International arbitration has gained increasing prominence in Vietnam during the past few years. According to the 2024 Annual Report of the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) (Vietnam’s leading arbitration centre), the number of disputes brought before VIAC tribunals has significantly increased throughout the past decade – with475 cases admitted in 2024 compared to around 270 cases in the previous three years and around 100 cases a decade ago.

Vietnamese domestic parties generally prefer litigation over arbitration. This inclination is often attributed to greater familiarity with the domestic court system and the perception of lower initial costs.

However, arbitration has become more popular among domestic parties in recent years. According to the VIAC’s annual reports from 2021 to 2024, the number of purely domestic disputes (with no involvement of foreign-invested enterprises) brought before VIAC tribunals gradually increased from 42.7% to 52.06% during the past four years.

According to a proposal by the Vietnamese Lawyers’ Association to the Government in 2024, significant international arbitration activity has been observed in industries such as construction and infrastructure, real estate, commerce, banking and finance.

From a practical perspective, the VIAC’s annual reports from 2021 to 2024 identify several key industries with notable arbitration activity in recent years, which are:

• sale of goods (accounting for 44.4% of total disputes in 2021 and 25% of total disputes in 2024);
• construction (18.9% in 2021 and 22% in 2024);
• real estate (.,5% in 2021 and 14% in 2024);
• finance (11% in 2024);
• services (13% in 2024); and
• logistics (2.2% in 2021 and 4% in 2024).

The growth of arbitration activity in these industries can be attributed to high levels of foreign investment, the rapid development of infrastructure in Vietnam, and the prevalence of complex and long-term contracts.

The VIAC is the leading arbitral institution in Vietnam, owing to several key factors, which are:

• long-established reputation and presence ‒ the VIAC was established in 1993, under Decision No 204/TTg dated 22 April 1993 of the Prime Minister;
• experienced and diverse panel of arbitrators ‒ the VIAC maintains a list of more than 200 arbitrators from various professional backgrounds and jurisdictions, providing strong support for a wide range of disputes and bilingual proceedings; and
• alignment with international standards ‒ the VIAC has progressively updated its arbitration rules to align with international practices, including improvements in tribunal appointment and anticipated developments in multiparty arbitration proceedings.

On 23 January 2025, a new arbitration centre was established. The Tien Giang International Commercial Arbitration Centre (TGAC) is located in Tien Giang Province (now part of Dong Thap Province), Vietnam.

There are no courts in Vietnam specifically designated to handle disputes relating to international or domestic arbitration, as such disputes are generally considered civil matters.

The 2010 Law on Commercial Arbitration (LCA) is the primary legal instrument governing international arbitration in Vietnam. In addition, there are some guidance documents relating to the LCA, including but not limited to:

• Decree No 63/2011/ND-CP of the government dated 28 July 2011 ((“Decree 63/2011”), which mainly governs the registration and operation of domestic and foreign arbitration institutions in Vietnam;
• Resolution No 01/2014/NQ-HDTP of the Judges’ Council of the Supreme People’s Court dated 20 March 2014 (“Resolution 01/2014”), which provides detailed guidance and clarification for several provisions of the LCA; and
• certain provisions of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, which regulate matters related to the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

Alignment With UNCITRAL Model Law

Vietnam has not formally adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law. However, the LCA incorporates many of its core principles, such as party autonomy and the competence-competence doctrine. Nonetheless, there are notable differences between the two instruments, as follows.

• Although both the LCA (Article 9) and the Model Law (Article 30) allow parties to negotiate a settlement during arbitration, the LCA further permits the parties to request that the same arbitral tribunal conduct mediation to facilitate a settlement.
• Whereas the UNCITRAL Model Law empowers the arbitral tribunal to establish rules for collecting and assessing evidence, consulting experts, and requesting court assistance, the LCA (Article 45) additionally authorises the tribunal to verify facts directly.
• One of the grounds for setting aside an arbitral award under Article 68.2(dd) of the LCA and for non-recognition and enforcement under Article 459.2(b) of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code is that the award is “contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law” ‒ a concept not found in the UNCITRAL Model Law.

Although there have been no amendments to the primary arbitration legislation (eg, the LCA), several recent developments have promoted the use of arbitration as a method of dispute resolution, as follows.

• Land Law No 31/2024/QH15 passed by the National Assembly of Vietnam on 18 January 2024 provides under Article 236.5 that disputes between parties arising from commercial activities related to land may now be submitted to Vietnamese commercial arbitration in accordance with the arbitration laws.
• Case Law No 69/2023/AL affirms that disputes arising from non-disclosure agreements or non-compete agreements between employers and employees may be resolved through commercial arbitration.

Pending Amendment to LCA

Since 2022, initiatives have been underway to reform the LCA. The draft amendment is expected to:

• expand the jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals;
• enhance arbitral procedures;
• broaden the scope of arbitration in arbitral proceedings; and
• improve the effectiveness and enforceability of arbitral awards, while minimising the risk of annulment.

Under Vietnamese law, an arbitration agreement must satisfy certain legal requirements – including compliance with formal requirements and the absence of grounds rendering the arbitration agreement null and void – to be enforceable, as follows.

• Written form ‒ the arbitration agreement must be in writing, either as a clause in a contract or as a separate agreement. The following are recognised as valid written forms:
1. an agreement made through communication between the parties by telegram, fax, telex, email or other forms provided for by laws;
2. an agreement made through exchange of written information between the parties;
3. an agreement recorded in writing by a lawyer, notary public or competent institution at the request of the parties;
4. a document (eg, contract, company charter, or similar) referred to by parties in their transactions that contains an arbitration agreement; and
5. an agreement made through an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an arbitration agreement is proposed by one party and not denied by the other party.
• Scope of application ‒ the dispute must fall within the jurisdiction of arbitration as defined in Article 2 of the LCA, specifically:
1. disputes that arise from commercial activities;
2. disputes in which at least one of the parties involved conducts commercial activities; and
3. other disputes that are stipulated by law to be settled by arbitration.
• Authority of the signatory ‒ the person who signed the arbitration agreement must have the legal authority to do so, as prescribed by law.
• Civil legal capacity of the signatory ‒ the signatory must possess full civil legal capacity under the Civil Code.
• Freedom of contract ‒ the arbitration agreement must be entered into voluntarily, without deceit, duress or coercion.
• No breach of legal prohibitions under Vietnamese law ‒ the agreement must not contravene any legal prohibitions under Vietnamese law.

Only disputes that fall within the scope of application as defined in Article 2 of the LCA (see 3.1 Enforceability) can be resolved by arbitration.

Vietnamese courts generally respect the principle of party autonomy in determining the law applicable to dispute resolution, provided that the chosen law does not violate any legal prohibitions under Vietnamese law. Nevertheless, there is no consistent approach if the parties do not have any agreement on the law governing the arbitration agreement.

Vietnamese courts generally recognise and enforce arbitration agreements. Where a valid arbitration agreement exists, courts are statutorily required to refer the parties to arbitration, in accordance with the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and the LCA.

According to Article 19 of the LCA, the arbitration agreement is considered entirely independent from the main contract. Any amendment, extension, termination, invalidity or unenforceability of the contract does not affect the validity of the arbitration agreement. Therefore, under Vietnamese law, an arbitration clause remains valid even if the main contract is declared invalid, as the principle of separability is recognised and applied.

Vietnamese law generally respects party autonomy in the selection of arbitrators. However, the LCA sets out specific eligibility requirements and limitations.

In particular, pursuant to Article 20.1 of the LCA, a person is eligible to become an arbitrator if the person:

• has full civil legal capacity as prescribed in the 2015 Civil Code;
• has a university qualification and at least five years’ work experience in the field of their studies;
• in special cases, is an expert with highly professional qualifications and substantial practical experience, despite not satisfying the second standard.

Pursuant to Article 20.2 of the LCA, a person is not eligible to become an arbitrator if the person is:

• currently a judge, a prosecutor, an  investigator, a bailiff, or an official of the people’s courts, the people’s procuratorate, an investigative agency or a judgment enforcement agency; or
• under a criminal charge or prosecution or is serving a criminal sentence or has fully served the sentence but their criminal record has not yet been cleared.

In the case of institutional arbitration, Article 40 of the LCA applies. If the parties’ agreed method for appointing arbitrators fails, the president of the arbitration centre will make the appointment.

In the case of ad hoc arbitration, Article 41 of the LCA governs the process. In a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two appointed arbitrators then agree on the presiding arbitrator. If either party or the two arbitrators fail to make an appointment within 30 days, the competent arbitral institution or court may step in to make the appointment.

Arbitrator Appointment in Multiparty Arbitration

There are no specific default procedures under Vietnamese law for the appointment of arbitrators in multiparty arbitration. The general procedures applicable to two-party disputes can be followed. Where there are multiple parties on one side (eg, multiple claimants or respondents), those parties are expected to jointly select one arbitrator.

In Vietnam, court intervention in the selection of arbitrators is limited. The competent court may participate in the appointment process only in the context of ad hoc arbitrations and only upon the request of one or both parties. This is prescribed in Article 41 of the LCA and Article 8 of Resolution 01/2014.

Accordingly, the court’s involvement is subject to party autonomy. It does not have the authority to intervene of its own initiative.

Under Article 42.1 of the LCA, parties may challenge the appointment of an arbitrator or seek the removal of an arbitrator on the following grounds:

• the arbitrator is a relative or representative of a party;
• the arbitrator has an interest related to the dispute;
• there are clear grounds to conclude that the arbitrator is not impartial or objective; or
• the arbitrator was a mediator or representative or lawyer of any party prior to the dispute being brought to arbitration for resolution, unless the parties have provided written consent.

Pursuant to Article 4.2 and Article 21.2 of the LCA, arbitrators must remain impartial and independent and must act in accordance with the law. Under Article 42.2 of the LCA, arbitrators are required to provide written notice to the arbitration centre or arbitral tribunal and to the parties of any circumstances that may affect their independence or impartiality. This obligation is also reflected in the rules of arbitration institutions, such as Article 16.1 of the Rules of Arbitration of the VIAC.

The principle of competence-competence is recognised under Vietnamese law. Pursuant to Article 43 of the LCA, an arbitral tribunal has the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction. This includes the power to decide on objections relating to the existence, validity or scope of the arbitration agreement.

Vietnamese courts may address issues concerning the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal only upon the request of one or both disputing parties ‒ specifically, as follows.

• Under Article 44 of the LCA, courts may examine the tribunal’s jurisdiction when a party disagrees with the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction. This includes issues related to the validity and enforceability of the arbitration agreement, as well as to the tribunal’s jurisdiction.
• Under Article 68 of the LCA, courts may also assess the tribunal’s jurisdiction if it is raised as a ground for setting aside an arbitral award.

Vietnamese courts generally do not demonstrate a willingness to interfere in arbitral proceedings. Although there are some negative rulings on jurisdiction, they are not common.

Pursuant to Article 44.1 of the LCA, parties have the right to challenge the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal in court within five days after the tribunal renders its decision on the matter.

Pursuant to Article 69 of the LCA, within 30 days from the date of the rendering of the arbitral award, a party may request the court to set aside the award on the ground that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the dispute.

Although the standard of judicial review for questions of admissibility and jurisdiction is not expressly characterised as either deferential or de novo under Vietnamese law, courts in Vietnam generally adopt a de novo approach. This means that courts independently assess issues such as the validity of the arbitration agreement, the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the agreement’s conformity with the domestic legal system during separate proceedings.

If a party initiates court proceedings in breach of a valid arbitration agreement, Article 6 of the LCA requires the court to decline jurisdiction, unless the arbitration agreement is deemed void or unenforceable. Additionally, pursuant to Article 2.2(c) of Resolution 01/2014, if an arbitral tribunal is already handling the dispute, the court must dismiss or suspend the case – even if it believes the dispute falls outside the scope of arbitration, lacks a valid arbitration agreement, or falls under certain exceptions.

Vietnamese courts generally uphold arbitration agreements and are reluctant to proceed with court cases that breach a valid and enforceable arbitration clause.

Vietnamese arbitration law generally does not allow arbitral tribunals to assume jurisdiction over individuals or entities that are not signatories to the arbitration agreement. Unlike court proceedings, arbitral tribunals derive their authority strictly from the arbitration agreement between the disputing parties. Vietnam does not currently recognise doctrines (eg, the “group of companies” doctrine) that are applied in some other jurisdictions to bind non-signatories.

However, there are certain circumstances in which non-signatories may be bound by an arbitration agreement ‒ either through their express or implied consent ‒ allowing the arbitral tribunal to assume jurisdiction over them, as follows.

• Where a natural person dies or loses mental capacity, their heirs or legal representatives are bound by the agreement unless agreed otherwise.
• Where a party to an arbitration agreement terminates its operation or undergoes changes such as bankruptcy, dissolution or merger, the arbitration agreement remains effective for the successor organisation unless agreed otherwise.
• Where a party to an arbitration agreement transfers all of its rights and obligations to a third party, the third party might also be bound by the arbitration agreement.

Under Article 49 of the LCA, an arbitral tribunal in Vietnam is empowered to grant preliminary or interim relief at the request of a party. If a party fails to comply voluntarily, such orders may be enforced through the Vietnamese courts.

Pursuant to Article 49.2 of the LCA, interim relief may include:

• prohibiting any changes in the status quo of the assets in dispute;
• prohibiting any acts or compelling either of the disputing parties to perform one or more specific acts in order to prevent conduct that might adversely affect the arbitral proceedings;
• attachment of the assets in dispute;
• requirement of storage, sale or disposal of any of the assets of one of or all the parties involved in the dispute;
• requirement of interim payment as between the parties; and
• prohibiting the transfer of asset rights of the assets in dispute.

Before granting interim relief, the arbitral tribunal may ‒ under Article 49.4 of the LCA – require the requesting party to provide financial security, such as a bank guarantee or a cash deposit.

At the request of an aggrieved or potentially aggrieved party, the competent court may grant interim relief after the submission of a request for arbitration, regardless of whether the arbitral tribunal has been constituted. However, the court must ensure that the interim measures it grants are not identical to those already requested before the tribunal. If a party fails to comply with the tribunal’s interim relief order, the other party may seek enforcement through the provincial court.

There is no provision in Vietnamese law expressly allowing or prohibiting the courts from granting interim relief in support of foreign-seated arbitrations. Nevertheless, in practice, Vietnamese courts would be unlikely to grant any interim relief in aid of foreign-seated arbitrations.

Emergency Arbitrators

Vietnamese law is silent on the use of emergency arbitrators. As a result, the use of emergency arbitrators is currently unavailable in Vietnam.

Vietnamese law does not currently provide a mechanism for either courts or arbitral tribunals to order security for costs.

Arbitration procedures in Vietnam are primarily governed by the LCA, which serves as the main legal framework for all aspects of arbitration in the country. Additional instruments include:

• Decree 63/2011, which mainly governs the registration and operation of domestic and foreign arbitration institutions in Vietnam; and
• Resolution 01/2014, which provides detailed guidance and clarification for several provisions of the LCA.

For disputes resolved through institutional arbitration, or where parties to ad hoc arbitration so agree, the procedural rules of the relevant arbitration centre will apply.

As party autonomy is a fundamental principle under the arbitration law of Vietnam, the arbitration procedure may also be governed by the parties’ agreement.

In arbitral proceedings conducted in Vietnam, the following procedural steps are required by law.

• Filing of a request for arbitration and issuance of a statement of defence ‒ the claimant files a request for arbitration at an arbitration institution (in institutional arbitration) or to the respondent (in ad hoc arbitration). The respondent is to send a statement of defence in 30 days upon receipt of the request for arbitration.
• Tribunal formation ‒ in a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two select a chair. If they cannot agree, the president of the arbitration centre appoints. For a sole arbitrator, the parties agree or the president of the arbitration centre appoints. The procedures for ad hoc arbitration are relatively similar, but in the absence of agreement by the parties, the parties can request the competent court to appoint an arbitrator.
• Tribunal’s powers ‒ the tribunal reviews documents and may verify facts, collect evidence, summon witnesses, and apply interim measures.
• Hearings ‒ the tribunal conducts confidential hearings.
• Award issuance ‒ the tribunal issues an award within 30 days of the final hearing, which must be sent to the parties immediately after issuance.

Arbitrators in Vietnam are subject to specific rights and obligations as set out in Article 21 of the LCA, including:

• the power to accept or refuse to resolve the dispute;
• the duty to remain independent during the dispute resolution;
• the right to refuse to provide information relevant to the dispute;
• the right to receive remuneration;
• the duty to maintain confidentiality of the contents of the dispute, except where the disclosure of information to competent state authorities is required by law;
• the duty to ensure impartial, swift and timely dispute resolution; and
• the duty to comply with professional ethical rules.

In addition, pursuant to Article 27 of Decree No 82/2020/ND-CP of the government dated 15 July 2020, administrative penalties may be imposed on arbitrators who fail to fulfil certain duties in accordance with the law.

For the purpose of this discussion, “legal representatives” refers to individuals authorised to represent disputing parties in arbitration proceedings. In arbitration conducted in Vietnam, there is no requirement for legal representatives to hold a Vietnamese legal qualification or be members of the Vietnam Bar Federation. This means a legal representative may, but is not required to be, a certified lawyer. However, the representative must be duly authorised in accordance with the 2015 Civil Code.

Parties have the right and obligation to submit evidence to the arbitral tribunal in support of their claims. If necessary, they may also request that the court or the constituted arbitral tribunal assist in collecting evidence.

The arbitral tribunal has the discretionary power to collect evidence. This may include requesting witnesses to provide relevant documents or information, seeking appraisals, consulting experts, or requesting court assistance for evidence collection. Even though the LCA does not explicitly regulate cross-examination, it can generally be accepted as a procedural element in arbitration proceedings if agreed by the parties.

Although the concept of legal privilege is not expressly codified, arbitration in Vietnam is inherently confidential. Pursuant to Article 4(4) of the LCA, arbitration proceedings are not made public unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Arbitrators, parties, and arbitration institutions are all required to maintain the confidentiality of the proceedings and of the evidence submitted.

The LCA does not prescribe a specific set of rules of evidence. Instead, Article 46 grants arbitral tribunals broad discretion regarding the production and evaluation of evidence. This includes discretion over:

• admissibility, relevance, materiality and weight;
• the acceptance of documentary, witness or expert evidence; and
• the deadlines and procedures for submission and exchange.

Meanwhile, Vietnamese courts normally follow more formal evidentiary rules. Court proceedings often require authenticated and notarised documents, in addition to formal requirements for the admissibility of evidence.

Under Article 46 of the LCA, arbitral tribunals in Vietnam have the authority to request the production of documents and the attendance of witnesses to support the resolution of a dispute. However, arbitral tribunals do not have coercive powers to enforce these requests.

If a party or witness fails to comply, the tribunal or a party may request assistance from the competent court under Articles 7.2(d) and (e) of the LCA. The court may compel the production of evidence or summon witnesses, particularly where the arbitral tribunal or the parties have already made unsuccessful efforts.

There is a distinction between parties and non-parties. Whereas the parties to arbitration agreements are obligated to comply with the tribunal’s orders, non-parties are not.

Confidentiality is a fundamental principle of arbitral proceedings under Vietnamese law. Pursuant to Article 4.4 of the LCA, arbitration must be conducted in private unless the parties agree otherwise. This means that only arbitrators, the parties, their legal representatives, experts, or witnesses may attend the hearings. Parties’ submissions, related documents, evidence, and arbitral awards are all treated as confidential.

However, disclosure of information from arbitral proceedings may be permitted or required in the following situations.

• Court enforcement or challenge ‒ if a party seeks to enforce or set aside an arbitral award in court, relevant documents may need to be submitted to the court.
• Party agreement ‒ the parties may agree to waive confidentiality, either wholly or partially.

Pursuant to Articles 60 and 61 of the LCA, an arbitral award must satisfy the following legal requirements.

• Formality ‒ an arbitral award must be in writing.
• Content ‒ an arbitral award must contain the following main components:
1. date and location of issuance of the award;
2. names and addresses of the claimant and of the respondent;
3. full names and addresses of the arbitrator(s);
4. summary of the statement of claim and matters in dispute;
5. reasons for the issuance of the award, unless the parties agree it is unnecessary to specify reasons for the award;
6. result of the dispute resolution;
7. time limit for enforcement of the award;
8. allocation of arbitration fees and other relevant fees; and
9. signatures of the arbitrator(s) – if an arbitrator does not sign the arbitral award, the presiding arbitrator must record such fact in the arbitral award and specify the reason (in such cases, the arbitral award will still be effective).
• Voting procedure ‒ the arbitral tribunal will issue an arbitral award by majority vote. If a majority vote is not obtained, the arbitral award will be made in accordance with the opinion of the presiding arbitrator.
• Time limits on the issuance and delivery of the award ‒ the award must be issued no later than 30 days from the conclusion of the final hearing. It must be sent to the parties promptly after the date of issuance.

Vietnamese law generally does not impose strict limits on the types of remedies that an arbitral tribunal may award. Although Article 292 of the Commercial Law No 36/2005/QH11 passed by the National Assembly on 14 June 2005 (the “2005 Commercial Law”) sets out several specific types of remedies, it also permits the parties to agree on other remedies – provided they are not contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law, international treaties to which Vietnam is a party, or international commercial practices.

Interest may be awarded if the contract includes a provision specifying interest. In the absence of such an agreement, interest may be claimed in accordance with the 2015 Civil Code, the 2005 Commercial Law, or other relevant legal provisions, depending on the nature of the dispute and the applicable substantive law.

Legal costs may be reimbursed as follows.

• Arbitration fees ‒ pursuant to Article 34.3 of the LCA, the losing party is responsible for paying the arbitration fees, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, stipulated in the institutional rules, or determined by the arbitral tribunal. Arbitration fees may include:
1. remuneration for arbitrators;
2. travel expenses;
3. fees for expert consultation and other support services requested by the tribunal;
4. administrative fees;
5. fees for the appointment of arbitrators by the arbitration centre; and
6. fees for the use of other utility services provided by the arbitration centre.
• Legal fees ‒ in practice, parties may agree that the losing party will bear all legal fees and costs arising from the dispute. Based on such an agreement or a party’s request, the arbitral tribunal may award reimbursement of legal fees and other related expenses. In the absence of any such agreement, the allocation of legal fees lies entirely within the discretion of the arbitral tribunal, and there is no overarching principle governing the apportionment of such fees.

Pursuant to Article 4.5 of the LCA, arbitral awards are final and binding. Therefore, parties are not entitled to appeal an arbitral award.

However, parties may seek to set aside an arbitral award by submitting a request to the competent court on specific grounds provided in Article 68 of the LCA, including that:

• there was no arbitration agreement or the arbitration agreement is void;
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral proceedings were inconsistent with the parties’ agreement or contrary to the provisions of LCA;
• the dispute was not within the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal – where an award contains a part that falls outside the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, only such part shall be set aside;
• the evidence provided by the parties, on which the arbitral tribunal relied on to issue the award, is forged; 
• the arbitrator(s) received money, assets or some other material benefits from one of the parties in dispute, thereby affecting the objectivity and impartiality of the arbitral award; or
• the arbitral award is contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

Under Vietnamese law, there is no provision allowing the parties to exclude or expand the scope of annulment or setting aside of an arbitral award beyond what is prescribed in the LCA. Therefore, Article 68 of the LCA can be considered as an exhaustive list of grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, which cannot be altered by parties’ agreement.

Under Article 71.4 of the LCA, courts are not permitted to review the merits of a case that has been resolved through arbitration. Judicial review is limited to certain procedural and jurisdictional grounds for setting aside arbitral awards as set out in Article 68.2 of the LCA.

Vietnam has signed and ratified the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”), subject to the following reservations.

• The New York Convention will apply only to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards made in the territory of another contracting state. For awards rendered in non-contracting states, Vietnam will apply the New York Convention on the basis of reciprocity.
• The New York Convention will apply only to disputes arising from legal relationships that are considered commercial under Vietnamese law.
• The interpretation and application of the New York Convention by Vietnamese courts or competent authorities must be consistent with the Vietnamese Constitution and the laws of Vietnam.

Furthermore, at the time of writing (July 2025), Vietnam is a party to several bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance in civil matters. These agreements include provisions governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

The procedures for enforcement in Vietnam depend on whether the arbitral award is domestic or foreign.

• Domestic awards ‒ pursuant to Article 65 of the LCA, parties are encouraged to voluntarily comply with arbitral awards. If a party fails to do so, coercive enforcement is governed by the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and the Law on Enforcement of Civil Judgments.
• Foreign awards ‒ enforcement is governed by the 2015 Civil Procedure Code and the New York Convention. A party must file a request with the competent Vietnamese court for recognition and enforcement of the foreign award. After the foreign award is recognised by the court, it can be enforced in Vietnam.

Effect of Set-Aside or Pending Proceedings in the Seat of Arbitration

Under Article V of the New York Convention and Articles 424.3 and 459.1(g) of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code, a foreign arbitral award that has been set aside by a competent court in the seat of arbitration cannot be enforced in Vietnam. If an award is subject to ongoing set-aside proceedings in the seat of arbitration, Vietnamese courts will likely suspend the recognition and enforcement process until those proceedings are resolved.

Sovereign Immunity in Enforcement Proceedings

Where a state or state entity has entered a commercial contract and agreed to arbitration, Vietnamese courts are unlikely to accept sovereign immunity as a defence. Moreover, as a signatory to the New York Convention, Vietnam is bound to recognise and enforce foreign arbitral awards ‒ subject only to the limited exceptions listed in Article V. Consequently, a state or state entity may face significant difficulty invoking sovereign immunity if it voluntarily participated in the arbitration and the dispute arises from a commercial activity.

Article 459 of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code sets out the grounds on which Vietnamese courts may refuse to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award. Such grounds include that:

• the parties to the arbitration agreement lacked legal capacity under the law applicable to each party;
• the arbitration agreement is invalid under the law chosen by the parties or, if no law was chosen, under the law of the seat of arbitration;
• the respondent was not properly notified of the appointment of the arbitrator or the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to exercise procedural rights;
• the award was rendered in respect of a dispute not requested by the parties to be resolved by arbitration or the award exceeds the scope of the arbitration agreement (recognition may still be granted for the separable portion of the award);
• the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law of the seat;
• the award is not yet binding on the parties;
• the award has been annulled or suspended by a competent authority in the seat of arbitration;
• the dispute is not arbitrable under Vietnamese law; and/or
• recognition or enforcement would be contrary to the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law.

Vietnamese courts may refuse to enforce a foreign arbitral award on public policy grounds when enforcement would violate the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law, as permitted under Article 459(1)(dd) of the 2015 Civil Procedure Code. However, it is noteworthy that Vietnamese arbitration law does not strictly use the term “public policy” but uses the term “fundamental principles of Vietnamese law”. This term has been interpreted broadly by the courts ‒ for instance, with regard to:

• violations of procedural fairness;
• impartiality; or
• expiration of the statute of limitations.

As a result, there is no consistent or unified standard for how Vietnamese courts apply the public policy exception in the context of recognising and enforcing foreign arbitral awards.

Vietnamese law is silent on class arbitration and group arbitration. Although it permits multiparty arbitration through the consolidation of proceedings or multiple claims, there are no specific provisions governing collective or representative arbitration of claims.

For Counsel

In Vietnam, legal counsel are bound by the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Vietnamese Lawyers, issued under Decision No 201/QD-HDLSTQ-2019 of the National Bar Council of the Vietnam Bar Federation. The following professional standards apply to legal counsel in Vietnam:

• independence and objectivity;
• confidentiality;
• avoiding conflicts of interest;
• professional conduct; and
• compliance with Vietnamese laws and regulations.

For Arbitrators

Although there is no unified code of ethics for arbitrators in Vietnam, their conduct is governed by the LCA, the rules of arbitration centres, and the codes of ethics for arbitrators issued by those centres. The general standards expected of arbitrators include:

• impartiality and independence;
• confidentiality;
• diligence; and
• compliance with Vietnamese law.

Currently, there are no specific regulations or restrictions governing third-party funding in arbitration under Vietnamese law. As a result, the following implications should be considered.

• Permissibility ‒ while third-party funding is not formally recognised, parties may enter into third-party funding agreements based on the principle of contractual freedom, provided that such agreements do not violate Vietnamese law or social morality.
• Disclosure ‒ although there is no legal obligation to disclose third-party funding, non-disclosure could raise concerns about conflicts of interest, especially regarding arbitrator independence or impartiality.
• Court perspective ‒ if a dispute related to third-party funding arises in Vietnamese courts (eg, during enforcement), it may be assessed conservatively, owing to the lack of regulation and unfamiliarity with the concept.

Although the LCA does not expressly regulate the consolidation of arbitral proceedings, Article 7 of Resolution 01/2014 allows for consolidation in the following circumstances.

• The parties have agreed to consolidate multiple disputed legal relationships into a single arbitration proceeding.
• The applicable arbitration rules permit the consolidation of multiple disputed legal relationships into a single arbitration proceeding.

As a general principle, third parties are not bound by an arbitration agreement or arbitral award under Vietnamese law. However, there are certain exceptions where non-signatories may be bound (see 5.6 Jurisdiction Over Third Parties).