Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 JANUARY 2024

International Commercial Arbitration vs. U.S. Commercial Litigation – Key Differences

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP
Contributor
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

In an increasingly global and interconnected world, Hughes Hubbard sets itself apart as a robust...

View firm profile
Explore more from Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP

Companies doing business internationally often insert arbitration clauses in their contracts. They do so for good reasons.

United StatesLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Introduction

Companies doing business internationally often insert arbitration clauses in their contracts. They do so for good reasons. One is to ensure that future disputes will be resolved in a neutral forum, not in the home court of the counterparty. Another is to maximize the chances that the decision will be enforceable where the counterparty's assets are located. Indeed, foreign courts are generally under no obligation to recognize and enforce U.S. court judgments. By contrast, under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, also known as the "New York Convention"—a treaty in force in over 160 countries—decisions rendered by arbitrators (known as "arbitral awards") benefit from a favorable enforcement regime.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from