Some projects are judged not only by money and land but by position and data: projects near military areas, telecommunications infrastructure, data centres, strategic energy or strategic minerals all pass a separate defence and security appraisal layer, with information restricted from disclosure under State-secrets law. A foreign investor needs to know this layer exists from site selection onward, because it can redesign the entire project.
When a project touches the security layer
There is no closed public list of every project requiring security appraisal, but practice under defence, security and State-secrets law (Law on Protection of State Secrets 29/2018/QH14 and sector rules) shows the groups always examined: projects inside or beside protection corridors of defence works and military zones; telecommunications and internet infrastructure, data centres and large-scale data-processing services; strategic energy (nuclear power, key transmission grids, fuel reserves); strategic mineral extraction; and foreign-invested projects in border, island and sensitive coastal areas.
During policy-approval appraisal under Investment Law 143/2025/QH15, the investment registration authority collects opinions from related agencies — including defence and public-security agencies for the groups above. The security opinion may be a precondition (no favourable opinion, no progress) or become attached conditions in the approval decision: activity scope limits, personnel requirements, in-country data storage, or safety distances to defence works.
Design consequences: what to lock early
First, location: a project near a military area may be required to relocate, reduce building height (for airspace clearance and military sightlines), or narrow its boundary — changes that are cheap on a planning map and extremely expensive after land is leased. Second, data and operations structure: telecoms and data projects may face conditions on data storage in Vietnam, on the ratio and role of Vietnamese personnel in sensitive positions, and on lawful security-agency access processes under cybersecurity and sector law. Third, transfer: transferring a sensitive project or changing its investor may require fresh security appraisal — land-lease and joint-venture transfer clauses should anticipate this instead of assuming free transferability.
A little-discussed consequence is timing. Security appraisal does not run on a public administrative clock like ordinary procedures; sensitive projects should carry their own schedule buffer and an early working channel with the investment authority to determine from the start whether the project falls in the security-opinion group.
Restricted disclosure and investor expectations
File parts touching defence and security may be State secrets under the Law on Protection of State Secrets 29/2018/QH14: security appraisal opinions and decisions are not always published with the full detailed reasoning of an ordinary administrative decision, and the investor has no right to demand the entire internal security assessment file. That does not mean no feedback route exists: the investor is still notified of the conditions it must comply with, at a level sufficient for compliance, and may petition or complain under law against the specific approval or refusal decision applied to its project.
The right way for an international investor to work with the security layer is compliant design from the start: choose sites away from sensitive zones while choice remains, structure data and personnel to the strictest plausible standard, and be fully transparent about true ownership structure — in security appraisal, a convoluted ownership chain is read as a risk signal, not as cleverness.
The defence and security appraisal layer is a reality of every economy for sensitive projects, not a Vietnamese peculiarity. An investor who prepares for it at site selection and data design treats it as a design condition; one who discovers it at the end of the process treats it as a shock. This draft is pending review by the QA Council.
Frequently asked questions
How are defence and security projects appraised and approved?
Projects in security-sensitive groups (near military areas, telecoms and data, strategic energy, strategic minerals, border and island locations) receive defence and public-security agency opinions during policy-approval appraisal under Investment Law 143/2025/QH15. The security opinion may be a precondition or become attached conditions in the approval decision — on location, building height, data storage, sensitive-position personnel and transfer conditions.
What location and height limits apply near military areas?
Possible requirements include: relocating out of a defence-works protection corridor; height limits protecting airspace clearance and military sightlines; narrowing the boundary adjacent to sensitive areas; or construction-activity conditions for certain periods. These limits are recorded in the approval decision or a separate competent-authority document — verify the site with the local investment and defence authorities before committing to land.
Do dual-use sectors need a separate security approval?
The law sets no standalone “security licence” for dual-use sectors, but security approval manifests through: defence and public-security opinions within approval appraisal; conditional business-line requirements (telecoms, cybersecurity, data); and controls on export and transfer of sensitive technology. For a foreign-invested dual-use project, these three layers together form a substantive security gate even without a licence of that name.
Under what rules is project information restricted from disclosure?
Under the Law on Protection of State Secrets 29/2018/QH14 and sector State-secret lists: appraisal documents and opinions touching defence and security that are classified are not published; the investor learns the decision and the conditions applied to its project at a level sufficient for compliance, but has no right of access to the full internal assessment file. This is common practice in security appraisal across many countries, not a Vietnamese exception.
Can an investor appeal a security-based refusal?
The investor may petition or complain against the specific administrative decision applied to its project (non-approval or imposed conditions) under complaint and administrative-procedure law. However, security-assessment content classified as State secrets will not be fully aired in open proceedings — the more effective practical strategy is usually to restructure the project (site, data structure, personnel) to meet security conditions and refile, rather than litigate the security assessment itself.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council