For foreign arbitral awards to be recognized and enforced in Vietnam: Not simple

International arbitration is often chosen because of its neutrality, expertise, and cross-border enforceability. But a favorable award from a reputable overseas arbitration center does not mean that the winning party can immediately distrain assets and recover money in Vietnam. Two cases involving the awards of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), reviewed by Vietnamese courts in 2023[1] and 2026[2], show a significant gap between "winning the arbitration case" and "enforcing the award".

When the property of the losing party is located in Vietnam, the winning party usually has to go through the procedure to request the Vietnamese Court to recognize and enforce the award. 

The arbitral award is not the end point

In cross-border transactions, parties often opt for international arbitration rather than national courts. An important reason is that the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards has created a relatively uniform mechanism so that arbitral awards can cross national borders. The objective of the Convention is to ensure that foreign arbitral awards are recognized and in principle enforceable in member states.

However, the New York Convention does not make a foreign arbitral award a natural judgment enforceable in any member state.

When the property of the losing party is located in Vietnam, the winning party usually has to go through the procedure to request the Vietnamese Court to recognize and enforce the award. It is at this "gateway" that many issues that seem to have ended in arbitration proceedings can reappear in other forms.

The two cases analyzed here are a remarkable illustration. The first case involves the 2021 SIAC Award and was resolved at the appellate level in Vietnam in 2023. The second case involves a SIAC judgment in 2025 and was resolved on appeal by a Vietnamese court in February 2026. Although the specific context and grounds are not exactly the same, both show a fact: an award by a reputable international arbitration body still has to pass a significant judicial control process before it can be enforced in Vietnam.

The court is not allowed to retry it, but it has the right to examine

Legal boundaries here are very important.

Clause 4, Article 458 of the Civil Procedure Code stipulates that when considering a petition for recognition and enforcement, the Petition Consideration Panel may not retry a dispute that has been settled by a foreign arbitrator. The Court shall only examine and compare the judgment and documents with relevant provisions of law and international treaties to decide whether to recognize or not recognize it.

This is the principle of no merits review of international law as well as Vietnamese law on recognition of judgments and decisions of foreign courts and arbitrators.

Vietnamese courts, therefore, are not an appellate level of the SIAC or any foreign arbitral tribunal. The fact that a judge may have a different interpretation of the contract, evidence or law than the arbitral tribunal in principle is not a ground for refusal to enforce.

But "not reviewing the content" also does not mean that the Court must automatically recognize it.

Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes a range of circumstances that may lead to non-recognition, from the capacity to conclude an arbitration agreement, the validity of the arbitration agreement, the right to be notified and exercise procedural powers, the scope of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, the composition and procedure of the arbitral tribunal, to the validity status of the award.

This structure essentially reflects Article V of the New York Convention. [3]Under the Convention, the party opposing enforcement must demonstrate the grounds under Article V(1), while some issues under Article V(2), in particular the ability of dispute resolution by arbitration and the public policy of the country where enforcement is requested, may be considered by the Court. UNCITRAL's guidance emphasizes that the grounds in Article V are limited grounds for refusal[4].

It is the space between the two principles – not reviewing the content but still controlling the conditions of recognition – where the most difficult legal questions arise.

"Basic principles of Vietnamese law" – a very important but difficult door to pass through

One of the most notable issues is the case where the recognition and enforcement of a judgment is considered contrary to the basic principles of Vietnamese law.

Theoretically, this provision is close to the "public policy" exception  in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention.

Public policy is a necessary exception: it is difficult for a country to compel its judicial system to support the enforcement of a judgment that seriously conflicts with its fundamental legal values. But the difficulty lies in defining the scope of the exception.

If this concept is understood too broadly, the application review process risks shifting from examining certain limited conditions to re-evaluating how the arbitral tribunal applies the law. At that time, the line between "examination for recognition" and "retrial of disputes" becomes very fragile.

The two SIAC cases studied show that this is not just an academic issue. Questions of procedural rights, equality between parties, evaluation of evidence, applicable law and Vietnamese legal principles can directly affect the fate of a foreign arbitral award.

The right to present a lawsuit can also decide the fate of the judgment

A judgment can be very convincing in its content but still encounters obstacles at the enforcement stage if the proceedings leading to the judgment violate fundamental procedural guarantees.

Article V(1)(b) of the New York Convention allows for a refusal when the party opposing enforcement has not been properly informed of the appointment of the arbitrator or the proceedings, or is unable to present its case. Vietnamese law has corresponding provisions in Article 459 of the Civil Procedure Code.

It is worth noting that "to participate in the proceedings" is not necessarily only understood in the sense that a party has received the email, filed a self-defense, and is present at the hearing. The deeper issue is whether they actually have a reasonable opportunity to present their arguments, evidence, and refute the other party's claims.

Therefore, procedural administration in international arbitration is not a matter of formality. Decisions on the deadline for submission of evidence, acceptance or rejection of documents, the right to feedback, how to handle evidence that arises late, or a new request can all become problematic at the enforcement stage. A seemingly minor procedural decision in the arbitration process sometimes has huge consequences several years later.

One dispute, multiple arbitrations: the more complicated the issue

The second case is particularly noteworthy because it follows an earlier SIAC ruling between the parties involved.

This raises more difficult questions about the validity of the previous award, the scope of the issue that has been resolved, and whether a claim in the latter arbitration will in fact revive the issue that has already been decided.

In international arbitration, concepts such as res judicata, issue estoppel or abuse of process can become important. But when the second award was brought to Vietnam for recognition, the Court faced a delicate problem: to what extent it affects the former award's ability to recognize the latter award without turning itself into an arbitration authority.

This is one of the most difficult points of the judgment enforcement mechanism.

If the examination is too little, the Court may ignore a breach that falls within the grounds of rejection of the Convention. But if the examination is too deep into whether the arbitral tribunal has understood the evidence, contract or prior award is right or wrong, the review risks approaching merits review, which Article 458 of the Civil Procedure Code does not allow.

These are not questions reserved for the lawyer who enforces the case after the case is over.

Winning the referee does not necessarily earn money

The two cases also point to a difference that businesses sometimes only realize after a dispute has occurred: the arbitration strategy and the award enforcement strategy are not the same.

One party can invest heavily to win in Singapore, London, Hong Kong or another international arbitration center. But if the majority of the opponent's assets are located in Vietnam, the litigation strategy must take into account Vietnamese law from the beginning.

Before initiating an arbitration proceeding, the requesting party should ask at least a few questions: in which country the property is actually located; whether the type of property can be enforced; the expected award requiring payment of money or the performance of an act; whether the obligation is related to the property or the right to be governed by Vietnamese law; and whether the arbitration process creates a risk for later recognition?

These are not questions reserved for the lawyer who enforces the case after the case is over. They should be asked from the moment the transaction is designed.

Lessons for businesses

A good cross-border transaction needs to be designed simultaneously on three layers: transaction – dispute resolution – enforcement.

When drafting share purchase agreements (SPAs), investment contracts, loan agreements, or M&A transactions, businesses and lawyers should clearly define the scope of the arbitration agreement; the law governing the contract and, where necessary, the law governing the arbitration agreement; the legal venue of the arbitration; the notification mechanism; and the pre-assessment of where the assets are likely to exist.

Once arbitration has begun, the proceedings must also be constructed with the thought that one day a judge in the country of execution will reread it. The delivery of notices, procedural decisions, opportunities to respond to evidence, and minutes of hearings can all become important documents.

And if the dispute has been settled by a previous ruling, the requesting party must handle the scope of the next claim with greater care to avoid arguing the issue to be resolved or the re-litigation of a matter that has already been decided.

The two cases involving SIAC awards also reiterate an important principle of international arbitration: the value of an award lies not only in which party wins, but also in its ability to be recognized and enforced where the property is located.

The New York Convention and Vietnamese law set a framework for foreign arbitral awards to be recognized, and at the same time give the Court control in limited cases. Therefore, in cross-border transactions, businesses should not only ask "if there is a dispute, where will we sue?". An equally important question that should be asked from the date of signing the contract is: "if we win, where and how will we enforce the award?"

Because in international arbitration, a favorable award is only a victory on paper; its final value is measured by its ability to translate the award into actual interests in the country where the award is enforced.