Winning an international arbitration is half the battle. The other half is collecting. When the losing party does not pay voluntarily — which happens more often than arbitration's proponents acknowledge — the winning party must enforce the award through the courts of the jurisdiction where the losing party's assets are located. For awards to be enforced in the United States against parties with U.S.-based assets, the New York Convention provides the legal framework, and U.S. federal courts provide the mechanism.

The New York Convention

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, signed in New York in 1958, is the foundational treaty governing international arbitration enforcement. With over 170 signatory countries — including the United States and every major Latin American jurisdiction — the New York Convention obligates contracting states to recognize and enforce arbitral awards made in other contracting states, subject to a narrow set of enumerated defenses.

The Convention's fundamental premise is pro-enforcement: it starts from the assumption that a valid arbitral award should be enforced, and places the burden on the party resisting enforcement to demonstrate that one of the enumerated grounds for refusal applies. U.S. courts have consistently interpreted the Convention narrowly and in favor of enforcement.

Which Awards Qualify

The New York Convention applies to arbitral awards made in the territory of a state other than the state where enforcement is sought, and to awards "not considered as domestic awards" in the enforcing state. In the United States, the Convention is implemented by Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). An ICC award made in Paris, an ICDR award made in Bogotá, or a JAMS award made in Toronto all qualify for enforcement in U.S. federal court under the Convention, provided the arbitration agreement falls within the Convention's scope.

The arbitration agreement must relate to a commercial legal relationship — broadly construed in U.S. courts to include virtually any business dispute. Awards arising from purely domestic disputes, or awards from non-signatory countries, do not qualify under the Convention but may be enforceable under other domestic law provisions.

The Enforcement Procedure in U.S. Federal Court

To enforce a New York Convention award in the United States, the winning party files a petition to confirm the award in federal district court. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over New York Convention enforcement actions — there is no need to establish diversity of citizenship or a minimum amount in controversy. The three-year statute of limitations under the FAA (9 U.S.C. § 207) runs from the date the award is made.

The petitioner must file the original award (or a certified copy) and the original arbitration agreement (or a certified copy), along with a certified translation if the documents are not in English. The respondent may oppose confirmation by raising one of the Article V defenses. If no defense is raised, or if defenses are rejected, the court confirms the award and enters a judgment that carries the same force as any other federal court judgment — enforceable against U.S.-based assets through standard collection mechanisms.

The Seven Grounds to Refuse Enforcement Under Article V

Article V of the New York Convention enumerates the exclusive grounds on which a court may refuse to recognize or enforce a foreign arbitral award. They are:

  • Incapacity or invalid agreement: The parties to the arbitration agreement were under some incapacity, or the agreement is not valid under the law to which the parties subjected it or, failing that, the law of the country where the award was made.
  • Lack of proper notice or inability to present a case: The party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrators or the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case.
  • Award outside the scope of submission: The award deals with a difference not contemplated by or not falling within the terms of the submission to arbitration, or contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the submission. Courts applying this defense carefully — only the portion of the award exceeding the scope need be refused.
  • Improper composition of tribunal or procedure: The composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties, or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the law of the country where the arbitration took place.
  • Award not yet binding, or set aside at the seat: The award has not yet become binding on the parties, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which, or under the law of which, the award was made.
  • Non-arbitrability: The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law of the enforcing country — a narrow defense in U.S. courts, which recognize a broad scope of arbitrable subject matter.
  • Public policy: Recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the enforcing country. U.S. courts apply this defense narrowly — only awards that are fundamentally offensive to U.S. public policy are refused, not merely those that apply foreign law differently than U.S. courts would.

How U.S. Courts Apply Article V

The U.S. federal courts — including the Eleventh Circuit, which covers Florida — apply a strongly pro-enforcement stance. The public policy defense, the most commonly invoked, rarely succeeds. Courts have rejected public policy challenges based on alleged violations of U.S. antitrust law, securities law, and even constitutional rights, holding that international arbitration policy favors enforcement absent truly fundamental violations.

The annulment of an award at the seat — the fifth Article V ground — does not automatically bar enforcement in U.S. courts. Some circuits have held that U.S. courts retain discretion to enforce an award even after it has been set aside at the seat, particularly when the annulment was based on grounds that U.S. courts would not recognize as valid. This is a minority position but represents a meaningful protection for award creditors facing strategic annulment proceedings at the seat.

Miami as a Strategic Enforcement Forum

The Southern District of Florida is an excellent forum for enforcing international arbitral awards, particularly those arising from U.S.-Latin America disputes. The court has substantial experience with New York Convention cases, a sophisticated bench familiar with international commercial law, and established procedures for asset attachment and judgment execution. Miami's banking and real estate sectors often hold assets of LATAM-connected parties, making it a practical enforcement destination.

The Eleventh Circuit's pro-arbitration jurisprudence supports enforcement petitions and has consistently rejected attempts to relitigate the merits of arbitral awards under the guise of Article V defenses. For award creditors, this predictability is valuable — particularly compared to enforcement in some Latin American jurisdictions where court proceedings may be slower or less predictable.

The Panama Convention

For arbitral awards arising from disputes between parties from Western Hemisphere countries, the Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (the Panama Convention) may also apply. The Panama Convention, implemented by Chapter 3 of the FAA, operates similarly to the New York Convention. When both conventions apply, the more favorable convention governs — which in practice typically means the New York Convention, given U.S. courts' extensive familiarity with it.