International Arbitration 2026 Comparisons

Court litigation remains the primary mechanism for resolving commercial disputes in Vietnam. In 2025, Vietnamese courts published 6,152 commercial judgments, compared with 532 new cases admitted by the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre, the country’s leading commercial arbitration institution.

Nevertheless, arbitration has become an increasingly important method of dispute resolution. According to VIAC’s 2025 statistics, purely domestic disputes accounted for 51.5% of its caseload (274 cases), while disputes involving foreign-invested enterprises (FDI) or other foreign elements represented 48.5% (258 cases). This demonstrates that arbitration is increasingly used not only for international commercial disputes but also by domestic parties.

Although many domestic parties continue to favour litigation because of their familiarity with the court system and the lower perceived costs, arbitration is gaining popularity because of its procedural flexibility, confidentiality, neutrality and the finality of arbitral awards. The 532 new cases registered by VIAC in 2025 also represent an 11.2% increase compared with 2024, marking the highest annual caseload since the centre’s establishment.

Although Vietnamese authorities have not published official nationwide statistics on the total volume of arbitration cases, data from the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre indicates that several industries have experienced significant arbitration activity in recent years. The most active sectors include:

• sale of goods – this sector accounted for the largest share of VIAC’s new cases, representing 24% of the total caseload;
• construction – construction disputes ranked second, accounting for 23% of total cases, reflecting the complexity and high value of construction projects;
• real estate – real estate disputes represented 20% of the total caseload, driven by the increasing number of large-scale property development and investment projects; and
• other notable sectors – VIAC also recorded a significant number of disputes in finance and banking, logistics, leasing, business cooperation and internal corporate disputes, particularly those relating to share purchase agreements (SPAs) and shareholders’ agreements (SHAs).

VIAC has also observed a growing number of disputes in e-commerce, fintech and energy, reflecting the rapid development of these sectors. These industries tend to experience more arbitration activity because they typically involve high-value transactions, technically complex projects, long-term contractual relationships or foreign investment.

The Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) remains the leading and most widely used arbitral institution in Vietnam for both domestic and international commercial disputes. Its prominence is attributable to several factors, as outlined below.

• Established reputation: Founded in 1993 under a decision of the Prime Minister, VIAC has more than 30 years of experience in administering commercial arbitration and has developed a strong reputation for independence, professionalism and reliability.
• Qualified and international panel of arbitrators: VIAC maintains a panel of more than 200 arbitrators, comprising experienced legal practitioners, academics and industry experts from Vietnam and abroad, enabling the efficient resolution of both domestic and cross-border disputes.
• Modern arbitration framework: Notably, VIAC has updated its institutional framework to align with international best practices. The VIAC Rules 2026, which replace the 2017 Rules, introduce procedural improvements aimed at enhancing transparency, efficiency and flexibility in arbitral proceedings.
• Thought leadership and international engagement: VIAC actively promotes arbitration through conferences, publications, training programmes and international events, including the annual Vietnam ADR Week (VAW), which brings together judges, arbitrators, legal practitioners, businesses, policymakers and international experts to discuss developments in alternative dispute resolution.

Within the last 12 months, Vietnam has also witnessed the establishment of the International Arbitration Center under the Vietnam International Financial Centre (VIFCA) as part of the development of the Vietnam International Financial Center. In addition, VIAC established its Fintech & Digital Economy Dispute Specialists in May 2026 to provide specialised case administration for disputes relating to finance, banking, investment and M&A. However, this department forms part of VIAC’s internal organisational structure rather than constituting a separate arbitral institution.

In Vietnam, no courts are specifically tasked with handling disputes related to international or domestic arbitration.

The principal legislation governing arbitration in Vietnam is the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 (LCA), which provides the legal framework for both domestic arbitration and foreign-related commercial disputes. The arbitration regime is further supplemented by:

• the 1958 New York Convention, to which Vietnam has been a contracting state since 1995;
• Resolution No 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP, providing guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the LCA;
• Decree No 63/2011/ND-CP (as amended by Decree No 124/2018/ND-CP), governing the establishment and operation of arbitral institutions; and
• the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments 2008, which regulate the recognition, enforcement and setting aside of arbitral awards.

The LCA is substantially based on the UNCITRAL Model Law and incorporates many of its core principles, including party autonomy, the separability of the arbitration agreement and the competence-competence doctrine. However, the LCA departs from the UNCITRAL Model Law in several important respects:

• no express concept of “international arbitration” – unlike the Model Law, the LCA does not distinguish between domestic and international arbitration, but instead refers to disputes involving a “foreign element” and to “foreign arbitral awards”;
• nationality of arbitral awards – the nationality of an award is determined by the nationality of the arbitral institution, rather than the seat of arbitration;
• grounds for judicial review – instead of the UNCITRAL Model Law’s “public policy” exception, the LCA adopts “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law” (specifically, Vietnamese courts may set aside or refuse to recognise an award if it is contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law); and
• scope of arbitrable disputes – the LCA primarily governs commercial disputes and certain other disputes expressly permitted by law, making its scope narrower than that of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

For readers unfamiliar with Vietnam’s legislative framework, it may be helpful to note that:

• laws are enacted by the National Assembly;
• decrees are issued by the Government to implement laws; and
• resolutions are issued by the National Assembly, its Standing Committee or the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court to address specific issues or ensure the uniform application of the laws.

The LCA has not been amended in the past year; however, three related developments have materially affected arbitration practice, as outlined below.

Court Reform

Effective from 1 July 2025, Law No 81/2025/QH15 restructured Vietnam’s court system by replacing district-level courts with Regional People’s Courts. In parallel, Resolution No 81/2025/UBTVQH15 centralised jurisdiction over applications to set aside arbitral awards in only three Provincial People’s Courts (Hanoi, Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City), to promote greater judicial consistency and expertise. Regional People’s Courts now handle other arbitration-related court functions, including applications for interim measures and the appointment of arbitrators in ad hoc proceedings.

International Financial Centre

Resolution No 222/2025/QH15 established the Vietnam International Financial Centre, while Decree No 328/2025/ND-CP created an International Arbitration Center within the Centre. A notable feature is that parties may agree in writing to waive their right to apply to a Vietnamese court to set aside an arbitral award rendered by this institution, a mechanism unavailable under the LCA.

Pending Amendments to the LCA

A draft law prepared by the Vietnam Lawyers Association remains under consideration. The proposal would expand the scope of arbitrable disputes, introduce emergency arbitrator provisions, clarify and narrow the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards and revise the applicable limitation rules. As of the date of this guide, the draft has not yet been submitted to the National Assembly for adoption.

VIAC Rules

Separately, although not a legislative change, the VIAC Rules 2026, effective from 1 July 2026, replaced the 2017 Rules and represent the most significant recent procedural development in institutional arbitration practice in Vietnam.

Under Vietnamese law, a fundamental prerequisite for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable is that the parties must mutually agree to use arbitration to resolve their disputes. Additionally, to prevent the arbitration agreement from being declared null and void, it must satisfy four key conditions stipulated by the LCA and Resolution 01/2014/NQ-HDTP:

• firstly, the subject-matter dispute must fall within the jurisdictional competence of arbitration (commercial disputes or matters designated by law);
• secondly, the persons executing the agreement must possess full civil legal capacity;
• thirdly, the signatories must have the proper legal authority to establish the agreement (for example, legal representatives or authorised agents); and
• finally, the form of the agreement must comply with legal regulations, meaning it must strictly be made in writing, satisfying the written requirement through contract clauses, separate documents, electronic communications or incorporation by reference; furthermore, the agreement must be entered into voluntarily without fraud or duress and comply with Vietnamese laws.

Under the LCA, the arbitrability of a dispute is primarily determined by the nature of the dispute and whether Vietnamese law permits it to be resolved by arbitration.

The following principles apply:

• commercial disputes: disputes arising from commercial activities are generally arbitrable.
• disputes permitted by law: certain non-commercial disputes may also be resolved by arbitration where specialised legislation expressly allows it, such as in the fields of construction, investment, maritime, labour and intellectual property.
• non-arbitrable matters: criminal, administrative, marriage and family, inheritance and other disputes involving the exercise of public authority are generally not arbitrable.
• non-contractual disputes: the LCA does not expressly address the arbitrability of non-contractual disputes. Their arbitrability therefore depends on whether another law permits arbitration.

Where arbitrability is challenged, Vietnamese courts have the final authority to determine whether the dispute falls within the scope of the LCA and whether a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement exists.

Vietnamese courts generally respect the principle of party autonomy in determining the law applicable to dispute resolution. However, where the parties have not agreed on the law governing the arbitration agreement, there is no consistent judicial approach and the LCA is silent on the point.

In practice, the internationally accepted default of applying the law of the seat of arbitration is generally followed, on the basis that the arbitration agreement is most closely connected with the place where the arbitration is conducted. Parties are nonetheless well advised to expressly specify the governing law of the arbitration agreement, rather than rely on a default rule that remains unsettled in Vietnam.

As to enforcement, Vietnamese courts generally recognise and give effect to arbitration agreements. Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, a court is statutorily required to refer the parties to arbitration under the LCA and the Civil Procedure Code 2015, provided a party invokes the agreement no later than the first-instance hearing. Failure to do so is treated as a waiver of the right to arbitrate.

Vietnamese jurisdiction fully applies the doctrine of separability to arbitration agreements. Under Article 19 of the LCA, an arbitration agreement exists independently from the main contract in which it is contained. Consequently, the modification, rescission, termination or invalidity of the main contract does not automatically render the arbitration agreement void.

Under the LCA, the principle of party autonomy is generally respected, meaning Parties have wide freedom to choose their arbitrators. However, this autonomy is not absolute and is subject to specific statutory limits.

Statutory Eligibility Requirements (Article 20, LCA)

Parties cannot select just anyone to act as an arbitrator. A person chosen by the parties must:

• have full civil legal capacity under the Civil Code;
• hold a university degree; and
• have at least 5 years of work experience in their field of study.

Nevertheless, in special cases, an expert with high professional qualifications and substantial practical experience can serve as an arbitrator even without the standard university degree/experience mix.

Statutory Disqualifications (Article 20.2, LCA)

Vietnamese law strictly prohibits certain individuals from acting as arbitrators, overriding any party choice:

• current judges, prosecutors, investigators, bailiffs or officials of People’s Courts, People’s Procuratorates, investigative agencies or judgment enforcement agencies; and
• individuals currently under criminal prosecution, serving a criminal sentence or whose criminal records have not been cleared.

Formation of an Arbitration Council at an Arbitration Centre

• Under LCA (Article 40.1, Article 40.2), within 30 days after receiving the petition and request for selecting an arbitrator sent by the arbitration center, the Defendant shall select an arbitrator and notify such to the arbitration center or request the arbitration center’s chairman to designate an arbitrator, otherwise, within 7 days after the expiration of the time limit, the arbitration center’s chairman shall designate an arbitrator for the Defendant.
• For a dispute involving many Defendants, within 30 days after the petition sent by the arbitration centre, the Defendants shall agree to select an arbitrator or to request designation of an arbitrator. If the Defendants cannot select an arbitrator, within 7 days after the expiration of the time limit, the arbitration centre’s chairman shall designate an arbitrator for the Defendants.

Formation of Ad Hoc Arbitration Councils

• Under LCA (Article 41.1, Article 41.2), within 30 days after receiving the Plaintiff’s petition, the Defendant shall select an arbitrator and notify the Plaintiff of the selection. Past this time limit, if the Defendant fails to notify the Plaintiff of the name of the selected arbitrator and the Parties do not otherwise agree on designation of an arbitrator, the Plaintiff may request a competent court to designate an arbitrator for the Defendant.
• For a dispute involving many Defendants, these Defendants shall agree to select an arbitrator within 30 days after receiving the Plaintiff’s petition and enclosed documents. Past this time limit, if the Defendants cannot select an arbitrator and the Parties do not otherwise agree on designation of an arbitrator, one Party or all Parties may request a competent court to designate an arbitrator for the Defendants.

Establishing a Concrete Default Mechanism Under the VIAC Rules 2026

Multiple claimants or multiple respondents must jointly nominate a co-arbitrator. If either side fails to reach a consensus on a joint nomination within the prescribed time limit, VIAC (the President of VIAC) steps in to appoint the co-arbitrator for that side. Conversely, where necessary to ensure equal treatment and procedural fairness, appoints all members of the arbitral tribunal.

Under LCA (Article 41.1, Article 41.2), Vietnamese courts may intervene in the appointment of arbitrators, but only in the limited circumstances as (see 4.2 Default Procedures). Court intervention is intended to facilitate the constitution of the arbitral tribunal where the agreed appointment mechanism has failed, rather than to replace the parties’ autonomy in selecting arbitrators.

Accordingly, the court’s role is supportive rather than supervisory. It may intervene only in the circumstances expressly provided by the LCA and has no authority to appoint, remove or replace arbitrators outside those statutory grounds.

Pursuant to Article 42.1 of the LCA, any arbitrator may be challenged if circumstances exist that give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence, specifically:

• the arbitrator is a relative or representative of a party;
• the arbitrator has an interest related to the dispute;
• there is clear evidence that the arbitrator is not impartial or objective;
• the arbitrator was a conciliator, representative or lawyer for any party before the dispute was brought to arbitration, unless the parties give written consent.

An arbitrator can also be challenged if they do not meet the qualifications and conditions required to be an arbitrator. However, in practice, such cases are rare because arbitration centres typically thoroughly vet arbitrators to ensure compliance and protect the centre’s reputation.

An arbitrator must refuse to settle a dispute and may be replaced if they are a relative or representative of a party, have an interest in the dispute, lack impartiality or were previously a conciliator, representative or lawyer for a party.

Pursuant to Article 42.6 of the LCA, in cases where an arbitrator cannot continue the dispute resolution due to force majeure or objective obstacles or if they are changed, the selection and appointment of a replacement arbitrator follow the same procedure as the rules applicable to the appointment process.

Vietnamese law does not specify the extent to which arbitrators must be independent and impartial. The LCA only stipulates circumstances in which an arbitrator must refuse to settle a dispute if justifiable doubts exist as to their impartiality or independence.

Pursuant to Article 42.2 of the LCA, after being selected or designated, the arbitrator shall notify in writing the arbitration centre or arbitration council and parties of the circumstances which may affect his/her objectivity or impartiality.

The principle of competence-competence is fully applicable under Vietnamese law. Pursuant to Article 43.1 of the LCA, an arbitral tribunal possesses the legal authority to review and rule upon a party’s challenge regarding its own jurisdiction, including objections concerning the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.

The tribunal may issue a specific ruling on jurisdiction prior to hearing the merits of the dispute or incorporate its decision directly into the final arbitral award. If a party contests the tribunal’s affirmative ruling on jurisdiction, they are not left without recourse; they retain the statutory right under Article 44.1 of the LCA to request a competent People’s Court to review and set aside the tribunal’s jurisdictional decision. This balanced framework ensures procedural efficiency – allowing arbitrators to exercise initial control over their mandate – while preserving judicial oversight to guarantee that no party is forced into arbitration without a valid legal foundation.

Under Article 44 of the LCA, Vietnamese courts can address an arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction if a party files a request for judicial review within 05 (five) working days of receiving an affirmative ruling where the tribunal decides it has jurisdiction despite an objection. Courts also evaluate jurisdiction when a party initiates court proceedings in alleged violation of an arbitration agreement or during enforcement and setting-aside proceedings.

Alternatively, a party may raise jurisdictional challenges later as a ground to apply to set aside the final arbitral award under Article 68 of the LCA or during the recognition and enforcement stage; however, a direct judicial challenge to an ongoing proceeding is strictly triggered by the tribunal’s preliminary affirmative jurisdictional decision.

Specifically, under Article 44 of the LCA, if a party objects to jurisdiction and the newly constituted tribunal decides to proceed by affirming that it has jurisdiction, that dissatisfied party has a tight statutory window of five working days from receiving the tribunal’s decision to request a competent People’s Court to review and make a final ruling. If the court rules that the tribunal lacks jurisdiction, the arbitration proceedings are terminated. If the court upholds jurisdiction, the arbitration continues.

Under Article 69 of the LCA, parties do not have the right to approach a court to challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction as soon as a case is filed, nor while the arbitration is ongoing after its constitution (except via the specific preliminary review mechanism under Article 44). Instead, regarding post-award challenges governed by Article 69, parties may only petition a competent court to set aside an award – including challenges grounded on a lack of tribunal jurisdiction – strictly after a final arbitral award has been rendered, within a mandatory time limit of 30 days from the date of receiving the award.

The LCA does not expressly distinguish between jurisdiction and admissibility and Vietnamese case law has not developed a separate standard of judicial review for questions of admissibility. Accordingly, issues characterised as jurisdictional under the LCA are subject to de novo judicial review, while the treatment of procedural admissibility issues remains uncertain under Vietnamese law. Under the LCA, where a party challenges the tribunal’s jurisdiction under Article 44 or seeks to set aside an award under Article 68, the court independently examines the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement, as well as whether the dispute is arbitrable under Vietnamese law. The court need not defer to the tribunal’s jurisdictional findings.

Vietnamese courts generally adopt a pro-arbitration approach where the parties have entered into a valid arbitration agreement. Under Article 6 of the LCA, a court must decline jurisdiction over a dispute subject to a valid arbitration agreement unless the court finds that the arbitration agreement is null and void, incapable of being performed or the dispute is not arbitrable under Vietnamese law.

Where a court has accepted a case before identifying the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, it may terminate or suspend the proceedings, as appropriate under the applicable procedural rules and direct the parties to resolve their dispute through arbitration.

Consequently, national courts firmly enforce the negative effect of arbitration agreements, directing parties back to the arbitral forum as long as the agreement satisfies basic statutory validity requirements.

An arbitral tribunal may only assume jurisdiction over a non-signatory through strict statutory legal succession under Article 5 of the LCA. This occurs when a corporate entity undergoes a merger, consolidation, division or conversion, binding the legal successor entity or when an individual party dies or loses capacity, binding their legal heirs or representatives. Additionally, if contractual rights and obligations are formally transferred to a third party, the arbitration agreement binds that transferee. These statutory succession rules apply equally to both domestic and foreign third parties, provided they legally succeed a signatory under applicable laws. Otherwise, tribunals cannot extend jurisdiction over external third parties without a separate, valid written arbitration agreement.

Under Articles 48 and 49 of the LCA, an arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party order one (or more) interim relief (legally termed “interim urgent measures”). Such measures are binding on the parties, although implementation may require assistance from the competent court or enforcement authorities if a party fails to comply voluntarily.

The interim measures available under the LCA include:

• preserving the status quo of the disputed property;
• prohibiting or requiring a party to perform certain acts in order to prevent prejudice to the arbitral proceedings;
• attachment of the disputed property;
• preservation, storage, sale or other disposition of the property in dispute;
• interim payment between the parties; and
• prohibiting the transfer of rights in respect of the disputed property.

The arbitral tribunal may also require the requesting party to provide appropriate security before granting an interim measure. Where a party has already requested a court to grant the same interim measure, the arbitral tribunal must decline to consider that request.

Vietnamese courts play a crucial supportive role in granting interim relief under Article 53 of the LCA. A party may request either the arbitral tribunal or the competent court to grant an interim measure after commencing arbitration. When courts do grant interim relief – such as asset freezes, asset preservation or prohibitions on specific acts under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 – these orders are binding and enforceable through the civil judgment enforcement system.

The courts may grant the same interim measures available to an arbitral tribunal under the LCA, including preservation or attachment of disputed property, prohibition or mandatory orders, preservation or disposal of property, interim payment and prohibitions on the transfer of disputed assets.

The LCA does not expressly empower Vietnamese courts to grant interim relief in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. Accordingly, the availability of such relief remains uncertain under Vietnamese law.

Vietnamese law also does not recognise the concept of an emergency arbitrator. The LCA contains no provisions governing the appointment, powers or enforceability of emergency arbitrators and no Vietnamese arbitral institution currently provides a statutory emergency arbitrator mechanism. Consequently, parties requiring urgent relief before the constitution of the arbitral tribunal must generally seek assistance from the competent Vietnamese court where available.

The LCA does not expressly empower either arbitral tribunals or Vietnamese courts to order security for costs, such as requiring a claimant to provide security for the respondent’s prospective legal fees or arbitration costs. This should be distinguished from security for interim measures. Under Article 49 of the LCA, an arbitral tribunal may require a party requesting an interim measure to provide appropriate security before granting such measure. However, this security is intended to protect against losses that may arise from the interim measure itself, rather than to secure the opposing party’s legal costs.

Arbitral procedure in Vietnam is governed by three complementary layers:

• first, the LCA establishes the mandatory legal framework and minimum procedural safeguards that cannot be derogated from by agreement;
• second, the procedural rules of the chosen arbitral institution (eg, VIAC Rules 2026) govern the conduct of the proceedings, including case management, submissions, evidence, hearings and the issuance of awards; and
• third, the Civil Procedure Code 2015 applies residually wherever the process interfaces with the courts, for example in relation to interim relief, setting aside or enforcement.

Within the above boundaries, the parties retain substantial autonomy to shape their own procedure.

The LCA prescribes several minimum procedural requirements while leaving detailed case management largely to the parties’ agreement and the applicable institutional rules. In particular:

• proceedings commence with the claimant’s request for arbitration and statement of claim, followed by an opportunity for the respondent to submit a statement of defence;
• the arbitral tribunal must be constituted in accordance with the parties’ agreement or, failing such agreement, the default appointment mechanism under the LCA shall be applied;
• the parties may agree on the time and place of the hearings; however, in the absence of such agreement, the arbitral tribunal determines these matters;
• the tribunal may conduct an oral hearing or decide the dispute on a document-only basis, depending on the parties’ agreement and the circumstances of the case and throughout the proceedings, each party must be given a full and equal opportunity to present its case; and
• the proceedings conclude with a written arbitral award signed by the arbitral tribunal, which is final and binding upon the parties.

Under the LCA, arbitrators are subject to specific statutory rights and duties.

Their principal rights include:

• accepting or refusing an appointment to act as an arbitrator;
• refusing to provide information relating to the dispute, except where disclosure is required by law;
• receiving remuneration for their services; and
• exercising the powers conferred upon members of the arbitral tribunal under the LCA in the conduct of the proceedings.

Their principal duties include:

• remaining independent, impartial and objective throughout the proceedings;
• maintaining the confidentiality of the dispute, except where disclosure is required by competent state authorities in accordance with the law;
• resolving the dispute promptly and in accordance with the procedural timetable; and
• complying with applicable professional ethical standards.

In addition, arbitrators who fail to comply with their statutory obligations may be subject to administrative sanctions under Decree No 82/2020/ND-CP.

For the purpose of this discussion, “legal representatives” refers to individuals authorised to represent disputing parties in arbitration proceedings. The LCA prescribes no specific professional qualification for that role. In particular and unlike court litigation, there is no requirement that a party’s representative be a Vietnamese-qualified lawyer or hold a Vietnamese practising certificate.

Parties are therefore free to be represented by counsel of their choice, whether Vietnamese lawyers, foreign-qualified lawyers or in-house counsel, provided the individual holds proper authority to act, typically evidenced by a power of attorney or written authorisation. The same position applies equally to purely domestic and to foreign-related arbitrations seated in Vietnam, so foreign-qualified lawyers may appear without seeking admission to the Vietnamese Bar for that purpose.

Each party has the right and obligation to submit evidence in support of its claims and defences. Where necessary, a party may request the arbitral tribunal or the competent court to assist in collecting evidence.

The arbitral tribunal has broad discretion in the taking of evidence. It may require parties to produce evidence, seek expert opinions or appraisals and request witnesses to appear at the hearing. Where a duly summoned witness fails to attend without a valid reason and such absence obstructs the proceedings, the tribunal may request the competent court to issue a summons requiring the witness’s attendance. There is no general discovery or disclosure process comparable to that in common law jurisdictions; evidence production is generally limited to documents relied upon by the parties or specifically requested by the tribunal.

The LCA does not prescribe detailed rules on witness statements, cross-examination or legal professional privilege. In practice, parties may submit written witness statements and witnesses may be questioned by the parties and the tribunal during the hearing. The manner in which witnesses are examined is generally determined by the parties’ agreement and the tribunal’s procedural directions.

Although electronic data is recognised as a source of evidence under the Civil Procedure Code 2015 and the Law on Electronic Transactions 2023, the LCA does not expressly regulate the use or admissibility of electronic evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is generally admissible, subject to the tribunal’s assessment of its authenticity, relevance and probative value.

Unlike domestic court litigation, arbitration under the LCA is not bound by any equivalent codified evidentiary regime. The LCA does not prescribe a comprehensive or codified set of rules of evidence. Instead, Article 46 grants arbitral tribunals broad discretion to take and evaluate evidence. In particular, the tribunal has discretion to determine:

• the admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight of the evidence;
• whether to admit documentary, witness or expert evidence; and
• the timetable and procedures for the submission and exchange of evidence.

The parties remain responsible for producing evidence in support of their claims and defences, while the tribunal may request additional evidence or take measures to collect evidence in accordance with the LCA.

By contrast, Vietnamese court proceedings are generally subject to more formal evidentiary rules under the Civil Procedure Code 2015. Courts typically require stricter compliance with statutory requirements regarding the form and admissibility of evidence, including, where applicable, notarisation, certification, authentication or legalisation of documents.

Accordingly, the evidentiary regime in arbitration is generally more flexible than that applicable in domestic court proceedings. Subject to the mandatory provisions of the LCA, parties may also agree to adopt internationally recognised soft-law instruments, such as the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration; however, such rules have no mandatory force under Vietnamese law.

A tribunal has no coercive power over a non-party and cannot itself compel a third party to produce documents or attend a hearing, a limitation common to arbitral tribunals generally. Under Articles 46 and 47 of the LCA, a tribunal may request the assistance of the competent court to summon a witness or to compel document production from a party or non-party who declines to cooperate voluntarily. As between the parties themselves, a party is generally expected to comply with a tribunal’s own production order as a matter of the arbitration agreement and the applicable rules, whereas a non-party can only be compelled with the court’s assistance, a distinction international counsel will recognise from most other seats.

Article 4.4 of the LCA establishes non-public proceedings as a default principle, meaning hearings are conducted in private unless the parties agree otherwise, a starting position broadly similar to most institutional arbitration regimes.

The LCA also imposes confidentiality obligations on arbitrators, who must not disclose information relating to the dispute except where disclosure is required by law. In practice, institutional rules (for example the VIAC Rules 2026) and contractual confidentiality clauses often provide additional protection for the parties and the arbitral process.

Confidentiality is not, however, absolute. Information and documents from an arbitration may be disclosed where required by law or necessary in related judicial proceedings, such as applications for interim measures, setting aside an arbitral award or the recognition and enforcement of an award. Outside these circumstances, there is no general right to disclose information obtained in the arbitration without the parties’ agreement or another legal basis.

Article 61 of the LCA sets out the formal requirements for a valid award, requirements that will look familiar to most international practitioners in substance. The award must be in writing and signed by all or a majority, of the tribunal, with any dissent recorded and must state the date and place of the award, the parties’ names and addresses, a summary of the claims and the issues in dispute, the facts and reasoning supporting the tribunal’s decision unless the parties have agreed that reasons are not required, the operative decision itself, the allocation of arbitration fees and costs and the time limit for payment.

As for timing, the LCA does impose a statutory deadline. Under Article 61.3, the award must be issued either immediately at the hearing or, at the latest, within thirty days from the closing of the final hearing on the merits. The award then takes effect from the date of its issuance.

A tribunal may award the remedies generally available under Vietnamese substantive law, including compensatory damages, specific performance of obligations, the consequences that follow from termination of a contract and interest for late payment.

Contractual penalties for breach of a commercial contract are, subject to limited exceptions, capped at eight (8) per cent of the value of the breached obligation under Article 301 of the Commercial Law 2005.

Punitive damages and liquidated damages are not generally recognised under Vietnamese law and a tribunal awarding them would risk the award’s later enforcement being resisted as contrary to “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law” if enforcement were sought in Vietnam.

Although an arbitral tribunal may order interim measures under the LCA, Vietnamese law does not recognise the broad equitable remedies as final relief. Accordingly, remedies such as injunctions are available only to the extent expressly provided for under the LCA or the applicable substantive law.

Interest is generally recoverable either at the rate the parties themselves agreed or, absent agreement, at the statutory rate for late payment under Article 306 of the Commercial Law 2005, with courts and tribunals increasingly guided in practice by judicial interpretations developed for late payment interest in ordinary litigation when settling on an appropriate rate.

Article 34 of the LCA allows the parties to agree how arbitration fees and costs will be allocated. Absent such agreement, tribunals generally apply a cost-follow-the-event approach broadly familiar from international practice, awarding the successful party its arbitration fees and reasonable legal costs. However, apportionment reflecting the degree to which each party succeeded is also common where neither side prevails entirely.

Vietnam does not permit appeals on the merits of an arbitral award, consistent with the finality principle underpinning most modern arbitration regimes. An award is final and binding once rendered under Article 61.5 of the LCA. The only available recourse is an application to set the award aside before the competent court within thirty days of receipt, under Article 69 and only on the limited procedural grounds enumerated in Article 68.2 of the LCA. These grounds include the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, an improperly constituted tribunal or a procedure that did not follow the parties’ agreement or the law, an award dealing with matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, evidence that the award was procured through fraud and the broader ground that the award is contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law, discussed further in 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review.

As explained in 2.2 Changes to National Law, jurisdiction to hear such an application is now concentrated in only three specialised Provincial People’s Courts, in Hanoi, Da Nang and Ho Chi Minh City and the application is heard by a panel of three judges who review only the enumerated grounds without re-examining the underlying merits of the dispute. Publicly available data suggest the great majority of set-aside applications are ultimately rejected, a trend arbitration practitioners in Vietnam regard as a further sign of the judiciary’s increasingly pro-arbitration orientation.

Parties cannot, by agreement, exclude or expand the statutory grounds for setting aside beyond those listed in Article 68 of the LCA, which are treated as mandatory protections for the integrity of the arbitral process rather than rights the parties are free to waive or extend in advance, a position shared with most UNCITRAL Model Law jurisdictions that do not permit contractual exclusion of court supervision. A narrow and genuinely novel exception now exists, however, for the newly established International Arbitration Center under the International Financial Centre discussed in 2.2 Changes to National Law, Article 4.5 Decree No 328/2025/ND-CP permits parties who submit to that Center’s jurisdiction to agree in writing to waive their right to apply to set the resulting award aside, a mechanism with no equivalent anywhere else under Vietnamese law and one that international counsel structuring IFC related disputes should note carefully.

Vietnamese courts do not conduct a de novo review of the merits of an arbitral award. Under Resolution No 01/2014/NQ-HDTP, when considering an application to set aside an arbitral award, the court is confined to the statutory grounds set out in Article 68 of the LCA and may not re-examine the substantive findings of fact or law made by the arbitral tribunal.

In principle, judicial review is therefore limited and deferential to the tribunal’s determination of the merits. However, one of the statutory grounds for setting aside an award is that it is contrary to the “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”. As this concept is not exhaustively defined, Vietnamese courts have, in some cases, undertaken a more substantive review when assessing whether this ground is engaged.

The scope of this ground continues to evolve through judicial practice and proposals to amend the LCA would clarify and narrow the grounds for setting aside arbitral awards in order to promote greater consistency and alignment with international arbitration standards.

Vietnam has been a party to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards since 1995. Vietnam made the two reservations most commonly seen among contracting states: a reciprocity reservation, applying the Convention only to awards made in the territory of another contracting state and a commercial reservation, applying the Convention only to disputes considered commercial under Vietnamese law.

Vietnamese law draws a sharp distinction, one international counsel should keep firmly in mind, between domestic and foreign awards. A domestic award is directly enforceable through Vietnam’s civil judgment enforcement agencies once rendered, without any separate court recognition step, because it already carries binding, enforceable status under the LCA in its own right. A foreign award, by contrast, requires a formal application for recognition and enforcement before the competent court under the Civil Procedure Code 2015, which applies refusal grounds closely mirroring those in Article V of the New York Convention, again without any review of the underlying merits.

Consistent with the Convention’s own framework, an award that has been properly proven to have been set aside by the courts of the seat will generally not be enforced in Vietnam. Where set aside proceedings remain pending at the seat, Vietnamese courts have discretion, rather than an obligation, to adjourn or suspend the enforcement proceedings pending that outcome and in practice tend to favour suspension out of comity, although this can add considerably to an already lengthy overall timeline.

On sovereign immunity, Vietnamese practice generally follows a restrictive theory broadly consistent with modern international practice, distinguishing a state entity’s sovereign acts from its purely commercial acts, so that enforcement against a state entity engaged in commercial activity is generally available. Immunity from execution against assets specifically dedicated to public or sovereign functions remains more protective in practice and the distinction is applied case by case rather than through any bright line statutory rule.

Vietnamese courts generally adopt a pro-enforcement approach to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, particularly following the issuance of Resolution No 01/2014/NQ-HĐTP, which provides guidance on the implementation of the LCA. As a contracting state to the 1958 New York Convention, Vietnam recognises and enforces foreign arbitral awards, subject to the limited grounds for refusal set out in the Convention and the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

One of the principal grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement is that the award is contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law. Vietnamese law adopts this domestic standard rather than the concept of international public policy applied in some jurisdictions. Although the legislation does not define the term exhaustively, Vietnamese courts generally interpret it as referring to the core legal principles underpinning the Vietnamese legal system, rather than any violation of ordinary mandatory rules.

Accordingly, when considering the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, Vietnamese courts apply a domestic public policy standard based on the “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”, rather than an international public policy standard.

Vietnamese law does not provide for class action arbitration or for any representative, opt-in or opt-out group arbitration mechanism of the kind available in a small number of other jurisdictions.

Multiple claimants or respondents can participate in a single arbitration only through consolidation or joinder and only where all relevant parties consent or a valid multiparty arbitration agreement already exists.

On a separate note, the VIAC Rules 2026, discussed in 13.4 Consolidation, have strengthened the institutional mechanics available for consolidation and joinder in multi-contract and multiparty disputes, but this remains fundamentally different from a true class mechanism, which Vietnamese arbitration law simply does not recognise.

Arbitrators are bound by the statutory independence, impartiality and disclosure obligations in Article 21 of the LCA, supplemented by institutional codes such as VIAC’s own Code of Ethics for Arbitrators. Vietnamese licensed lawyers acting as counsel are separately subject to the Law on Lawyers and the Vietnam Bar Federation’s Rules of Professional Conduct, which cover conflicts of interest, confidentiality and candour toward the tribunal, broadly comparable in substance to professional conduct rules in other jurisdictions.

Foreign counsel appearing without a Vietnamese practising licence, a common scenario given the flexibility described in 7.4 Legal Representatives, are not directly bound by these domestic professional rules. They are, however, generally expected to comply with the ethical rules of their own home jurisdiction and with any institutional guidelines the parties or tribunal choose to adopt, such as the IBA Guidelines on Party Representation in International Arbitration where the parties agree to apply them.

Vietnam has no dedicated statute regulating third-party funding. However, the LCA neither expressly authorises nor prohibits such practice, leaving the relationship between the funder and the funded party to be governed by general contract law principles rather than any arbitration-specific regime.

In addition, the VIAC Rules 2026 introduce the first meaningful institutional response to third-party funding in Vietnam, requiring disclosure of the existence and in many cases the identity, of a funder so that arbitrators can properly assess potential conflicts of interest. This approach mirrors similar developments recently introduced in other major institutions’ own 2026 rules, including the ICC. Beyond this disclosure obligation, questions such as a funder’s potential liability for adverse costs or any requirement for a funder’s consent to settlement, remain to be developed through future rule changes or case law and funding arrangements should accordingly be reviewed carefully, case by case, in the absence of comprehensive statutory guidance.

The LCA historically provided no general statutory consolidation mechanism, a genuine gap by comparison with more developed institutional frameworks, so consolidation was achievable in Vietnam primarily by party agreement rather than by any default rule. The VIAC Rules 2026 substantially close this gap, introducing express provisions on the consolidation of related arbitrations and multi-contract disputes, subject to conditions such as the compatibility of the relevant arbitration agreements, the presence of common questions of law or fact and appropriate consent and procedural safeguards for the parties involved. Vietnamese courts, unlike courts in some other jurisdictions, have no general statutory power to consolidate separate arbitral proceedings, so consolidation remains a matter for the parties or, where the applicable institutional rules permit it, for the administering institution.

A non-signatory can become bound by an arbitration agreement or award in Vietnam through recognised general civil law mechanisms rather than through any distinct, arbitration-specific doctrine. These mechanisms include universal or singular succession, such as merger, consolidation or inheritance of contractual rights and obligations, valid assignment or novation of the contract containing the arbitration clause, subrogation and agency, where a signatory validly acted with authority on behalf of the non-signatory. In each case, clear consent, whether express or evidenced through conduct showing an intention to be bound, remains the underlying touchstone. This principle will be intuitive to practitioners from any jurisdiction.

Vietnamese courts do not have an established, arbitration-specific statutory power to bind a foreign non-signatory third party beyond these general civil law bases. Any attempt to bind a foreign third party would need to rely on the same doctrines described above and would still be subject to the private international law rules and ultimately the enforcement standards of whichever jurisdiction enforcement against that foreign party is sought in.