Awards and judgments travel differently
There is no treaty between the United States and China on the recognition of court judgments. There is a treaty on arbitral awards: both countries are parties to the New York Convention, under which a court may refuse to enforce a foreign award only on a short list of grounds—an invalid arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, an award beyond the scope of the agreement, irregular procedure, an award not yet binding, non-arbitrable subject matter or public policy. That difference is the single most important fact in cross-border dispute planning. A party that expects to collect in the other country should usually be arbitrating, not litigating, unless the counterparty has assets where the judgment will be rendered.
Enforcing a foreign award in China
An application to enforce a foreign arbitral award is made to the intermediate people's court at the place where the respondent is domiciled or its assets are located, within two years of the date performance was due, with an authenticated copy of the award and the arbitration agreement and a Chinese translation. Chinese courts have become markedly more reliable on this: a court that intends to refuse enforcement of a foreign award must report the decision up through the provincial high court to the Supreme People's Court before refusing, which has made refusals rare and reasoned. The practical work is finding the assets and preserving them, which Chinese counsel can do quickly once the application is accepted. Awards from Hong Kong seated arbitrations are enforced in the mainland under a separate arrangement with similar effect.
Enforcing a U.S. judgment in China
Without a treaty, recognition of a U.S. judgment in China rests on reciprocity. For many years that meant almost never. Since 2017, Chinese courts have recognized U.S. money judgments in a growing number of cases, and the Supreme People's Court's guidance since 2022 has moved toward asking whether a U.S. court would, under its own law, recognize a comparable Chinese judgment—which most would. Recognition still requires a final judgment from a court with jurisdiction, proper service on the Chinese defendant (which is where default judgments obtained by email service often fail), no conflicting Chinese judgment, and no violation of Chinese public policy, and it must be sought within the two-year limitation period. It is now a real option for a well-founded judgment on a properly served defendant; it remains slow, local and uncertain enough that it should not be the plan when arbitration was available.
Enforcing a Chinese judgment in the United States
Recognition of a Chinese court judgment in the United States is a matter of state law. Most states, including Washington and California, have adopted the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act, under which a final, conclusive judgment for a sum of money is recognized unless a listed ground applies: a judicial system without impartial tribunals or due process, lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendant, fraud, a judgment contrary to public policy, or a dispute the parties had agreed to resolve elsewhere, among others. U.S. courts have recognized Chinese commercial judgments in several reported cases. The judgment creditor files an action or petition in the state court with an authenticated copy and a certified translation; once recognized, the judgment is enforced like a domestic one, through liens, garnishment and examination of the debtor. Time limits apply and vary by state.
Enforcing a Chinese award in the United States
A Chinese arbitral award—from CIETAC, a local arbitration commission or a Hong Kong institution—is enforced in the United States under the Federal Arbitration Act's implementation of the New York Convention. The award creditor petitions a federal court to confirm the award within three years of its issuance, attaching the award and the agreement with translations. The same narrow Convention defenses apply, and U.S. courts apply them narrowly. The confirmed award becomes a federal judgment and is collected with the ordinary tools, including domestication in other states where the debtor has assets. Where the debtor is a U.S. company with real operations, this route is fast and dependable.
Planning for collection before the dispute
Every route above works better when the groundwork was laid at contract stage: an arbitration clause with a seat whose awards the other country enforces, an agent for service, accurate legal names, a guarantee or deposit where the counterparty's credit is thin, and some knowledge of where the counterparty's assets actually are. When a dispute has already arisen, the first analysis should be an enforcement analysis—what can be recovered, where, by which route and at what cost—before any demand letter or filing. A judgment that cannot be collected is an expensive piece of paper; a modest settlement that is paid is not.
References
How Lumen Law & Co. can help
Before any step is taken, one question comes first: can the result be enforced where the other side's assets are. We plan cross-border disputes from that question.
- Complete an enforcement analysis before any demand or filing: recoverable amount, location of assets, available routes and likely cost.
- Handle confirmation of Chinese arbitral awards and recognition of Chinese judgments in U.S. courts, followed by garnishment, liens and other collection steps.
- Work with Chinese counsel to enforce U.S. arbitral awards or seek recognition of U.S. judgments in China, including asset preservation.
- Design arbitration clauses, seats, agents for service and security at the contract stage so that a future decision is enforceable.