This article examines the enforcement of intra-EU awards before US courts in the aftermath of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s (CJEU’s) Achmea jurisprudence challenging intra-EU investment arbitration. Following the CJEU’s rulings, the enforcement of intra-EU awards within the EU has become constrained, prompting award creditors to seek enforcement outside the Union – most notably in the United States, where assets are often located. The article analyses US enforcement proceedings relating to both International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and non-ICSID intra-EU awards, examining the positions taken by debtor states as well as the reasoning adopted by US courts. It shows that while US courts generally recognize ICSID intra-EU awards, the recognition of nonICSID intra-EU awards has proven more nuanced. The article identifies the factors that US courts consider when applying their international enforcement obligations under the ICSID and New York Conventions in response to objections raised by debtor states, shedding light on the evolving interaction between intra-EU investment arbitration and transatlantic judicial practice.(This contribution is written in the authors’ private capacity and does not reflect the views of their law firms or clients. All online sources were last accessed on 19 August 2026.)
European Investment Law and Arbitration Review