mutual-recognition arrangements); the regional conventions; the common-law-and-civil- law doctrines of comity-and-reciprocity (the domestic courts' own rules). The recognition-and-enforcement's common tests (the doctrines' core): The jurisdiction's propriety — the rendering court's (or tribunal's) jurisdiction over the defendant (the due-process face: was the defendant properly served-and-heard?); The finality — the decision final-and-conclusive where rendered; The public policy — the enforcement refused where the award-or-judgment violates the enforcing state's fundamental principles (the narrow-but-contested ground); The natural justice's observance — the fair hearing in the original proceeding; The no-conflict rule — no inconsistent local judgment; the mutual-reciprocity requirement in some regimes; The fraud's bar — the judgment obtained by fraud not enforceable. Nepal's position (the honest map): The arbitral awards: the Arbitration Act 2055's foreign-awards regime implementing Nepal's New York Convention obligations (the enforcement's court machinery —…