Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Kazakhstan: A Comparative Legal Analysis of European and Asian Mechanisms

Background: Enhancing the efficiency of Kazakhstan’s recognition and enforcement of foreign court and arbitral awards relies significantly on expanding international cooperation. In the context of increasing global legal integration, this strategy is vital not only for supporting the country’s foreign economic activities but also for increasing foreign partners’ confidence in Kazakhstan’s judicial system. Currently, Kazakhstan is a party to key treaties including the 1958 New York Convention, the 1965 Washington Convention, and the 1993 Minsk Convention. However, it has yet to join the 2019 Hague Convention—a modern, universal mechanism supported by numerous countries, including EU member states and the United States—which could further streamline cross-border enforcement processes. Methods: To achieve the objectives, a comparative legal analysis was conducted on the mechanisms for recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Kazakhstan and leading arbitration jurisdictions across Europe and Asia. This analysis used official court databases from Kazakhstan, AIFC and IAC, as well as supplementary data from court archives, institutions (KIAC, ICC, SIAC), and the CLOUT abstracts, enabling a comprehensive comparison with Asian and European jurisdictions. The study employed methods such as statistical analysis of refusals under Article 501 of the Civil Procedure Code, and a comparative review of national legislation against the provisions of the New York Convention and UNCITRAL. Results and Conclusions: Analysis indicates that over 40% of refusals to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards in Kazakhstan are due to vague interpretations of public policy and procedural obstacles, whereas in pro-arbitration jurisdictions across Europe and Asia, such refusals do not exceed 10%. The proposed Kazakhstan Arbitration Enforcement Mechanism (KAEM) includes clarifying criteria for refusals and decision-making based on Article V of the New York Convention, introducing accelerated electronic procedures via a unified e-Justice portal, establishing specialised judicial training programs, and implementing a mechanism for returning awards to arbitral tribunals to address formal obstacles rather than automatic refusals. The authors suggest expanding the contractual framework, acceding to new international conventions, adopting progressive mechanisms from the EU and UNCITRAL, and integrating digital solutions to enhance Kazakhstan’s legal enforcement practices, boost its attractiveness as a regional arbitration hub, and strengthen legal certainty and foreign investor confidence.