Investor-State disputes and treaty claims: the procedure under bilateral investment treaties, the CPTPP and the ASEAN agreements, notice and cooling-off, the Government's coordination under Decision 14/2020, known cases, UNCITRAL and non-ICSID arbitration, enforcing awards against the State, and contracts with State bodies

Three kinds of dispute with the State

A foreign investor can find itself in dispute with the Vietnamese State in three ways. The first is a contract dispute under an agreement with a State body: a PPP contract, a production sharing contract with Petrovietnam approved by the Government, a land lease, an investment incentive commitment, or a supply contract with a State-owned enterprise. The second is an administrative dispute over a decision by an authority: a tax assessment, the refusal or revocation of a licence, the termination of a project, or the recovery of land. The third is a treaty dispute, where the investor claims that the State's conduct breached an international investment agreement, for example by expropriating the investment without compensation or denying it fair and equitable treatment.

The routes differ. Contract disputes go to the forum in the contract, within the limits of Article 13 of Law No. 143/2025/QH15 on Investment. Administrative disputes go to administrative complaint and the administrative courts (The VIFC court and specialised forums; Tax administration, audits and disputes). Treaty disputes go to international arbitration under the treaty. The same facts can give rise to all three, and the choice of one route can close another, so the strategy must be settled before the first step is taken. The guarantees in Chapter II of the law, the treaty network and how to qualify for protection are explained in Investment guarantees and treaties; this section deals with procedure.

Article 13 and contracts with State bodies

Article 13 of the Law on Investment requires negotiation and mediation first. A dispute between a foreign investor and a State authority relating to business investment in Vietnam then goes to Vietnamese arbitration or the Vietnamese courts, unless the contract between them or a treaty to which Vietnam is party provides otherwise; a dispute between a domestic investor, or a company not more than 50% foreign-owned, and the State goes to Vietnamese arbitration or courts (FAQ 77). The exception for contracts is significant: a foreign investor negotiating a contract with a State body can seek a clause providing for international arbitration, and a well-advised investor in a large project does.

PPP contracts under Law No. 64/2020/QH14 on PPP Investment, as amended in 2024 and 2025 and detailed by Decree No. 243/2025/ND-CP, follow a similar pattern: the law's own dispute provisions, which should be checked for each project, allow disputes between the contracting authority and a foreign investor or a project company it established to go to the forum agreed in the contract, including international arbitration (FAQ 96). Petroleum contracts are approved by the Prime Minister and name the arbitration or court that will decide disputes; production sharing contracts with foreign contractors customarily provide for international arbitration (FAQ 111). Land leases from the State are founded on administrative decisions allocating or leasing land, and disputes over land rent, recovery or compensation are generally resolved by complaint and in the administrative courts rather than by arbitration, although a lease of land in an industrial park from the park developer is an ordinary commercial contract (Land recovery, compensation and non-use).

A dispute with a State-owned enterprise acting commercially is an ordinary commercial dispute: the enterprise is a separate legal person, Article 13's investor-State limb does not apply, and the contract's arbitration clause governs.

The treaties that allow a claim

According to UNCTAD, Vietnam has signed 66 bilateral investment treaties, of which 45 are in force, and around 20 other treaties with investment provisions (FAQ 76). Most BITs in force allow an investor of the other state to bring a claim for breach of the treaty's protections before an arbitral tribunal, usually under the UNCITRAL Rules or ad hoc, after a period of negotiation. The CPTPP Chapter 9 provides investor-State arbitration for breaches of its investment protections, with claims based on investment authorisations and investment agreements suspended. The ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement gives ASEAN investors a comparable mechanism, and the ASEAN agreements with China, Korea, Australia and New Zealand and others contain their own provisions. RCEP, in force since 1 January 2022, has no investor-State mechanism. The EU-Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement, signed in 2019 with an investment court system, is not in force, so EU investors rely on their member state's BIT where one exists.

Vietnam is not a party to the ICSID Convention. Treaty claims therefore proceed under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, often administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, or under other rules a treaty allows, including the ICSID Additional Facility Rules, which several claimants have used against Vietnam, and ICC or SCC rules. An award is not an ICSID award enforceable under the ICSID Convention; it is enforced under the New York Convention and is open to annulment at the seat of the arbitration, which makes the choice of seat, often Singapore, Paris or another arbitration-friendly city, an important strategic decision.

Notice, cooling-off and the CPTPP steps

Every treaty requires a period of negotiation before arbitration, typically between three and six months from written notice of the dispute in the older BITs, and in some cases a period for local remedies. The notice should identify the investor and its nationality, the investment, the measures complained of, the treaty provisions breached and the relief sought, and should be addressed to the authorities the treaty names or, failing that, to the Government and the Ministry of Justice. Failure to observe the period can lead a tribunal to stay or dismiss the claim, and Article 13 of the Law on Investment adds the domestic requirement of negotiation and mediation.

The CPTPP sets a fuller sequence. The claimant must first request consultations; it may not submit a claim until six months after the respondent received that request; it must deliver a written notice of intent at least 90 days before submitting the claim; it must waive the right to continue other proceedings over the same measure; and it must file within three years and six months of the date it knew, or should have known, of the breach and the loss. For claims against Vietnam, Annex 9-J adds a fork in the road: once an investor has alleged the breach before a Vietnamese court or administrative tribunal, the election is definitive and it cannot then submit the same claim to arbitration. A side letter between Vietnam and New Zealand replaces direct access to arbitration for their investors with a consultation process and a requirement for specific consent. No CPTPP claim against Vietnam had been reported as at October 2026.

How the Government responds

Vietnam coordinates its response to international investment disputes under Decision No. 14/2020/QD-TTg of the Prime Minister, which issued the regulation on coordination in the settlement of international investment disputes. The ministry, ministerial-level agency or provincial People's Committee whose measure is challenged takes the lead, the Ministry of Justice advises on the law and represents or coordinates representation, and other ministries contribute, with the Ministry of Finance involved where payment of an award or settlement is concerned (FAQ 77). A notice of dispute addressed only to the provincial authority that took the measure may not reach the coordinating bodies quickly; it is good practice to send it also to the Ministry of Justice and, where relevant, the Government Office.

The cooling-off period is where most leverage lies. Several known disputes settled after notice, and Vietnamese authorities, aware of the reputational and financial cost of a treaty claim, often engage seriously once a well-founded notice arrives from an investor with a credible treaty position. Diplomatic support from the investor's embassy, contacts with the Ministry of Finance as the investment-promotion ministry, and a clear account of the remedy sought, such as reinstatement of a licence, a revised land price or compensation, are usually more productive than an immediate filing.

The known cases

UNCTAD's Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator records 13 known treaty cases against Vietnam. In outline: the claims brought by Trinh Vinh Binh under the Netherlands-Vietnam BIT, the first of which settled and the second of which ended in a 2019 award recorded as decided in favour of the investor; claims by McKenzie under the 2000 US-Vietnam trade agreement (decided for the State, 2013), by Dialasie under the France-Vietnam BIT (decided for the State, 2014) and by RECOFI under the same BIT (decided for the State, 2015, with a challenge rejected by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court); a claim by ConocoPhillips and Perenco under the UK-Vietnam BIT, reported to concern the taxation of a sale of petroleum interests, which settled; a claim by Shin Dong Baig under the Korea-Vietnam BIT under the ICSID Additional Facility, in which an award was rendered in 2020; and several claims pending as at the latest records, including claims under the US-Vietnam trade agreement, the Germany-Vietnam BIT and, by PowerChina and other Chinese contractors, the China-Vietnam BIT and the ASEAN-China investment agreement.

The cases suggest three lessons. Claims have been brought mostly under older BITs with broad protections, which Vietnam is now inclined to renegotiate on CPTPP lines. Outcomes have been mixed, with more decided for the State than for investors. And settlement before or during proceedings is common. These summaries are drawn from UNCTAD's public database and are not a complete account of any case; details of pending cases are often confidential.

Enforcing an award against the State

An award against Vietnam under a treaty is enforced like any foreign arbitral award. Inside Vietnam, the investor applies to a Vietnamese court for recognition under the Civil Procedure Code and the New York Convention, facing the same grounds for refusal, including the fundamental principles of Vietnamese law (Foreign arbitration and enforcement of awards), and payment then depends on the State budget processes. Outside Vietnam, enforcement depends on the law of State immunity in the enforcing country: commercial assets of the State may be reachable in some jurisdictions, while diplomatic and central bank assets are generally immune. Assets of a separate State-owned enterprise are not assets of the State unless the enforcing court disregards the separate personality. In practice most awards against States are paid or settled, but the investor should assess where enforcement could take place before starting a claim.

Political risk insurance, from MIGA or private insurers, and the security package in a project financing are complementary protections: they pay or reduce exposure without depending on an award, and an insurer that pays will usually be subrogated to the investor's treaty rights.