Arbitration has long been regarded as a process that combines finality of decision with speed, low expense, and flexibility in solving problems. For these reasons, arbitration is often favored over litigation for dispute resolution. Particularly in international cases, a businessman may avoid litigation in a foreign country for various reasons: he may be unfamiliar with the proceedings; he may be afraid to find a “forum hostile” because of the different legal and cultural background of the judges; and he may wish to avoid the uncertainty concerning the law arising from the contract. Arbitration proceedings have been held constitutional by the U.S. and German Supreme Courts; however, the value and success of arbitration depend heavily on the possibility to enforce agreement and award. This paper describes the procedure of enforcement of arbitral awards in the relationship between the United States and Germany. Supreme Court decisions, i.e., a case law approach, will be employed to analyze this relationship. Chapter 1 discusses Foreign Sovereign Immunity; chapters 2 to 4 discuss the enforcement procedure for foreign arbitral awards under the UN Convention on the Recognition of Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Chapter 5 scrutinizes other mechanisms for the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.