Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-26T13:51:15.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

10 - Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in the United States: With and Without Choice of Court Agreements

from PART III - CHOICE OF COURT IN THE ABSENCE OF A MULTILATERAL CONVENTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

Ronald A. Brand
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Paul Herrup
Affiliation:
Office of Foreign Litigation, Dept. of Justice
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The law in the United States on the recognition and enforcement of judgments has undergone substantial discussion and analysis in the past decade. Negotiations at the Hague Conference on Private International Law regarding international instruments on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in part acted as a catalyst for this attention. When the Hague negotiations were in process, the American Law Institute (ALI) undertook to draft proposed federal implementing legislation for the anticipated treaty. This project also considered the possibility that a treaty would not be concluded, and developed an alternative proposal for federalizing the recognition and enforcement of judgments generally. When the Hague project turned to a Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, the ALI project focused on this second track, and concluded a proposed federal statute that does not include treaty implementing legislation.

The substantive rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the United States largely have been left to state law. Thus, when the ALI began moving toward federalization of the law in this area, an equivalent effort was undertaken to reinforce state law on the recognition and enforcement of judgments. In 1962 the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) had promulgated the Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act. Although thirty states (plus the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands) had enacted the Uniform Act, others had not.

Type
Chapter
Information
The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements
Commentary and Documents
, pp. 192 - 212
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×