The Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act of 1962 and the Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act of 2005 do not mention any requirement of reciprocity. However, several states will not recognize foreign judgments without assurance that judgments entered in their courts will be enforced overseas. Criticism of such a requirement has focused on the absence of reciprocity in English common law and U.S. statutes and common law, the holding of the interests of private litigants hostage to the government's interest in promoting reciprocity, and the gridlock that results as the United States and foreign states refuse to recognize one another's judgments due to failure to reciprocate. Should recognition of foreign judgments in U.S. state courts be subject to a reciprocity requirement? Why or why not?