Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Japan

1. What to check first

The type of document you have

Whether the document you wish to use in Japan, or to which you are required to respond here, is a judgment of a foreign court, an arbitral award, an interim protective order, or a document relating to a settlement determines which procedure is used in Japan. Documents should not be classified by their title alone: it is necessary to check which body issued the document, what it says, and what its character is in procedural terms.

For documents relating to a settlement, the procedure available in Japan differs according to whether the document is a settlement in proceedings before a foreign court, an arbitral award recording the terms of a settlement, or an international settlement agreement resulting from mediation. In an arbitration seated in Japan, where the parties reach a settlement during the arbitral proceedings and both parties so request, the arbitral tribunal may make a decision embodying the terms of that agreement, and such a decision has the same effect as an arbitral award. Where the seat is outside Japan, whether the document has effect as an arbitral award is checked against the applicable law and the arbitration rules. For international settlement agreements resulting from mediation there is separate legislation, under which an application may be made to a court for an execution decision where the conditions for its application are satisfied, including that the parties have agreed that civil execution under that mechanism is permitted. Treating every such document as a private settlement agreement can mean that an available procedure is overlooked.

For a foreign judgment, check which country the judgment is from and whether the judgment is final and binding under the law of that country. For an arbitral award, check the seat of the arbitration and whether an application to set the award aside has been made. Whether a foreign judgment is "final and binding" and the requirements relating to the effect of an arbitral award are different matters and cannot be assessed by the same criteria. Whether a judgment is final and binding is determined by the law of the country in which it was given.

Deadlines

Where documents have arrived from a Japanese court, check the type of case, the date of service, any date that has been fixed, and the deadline for responding in Japan. The deadline for challenging a decision abroad and the deadline for responding or bringing a challenge in Japan are separate. Working from one alone can mean that the opportunity to act is lost.

The other party's assets

A party seeking recovery checks the debtor and the name in which assets in Japan are held, where they are, and what kind of assets they are, and then considers how they correspond to the person against whom the decision was made. Where the decision was made against a foreign company, it does not follow that execution can be levied against the property of its subsidiaries or of its representatives. Recovering from property held in a different name requires a separate legal basis.

2. The difference between recognition and enforcement

The effect of a foreign judgment

Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a final and binding judgment of a foreign court has effect only where all of the requirements laid down by law are satisfied. The structure is that effect is given where the requirements are met; it is not the case that a final and binding foreign judgment automatically has effect in Japan.

At the same time, obtaining a separate recognition judgment is not required in order for that effect to arise. This is sometimes described as "automatic recognition," but it is not accurate to read that expression as meaning that the requirements are not examined, or that the effect of the judgment cannot be contested.

Compulsory execution requires a separate procedure

Compulsory execution in Japan requires a title of obligation — the document on the basis of which a court enforcement procedure may be carried out. The Civil Enforcement Act lists the documents that constitute a title of obligation, and one of them is a judgment of a foreign court accompanied by a final and binding execution judgment. In other words, even where a foreign judgment is considered to satisfy the requirements for recognition, compulsory execution cannot be commenced without an execution judgment.

The same distinction applies to arbitral awards. The Civil Enforcement Act lists an arbitral award accompanied by a final and binding execution decision as a title of obligation. For an order for interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal, how it is given effect in Japan depends on the content of the order, and we return to this in section 4 below. Different terms are used: an execution judgment for a foreign judgment, an execution decision for an arbitral award, and an enforcement approval order for an order for interim measures.

The merits are not reheard

Under the Civil Enforcement Act, an execution judgment is to be made without examining whether the foreign court's decision was correct. This means that the Japanese court does not try the case again. The requirements for recognition — whether the judgment is contrary to public policy, whether service was proper, and so on — are examined. Not rehearing the merits and not examining the requirements are two different things.

Where a judgment or other document drawn up in a foreign language is submitted as documentary evidence, a translation is as a general rule attached. That is a separate rule from the treatment of translations under the Arbitration Act discussed below.

3. The requirements for recognizing a foreign judgment

The Code of Civil Procedure sets out four requirements.

Jurisdiction under laws, regulations, or a treaty

The first requirement is that the jurisdiction of the foreign court is recognized under laws and regulations or under a treaty. This is the question of what is known as indirect jurisdiction. It is not enough that the court had jurisdiction under the domestic law of the country concerned: the question examined is whether, from the Japanese perspective, it is acceptable for the courts of that country to have adjudicated that case.

Service or appearance

The second requirement is that the defendant who lost the case was served with the summons or order necessary for the commencement of the proceedings, or, not having been served, appeared in the proceedings; service by publication and similar forms of service are excluded.

In practice the route by which service was effected is often in issue. Where service was effected by a method that does not conform to the treaty relations or arrangements with the country concerned, whether this requirement is satisfied may be disputed. There is a point in recording how service was effected at the time documents arrive from abroad.

Public policy and good morals

The third requirement is that the content of the judgment and the court proceedings are not contrary to public policy or good morals in Japan. A judgment is not contrary to public policy merely because a Japanese court would have reached a different conclusion. As regards the proceedings, whether the party was given a real opportunity to defend itself may be in issue. Separately from service at the commencement of the proceedings, whether the party had a real opportunity to learn of the content of the judgment and to challenge it is also checked.

What arises most often in practice is the treatment of a part of a judgment ordering damages that are punitive in character, beyond compensation for loss actually suffered. Recognition is also not necessarily given to the whole of a judgment; effect may be given to part of it only. It is therefore necessary to check, item by item, what relief has been ordered in respect of what.

Reciprocity

The fourth requirement is that reciprocity is guaranteed. This is understood as the question whether, in the country in which the judgment was given, a Japanese judgment of the same kind would be recognized on conditions that are not materially different from the requirements applied in Japan.

It is not possible to give a uniform answer for a country as a whole. The question depends on the law currently in force in the country of the judgment and on its case law, and an assessment made at some point in the past is not necessarily still valid. The position under local law has to be checked for each country concerned.

The action seeking an execution judgment

An action seeking an execution judgment falls within the jurisdiction of the courts designated by the Civil Enforcement Act. In bringing the action, it is necessary to prove that the judgment of the foreign court has become final and binding. Having a copy of the judgment is not enough: it is necessary to check what is required for a judgment to become final and binding under the law of that country, and to prepare material demonstrating that.

4. Recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards

The same effect as a final and binding judgment

Under the Arbitration Act, an arbitral award has the same effect as a final and binding judgment, whether or not the seat of the arbitration is in Japan, provided that, as the proviso states, civil execution based on the award requires an execution decision under that Act.

Awards with a seat outside Japan are covered by that provision. The understanding that only awards made in a State party to the New York Convention are covered is not accurate.

Grounds on which recognition may be refused

The Arbitration Act lists the grounds that prevent recognition. They include: that the arbitration agreement is not effective because of a party's limited capacity; that the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law designated by the parties as applicable to it or, failing such designation, under the law of the country of the seat; that a party did not receive a notice required in the procedure for appointing arbitrators or in the arbitral proceedings under the law of the seat or under an agreement between the parties on matters not relating to public policy provisions of that law; that a party was unable to present its defense; that the award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or of the claims made in the arbitral proceedings; that the composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was contrary to the provisions of the law of the country of the seat (or, where the parties have agreed on matters not relating to public policy provisions of that law, contrary to that agreement); that the award has not become final and binding under the law of the country of the seat (or, where the law of another country was applied to the arbitral proceedings, that country) or has been set aside or suspended by a judicial body of that country; that the claim in the arbitral proceedings relates to a dispute that cannot be the subject of an arbitration agreement under Japanese law; and that the content of the award is contrary to public policy or good morals in Japan.

These grounds fall into two groups: those that a party must prove and those that need not be proved by a party. The grounds relating to the effect of the arbitration agreement, notice, the opportunity to defend, the scope of the decisions, the composition of the tribunal and the procedure, and whether the award is final and binding or has been set aside must be proved by a party, and in execution decision proceedings it is the respondent who proves them. By contrast, the court may examine of its own motion whether the dispute is one that cannot be the subject of arbitration and whether the award is contrary to public policy or good morals in Japan. These grounds cannot all be treated in the same way. As regards the composition of the tribunal and the procedure, what is in issue is not only the law of the seat but also whether the procedure agreed by the parties was followed. Differences between the arbitration rules and the procedural orders are sometimes the point in dispute, so it is useful to keep a record of how the procedure was conducted.

The Arbitration Act also provides that, where an award contains decisions on matters beyond the scope of the claims and that part can be separated, that part and the remaining part are each treated as an independent arbitral award. It is not the case that the whole award loses its effect because part of it goes beyond the scope.

The relationship with the New York Convention

The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards provides that it does not deprive any interested party of any right it may have to avail itself of an arbitral award under the law of the country where the award is sought to be relied upon. The Convention does not replace domestic law entirely, and the relationship between the two needs to be checked in each case.

Japan has made the declaration of reciprocity under the Convention, applying it only to awards made in the territory of another Contracting State. It has not made the commercial reservation, that is, the declaration applying the Convention only to disputes arising out of legal relationships that are considered commercial.

The declaration of reciprocity under the New York Convention and the guarantee of reciprocity required by the Code of Civil Procedure are separate matters. The requirement of reciprocity applicable to foreign judgments cannot be carried across as a requirement for the recognition of an arbitral award.

Changes made by the 2023 amendments

Jurisdiction over an application for an execution decision is provided for in the Arbitration Act. The courts listed are the district court agreed on by the parties; the district court with jurisdiction over the seat of the arbitration (only where the seat has been fixed as a place falling within the district of a single district court); the district court with jurisdiction over the place of the respondent's general venue; and the district court with jurisdiction over the place where the subject matter of the claim or attachable property of the respondent is located.

Under the 2023 amendments to the Arbitration Act, which came into force on April 1, 2024, an application may in addition be made to the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court. This applies only where the seat of the arbitration, the place of the respondent's general venue, or the place where the subject matter of the claim or attachable property of the respondent is located is in Japan. Transfer between courts and the transitional provisions also need to be checked.

The same amendments introduced rules under which, in certain cases, a translation need not be submitted for parts of an arbitral award written in a language other than Japanese. The understanding that an award in English can simply be enforced without translation is not accurate. The treatment of translations involves a decision by the court, and an execution decision is required in any event.

For an order for interim measures issued by an arbitral tribunal, the procedure differs according to the content of the order. For the statutory categories that order measures to avoid substantial harm or imminent danger, or restoration to a previous position, civil execution based on the order may be carried out once a final and binding enforcement approval order has been obtained. For the statutory categories that prohibit disposal of property or destruction of evidence, the mechanism is that, in addition to an enforcement approval order, an order for payment of a sum on the ground of a breach or an apprehended breach is sought from the court.

This mechanism applies to orders for interim measures issued in arbitral proceedings commenced on or after April 1, 2024. The reference point is neither the date on which the order was issued nor the date on which the application is made in Japan, but the date on which the arbitral proceedings were commenced. That differs from the reference points in the transitional provisions on the additional courts and on dispensing with translations, so the two should be kept apart.

An execution decision in respect of an arbitral award and an enforcement approval order in respect of an order for interim measures are separate procedures.

5. Making and responding to an application in Japan

Preparing the material

The material required differs as between foreign judgments and arbitral awards.

In an action seeking an execution judgment, material proving that the judgment of the foreign court has become final and binding is required. What is needed for a judgment to become final and binding under the law of the country concerned is checked, and documents demonstrating that are obtained.

For an application for an execution decision, the Arbitration Act requires the applicant to submit a copy of the written arbitral award, a document certifying that the copy is identical to the written award, and a Japanese translation of the written award (unless it was drawn up in Japanese). The court may, however, where it finds it appropriate and after hearing the respondent's opinion, dispense with the submission of a translation of all or part of the written award. The understanding that a document proving that the award is final and binding must always be submitted is not accurate.

The documents issued by foreign courts and arbitral institutions, and the time needed to obtain them, vary from country to country and from institution to institution. Obtaining a certificate can take time, so it is useful to check this when forming a view on how the procedure is likely to run.

Authentication of documents is required in some cases. The procedure for authenticating public documents for use abroad differs from country to country, so preparations are made after checking the position in the country of the judgment. As regards translation, it is worth establishing in advance what has to be translated and by whom a translation must be prepared, and allowing for corrections or further submissions afterwards.

Narrowing the issues

In proceedings in Japan, the matters to be examined are narrowed down by the submissions of both parties. A party seeking recovery can sometimes avoid a lengthy process by assembling the material showing that the requirements are satisfied from the outset. A party contesting the application needs to identify the grounds available to it, relate them to the evidence, and make clear which issues matter.

Costs and timing

How long it takes to obtain an execution judgment or an execution decision varies considerably according to whether the application is contested. The burden of the procedure differs between a case in which the other party does not contest the application and one in which every recognition requirement is put in issue. The approach, including resolution by settlement, is considered after comparing the prospects of recovery with the costs and the time the procedure will take. We set out our view on this point and explain it before an application is made.

6. Contesting recognition and enforcement

Framing the argument

Where recognition or enforcement is contested in Japan, an argument that simply expresses dissatisfaction with the outcome of the foreign proceedings, put forward as a request to rehear the merits, will not be examined. The argument has to be organized by reference to the statutory grounds for refusal, identifying which ground is said to apply.

That does not mean that matters going to the merits are disregarded entirely. An argument that a party was in substance deprived of the opportunity to defend itself in the proceedings, for example, calls for an examination of how the case unfolded. Which grounds to rely on, and what evidence supports them, are at the heart of how the application is contested.

Where payment, set-off, release, or a settlement has occurred after the decision was made, there is a way of asserting that the claim has been extinguished or altered by that event, separately from the grounds for refusing recognition. The Civil Enforcement Act provides that a debtor who objects to the existence or content of the claim under a title of obligation may bring an action objecting to the claim in order to seek a declaration that compulsory execution under that title is not permitted, and that, where the title is a final and binding judgment, the grounds for the objection are limited to those arising after the conclusion of oral argument.

That action is not, however, the only route for raising payment or a similar event occurring after the decision. In the case of a foreign judgment, the effect of a payment may fall to be considered within the action seeking an execution judgment. Which route to use is considered according to the type of decision, when the event occurred, and the stage the procedure has reached.

Bringing an action objecting to the claim does not in itself stay compulsory execution. Where necessary, a separate application to stay execution is considered alongside it. That is a different matter from the suspension of execution decision proceedings on the ground that an application to set the award aside has been made abroad.

Setting aside and refusal of enforcement are separate

Setting aside an arbitral award under the Japanese Arbitration Act and refusing recognition or enforcement of that award in Japan are separate mechanisms. As a general rule, what may be set aside under Japanese law is an award made in an arbitration seated in Japan; an award seated abroad cannot be set aside in Japan.

The Arbitration Act provides that an application to set aside an arbitral award may not be made once three months have passed from the date on which notice was given by sending a copy of the written award, or once an execution decision has become final and binding. The position where a correction, interpretation, or additional award has been requested also needs to be checked against the provisions. This three-month period is a matter of Japanese law and cannot be applied to the deadline for setting-aside proceedings outside Japan.

Where setting aside has been sought abroad

Where an application to set aside an arbitral award or to suspend its effect is pending abroad, whether the Japanese execution decision proceedings are suspended is decided in accordance with the applicable provisions. The Japanese proceedings are not stayed automatically merely because an application has been made abroad. The position is also to be distinguished from that where the award has actually been set aside. Where the Japanese proceedings are suspended, the court may, on the application of the party seeking enforcement, order the other party to provide security.

Challenging the decision

An execution judgment is handed down as a judgment, so it is challenged by an appeal to the higher court, within an unextendable period of two weeks from the date of service of the judgment document or equivalent under the applicable procedure. For cases filed on or after May 21, 2026, the provisions on electronic judgment documents apply, and transitional provisions apply to cases filed before that date. An execution decision is given as a ruling, so it is challenged by an immediate appeal, and the Arbitration Act sets the period for an immediate appeal against a judicial decision under that Act at an unextendable period of two weeks from the date on which notice of the decision was given.

Both periods are two weeks, but the method of challenge and the point from which the period runs — service in the one case, notice in the other — are different. The deadline for challenging an execution decision is also separate from the three-month limit on applications to set aside an arbitral award described above. Deadlines are managed after establishing which situation you are in.

7. Provisional measures and compulsory execution against assets in Japan

Applying for a provisional remedy

Where, after a decision has been obtained or while proceedings are under way, there is a risk that the other party will dispose of its assets in Japan, a provisional remedy is considered. Under the Civil Provisional Remedies Act, an application for a provisional remedy order may be made only where an action on the merits may be filed with a Japanese court, or where the property to be provisionally attached or the subject matter in dispute is located in Japan. Some connection with Japan is not enough.

An order for provisional attachment may be issued in respect of a monetary claim where it would otherwise become impossible to enforce the claim or where enforcement would face considerable difficulty. The fact that the other party is a foreign company, or that it is refusing to pay, does not in itself establish the necessity for preservation.

Where there is an arbitration agreement, applying to a Japanese court for a provisional remedy before or during the arbitral proceedings is not precluded. The same applies where the seat is outside Japan, although the jurisdiction of the Japanese court and the requirements for the remedy still have to be satisfied.

In making the application, a prima facie showing of the right or legal relationship to be preserved and of the necessity for preservation is required, and the court may require security to be provided. The amount of security cannot be stated in advance as a fixed sum or a fixed proportion.

Compulsory execution

Once a title of obligation has been obtained, compulsory execution proceeds under the procedure applicable to the type of property concerned. Deposit claims, real property, movables, and trade receivables each involve different procedures and different timescales for recovery.

Where the location of assets is not known, two procedures are available to creditors of monetary claims holding an enforceable title of obligation, and to certain other creditors, where the statutory requirements are met: the property disclosure procedure, in which the debtor is summoned to court and required to make a statement about its property, and the procedure for obtaining information from third parties, under which, for example, information about deposit claims is provided by financial institutions. The requirements differ according to the information sought — for information about salary claims, for instance, only certain creditors may apply — so these procedures are considered after checking the type of title of obligation held and what enforcement steps have already been taken.

Where insolvency proceedings have been commenced in relation to the other party, or are expected, considerations separate from individual enforcement arise. Where insolvency proceedings have been commenced abroad, the treatment of property in Japan also needs to be checked.

Differences according to the property concerned

Property	Main points to check
Deposit claims	Identifying the financial institution and the branch handling the account, the likely balance, and competing creditors
Trade receivables and other claims	Identifying the third-party obligor, the existence and amount of the claim, and the possibility that set-off will be asserted
Real property	The registered owner and any security interests, the time required for realization, and whether there is likely to be a surplus
Movables and inventory	Where the goods are and how they are stored, whether realization is practicable, and third-party rights

For every type of property, whether the property can be identified is what makes the practical difference. Information that can be established from the course of dealings, and information available from registries and published sources, are organized at an early stage; where the location of assets still cannot be established, the property disclosure procedure and the other procedure described above are considered.

8. How we work on these matters

Where recovery is sought, we check the type of decision and whether it is final and binding, form a view on what can be argued and proved in relation to the recognition requirements, and then bring the action seeking an execution judgment or make the application for an execution decision. We also check the position as to assets in Japan and consider whether a provisional remedy is needed. Where recognition or enforcement is sought against a party in Japan, we begin by checking the deadline for responding and identifying which of the statutory grounds for refusal can be supported by evidence. Where setting aside or an appeal abroad should be considered in parallel, we work with lawyers qualified in that country.

In either situation, the central task is to organize what happened in the foreign proceedings into a form in which it can be explained in the Japanese proceedings. Lawyers with previous experience as judges and lawyers with in-house experience work together, so that what we suggest reflects both the likely course of the procedure and the commercial decision to be made.

Related pages

International legal services (feature) / Recovering payment and handling quality disputes in international sales of goods / Litigation and dispute resolution / Regulatory issues in cross-border M&A

Key legislation and official sources

English translations of legislation are provided for reference. The Japanese texts are authoritative.

Where it appears	Legislation	Source type
The effect of a foreign judgment and the requirements for recognition; appeals against a judgment	Code of Civil Procedure（民事訴訟法）	Japanese legislation
Titles of obligation; execution judgments; no rehearing of the merits; actions objecting to a claim; property disclosure and obtaining information from third parties	Civil Enforcement Act（民事執行法）	Japanese legislation
Effect of an arbitral award; grounds preventing recognition; execution decisions and the material to be submitted; orders for interim measures and enforcement approval orders; setting aside; immediate appeals	Arbitration Act（仲裁法）	Japanese legislation
Provisional attachment of assets in Japan	Civil Provisional Remedies Act（民事保全法）	Japanese legislation
The relationship between the Convention and domestic law; Japan's declaration of reciprocity	Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards（外国仲裁判断の承認及び執行に関する条約）	Treaty

Legal information reviewed: 2026-09-18

Frequently asked questions

Contact

Making an inquiry

Please tell us the outline of the situation, any notice you have received and its date, and any deadline you are working to.

Contact Form

Related Services

Related Crisis Management Topics

Recovering payment and handling quality disputes in international sales of goods

A legal guide to sales of goods with a business partner abroad, covering the law that applies and whether the CISG applies, examination and notice, requiring performance, avoidance of the contract and damages, and recovery through negotiations, court proceedings or arbitration.

Initial response to business email compromise, and the allocation of loss

A legal guide to the initial response where a payment is suspected of having been directed to a falsified account, covering the renewed demand from the genuine counterparty, the allocation of loss, and recovery of the funds and provisional measures.

International legal services: overview

Sets out what to check when a problem arises in a transaction with a party abroad, and points to individual guides on contracts, regulation and dispute resolution.

International legal services (practice area)

Sets out our work on transactions and contracts with parties abroad, establishing operations overseas, regulatory matters including imports and exports and cross-border data, and international dispute resolution.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice on any specific matter. Please consult us regarding your specific situation. The content is based on the laws and regulations in effect as of the date of the last update.