Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards in Vietnam

The principal source of authority is the 1958 New York Convention, to which Vietnam acceded in 1995 (with the standard reciprocity reservation — Vietnam will recognise awards made in other contracting states). The procedure for recognition and enforcement in Vietnam is governed by Articles 421-463 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015.

Awards from over 170 contracting states qualify for recognition. The procedure does not retry the merits — the Vietnamese court reviews the application against Article V grounds and either recognises or refuses. Once recognised, the award has the same enforceability as a Vietnamese court judgment.

Filing. The application is filed with the competent Provincial People's Court — typically the court of the respondent's residence or the location of the respondent's assets in Vietnam.

Required documents. Article 423 of the Civil Procedure Code and Article IV of the New York Convention specify: the original or certified copy of the arbitral award and the arbitration agreement; certified Vietnamese translation of both; proof that the award is final and binding (typically a certificate from the issuing arbitral institution); evidence of service on the respondent; and the application itself, addressing each Article V ground.

Filing fees. Modest by international standards — typically a percentage of the awarded amount with caps, often in the range of USD 500-5,000 depending on the value.

Hearing. The court schedules a hearing typically 60-120 days after filing. The respondent has the opportunity to oppose recognition by raising Article V grounds. The hearing is generally focused: the court does not retry the merits of the dispute but reviews whether any Article V ground applies.

Decision. The court either grants or refuses recognition. Grants result in an enforcement order; refusals can be appealed to the High People's Court within 30 days.

Article V of the New York Convention provides exhaustive grounds for refusal. They divide into two categories.

Article V(1) — grounds the respondent must prove: invalid arbitration agreement under the law to which the parties subjected it; lack of proper notice or denial of opportunity to present case; award decides matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties' agreement or the law of the seat; award has been set aside or suspended at the seat or has not yet become binding.

Article V(2) — grounds the court can raise on its own motion: the subject-matter is not capable of arbitration under Vietnamese law; recognition or enforcement would be contrary to Vietnamese public policy.

The most frequently invoked grounds in Vietnamese practice are: defective service or notice (Article V(1)(b)) — typically rejected by Vietnamese courts where the respondent had actual knowledge; alleged scope excess (Article V(1)(c)) — fact-specific; and the public-policy ground (Article V(2)(b)), which deserves separate treatment.

Vietnamese courts apply a relatively narrow conception of public policy in the recognition context, consistent with the international consensus that Article V(2)(b) is reserved for fundamental violations rather than mere conflicts with domestic law.

Successful public-policy defences have generally involved: enforcement against a clearly insolvent debtor where Vietnamese insolvency procedure should govern; matters where Vietnamese law has classified the subject-matter as non-arbitrable (a narrow but real category); and rare cases of corruption or fraud in the arbitration itself.

Unsuccessful public-policy defences have included: claims that the substantive outcome 'should have been different' under Vietnamese law (the Vietnamese court does not retry the merits); claims that the procedural rules differed from Vietnamese practice (procedural variation does not violate public policy); and broad assertions of unfairness without specific articulation of the relevant Vietnamese policy.

The strategic implication: if you anticipate a public-policy defence, prepare the application with detailed responses to each plausible argument, and brief the court on the international standard for the public-policy ground.

Time to enforcement: realistic estimate. From filing to a granted enforcement order: typically 6-12 months in straightforward cases; 12-18 months where Article V defences are seriously contested; longer if appeals are pursued. Plan accordingly in any commercial strategy.

Asset preservation. Where there is risk that the respondent may dissipate assets during the recognition proceedings, apply for interim asset-preservation measures from the Vietnamese court under Article 429 of the Civil Procedure Code. These measures are often granted where there is credible evidence of dissipation risk.

Translation quality. Certified translation of the award and arbitration agreement is required. The quality of translation matters: ambiguous or technically inaccurate translation creates apparent inconsistencies that can fuel Article V challenges. I work with sworn translators who specialise in legal documents.

Coordination with home counsel. The application's success depends on documentation that originates in the issuing jurisdiction (the arbitration agreement, evidence of due process, certificates of finality). Home counsel needs to provide this documentation in a form Vietnamese courts will accept — typically requiring legalisation or apostille.

Once an enforcement order is granted, the award has the same status as a Vietnamese court judgment. Enforcement proceeds through the Bureau of Civil Judgment Enforcement.

Practical enforcement steps: identify and attach the respondent's assets in Vietnam (bank accounts, real estate, equity in Vietnamese companies); apply for forced sale or transfer where the respondent does not pay voluntarily; coordinate with foreign enforcement counsel for the respondent's overseas assets.

Voluntary payment is common once the recognition order issues. Many respondents who fought recognition pay the award once enforcement becomes legally available. Where voluntary payment is not forthcoming, the Bureau of Civil Judgment Enforcement is generally responsive to clear documentation and follow-up.