Many nations around the world are parties to judgment-enforcement treaties or conventions with other nations. However, the United States is not a party to any such conventions or treaties with any other countries. Likewise, there is no bilateral treaty or multilateral convention in force between Korea and any other country dealing with the recognition and enforcement of judgments. While Korea has a straightforward and easy to follow system, the U.S. has three different systems currently in place. Given the trade volumes between these two countries, it is important for the practitioners in the two countries to have understanding of each other’s legal system on this important and practical issue. This paper therefore aims to examine the developments in the laws on the recognition and enforcement of judgments from foreign countries in the U.S., and will have a comparative comment on the same. Following the introduction, it will look at the beginning of the legal doctrine in the U.S. in Part II. In Part III, we will discuss the three different bodies of laws, namely the 1962 Act, the 2005 Act, and the Common Law approach with respect to recognition and enforcement of foreign country money judgments. Part III will also contain a critical discussion on the shortcomings of the current legal schemes in place in the U.S. In Part IV, the paper will briefly review the Korean system. In Part V, the paper will conclude that the U.S. should try to adopt a uniform national standard like the Korean approach. Korean system is straight forward and easy to understand, and includes a reciprocity requirement, thereby being more in conformity with the international trend. The American system is problematic in that it lacks uniformity and predictability. Given the ever increasing trade volumes and the interaction between the citizens of these two countries, the U.S. should try to improve its system. Of course, if two countries can sign a well-drafted international treaty, all these problems will go away, and we will be able to achieve nice uniformity and predictability. However, both countries have not signed any international treaties in this area, and it is unlikely that both countries will sign a treaty any time soon. Therefore, if the U.S. wants to improve on this area, the easiest and quickest solution has to come from its federal Congress. Federalization of recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments will be a solution to all the concerns that this paper has identified and discussed. In this regard, it is unfortunate that the U.S. Congress has not acted upon the proposal by ALI for the past ten years. The author hopes that the U.S. Congress considers this issue in due course and that it enacts a federal statute that is as straightforward and as broad as the laws of Korea.
Many nations around the world are parties to judgment-enforcement treaties or conventions with other nations. However, the United States is not a party to any such conventions or treaties with any other countries. Likewise, there is no bilateral treaty or multilateral convention in force between Korea and any other country dealing with the recognition and enforcement of judgments. While Korea has a straightforward and easy to follow system, the U.S. has three different systems currently in place. Given the trade volumes between these two countries, it is important for the practitioners in the two countries to have understanding of each other’s legal system on this important and practical issue. This paper therefore aims to examine the developments in the laws on the recognition and enforcement of judgments from foreign countries in the U.S., and will have a comparative comment on the same. Following the introduction, it will look at the beginning of the legal doctrine in the U.S. in Part II. In Part III, we will discuss the three different bodies of laws, namely the 1962 Act, the 2005 Act, and the Common Law approach with respect to recognition and enforcement of foreign country money judgments. Part III will also contain a critical discussion on the shortcomings of the current legal schemes in place in the U.S. In Part IV, the paper will briefly review the Korean system. In Part V, the paper will conclude that the U.S. should try to adopt a uniform national standard like the Korean approach. Korean system is straight forward and easy to understand, and includes a reciprocity requirement, thereby being more in conformity with the international trend. The American system is problematic in that it lacks uniformity and predictability. Given the ever increasing trade volumes and the interaction between the citizens of these two countries, the U.S. should try to improve its system. Of course, if two countries can sign a well-drafted international treaty, all these problems will go away, and we will be able to achieve nice uniformity and predictability. However, both countries have not signed any international treaties in this area, and it is unlikely that both countries will sign a treaty any time soon. Therefore, if the U.S. wants to improve on this area, the easiest and quickest solution has to come from its federal Congress. Federalization of recognition and enforcement of foreign country judgments will be a solution to all the concerns that this paper has identified and discussed. In this regard, it is unfortunate that the U.S. Congress has not acted upon the proposal by ALI for the past ten years. The author hopes that the U.S. Congress considers this issue in due course and that it enacts a federal statute that is as straightforward and as broad as the laws of Korea.
(0)
(0)