Arbitration or litigation?

In which states outside the EU and the US is a German judgment enforced? The answer cannot be looked up in one place. It is scattered across treaties, the country reports of Germany Trade & Invest, and the country index in the Munich Commentary on the German Code of Civil Procedure. Here it is, brought together in two maps and a table. The answer decides what belongs in your dispute resolution clause, a state court or an arbitral tribunal.

A judgment first takes effect only in its own state

A judgment is an act of state power. Abroad, it can be enforced only if the other state recognizes it. If your contract partner does not pay voluntarily, you have to enforce where it has assets, usually at its seat. Whether that works is for that state to decide, not for the German court.

Germany does the same in reverse. German courts do not recognize a foreign judgment if, among other things, reciprocity is not established, that is, if the other state does not recognize German judgments in turn (Section 328(1) No. 5 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO). Many states require the same. That is why there is no single answer to where a German judgment is enforced, only one per state.

Within the EU, the German judgment is enough

Within the EU, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation) applies. Its core fits into one sentence.

A judgment of the Regional Court of Düsseldorf against a customer in Milan is therefore enforced in Italy without an Italian court reviewing it first (Article 39 Brussels Ia Regulation). The debtor can stop enforcement only on application and only on a few grounds, for example if recognition would be manifestly contrary to Italian public policy (Articles 45(1) and 46 Brussels Ia Regulation). Denmark is not directly bound by the Regulation but applies it through an agreement with the EU.¹

Outside the EU, only a few treaties help

Outside the EU, there are four routes on which a treaty secures recognition.

• Lugano Convention. The Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters applies in relation to Switzerland, Norway, and Iceland. The judgment is declared enforceable there on application, and the court initially checks only the documents (Articles 38 and 41 of the Lugano Convention). The debtor can raise objections only in the appeal (Articles 43 and 45).
• 2019 Hague Convention. The Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters covers such judgments, with exceptions such as the carriage of goods and intellectual property (Article 2(1)(f) and (m) of the 2019 Hague Convention). A judgment is recognized only if one of the bases in Article 5(1) applies, for example the agreed place of performance in Germany or the defendant arguing on the merits without contesting jurisdiction. It is in force for the EU except Denmark, Ukraine, Uruguay, the United Kingdom, Albania, Montenegro, and Andorra. It applies only to proceedings instituted when it already had effect between both states (Article 16), so with the United Kingdom to proceedings instituted since 1 July 2025.
• 2005 Hague Convention. The Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements helps only if the parties have chosen a court exclusively (Articles 1 and 8 of the 2005 Hague Convention). It covers only agreements concluded after it entered into force for the state of the chosen court (Article 16(1)), so for German courts since 1 October 2015. Its parties include the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Singapore, Mexico, and Ukraine. The United States and China have only signed it.
• Bilateral treaties. Germany has recognition treaties with Norway and Israel, among others, both from 1977 (Section 1(1) No. 1(c) and (d) of the German Recognition and Enforcement Implementation Act, Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsausführungsgesetz, AVAG), and with Tunisia from 1966.²

Everywhere else, the law of the state in which you want to enforce decides. Some states recognize German judgments, some only after a new action, some not at all.

One detail concerns states for which only the 2019 Convention applies, such as Uruguay and Andorra. The 2019 Convention leaves judgments of an exclusively chosen court to the 2005 Convention. In those states, such a judgment therefore needs another basis, for example the agreed place of performance.³

Where a German judgment is enforced

The map shows the strongest route for each state; the legend orders the colors from the most secure to the weakest. Hatched states are those where the 2005 Hague Convention is the only route assessed. There it helps you only with an exclusive choice of court agreement. If you tap a state or point at it with the mouse, you see the routes I assessed.

The remaining states without a treaty have not been assessed individually. Their own law decides there, and it has to be checked case by case. I assessed the 20 largest export markets outside the EU; see the table below.

The map shows the status as of 7 October 2026.⁴ Indexes age quickly. A commentary from 2025 still lists Ukraine without a treaty for commercial matters, although the 2019 Hague Convention has applied there since 1 September 2023.⁵ Check the status before you sign.

The 20 largest export markets outside the EU

The table lists the 20 states outside the EU to which German companies exported the most in 2025, in the order of the official statistics.⁶ For states without a treaty, it relies on the country reports of Germany Trade & Invest and, where they say nothing on the recognition of German judgments, on the country index in the Munich Commentary on the German Code of Civil Procedure.⁷ In the table, “treaty” means a treaty on the recognition of civil and commercial judgments.

Two rows deserve a second look. For India, Germany Trade & Invest expressly advises against agreeing on a German forum, because the German judgment does not prevent the debtor from suing in India on the same matter. And in the US, you usually bear the attorney’s fees of the recognition proceedings yourself, even if you win.⁸ The country reports are in German.

Where an arbitral award is enforced

For arbitral awards, the New York Convention of 1958 applies, to which almost the whole world belongs. Each contracting state recognizes a foreign arbitral award as binding and enforces it (Article III of the New York Convention). It may refuse only on the grounds the Convention lists exhaustively (Article V). In Germany, it applies through Section 1061(1) ZPO.

Taiwan, North Korea, Libya, Yemen, and Namibia, among others, remain gray. Many states apply the Convention only to awards made in other contracting states and only to commercial matters (Article I(3)). For an award made in Germany on a supply or sales contract, this makes no difference, because Germany is a contracting state and the dispute is a commercial matter.

The Convention has a limit, too. If the award was set aside at the seat, any contracting state may refuse enforcement (Article V(1)(e)). The seat of arbitration therefore belongs in every arbitration clause, and in a state with reliable courts.

What else speaks for arbitration and what against it

Besides enforcement, further differences tip the balance in practice.

At an amount in dispute of 1 million euros, a DIS arbitration with three arbitrators costs 102,900 euros in fees plus VAT, the Regional Court at first instance 18,714 euros.⁹ Attorney’s fees come on top in both cases.

Confidentiality deserves a closer look. The arbitral hearing is not public; under the ICC Arbitration Rules, for example, persons not involved in the proceedings are not admitted. The arbitrators are bound to confidentiality. The parties themselves, however, are bound only if the rules prescribe it, as those of the DIS do, or if the tribunal orders it on application, as under the ICC Arbitration Rules.¹⁰ If you have trade secrets to protect, provide for confidentiality in the clause itself.

The proceedings also differ in access to evidence. In arbitration, you can request the production of documents from the other side; before a state court, only within narrow limits (Section 142 ZPO). Only a state court, on the other hand, can compel witnesses to appear; the arbitral tribunal asks it for assistance (Section 1050 ZPO). I describe how document production works in the article “Evidence gathering in the USA for international arbitration”.

In arbitration practice, arbitration is the rule for international disputes. In the 2025 arbitration survey by White & Case and Queen Mary University of London, with 2,402 responses, 87 percent of respondents named arbitration as their preferred method for cross-border disputes, either alone or together with mediation and other alternative dispute resolution.¹¹ The respondents were arbitrators, counsel, in-house lawyers, and representatives of arbitral institutions. The figure therefore shows the view of arbitration practice, not that of mid-sized companies.

Enforcement first, then the clause

This leads to three simple groups, depending on where your contract partner has its assets.

1. Contract partner in the EU. The state court is enough. Choose it exclusively. Arbitration pays off here if confidentiality or the expertise of the decision-makers tips the balance, not because of enforcement.
2. Contract partner in a state with a treaty for civil and commercial judgments, such as Switzerland, the United Kingdom, or Ukraine. The state court is a real option if you choose it exclusively. That also brings in the 2005 Hague Convention where it applies. Where only the 2019 Convention applies, as in Uruguay and Andorra, the exclusive choice does not help; the judgment then needs another basis, for example the agreed place of performance in Germany.
3. Contract partner in a state without a treaty, such as the US, China, India, or Saudi Arabia. Agree on arbitration with its seat in a contracting state of the New York Convention. You would first have to have a German judgment recognized there in separate proceedings under that state’s law. In Saudi Arabia, even that fails for lack of reciprocity.

For the first and second groups, one sentence is enough.

The word “exclusive” makes the exclusivity clear. The Brussels Ia Regulation and the 2005 Hague Convention presume it anyway (Article 25(1) sentence 2 Brussels Ia Regulation, Article 3(b) of the 2005 Hague Convention); with the word, however, there is no dispute about it. I show what an arbitration clause for the third group looks like, and which arbitration rules suit which case, in the article “Arbitration rules compared”. Whether a Commercial Court is an alternative within Germany is covered in the article “Commercial Courts in Germany”.

Frequently asked questions

Is a German judgment enforced in the United States?

There is no treaty. Whether a German judgment is recognized depends on the law of the state in which you enforce it; many states have adopted uniform acts for this. You need separate proceedings there, and you usually bear your own attorney’s fees. With contract partners in the US, an arbitral award under the New York Convention is the more reliable route.

Is a German judgment enforced in China?

There is no treaty, and China has only signed the 2005 Hague Convention. The country index in the Munich Commentary on the German Code of Civil Procedure considers reciprocity established. You cannot plan on it with certainty. China recognizes an arbitral award from Germany under the New York Convention, to which it has been a party since 1987.

What applies in relation to the United Kingdom?

Since Brexit, neither the Brussels Ia Regulation nor the Lugano Convention applies there. Exclusive choice of court agreements fall under the 2005 Hague Convention. For proceedings instituted since 1 July 2025, the 2019 Hague Convention also applies, which covers civil and commercial judgments where one of its bases for recognition applies. For older proceedings without an exclusive choice of court agreement, the route has to be checked case by case.

Does the New York Convention apply to arbitral awards made in Germany?

Yes. Germany is a contracting state. An award with its seat in Germany is recognized and enforced under the Convention in the other 171 contracting states. A state may refuse only on the grounds listed in Article V, for example if the award was set aside at the seat or violates its public policy.

Notes

1. Recital 41 Brussels Ia Regulation; Agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark of 19 October 2005 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. ↩

2. Germany Trade & Invest, Recht kompakt Tunesien, Rechtsverfolgung, status 30 July 2026: the agreement on the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters has applied since 1970; on the treaty year 1966, MüKoZPO/Gottwald, 7th ed. 2025, Section 328 marginal no. 160. ↩

3. Article 5(1)(m) of the 2019 Hague Convention excludes judgments based on an exclusive choice of court agreement from this basis; Article 5(1)(g) names the place of performance as a basis. ↩

4. Hague Conference on Private International Law, status tables of the 2005 Convention (as of 27 November 2025) and of the 2019 Convention (as of 13 May 2025); UNCITRAL, status of the New York Convention; all retrieved on 7 October 2026. For states without a treaty, the country reports of Germany Trade & Invest, series Recht kompakt, section Rechtsverfolgung, with the status of each report in the table, and for China, Russia, and the United States the country index in MüKoZPO/Gottwald, 7th ed. 2025, Section 328 (note 7). The extension of the New York Convention to Greenland, New Caledonia, and Puerto Rico according to the United Nations Treaty Collection. ↩

5. MüKoZPO/Gottwald, 7th ed. 2025, Section 328 marginal no. 161 (Ukraine); on the entry into force, the Hague Conference status table of the 2019 Convention. ↩

6. Federal Statistical Office (Destatis), Statistischer Bericht Außenhandelsrangfolge, table 51000-02 (year 2025), ranking by exports, published on 30 September 2026. ↩

7. MüKoZPO/Gottwald, 7th ed. 2025, Section 328 marginal nos. 144 (China), 158 (Russia), and 162 (United States). For the other states without a treaty, the country reports of Germany Trade & Invest linked in the table, retrieved on 7 October 2026. ↩

8. Germany Trade & Invest, Recht kompakt Indien, Rechtsverfolgung; Recht kompakt USA, Rechtsverfolgung, status 10 July 2026, on the American Rule. ↩

9. DIS cost calculator, status March 2026, retrieved on 7 October 2026, two parties; court fee under Section 34(1) of the German Court Fees Act (Gerichtskostengesetz, GKG) at the rate of 3.0 under No. 1210 of the schedule of costs. The full example is in the article “Arbitration rules compared”. ↩

10. Article 44.1 of the 2018 Arbitration Rules of the German Arbitration Institute (DIS); Articles 12(8), 23(3), and 27(3) of the 2026 ICC Arbitration Rules. ↩

11. White & Case/Queen Mary University of London, 2025 International Arbitration Survey, p. 2, based on 2,402 questionnaire responses. ↩

Reference: Poleacov, P. (2026). Arbitration or litigation?. INN.LAW. https://inn.law/en/perspectives/arbitration-or-litigation/

---