Vietnam’s New Framework for Preventing and Resolving International Investment Disputes

Vietnam Decree 323/2026/ND-CP implements new procedures for preventing and managing international investment disputes. Learn how complaint timelines, government commitments and dispute coordination affect foreign investors.

Vietnam has introduced clearer procedures for addressing foreign investors’ concerns before they escalate into international investment disputes. The framework strengthens state agencies’ duties to identify risks, respond to grievances and coordinate the handling of disputes.

The changes are set out in Resolution No. 20/2026/QH16, effective from 1 May 2026, and Decree No. 323/2026/ND-CP, effective from 17 August 2026. They build on the coordination and mediation arrangements established under Decision No. 14/2020/QD-TTg, with greater emphasis on early prevention.

For foreign investors, the practical priorities are to maintain complete project records, verify the legal basis of government assurances and understand how to raise and escalate concerns. Rights to investment protection and arbitration continue to depend on the applicable treaty, law or contract.

Why the regime changed

Vietnam’s reforms aim to identify investment disputes earlier and improve the government’s response. As of 31 December 2025, UNCTAD’s Investment Dispute Settlement Navigator listed 13 known treaty-based arbitration cases against Vietnam since 2004, including five classified as pending. The database does not cover every dispute involving a foreign investor.

Disagreements over feed-in tariff eligibility, tariff adjustments and payments for solar and wind projects have added to concerns about investment certainty. Foreign investors have reportedly threatened legal action, although this does not necessarily mean treaty-based arbitration has begun.

The previous framework, Decision No. 14/2020/QD-TTg, already provided for agency coordination, dispute strategies and mediation. The reforms build on those arrangements by setting clearer duties for dispute prevention, investor grievance handling and escalation to central government.

The new framework

Resolution No. 20/2026/QH16 sets out Vietnam’s coordination mechanisms and special policies for preventing and resolving international investment disputes. Decree No. 323/2026/ND-CP provides the implementing rules.

The framework assigns state authorities two main responsibilities:

• Prevent disputes: Identify risks during investment registration and promotion, engage with investors, address grievances and share relevant information.
• Manage disputes: Coordinate the response to threatened or initiated proceedings, assess the case and develop a dispute resolution strategy.

The Decree also applies to ongoing matters. Disputes arising before 1 May 2026 fall under the framework if no final judgment, award or decision has been issued. Grievances, complaints, notices of intent and arbitration notices submitted before 17 August 2026 and still being processed are also covered.

These transitional rules govern how ongoing matters are handled. They do not create retrospective investment protections or an independent right to commence arbitration.

Business and compliance implications for foreign investors

Investment registration and documentation

Article 4 of Decree 323 requires investment registration authorities to apply the law consistently, transparently and objectively, assess legal risks and maintain complete records. Their review includes the investor’s relevant history of complaints and disputes.

For investors, this reinforces the need for accurate applications, consistent project information and well-maintained supporting documents. Registration continues to follow the procedures applicable to the project under Vietnam’s investment legislation.

Raising grievances and monitoring responses

Foreign investors can raise concerns, recommendations and complaints with the competent state authority and submit information through the National Investment Portal. They must still follow the applicable legal procedures for complaints and other remedies.

For submissions made through the Portal, the main timelines are:

The 30-working-day requirement covers processing and an update; final resolution may take longer.

Reporting to the Prime Minister is required where the matter exceeds the handling authority’s competence, or where both a possible breach of Vietnamese law, an investment treaty or another investor commitment and a risk of an international investment dispute are identified.

Investors should make submissions specific and actionable: identify the challenged measure, responsible authority, legal basis, impact on the investment and corrective action requested. Keep proof of submission and all responses.

Government statements and investment commitments

Article 5 restricts commitments that exceed an authority’s powers or lack a basis in legislation. Under Article 5(3), investment-promotion materials are for reference, do not replace competent-authority decisions and do not constitute commitments to foreign investors.

Investors should verify the legal basis, authorisation and enforceability of assurances before relying on them. Signing an investment cooperation agreement does not remove the obligation to comply with Vietnamese law and competent-authority decisions.

An international tribunal’s assessment of government representations will depend on the applicable treaty and the circumstances of the case.

Coordination once a dispute arises

The framework assigns responsibilities to a lead agency, the Ministry of Justice, which acts as Vietnam’s legal representative authority in international investment disputes, and other relevant state bodies. It provides for an inter-agency working group and, where established by the Prime Minister, an inter-agency steering committee chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister responsible for the field related to the challenged measure.

The lead agency, working with the relevant authorities and advisers, must prepare:

• An initial assessment within 15 working days of receiving a notice of intent or arbitration notice, for the Prime Minister’s consideration and decision.
• A dispute resolution strategy within 20 working days of receiving the statement of claim, reporting to the inter-agency steering committee, if established, and submitting the strategy to the Prime Minister for approval.

Both documents include consideration of negotiation, consultation and mediation. These are deadlines for preparing and submitting the assessment and strategy; they do not prescribe when the dispute must be resolved.

For investors, these arrangements clarify how the government coordinates its response. Receiving or processing a notice of intent or arbitration notice does not constitute Vietnam’s acceptance of the relevant forum’s jurisdiction or acceptance of the notice’s contents.

Practical steps to mitigate risk

• Map your exposure. Review the ownership structure, applicable treaty protections, government-facing contracts and sector-specific regulatory risks.
• Build a documentary record. Retain approvals, contracts, official correspondence, meeting records, evidence of compliance and records of financial loss. Confirm material discussions with authorities in writing.
• Verify commitments. Seek written commitments from the competent authority and check their legal basis, authorisation and enforceability.
• Set an internal escalation protocol. Define when a regulatory issue should move from the project team to legal advisers or senior management.
• Review dispute-resolution clauses. Assess available procedures, including negotiation, mediation, domestic proceedings and arbitration.
• Preserve procedural deadlines. Monitor notice requirements, cooling-off periods and limitation periods. Do not assume that a Portal submission or mediation suspends deadlines or satisfies treaty requirements.

Engaging proactively with the new framework

Investors should assess the grievance mechanism early, alongside their treaty and contractual options, and retain proof of submissions and responses. Before commencing administrative complaints, court proceedings or arbitration, they should consider whether one procedure could affect access to another, including through waiver provisions, fork-in-the-road clauses or local-remedy requirements.

Identifying the competent authority and likely lead agency can support more focused engagement. Where appropriate, investors may also explore negotiation or mediation while preserving their legal position.

Further developments to monitor include agency responsiveness, the operation of the Portal, implementation of the grievance database required for early warning and risk assessment, and the handling of ongoing sector-specific disputes.

Conclusion

Vietnam’s new framework strengthens the procedures for preventing and managing international investment disputes through clearer administrative responsibilities, grievance-handling requirements and inter-agency coordination.

For foreign investors, it provides a more structured route for raising concerns and seeking escalation where the prescribed conditions are met. It does not guarantee settlement or alter the need to establish substantive rights and comply with applicable procedural requirements.

Investors should maintain complete project records, verify government commitments and coordinate engagement with authorities with their broader legal strategy. The framework’s effectiveness will depend on how consistently agencies apply it and how its information-sharing and escalation mechanisms operate in practice.