International debt collection has historically been the creditor's least favourite conversation. The phrase itself conjures images of complexity, expense, and uncertainty. Creditors with domestic enforcement experience — who know exactly how to obtain and execute a judgment in their home jurisdiction — often assume that cross-border enforcement is an order of magnitude more difficult.

That assumption was reasonably accurate fifteen years ago. It is not accurate now. The enforcement landscape for international commercial debt has undergone structural changes that have made cross-border recovery faster, cheaper, and more predictable than at any previous point. Understanding these changes is the difference between writing off an international receivable and recovering it.

What has changed

The EU enforcement framework. The European Union has created a suite of cross-border enforcement instruments that allow creditors to pursue debtors across member states with minimal procedural friction. The European Order for Payment (Regulation 1896/2006) provides enforceable payment orders without hearings. The European Enforcement Order (Regulation 805/2004) allows domestic judgments to be enforced across the EU without recognition proceedings. The European Account Preservation Order (Regulation 655/2014) freezes bank accounts across member states before judgment.

These instruments are not theoretical. They are used daily by creditors and their counsel across the EU. The creditor who understands them has enforcement options that didn't exist a decade ago.

Electronic seizure systems. Major jurisdictions have implemented electronic systems that make bank account identification and seizure fast and comprehensive. France's FICOBA database identifies every bank account held by a debtor in France. Brazil's BACENJUD system freezes accounts across all Brazilian financial institutions within 24 hours. Poland's EPU system provides electronic enforcement infrastructure. These systems eliminate the historical advantage that debtors held: the ability to move funds between accounts faster than creditors could identify and attach them.

The New York Convention's expanding reach. The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards now has 172 signatory states. For creditors whose contracts contain arbitration clauses, this means that an arbitral award obtained in any signatory state is enforceable in any other signatory state through a procedural recognition process that does not re-examine the merits of the dispute.

Digital communication and coordination. The practical infrastructure for coordinated multi-jurisdiction enforcement has improved dramatically. Real-time communication between local counsel in different jurisdictions, shared case management platforms, and standardised reporting enable recovery agencies to coordinate enforcement actions across multiple countries simultaneously — creating pressure that sequential, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approaches cannot replicate.

What hasn't changed

Two fundamental principles remain constant despite the evolving enforcement landscape:

Speed still determines outcomes. The aging curve for international receivables is steeper than for domestic receivables. Cross-border debtors have more options for asset relocation, restructuring, and jurisdictional manoeuvring. The creditor who acts quickly preserves more options and recovers more value.

Local expertise still determines execution. Cross-border instruments provide the procedural framework, but execution depends on local knowledge: which court to file in, which bailiff to instruct, which banks to target, and how to navigate local procedural requirements. The difference between a successful cross-border enforcement and a failed one is usually the quality of local counsel — not the legal instrument.

What this means for creditors

International creditors in 2025 have more enforcement tools, faster execution mechanisms, and broader jurisdictional reach than at any previous point. The creditor who understands and deploys these tools recovers receivables that would have been written off a decade ago.

The creditor who doesn't understand these tools — who assumes that international enforcement is still as complex and expensive as it was in 2010 — continues to write off recoverable claims. The debtor benefits from this knowledge gap.

If you're holding international receivables and assuming that cross-border enforcement is impractical, the assumption may be outdated. Brief our international enforcement team for a jurisdiction-specific assessment of your claims.