International courts and tribunals issue binding decisions without any force at their disposal. Compliance therefore works through mechanisms quite different from domestic enforcement.
There is no international enforcement agency
Domestic judgments are enforced by bailiffs, police and prison systems answering to the same authority as the court.
International bodies have no equivalent. Their decisions must be carried out by national authorities that retain control over their own territory and officials.
Enforcement is consequently a political process as much as a legal one, and compliance rates vary considerably between institutions.
Domestic courts do most of the work
Arbitral awards and some judgments are enforced by presenting them to national courts, which convert them into locally enforceable orders.
Treaty frameworks in commercial arbitration require signatory states to recognise awards subject to limited grounds for refusal, which makes that route comparatively reliable.
Once recognised, an award can be enforced against assets located in that country using ordinary domestic procedures.
Human rights judgments follow a different path, since the remedy is usually addressed to the state itself and must be implemented by its own institutions.
Asset location determines practical reach
A creditor holding an award must find assets in a jurisdiction willing to enforce, which is often the decisive practical question.
State assets used for governmental purposes are generally immune from execution, while commercial assets may not be, and the distinction is litigated frequently.
Enforcement therefore proceeds asset by asset and country by country, which can extend proceedings over many years.
Reputational and financial consequences apply pressure
Ignoring an adverse decision affects a state's standing in negotiations, its credit assessment and its position in institutions whose membership carries obligations.
For states seeking investment, a record of non-compliance raises the cost of capital, which functions as an indirect enforcement mechanism.
These pressures are weaker for states with limited exposure to international markets, which is a recognised limitation of the system.
Some treaty bodies publish compliance records precisely to make the reputational cost visible, since publication is the main instrument available to them.
Criminal tribunals depend on custody
International criminal courts cannot arrest anyone themselves and rely on states to detain and transfer individuals.
Cases can therefore remain open for years where a suspect is in a state unwilling to cooperate, and proceedings are usually limited without the accused present.
Jurisdiction, cooperation obligations and immunity rules differ between instruments and states and are contested and revised, so any specific position requires current legal analysis.