The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
52
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
52-62
10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue05-06
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
18 March 2025
ACCEPTED
24 April 2025
PUBLISHED
14 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 05 2025
CITATION
Assel Salikhova. (2025). Execution of Foreign Judicial Decisions: A
Comparative Analysis of Legal Mechanisms in Kazakhstan, Russia, the
USA, China, and European Countries. The American Journal of
Management and Economics Innovations, 7(05), 52
–
62.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajmei/Volume07Issue05-06
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Execution of Foreign
Judicial Decisions: A
Comparative Analysis of
Legal Mechanisms in
Kazakhstan, Russia, the
USA, China, and European
Countries
Assel Salikhova
Director of Anteris Partners LLP
“Legal
Consultant, member of the Chamber
of Legal
Consultants” Justus”
Almaty, Kazakhstan
Abstract:
This article presents a comprehensive analysis
of modern mechanisms for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judicial decisions, with a
particular focus on practice in the Republic of
Kazakhstan. The study covers the period 2018
–
2024
and is based on a comparative analysis of legislative
norms, judicial practice, and international conventions
in Kazakhstan, Russia, the USA, China, and European
countries. Special attention is paid to the application of
the principle of reciprocity, the influence of
international trends and political factors on the
enforcement of judicial decisions, and the identification
of promising directions for the improvement of
national legislation. The work relies on recent
publications from reputable sources (Scopus, Web of
Science, and analytical reports from leading consulting
organizations)
and
demonstrates
that
the
modernization of the legal mechanism for enforcing
foreign judicial decisions is a crucial condition for
enhancing trust in the national judicial system and
strengthening international cooperation.
Keywords:
foreign judicial decisions; enforcement of
judicial decisions; principle of reciprocity; international
law;
arbitration;
civil
litigation;
Kazakhstan;
comparative analysis.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
53
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Introduction:
In an era of globalization and increasing
cross-border connections, the issue of recognizing and
enforcing foreign judicial decisions has become
particularly relevant. The effective enforcement of
decisions from foreign courts (both state courts for civil
matters and arbitration institutions) directly impacts
the confidence of international trade participants in the
protection of their rights and reduces risks when
conducting business abroad [1, 2]. Despite the active
development of international trade and investments,
until recently there was no uniform, universal
mechanism for enforcing foreign judicial acts. Each
country has developed its own approach to this issue
—
from the principle of reciprocity and international
treaties to the doctrine of comity [3, 4]. This has given
rise to extensive literature: researchers analyze both
the theoretical foundations (the issues of reconciling
sovereignty with the need for international
cooperation) and the practical obstacles faced by
creditors attempting to enforce foreign judicial
decisions [2]. In recent years (2018
–
2024), significant
shifts have been observed in this field
—
from the
conclusion of new multilateral conventions to changes
in national legislation and judicial practice influenced
by geopolitical factors.
Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyze modern
approaches to enforcing foreign court decisions in
various legal systems (Kazakhstan, Russia, the USA,
China, and European countries). To achieve this aim,
the following tasks are set:
1.
To explore the international legal foundations and
trends in the development of mechanisms for the
recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial
decisions;
2.
To analyze Kazakhstan’s national regulation in this
area, identifying problems and achievements in
judicial practice;
3.
To compare Kazakhstan’s approaches with those in
Russia, the USA, China, and European countries,
highlighting common features and differences;
4.
To determine the key trends from 2018 to 2024 and
identify promising foreign practices that may be of
interest to Kazakhstan.
The issue of enforcing foreign judicial decisions is
studied at the intersection of international private law,
civil procedure, and arbitration. Traditionally, two main
instruments are discussed: the conclusion of
international agreements on the mutual recognition of
decisions, or the application of the principle of
reciprocity based on national law in the absence of an
agreement [3]. In the Russian-language literature,
particular attention has been paid to the enforcement
of decisions within the CIS and under bilateral
agreements (for example, in the works of M.
Suleimenov et al.), whereas foreign studies often focus
on the practical experience of common law countries
(the USA, the United Kingdom) from the perspective of
the doctrine of comity. Modern publications note the
insufficient unification of rules and the associated risks
for legal relations [2], but also indicate progress
–
notably, the adoption of a new Convention on the
Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions by the Hague
Conference on Private International Law in 2019, aimed
at enhancing predictability and reducing costs in cross-
border disputes [1]. However, as recent research
shows, the effective application of even ratified
international norms largely depends on the readiness
of national courts to adhere to the spirit of
international cooperation or, conversely, to prioritize
sovereign interests (for example, through public policy
exceptions or politically motivated restrictions) [5]. This
study is based on the aforementioned theoretical work
and current practice data, which together provide a
comprehensive understanding of the present state of
the issue.
1. International Legal Mechanisms and Modern
Trends
The recognition and enforcement of a foreign judicial
decision generally require either an international legal
basis (in force between the state issuing the decision
and the state enforcing the agreement or convention)
or a domestic legal mechanism that permits such a
procedure under certain conditions (for example, the
presence of the principle of reciprocity). Historically,
the greatest success in unification has been achieved in
the field of international commercial arbitration
–
thanks to the 1958 New York Convention on the
Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, to which over
160 states have acceded, making arbitration clauses
and awards widely recognized around the world [2]. In
contrast, it took the legal community a long time to
achieve a similar universal instrument for state court
decisions. It was not until 2019 that the Hague
Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of
Foreign Judicial Decisions was concluded, which came
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
54
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
into force in September 2023 (currently only for the
European Union and Ukraine) [6]. This Convention
establishes uniform grounds for recognition and
provides an exhaustive list of reasons for refusal, which
should increase certainty and reduce the time and costs
associated with enforcing decisions abroad [1].
However, its number of participants is still limited, and
major economies (the USA, China, Russia, etc.) are only
at the stage of considering accession. Thus, during the
period 2018
–
2024, the primary instruments remained
bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance and the
national legislation of the states.
In the post-Soviet countries and continental Europe, a
contractual approach has traditionally prevailed: a
foreign decision is enforced only if there is a
corresponding agreement (bilateral or multilateral)
between the countries [3]. In the absence of such an
agreement, courts automatically refuse enforcement
or leave the matter to the discretion of the legislator.
As a "fallback" mechanism, the principle of reciprocity
is often mentioned
–
i.e., the court is willing to enforce
a decision on the condition that the foreign state would
do the same under similar circumstances [3]. In
practice, a "who starts first" problem arose: many
courts required proof that the courts of the foreign
state had previously enforced decisions from that state;
otherwise, they would refuse enforcement, making
reciprocal enforcement by the foreign court even less
attainable [3]. This approach was typical, for example,
in Russia until recently. In other jurisdictions,
reciprocity is interpreted more flexibly. A notable
modern example is China, where in 2022 the Supreme
People’s Court recommended that, in the absence of
direct precedents, courts should examine not the facts
of previous enforcement of foreign decisions but rather
the legal possibilities: it is sufficient to establish that the
legislation of the relevant foreign state permits the
recognition of foreign decisions in principle (even if
Chinese decisions have not yet been enforced there)
[7]. Essentially, this step introduces the concept of
presumed
reciprocity,
greatly
facilitating
the
applicants' task of proving the basis for enforcement.
As a result, the number of cases in which Chinese courts
have granted enforcement based on reciprocity has
increased significantly [8].
Another approach is historically characteristic of
common law countries such as the USA and the United
Kingdom: there, the absence of an agreement does not
preclude the enforcement of a foreign decision
(exequatur) because the doctrine of judicial comity
applies [4]. Courts in these countries treat a foreign
decision as the basis for a new action (to enforce the
debt as provided by a judicial decision) and, in general,
recognize it as binding provided that the foreign court
had proper jurisdiction and that minimum standards of
fairness and due process were observed during the
proceedings [9]. Thus, the emphasis is not on the
formal existence of an agreement between states but
on material criteria such as the finality of the decision
and its non-contravention of public order, etc. This
approach facilitates creditors’ efforts, though it does
not preclude refusals in cases where the foreign judicial
system is deemed incompatible with the basic
requirements of justice. For example, in 2021, a New
York state court refused to recognize a monetary
decision of a Chinese court, citing the insufficient
independence and impartiality of the judicial system of
the PRC [9]. Such cases remain rare and are subject to
debate, but they are indicative: even in countries with
a liberal regime for enforcing foreign decisions, "red
lines" (typically related to guarantees of fair trial and
fundamental legal principles) persist.
Thus, the examined period has been marked
simultaneously by a move toward unification and the
emergence of new barriers. On one hand, progressive
jurisdictions have taken steps towards mutual
recognition of decisions. For example, China has not
only relaxed the criteria for reciprocity but has also
entered into several new bilateral agreements: as of
2024, China had mutual legal assistance agreements
with 39 states, 35 of which contain provisions on the
reciprocal enforcement of judicial decisions [8]. On the
other
hand,
geopolitical
tensions
(sanctions,
restrictions on cooperation) have negatively affected
the judicial practices of certain countries. A striking
example is Russia after 2022: Russian courts began to
refuse the enforcement of decisions from "unfriendly"
states, citing the lack of evidence of reciprocity under
current conditions and even considering the sanctions
imposed against Russia as a public order element that
prevents the granting of the request [5]. In effect, a
presumption has been introduced that after February
2022, courts of unfriendly states will not enforce
Russian decisions, and consequently, Russian courts
should not enforce their decisions either
—
a vicious
cycle of mutual refusals, contrary to the global trend of
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
55
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
cooperation. Simultaneously, the use of public policy
clauses to protect national interests has expanded: for
instance, Russian courts have linked the enforcement
of foreign (including arbitration) decisions to economic
disparities between the parties resulting from
sanctions, deeming such enforcement to be contrary to
the public interests of the Russian Federation [5].
Another trend has been the creation of specialized
jurisdictional mechanisms to attract investments. An
example is the MFC (Astana) in Kazakhstan, where an
independent AIFC Court has been established modeled
on the English judicial system. Its decisions are
recognized as equivalent to those of Kazakhstan’s
national courts and are enforced directly [10, 18].
Although the AIFC Court primarily hears disputes by
agreement of the parties, its very existence
demonstrates Kazakhstan’s commitment to adopting
new practices and creating a favorable legal climate.
Such innovations, along with participation in
international initiatives (for example, potential future
accession to the 2019 Hague Convention), indicate that
Kazakhstan is geared towards progress in the
recognition of foreign judicial acts.
Overall, international practice at the end of the 2010s
and the beginning of the 2020s is characterized by a
simultaneous movement toward greater legal certainty
(through conventions and judicial cooperation) and the
emergence of new challenges associated with a crisis of
trust between individual states. Against this backdrop,
we will now examine in more detail the national
regulation and practice of enforcing foreign decisions in
the Republic of Kazakhstan, and then conduct a
comparative analysis with other key jurisdictions.
2. Legislation and Practice in Kazakhstan for Enforcing
Foreign Decisions
In Kazakhstan, the procedure for recognizing and
enforcing foreign court decisions is established in
Chapter 55 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Republic
of Kazakhstan (RK). According to Paragraph 1 of Article
501 of the CPC RK, judicial acts of foreign courts are
subject to recognition and compulsory enforcement if
at least one of the following conditions is met: (1) such
enforcement is provided for by the legislation of the
Republic of Kazakhstan; (2) it is provided for by an
international treaty ratified by the RK; or (3) it is carried
out on the basis of the principle of reciprocity [11].
Thus, the law explicitly permits the enforcement of a
foreign decision in Kazakhstan even in the absence of a
treaty
—
on the basis of reciprocity. Nevertheless, in
practice, until recently, the first two grounds
predominated. Kazakhstan has acceded to several
multilateral agreements that include provisions on the
enforcement of judicial decisions (among them the
Minsk Convention of the CIS, 1993, the Chisinau
Convention on Legal Assistance of 2002, etc., applicable
to most neighboring states), and has also concluded
bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance with a
number of countries (China, Turkey, India, Eastern
European and Central Asian states, etc.) [12]. The
presence of a treaty usually eliminates any doubts: a
Kazakhstani court only verifies compliance with
procedural conditions (jurisdiction, proper notification
of the defendant, whether enforcement contradicts
public order in the RK, correct documentation, etc.)
[11]. If no treaty exists, the third criterion
—
reciprocity
—
is applied; however, until recently its
practical application was uncertain. The Supreme Court
of the RK, up until the end of 2023, had not provided
clarifications regarding reciprocity, focusing solely on
legislation and treaties [11]. Moreover, in the
Commentary to the CPC of 2016, the principle of
reciprocity was treated merely as a condition enshrined
in treaties, effectively reducing its role to contractual
frameworks [11]. This led to the view that enforcement
is impossible without an international agreement
—
even though Article 501 of the CPC literally provides
otherwise.
Until 2023, the overwhelming majority of cases
reaching Kazakhstani courts indeed involved decisions
from countries with which Kazakhstan has an
agreement [11]. For example, decisions of courts from
the Russian Federation, Belarus, and Kyrgyzstan were
actively enforced
—
primarily based on multilateral CIS
agreements, and less frequently under bilateral
treaties. Such cases usually concluded successfully for
the claimants, provided that formalities were observed.
However, there were almost no precedents where a
foreign act was enforced without a treaty [11]. The
situation changed in recent years. In 2023, an
uncommon case was reported in open sources: the
applicant succeeded in obtaining enforcement of a
Dutch court decision in Kazakhstani courts despite the
absence of a legal assistance treaty between
Kazakhstan and the Netherlands [11]. Lawyers justified
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
56
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
the possibility of enforcement by citing the principle of
reciprocity, presenting arguments to the court that
Dutch legislation in general permits the recognition of
foreign judicial decisions (even if Kazakhstani decisions
had not previously been enforced there) [11]. The first-
instance court agreed with these arguments and issued
an order for the enforcement of the Dutch judicial act,
which was subsequently upheld on appeal [11].
Interestingly, the appellate court additionally referred,
for some reason, to the New York Convention
(presumably by analogy with international arbitration),
although the dispute concerned a decision of a Dutch
state court [11]. This case demonstrated the readiness
of the Kazakhstani judiciary to apply Article 501 of the
CPC RK in its entirety, including the principle of
reciprocity, and set a precedent for subsequent similar
cases.
It should be noted that the position of the Supreme
Court has played an important role in the development
of practice. In December 2023, the Plenum of the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan updated
its normative resolution on enforcement issues,
explicitly recognizing reciprocity as an independent
basis alongside an agreement and the law (which was
not present in the 2003 version) [11]. In doing so, the
highest judicial authority eliminated a gap and provided
lower courts with guidance to consider possible
reciprocity even in the absence of an agreement.
Although there is not yet a detailed clarification on how
to establish the presence of reciprocity
—
each judge
will likely decide this independently based on the
evidence presented [11]
—
the mere fact that the
Supreme Court has acknowledged this principle
enhances applicant
s’ chances in future disputes.
Consequently, de jure, Kazakhstan is among those
jurisdictions where a foreign decision can be enforced
even without a contractual basis
—
provided that
reciprocity exists.
In such cases, an application for recognition and
enforcement of a foreign judicial decision is submitted
to the court at the place of enforcement (typically,
where the debtor or its assets are located). The law
provides for relatively short deadlines and a simplified
procedure: the case is considered by a single judge
without a thorough reexamination of the dispute's facts
[2]. The court is not authorized to review the substance
of the foreign decision (i.e., to verify the correctness of
the application of substantive law or the soundness of
its conclusions) [2]. Its task is to ascertain the presence
of grounds for enforcement (an agreement, law, or
reciprocity) and the absence of grounds for refusal,
which, according to the CPC RK, include: the decision
not having entered into legal force; the exclusive
jurisdiction of the dispute for RK courts; violations of
fundamental principles (public order) in the issuance of
the decision abroad; failure to properly notify the
defendant; and so on. If the foreign decision is not final
in form or implies enforcement that contradicts the
sovereignty of the RK, enforcement will be refused.
Overall, the list of grounds for refusal corresponds to
global practice and largely echoes the provisions of the
New York Convention on Arbitrations [2] (for example,
breaches of the parties' agreement on jurisdiction, a
party’s incapacity, lack of notification, etc., are similarly
applicable by analogy to court decisions). In the event
of a positive outcome, a Kazakhstani court issues an
order of recognition and an enforcement order, after
which the stage of compulsory enforcement begins in
the usual manner. For the debtor, a foreign decision
recognized in the RK holds the same force as a decision
of a national court.
Despite these positive developments, problems
remain. The lack of extensive practice outside of treaty
frameworks means that many judges and judicial
executors have insufficient experience in such cases [2].
This can affect the duration of proceedings and the
consistency of approaches. Additionally, some experts
note that Kazakhstani legislation still does not contain
a single, unified law governing the enforcement of
foreign judicial acts
—
the relevant norms are scattered
across the CPC and the Enforcement Law, complicating
their application [2]. However, the steps being taken
(with courts increasingly encountering applications
from foreign creditors and the Supreme Court refining
its clarifications) indicate progressive development.
3. Comparative Analysis: Russia, USA, China, Europe
To assess the peculiarities of the Kazakhstani regime, it
is useful to compare it with approaches in several major
jurisdictions. Below is a summary table (Table 1)
reflecting the main conditions for the recognition and
enforcement of foreign judicial decisions in the
countries under consideration.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
57
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Table 1. Main Conditions for the Enforcement of Foreign Judicial Decisions
Country
Main Legal Bases and Conditions
Kazakhstan
The presence of an international treaty or an agreement on mutual legal assistance; in
its absence, enforcement is permitted on the basis of reciprocity if provided for by law
[11]. The law explicitly allows for the enforcement of foreign court decisions under one
of these conditions. In practice, enforcement is predominantly carried out based on
treaties (CIS, bilateral agreements), with rare cases relying on reciprocity (beginning in
2023) [11].
Russia
An international treaty or federal law is required. The RF Civil Procedure Code (state
courts) explicitly requires a treaty; the RF Arbitration Procedure Code (commercial
courts) permits enforcement without a treaty, but within the framework of the law [3].
The principle of reciprocity is not directly enshrined in the procedural codes, although
it was previously recognized as part of the doctrine of comity [3]. In practice, until
2022 there were isolated cases of enforcement of decisions from countries without a
treaty (based on reciprocity, if reciprocal enforcement could be demonstrated) [3].
After 2022, however, there is a de facto moratorium on enforcing decisions from
“unfriendly” states (refusals due to lack of current reciprocity and public order
considerations) [5].
USA
The USA does not participate in multilateral treaties on judicial decisions [4].
Enforcement is regulated by state laws (uniform acts from 1962/2005 adopted in most
states) and is based on the principle of comity
—
respect for a foreign decision provided
that the decision is final, substantive, monetary (not punitive), and issued in
accordance with due process [4, 9]. Reciprocity is not a mandatory requirement
(American courts usually do not refuse enforcement solely because another country
does not enforce their decisions). However, there are exceptions: under federal law
(SPEECH Act 2010), the enforcement of foreign decisions on defamation that conflict
with the First Amendment (freedom of speech) is prohibited. In general, US courts are
quite willing to recognize foreign decisions
—
for example, by 2023 there were at least
six cases of Chinese court decisions being recognized by US courts [13], which served
as a basis for reciprocity on the part of China. Nevertheless, there have also been
refusals motivated by a failure to meet judicial standards (as in the aforementioned
case where a New York court refused to recognize a decision of a Chinese court) [9].
China
The law (Articles 281
–
282 of the CPC of the PRC) provides for enforcement if there is
an agreement with a foreign state or if reciprocity is proven. Traditionally, China had a
limited number of treaties, and until the 2010s, refusals on the grounds of lack of
reciprocity were common. Since 2017, however, there has been a shift: PRC courts
have started to recognize reciprocity if a foreign court has ever enforced a decision of
a Chinese court. In 2022, the Supreme People’s Court issued a Political Clarification
(Conference) with a new, more liberal interpretation of reciprocity [7]: criteria for de
jure reciprocity (comparison of legislation), consensual reciprocity, and presumed
reciprocity have been introduced. This significantly lowered the threshold
—
for
example, in 2023, a court in Nanning recognized a decision of a Thai court for the first
time, even though Thai courts had never previously enforced Chinese decisions, relying
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
58
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Country
Main Legal Bases and Conditions
solely on the principle of mutual recognition (presumption). The number of cases of
enforcing foreign decisions in China has increased: according to available data, by
September 2024 there were 109 cases involving 26 states (including precedents with
the USA, Japan, Canada, Singapore, and others). China has also expanded its treaty
base
—
there are 35 bilateral enforcement agreements with various countries [8]. Thus,
China has evolved toward greater openness to foreign judicial decisions, especially
from countries cooperating under the “Belt and Road” initiative.
Europe
Practices are heterogeneous due to different legal traditions. Within the EU, a unified
regime exists (Brussels I bis, Regulation No. 1215/2012), but it only concerns mutual
recognition of decisions among member states. Regarding decisions from third
countries, each European state is guided by its national law and international
agreements. Many continental European countries require reciprocity or a treaty. For
example, according to § 328 of the German CPC, a foreign decision is enforced by a
German court only if German decisions are likewise recognized in the country of origin
(this is presumed for countries with a similar approach, such as the USA and Japan)
[14, 15]. France, Spain, and others have traditionally relied on bilateral agreements or
applied the doctrine of exequatur with a review of the fundamentals of fairness. The
United Kingdom, after Brexit, reverted to a common law regime for non-European
decisions: a foreign decision is treated as the basis for a claim, and English courts
usually recognize it provided that the criteria of jurisdiction and procedural fairness are
met, although they may formally require reciprocity in some cases. An important
innovation for Europe was the entry into force of the 2019 Hague Convention on
Judicial Decisions on September 1, 2023
—
it now directly binds the EU and Ukraine
with treaty obligations on mutual recognition of decisions [16]. Other European states
are expected to accede (the United Kingdom signed the Convention in 2023 and is
preparing for ratification [17]). Thus, European practice is gradually moving towards
multilateral unification, although national rules and political nuances still play a
significant role (for example, the recognition of decisions of Russian courts under
sanctions is addressed by EU courts with consideration of public order and current
policies).
As can be seen from Table 1, the approaches vary from
maximum reliance on international treaties (as was
previously the case in Russia and Kazakhstan) to a
relatively autonomous regime of comity (in the USA
and, to some extent, the United Kingdom), with
intermediate models employing the criterion of
reciprocity (in Kazakhstan, Russia, China, Germany,
etc.), but interpreting it differently. Following reforms,
Kazakhstan is increasingly aligning with a hybrid model:
while maintaining a contractual priority, its legislation
also permits an autonomous resolution of the issue in
the absence of an agreement, thereby aligning it with
the global trend toward openness.
To illustrate these trends, let us consider specific
examples from practice during 2018
–
2024 in various
jurisdictions that reflect the mentioned tendencies.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
59
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Table 2
–
Examples of Judicial Practice in the Enforcement of Foreign Decisions (2018
–
2024)
Case (Year)
Description and Outcome
Jurisdictions
Enforcement
of a Dutch
Decision
in
Kazakhstan
(2023)
A Dutch company succeeded in having Dutch court decisions
recognized by Kazakhstani courts, even though there is no
agreement between Kazakhstan and the Netherlands. Basis: the
principle of reciprocity. The court found that Dutch law, in general,
permits the enforcement of foreign decisions, which was deemed
sufficient. Outcome: the decision was enforced; the precedent
confirmed the applicability of reciprocity in Kazakhstan [11].
Netherlands
→
Kazakhstan
(without
a
treaty, based
on
reciprocity)
Refusal
to
Enforce a US
Court
Decision
in
Russia (2023)
An American creditor attempted to enforce a US court decision in
Moscow. A Russian arbitration court demanded proof that, after
the imposition of sanctions (after February 28, 2022), US courts
continue to enforce decisions of Russian courts
—
which the
applicant, of course, failed to demonstrate. The court referred to
the list of “unfriendly states” and the absence of current
reciprocity. Outcome: enforcement was refused as it contradicted
the principles of reciprocity and the public order of the Russian
Federation [5].
USA → Russia
(refusal due
to sanctions
policy
and
lack
of
reciprocity)
Recognition
of
a
Thai
Decision
in
China (2024)
A local PRC court in Nanning for the first time recognized a
monetary decision of a Thai court. Previously, Chinese decisions
had never been enforced in Thailand. Basis: presumed reciprocity
according to the Nanning statement of 2017 (a regional agreement
between the PRC and ASEAN countries)
—
the court ruled that since
Thai legislation does not, in principle, preclude the recognition of
foreign decisions, reciprocity exists. Outcome: the decision was
recognized and enforced. This case sets a precedent for the
implementation of a new SPC policy that expands the scope of
reciprocity.
Thailand →
China
(without
a
direct treaty,
based
on
presumed
reciprocity)
Recognition
of a Japanese
Judicial Act in
China (2022)
A court in Shanghai recognized the ruling of the Tokyo District
Court initiating bankruptcy proceedings (civil rehabilitation)
against a debtor. For the first time, a Chinese court enforced a
judicial act from Japan, although there had previously been no
practice of mutual recognition between the PRC and Japan.
Outcome: the decision was successfully recognized, signaling a
thaw in judicial cooperation between the two countries.
Japan
→
China
(without
a
treaty,
recognition
of
the
bankruptcy
act on the
basis
of
reciprocity)
Recognition
of a Chinese
Decision
in
the
USA
A court in the state of New York (USA) considered an application
for recognition of a monetary decision of the Beijing Court against
an American defendant who had assets in the USA. The applicant
argued that there were no grounds for refusal, citing that Chinese
China → USA
(refusal due
to
doubts
about
the
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
60
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
Case (Year)
Description and Outcome
Jurisdictions
(2020)
courts are part of a system compatible with the requirements of
fairness. Outcome: the New York court refused, concluding that
the PRC judicial system does not meet the criteria of independence
and impartiality (the first such precedent) [9]. This case
demonstrated that even in the USA, refusals may occur on systemic
grounds, although several Chinese decisions had previously been
successfully recognized there.
fairness
of
the
judicial
system)
The examples provided confirm that the practice of
enforcing foreign decisions is dynamically evolving and
influenced by both legal reforms and geopolitical
factors. The Kazakhstani experience (see the first
example) reflects a general trend toward liberalizing
the regime
–
shifting from strict reliance on treaties to
a more flexible application of reciprocity, thereby
expanding the possibilities for claimants. At the same
time, the cases in Russia and the USA demonstrate how
political considerations or assessments of the quality of
justice in the country of origin can complicate
enforcement, even if the law formally permits it.
Chinese achievements indicate that persistent
institutional changes (such as new clarifications from
the Supreme Court and regional initiatives like the
Nanning agreement) can substantially increase the
number of successfully enforced foreign decisions,
including those that were previously unenforceable.
Thus, the comparative analysis shows that as of 2024,
Kazakhstan occupies an intermediate position: its legal
framework combines elements of both the continental
system (contractual approach and reciprocity) and the
flexibility characteristic of new trends. Unlike Russia,
which is experiencing a rollback due to sanctions,
Kazakhstan demonstrates a willingness to cooperate.
Unlike the USA, where case law predominates,
Kazakhstan has sought to develop more predictable
rules through legislation and Supreme Court
clarifications. The Chinese experience is particularly
illustrative of progress
—
and Kazakhstan is already
taking note of it, aiming to adopt best practices (for
example, the idea of presumed reciprocity or special
agreements with key trading partners). The European
experience (especially the entry into force of the Hague
Convention) is also significant, as Kazakhstan, as a
participant in the Hague Conference, may in the future
join this agreement, which would radically simplify the
enforcement of decisions from many countries.
CONCLUSION
The conducted study allows for several general
conclusions. First, the enforcement of foreign judicial
decisions in today’s world is gradually ceasing to be an
exotic matter
–
significant progress has been made over
the past 5
–
6 years in the international legal framework
(such as the adoption of the 2019 Hague Convention
and an increase in bilateral agreements) as well as in
the practice of national courts (with new precedents
recognizing decisions that were previously considered
“unenforceable”). Second, a key trend is the shift from
a purely formal approach (enforcement only in the
presence of a treaty) to one that is more flexible and
cooperative. Kazakhstan, as part of this trend, has
updated its legislation and practice: today, foreign
court decisions can be enforced in Kazakhstan either on
a contractual basis or on the basis of proven reciprocity.
The first successful reciprocity-based case in 2023
demonstrated the viability of such a mechanism and
laid the groundwork for further applications by foreign
creditors.
Third, maintaining a balance between sovereignty and
international obligations remains crucial. Each country
reserves the right to refuse enforcement if it deems
such enforcement contrary to its public order or
fundamental principles of justice. Examples from Russia
(with sanction-driven public order considerations) and
the USA (with criticisms of the PRC judicial system)
illustrate that policy and values can influence outcomes
even when legal mechanisms for recognition exist. For
Kazakhstan, it is important to continue refining internal
procedures (ensuring uniformity in judicial practice and
training judges in the nuances of international
cooperation) to eliminate arbitrary refusals and ensure
predictability of decisions. The Supreme Court of the RK
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
61
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
has taken a step in this direction by incorporating the
principle of reciprocity into its resolution
—
now, the
task for practice is to give this principle concrete
content (e.g., criteria for sufficient evidence).
The results of the analysis have practical significance for
both legislators and the judiciary, as well as for
businesses. For Kazakhstani legislators, the study’s
findings can serve as a guideline for further
modernizing the normative framework: it may be
advisable to consider joining the Hague Convention on
Judicial Decisions, which would automatically simplify
the enforcement of decisions from most developed
countries. In addition, it is useful to examine China’s
experience in issuing detailed judicial guidelines for
courts
–
similar recommendations in the RK (for
example, clarifying what constitutes sufficient evidence
of reciprocity) would enhance efficiency and reduce
variability in practice. For courts and lawyers, this
research summarizes current approaches, enabling
them to refer to successful cases from foreign practice
to support their positions. For instance, when reviewing
a motion to recognize a US court decision, a
Kazakhstani lawyer can argue that courts in China and
several other countries already enforce American
decisions, thereby convincing the Kazakhstani court of
the existence of international reciprocity and the need
to uphold the RK’s reputation as a jurisdiction that is
friendly to foreign decisions.
For businesses and investors, comparing enforcement
regimes provides valuable insights when planning
cross-border transactions and choosing dispute
resolution methods. Whereas in the past foreign
companies might have feared that a decision of their
national court would not be enforceable in Kazakhstan,
now, given the evolution of practice, they can proceed
to court with greater confidence and then seek
enforcement here (or, alternatively, include an
arbitration clause if that is preferable in terms of
universal enforceability). For creditors from Kazakhstan
who win disputes abroad, the presented data will help
assess their chances of compelling a debtor to pay: for
example, in which countries it is more advantageous to
file for exequatur (today, China is more promising than
a few years ago, whereas in Russia the situation has
become more complicated).
In summary, Kazakhstan has made significant progress
from 2018 to 2024 in creating a favorable regime for
enforcing foreign judicial decisions, approaching
advanced international practice standards. The
practical implementation of the reciprocity principle
and participation in international initiatives will enable
the Republic to strengthen its authority as a reliable
jurisdiction for investment and legal protection. At the
same time, maintaining a balance between national
interests and international obligations requires
constant attention
—
as experience shows, both
external and internal challenges will test the country’s
commitment to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
The comprehensive analysis of approaches in different
countries conducted in this study can serve as a basis
for further research and reforms aimed at ensuring the
unhindered “movement” of judicial decisions in the
global arena, alongside the movement of goods,
services, capital, and people. Ultimately, this meets the
strategic objective of enhancing the attractiveness of
Kazakhstan and other states for international
cooperation and the sustainable development of legal
ties.
REFERENCES
HCCH | Judgments Section. [Online]
–
URL:
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/s
pecialised-sections/judgments#:~:
Akimbekova M., Akimbekova S., Moroz S. Recognition
and enforcement of decisions of foreign courts and
arbitrations in the Republic of Kazakhstan: Current
status and problems //Pt. 2 J. Legal Ethical & Regul.
Isses.
–
2021.
–
Т. 24. –
С. 1.
Russian Case Law in 2020 on Recognition and
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments under Reciprocity
Rule
–
Legal Developments. [Online]
–
URL:
Enforcement of Judgments: Overview (United States).
[Online]
–
URL:
https://www.hoganlovells.com/-
Russian courts' new approach to reciprocity: Post-
sanctions compliance - Koch Boës
–
Rechtsanwälte.
The American Journal of Management and Economics Innovations
62
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei
[Online]
–
URL:
https://kdb.legal/en/russian-courts-
post-sanctions-approach-to-reciprocity/#:~:
HCCH | #41 - Status table. [Online]
–
URL:
https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/st
atus-table/?cid=137#:~:
China’s 2022 Landmark Judicial Policy Clears Final
Hurdle for Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. [Online]
–
URL:
https://conflictoflaws.net/2022/chinas-2022-
landmark-judicial-policy-clears-final-hurdle-for-
enforcement-of-foreign-judgments/?print=print#:~:
Septem
ber 2024 Update: List of China’s Cases on
Recognition of Foreign Judgments
–
Conflict of Laws.
[Online]
–
URL:
Chinese judgment denied recognition in the United
States - Asian Business Law Institute. [Online]
–
URL:
https://abli.asia/judgment-chinese-judgment-denied-
recognition-in-the-united-states/#:~:
KAZAKHSTAN: An Introduction Law | Chambers and
Partners.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://chambers.com/content/item/5472
Признание и приведение в исполнение решений
иностранных
судов.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://signumlaw.com/posts/priznanie-i-privedenie-
v-ispolnenie-resheniy-inostrannyh-sudov
Judgments | Russia | Cross-Border Enforcement Center
| Baker McKenzie Resource Hub. [Online]
–
URL:
List of China's Cases on Recognition of Foreign
Judgments.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/list-of-
chinas-cases-on-recognition-of-foreign-judgments#:~:
Judgments | Germany | Cross-Border Enforcement
Center.
[Online]
–
URL:
Snapshot: bringing a claim for enforcement of a foreign
judgment
in
Germany.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fea3
200d-a436-4cae-bbcb-e0b0efdfcb06#:~:
Hague Judgments Convention: UK
–
Getting nearer? -
Gowling
WLG.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://gowlingwlg.com/en/insights-
resources/articles/2023/2019-hague-judgments-
convention
Hague Judgments Convention - Wikipedia. [Online]
–
URL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Judgments_Con
vention#:~:text=,Image%C2%A0Uruguay
AIFC Court Case No. 2 of 2023 - Judgment_ENG.
[Online]
–
URL:
https://court.aifc.kz/uploads/AIFC%20Court%20and%
20IAC/AIFC%20Court%20Case%20No.%202%20of%20
2023%20-%20Judgment_ENG..pdf#:~:
