Why are there two Hague Conventions dealing with Judgments? Understanding the Relationship Between Hague 2005 and Hague 2019

In the evolving landscape of international dispute resolution, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments remains a critical aspect of cross-border litigation strategy. Two key instruments - the Hague 2005 Choice of Court Convention (“Hague 2005”) and the Hague 2019 Judgments Convention (“Hague 2019”) - offer complementary pathways for enforcing judgments across jurisdictions. But why do we need both? And how do they interact?

This article explores the two Conventions, their scope, adoption status, and some practical implications for parties navigating international disputes.

Complementary Tools for Cross-Border Enforcement

Hague 2005 Convention and Hague 2019 work in tandem, each addressing different jurisdictional scenarios:

• Hague 2005 applies only to judgments arising from exclusive choice-of-court agreements – under which parties have agreed in advance to litigate in a specific court.
• Hague 2019 casts a wider net, covering judgments based on non-exclusive, asymmetric, or other jurisdictional bases, provided they meet the Convention’s criteria.

Together, they form a framework for international civil and commercial litigation.

Predictability

Hague 2019 offers broader coverage than Hague 2005, but with that breadth comes slightly less certainty. 

Hague 2005 applies only to judgments arising from exclusive choice-of-court agreements, which are clear and easy to verify at the contract stage. 

By contrast, Hague 2019 applies where the original issuing court had jurisdiction under one of the Article 5 grounds, which include:

• The defendant’s habitual residence in the state of origin.
• The defendant’s principal place of business in the state of origin.
• The place of performance of the contractual obligation.
• The defendant’s express submission to the court’s jurisdiction (e.g. by agreeing to litigate there).
• The defendant’s conduct in the proceedings (e.g. appearing without contesting jurisdiction).
• A strong connection between the dispute and the forum (e.g. torts committed in the state).

These grounds reflect internationally accepted principles and significantly expand the range of judgments that can circulate under the Convention. However, they introduce variables. For example:

• At the contract stage, it may not be clear which ground will apply to a future dispute.
• Key factors such as place of performance or habitual residence might change during the life of a contract.
• Courts in different jurisdictions may interpret concepts like “habitual residence” or “strong connection” differently.
• Even after judgment, the enforcing court must confirm that one of these grounds was met. This may give defendants an opportunity to challenge enforcement - by disputing jurisdictional facts or arguing that the original court did not satisfy the Convention’s criteria.

In short, Hague 2005 delivers a higher degree of predictability for parties who opt into exclusive jurisdiction clauses; whereas the applicability of Hague 2019 is harder to confirm at the contract stage because it depends on factual and procedural elements that often crystallise only later. This dynamic - shaped by the wording of any jurisdiction clause, the underlying facts, and how the original court satisfied itself of jurisdiction – potentially creates more scope for defendants to challenge enforcement under Hague 2019 than Hague 2005. Whether that is the case in practice will become clearer as Hague 2019 is put to use.

However, the fact remains that both Conventions offer a more predictable post-Brexit mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of some UK judgments abroad, and vice versa

Global Adoption: Where Do We Stand?

As of November 2025, the Hague 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements has been ratified by 38 parties, including:

• The European Union (excluding Denmark)
• The United Kingdom
• Singapore, Mexico, Ukraine, and others

The newer Hague 2019 Judgments Convention has 33 ratifications to date, including:

• The European Union (excluding Denmark)
• The United Kingdom
• Ukraine, Uruguay, Montenegro and others

While there is considerable overlap between the two conventions, some notable differences remain:

• Some states have ratified Hague 2005 but not Hague 2019. For example: Bahrain, China, Singapore, Switzerland and others
• Other states have ratified Hague 2019 but not Hague 2005. For example, Andorra, Russia, Uruguay and others

In addition, several countries (including the USA) have signed but not yet ratified one or both conventions. A signature indicates an intention to join, but until ratified, the conventions do not apply in those jurisdictions - an important consideration when assessing enforceability of judgments or jurisdiction clauses.

Practical Implications for Litigants and Counsel

When assessing the potential for recognition and enforceability of a judgment across borders, it is necessary to consider the following:

1. Which Convention is in force between the UK and the target jurisdiction?
   • Hague 2005, Hague 2019, or neither?
2. The nature of the jurisdiction clause in the underlying contract:
   • Hague 2005 may be relevant for exclusive jurisdiction clauses.
   • Hague 2019 may be relevant for non-exclusive, asymmetric, or other bases.
3. Timing matters:
   • For either Convention to apply, the proceedings in question must have been commenced after the relevant Convention’s entry into force in both the UK and the target jurisdiction.

Conclusion: Building a Global Framework for Enforcement of Judgments

The coexistence of Hague 2005 and Hague 2019 reflects the complexity of international litigation and the need for tailored solutions. While Hague 2005 offers more certainty for parties who opt into exclusive jurisdiction clauses, Hague 2019 may help part-fill the gap for broader jurisdictional bases - common in commercial contracts, particularly in finance and infrastructure. As more countries ratify these instruments, they may well enhance predictability and efficiency in cross-border dispute resolution.

For practitioners, understanding the interplay between the two Conventions is essential to advising clients on enforceability risks and opportunities in international contracts and litigation.

The Burges Salmon Dispute Resolution team is well-versed in the nuances of both Hague Conventions and the broader framework of cross-border enforcement. We advise clients on:

• Drafting jurisdiction clauses to align with enforcement objectives
• Assessing enforceability risks in key jurisdictions
• Navigating the procedural and strategic implications of Hague 2005 and Hague 2019
• Coordinating multi-jurisdictional litigation and enforcement strategies

To learn how we can support your business in resolving international disputes efficiently and effectively, please contact Caroline Brown, Elizabeth Pouget, or your usual Burges Salmon contact.