Enforcing a US Arbitral Award in Taiwan: The Recognition Ruling, Required Documents and Reciprocity

A California software company won an AAA arbitration against its former Taiwanese distributor for unpaid license fees. The award is final, the distributor has no assets in the United States, and its bank accounts and office lease are all in Taichung. The company's US counsel checks the New York Convention list, does not find Taiwan, and asks whether the award is worth anything there (a fictional example).

It is. Taiwan is not a party to the New York Convention, but its Arbitration Act contains its own recognition procedure for foreign awards, and that procedure is lighter than the one for foreign court judgments.

A foreign award becomes enforceable by court ruling

Article 47 of the Arbitration Act defines a foreign award as one made outside Taiwan, or made inside Taiwan under foreign law. Once a Taiwanese court recognizes a foreign award by ruling, the award has the same effect between the parties as a final court judgment and serves as a title for compulsory enforcement.

The word "ruling" matters. Under Article 52, court procedures in arbitration matters follow the Non-Contentious Matters Act unless the Arbitration Act provides otherwise, with the Code of Civil Procedure applying only by analogy where that Act is silent. The creditor files an application, the court examines the papers and the limited statutory grounds, and the respondent is heard within a short window. There is no retrial of the dispute. This is the structural reason awards are easier to enforce in Taiwan than judgments, which is covered in the next section.

The Chinese Arbitration Association's published guidance states plainly that Taiwan is not a signatory to the New York Convention, and that Taiwanese courts recognize foreign awards in principle unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. The same guidance notes that a number of Convention states, such as Germany, Australia, Sweden and Spain, made no reciprocity reservation and so can in principle recognize Taiwanese awards under the Convention, and points to the bilateral FCN treaty between Taiwan and the United States (中美友好通商航海條約) as a route for recognition of Taiwanese awards in the US.

The documents: originals, certified copies and Chinese translations

Article 48 requires the application to attach three things: the original award or a certified copy, the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy, and the full text of any foreign arbitration law, institutional rules or international organization rules that the award applied. For an AAA or JAMS award, that means the applicable rules as in force for the proceeding.

Any document in a foreign language must come with a Chinese translation. "Certified" has a specific meaning: certification by a Taiwan embassy, consulate, representative office or other government-authorized body. For an award made in the United States, that is normally the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office or one of its offices. Plan for this step early. The award and the arbitration agreement often sit in different places, and the original agreement may be buried in a signed master contract that the client no longer wants to send abroad.

The application must be filed with enough copies for service on the respondent, and the court serves them (Article 48, last paragraph).

The grounds for refusal, and what reciprocity really means

Article 49 separates mandatory from discretionary refusal. The court must dismiss the application if recognizing or enforcing the award would be contrary to Taiwan's public order or good morals, or if the dispute is one that cannot be arbitrated under Taiwanese law. Those two grounds are narrow for an ordinary commercial money award.

The second paragraph is the one US creditors ask about. If the country where the award was made, or whose arbitration law governed it, does not recognize Taiwanese awards, the court may dismiss the application. The verb is "may." The provision gives the court discretion; it does not bar recognition. An article in the Chinese Arbitration Association's journal (Arbitration Quarterly No. 115) reports a Taiwan High Court ruling in a 2017 case (106年度非抗字第79號) in which the respondent argued that a 2014 US federal decision, Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc., had refused to recognize a Taiwanese award. According to that article, the High Court held that even if the arbitration law applied in the United States did not recognize Taiwanese awards, Taiwanese courts could still recognize a US award on the basis of reciprocity, and it affirmed the recognition. The article's reading is that Taiwanese courts take the most lenient available position on reciprocity. The ruling itself was not reviewed for this column, so treat the point as reported rather than quoted, and expect the respondent to raise it anyway.

Article 50 gives the respondent twenty days from receipt of the court's notice to ask for dismissal on six grounds that track the familiar international list: a party lacked capacity under its governing law; the arbitration agreement was invalid under the chosen law or, absent a choice, the law of the seat; a party was not properly notified of the appointment of arbitrators or of the proceedings, or the arbitration otherwise lacked due process; the award deals with matters outside the agreement (with partial recognition possible for the rest); the tribunal's composition or procedure violated the parties' agreement or the law of the seat; or the award is not yet binding, or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority. A clean procedural record in the US arbitration is the best defense here, so the application should include proof of notice and the procedural history.

If the respondent has already applied in the United States to vacate the award, Article 51 lets the Taiwanese court stay recognition or enforcement on the respondent's application, against suitable security. If the award is later vacated with finality, the court dismisses the application or revokes a recognition already granted.

Why a US judgment is harder than a US award

If the dispute was litigated rather than arbitrated, the route is different and longer. A foreign judgment is not enforced by ruling. Under Article 4-1 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act, the creditor must bring an action in Taiwan for a judgment permitting enforcement, and the foreign judgment must have none of the defects listed in Article 402 of the Code of Civil Procedure: the foreign court lacked jurisdiction under Taiwanese law; the losing defendant did not appear and was not served in time in that country in a lawful manner or through Taiwan's judicial assistance; the judgment or the proceedings offend Taiwan's public order or good morals; or there is no mutual recognition. The action is brought where the debtor is domiciled, or, for a debtor with no domicile in Taiwan, where the assets are.

The service point deserves attention in US cases. Taiwan is not a party to the Hague Service Convention. Service on a Taiwanese defendant through Taiwan's courts runs under the Act on Assistance to Foreign Courts in Entrusted Matters: requests are transmitted in writing through diplomatic channels (Article 3), service is carried out under Taiwan's procedural rules (Article 5), and foreign-language documents must carry a Chinese translation (Article 7). A default judgment obtained after service by mail or e-mail that a Taiwanese court does not regard as lawful service in the United States is exposed under Article 402(2). The practical steps for judgments are set out in the firm's earlier column on enforcing a foreign judgment against assets in Taiwan.

The comparison explains a drafting choice. When the counterparty's assets are in Taiwan, an arbitration clause produces a title that a Taiwanese court recognizes by ruling, while a US forum-selection clause produces a judgment that must be litigated again, at least on the Article 402 grounds.

Freezing assets while the application is pending

Recognition takes time, and a respondent who sees the application coming can move money. Taiwan's provisional attachment is available for monetary claims and claims convertible into money (Article 522 of the Code of Civil Procedure). The applicant must make a preliminary showing of the claim and of the reason for attachment, typically the risk that enforcement will become impossible or very difficult. Where the showing is thin, the court may order security and grant the attachment on that basis; even where the showing is sufficient, the court may still require security (Article 526). The amount is set by the court case by case. The award itself is strong evidence of the claim, so the contest is usually over the attachment reason and the security.

Once the recognition ruling is final, enforcement is handled by the district court where the assets are located (Article 7 of the Compulsory Enforcement Act). Bank deposits, receivables from Taiwanese customers, real estate and vehicles are the usual targets, and the attachment, if granted earlier, converts into enforcement without a gap.

Drafting for the next contract

For companies still at the contract stage, three points follow from the above. First, an arbitration agreement must be in writing, although Article 1 treats an exchange of documents, letters or electronic communications that shows agreement to arbitrate as sufficient. Second, the seat and the institutional rules will be scrutinized under Articles 48 and 50, so name them precisely and keep the signed agreement where it can be retrieved and certified. Third, if the Taiwanese counterparty insists on arbitration in Taiwan, an award made there under Taiwanese law is a domestic award, which follows a different and also workable enforcement path; the foreign-award procedure described here applies to awards made abroad or under foreign law.

For a Taiwan-side assessment, send a copy of the award, the arbitration agreement and a note on where the debtor's assets are to attorney Wei Tseng (曾雋崴), partner at Hovering International Law Firm (昊鼎國際法律事務所), at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw. Taipei office: 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei City 103, Taiwan.

Sources

Sources opened and checked on October 7, 2026 (Taiwan time). Chinese statutory text controls over any English rendering in this column.

• Ministry of Justice, Arbitration Act (仲裁法), amended December 2, 2015: Article 1, Article 47, Article 48, Article 49, Article 50, Article 51 and Article 52.
• Ministry of Justice, Code of Civil Procedure (民事訴訟法): Article 402, Article 522 and Article 526; Compulsory Enforcement Act (強制執行法): Article 4-1 and Article 7.
• Ministry of Justice, Act on Assistance to Foreign Courts in Entrusted Matters (外國法院委託事件協助法): Article 3, Article 5 and Article 7.
• Chinese Arbitration Association, Taipei, Frequently asked questions on foreign arbitral awards (questions 99 to 101 on foreign awards, the New York Convention and the application documents).
• Chinese Arbitration Association, Arbitration Quarterly No. 115, article on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Taiwan (PDF), discussing Taiwan High Court civil ruling 106年度非抗字第79號 and Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc. (2014); the court ruling itself was not reviewed.

General information, not individualized legal advice. Sources checked October 7, 2026 (Taiwan time).