This chapter presents a framework for understanding the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments from a governance perspective and a rights perspective, and it uses that framework to compare the evolution of those rules in the United States and the European Union. Part I provides an overview of governance values and rights values. Part II examines a spectrum of ideal-type and real-world approaches to foreign judgment enforcement—ranging from always enforce, to the US and EU approaches to their respective internal judgments (full faith and credit and the Brussels I Regulation), to national treatment of external judgments, to never enforce—and explains how they score on different governance values and rights values. Part III is more conjectural. It proposes lessons of the chapter’s analysis for the design of private international law rules governing foreign judgments, and speculates about the causes and consequences of the evolution of the law of foreign judgments in the transatlantic area—including implications for the transnational market for dispute resolution services.