Enforcing Foreign Court Judgments Arising from Cross-Border Transactions – Treaty, Reciprocity, Public Policy, and a New Institutional Development

Introduction

Vietnam remains a key manufacturing, trading and investment hub in Southeast Asia. As cross-border transactions increase in scale and complexity, disputes may arise and be litigated overseas. A recurring practical question then follows: if a party obtains a court judgment abroad, can that judgment be enforced against assets located in Vietnam?

The short answer is often yes – but not automatically. Vietnam’s recognition and enforcement framework operates through defined legal gateways and remains subject to statutory refusal grounds, most notably the safeguard relating to Vietnam’s “fundamental principles” (often discussed as public policy). A recent institutional development – the establishment of a specialised court under the International Financial Centre (“IFC“) framework – adds a further dimension to how market participants may view Vietnam’s dispute resolution landscape.

This Update outlines the key enforcement gateways, the principal risk areas, and practical considerations for businesses operating across Asia.

A Foreign Judgment does not Automatically Take Effect in Vietnam

Where a judgment debtor has assets in Vietnam, a foreign court judgment must generally be recognised by a Vietnamese court before enforcement measures can proceed.

In practical terms, enforcement typically unfolds in two stages:

1. recognition (and permission to enforce, where required) by a Vietnamese court; and
2. execution through the civil judgment enforcement authorities.

For businesses, this means enforceability should be integrated into dispute planning and transaction structuring, rather than treated as an administrative step after litigation concludes. 

Vietnam’s Two Legal Gateways for Recognition and Enforcement

Gateway 1: Treaty-based recognition

Vietnam has concluded a number of bilateral judicial assistance treaties or arrangements that provide a framework for the recognition and enforcement of foreign civil judgments. Where an applicable treaty exists, the pathway is generally more structured and predictable.

While specific treaty conditions vary, courts typically examine:

1. whether the judgment is final and legally effective in the originating jurisdiction;
2. whether proper notice and an opportunity to be heard were afforded; and
3. whether enforcement would conflict with Vietnam’s sovereignty, security or fundamental legal principles.

Whether a treaty applies is jurisdiction-specific and should be assessed early as part of enforcement planning. In the absence of treaty coverage, reciprocity considerations become central.

Gateway 2: Reciprocity

In the absence of a treaty, Vietnamese courts may consider recognition and enforcement on the basis of reciprocity.

Reciprocity is commercially significant because many cross-border disputes involve jurisdictions without a bilateral enforcement treaty with Vietnam. However, reliance on reciprocity may introduce greater uncertainty, as courts may assess, on a case-specific basis, whether reciprocity exists in law or in practice.

Where Vietnam is likely to be an enforcement venue, the existence (or absence) of treaty coverage should be assessed early. If reliance on reciprocity is anticipated, parties should treat recognition proceedings as potentially contested and plan evidence accordingly.

Key Refusal Risks: Public Policy and Procedural Fairness

Even where a gateway exists, Vietnamese courts may refuse recognition on statutory grounds. Two areas warrant particular attention in commercial disputes. 

1. “Fundamental principles”/public policy

Vietnam may decline recognition if enforcement would be contrary to its fundamental legal principles. While the recognition test is governed by Vietnam’s civil procedure framework, the concept of “fundamental principles” draws from the broader civil law structure and operates as a systemic safeguard. This safeguard functions as a control mechanism to ensure that foreign judgments do not undermine core elements of Vietnam’s legal order.

Public policy arguments are inherently fact-sensitive. Risk may increase where:

• the remedies awarded differ materially from those typically recognised under Vietnamese law; or
• enforcement would produce effects perceived as inconsistent with foundational legal principles.

Careful structuring of claims, remedies and litigation conduct – with the enforcement venue in mind – can materially influence outcomes.

Applied to the draft, phrases such as “would cause harm to State interests” may function as a harm test, but only if implementing rules require specificity (what harm, how likely, and why disclosure would trigger it) and discourage formulaic refusals.

2. Service and due process 

Service and procedural fairness are common focal points in cross-border enforcement globally. Recognition may be challenged where there are credible concerns that:

• service or notice was defective or inadequately evidenced;
• the defendant did not have a genuine opportunity to present its case; or
• the proceedings involved serious procedural irregularities.

In practice, enforcement difficulties often turn less on the merits of the underlying dispute and more on the quality and completeness of the procedural record.

A New Institutional Variable: A Specialised Court under the International Financial Centre (2025)

Vietnam has introduced a framework establishing a specialised court within the IFC ecosystem, designed to handle complex international investment, commercial and financial disputes.

From a recognition and enforcement perspective, this development does not alter the statutory grounds under Vietnam’s general civil procedure framework. However, it signals a broader institutional direction: strengthening adjudicative capacity for international-facing disputes.

The specialised court framework contemplates engagement (subject to statutory conditions) with foreign law and international commercial practices, alongside procedural standards aligned with complex cross-border disputes. At the same time, the safeguard that foreign law application must not contravene Vietnam’s public order remains in place.

While the formal legal test for recognition remains unchanged, the development of a specialised, internationally oriented dispute resolution environment may, over time, influence how public policy arguments are framed and assessed in cross-border commercial contexts. For now, it should be viewed as an evolving institutional factor rather than a shortcut to enforcement.

Practical Considerations for In-house Counsel and Deal Teams

1. At the contract stage:

• map potential enforcement jurisdictions early, especially where assets may be located in Vietnam;
• assess treaty coverage and the likelihood of reciprocity-based recognition;
• design dispute resolution and service provisions carefully; and
• consider complementary risk-mitigation tools, depending on the transaction.

2. During foreign litigation:

• maintain a robust and well-documented record of service and procedural fairness;
• obtain clear certification of finality and enforceability; and
• consider how remedies and litigation strategy may interact with public policy considerations in Vietnam.

3. At the recognition stage in Vietnam:

• approach recognition proceedings as a substantive litigation phase;
• ensure completeness and formal compliance of the judgment package; and
• anticipate and address public policy and due process objections. 

Key Takeaways 

Recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments in Vietnam is viable but not automatic. Outcomes often hinge on the applicable gateway and on refusal risks, particularly public policy and procedural fairness.

The establishment of a specialised court under the IFC framework reflects Vietnam’s broader institutional development, but it does not remove the need for careful enforcement planning.

The most effective strategy is to integrate Vietnam enforcement considerations before litigation begins.

How We Can Help

Rajah & Tann Asia’s cross-border disputes and enforcement teams advise on enforceability assessment, pre-dispute structuring and coordinated recognition strategies across Southeast Asia and beyond.

With an established presence in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam, we assist clients in aligning litigation and enforcement planning across multiple jurisdictions where assets may be located.

Contribution Note

This Update was authored by Dr. Chau Huy Quang, Mr. Cao Dang Duy, and Dr. Le Hong Phuc (also a lecturer at Phenikaa University).