Resolution 222/2025/QH15 on the International Financial Centre in Vietnam, effective from 1 September 2025, designs a separate dispute resolution mechanism for the centre, with arbitration at the financial centre as a pillar. For an enterprise about to contract with a centre member, the practical questions are not whether the mechanism is modern, but how it differs from ordinary commercial arbitration, how awards are enforced, and which parts of the picture still await guiding documents.
How the financial centre’s own arbitration regime differs from ordinary arbitration
Under the framework of Resolution 222/2025/QH15, the International Financial Centre in Ho Chi Minh City and Da Nang has its own arbitration centre serving disputes arising in the centre’s activities, operating under rules built for an international financial environment with English as the main working language. That is a foundational difference from ordinary commercial arbitration in Vietnam, where procedures and default language attach to the domestic legal system and litigation practice. Centre members may also agree to apply foreign law or international practice to their transactions within the scope the resolution permits, something an ordinary domestic contract does not automatically enjoy.
The limits of what is known must be stated plainly: the resolution sets the framework and principles, while the detailed arbitration rules, the arbitrator roster, appointment mechanisms and specific procedures of the centre’s arbitration body belong to the group of matters awaiting guiding documents and implementing instruments. An enterprise negotiating a contract now should draft its arbitration clause in a controlled open manner: fixing the seat, language, law governing the arbitration agreement and a fallback mechanism for while detailed rules are unissued, rather than citing a body of rules that does not yet exist as if it were complete.
Recognition and enforcement of financial centre arbitration awards
For domestic enforcement, an award of arbitration at the financial centre, once established within Vietnam’s legal framework, follows the award enforcement logic of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010: the award is enforceable, the winning party asks the civil judgment enforcement agency to enforce it where the losing party does not comply voluntarily, and set-aside applications arise only on the limited grounds arbitration law reserves to the competent court. What an enterprise must verify in each case is how far guiding documents on the specific legal status of the centre’s arbitration body have been issued at signing and at the time a dispute arises.
For cross-border enforcement, the 1958 New York Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, to which Vietnam is a party, is the main bridge: an award made in Vietnam can be presented for recognition and enforcement in other member states under the convention’s conditions, and conversely a foreign award brought into Vietnam goes through court recognition procedures.
Choosing financial centre arbitration or an international institution such as SIAC
The first selection criterion is the maturity of the rules: a long-operating international centre such as SIAC has a complete rulebook, deep appointment practice and procedural precedent, while the financial centre’s arbitration body in Vietnam is at framework stage, in exchange for the advantage of direct attachment to the transaction ecosystem and the special mechanisms Resolution 222/2025/QH15 reserves for centre members. The second criterion is where enforcement is most feasible: if the counterparty’s assets are mainly in Vietnam, an award attached to the Vietnamese framework removes a layer of recognition procedure; if assets sit in several countries, the New York Convention enforcement track record of each option must be compared concretely.
The third criterion is language, applicable law and arbitrators’ understanding of the financial products in dispute. Transactions at the financial centre commonly use English and may agree on foreign law within the scope the resolution permits, so the traditional language advantage of foreign arbitration narrows, and the deciding factor shifts to the quality of the detailed rules at the time a dispute actually arises. A prudent approach at this stage is a multi-tier arbitration clause: negotiation and mediation first, arbitration as the final step, with seat and rules choices drafted flexibly enough to absorb the financial centre’s detailed rules once they are issued.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does arbitration at the International Financial Centre with its own rules differ from ordinary commercial arbitration in Vietnam?
The core difference is that arbitration at the financial centre operates within the separate mechanism Resolution 222/2025/QH15 designs for the International Financial Centre, with its own arbitration centre, English as the main working language, and the ability to agree on foreign law or international practice within the scope the resolution permits. Ordinary commercial arbitration in Vietnam operates under the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 and the rules of existing arbitration centres in the general system. Detailed rules for financial centre arbitration still await guiding documents, so procedural differences should be asserted only at framework level at this time.
How are IFC arbitration awards recognised and enforced in Vietnam and abroad?
An award of arbitration at the financial centre is enforced in Vietnam under the award enforcement logic of the Law on Commercial Arbitration 2010 through the civil judgment enforcement agency where the losing party does not comply voluntarily. Cross-border, the 1958 New York Convention, to which Vietnam is a party, allows recognition and enforcement to be sought in other member states, and a foreign award brought into Vietnam must pass court recognition. Practical effectiveness depends on where the counterparty holds assets and on guiding documents about the status of the centre’s arbitration body at enforcement time.
By what criteria should an enterprise choose IFC arbitration or an international institution such as SIAC for a contract with an IFC counterparty?
The enterprise should compare on four criteria: completeness of the rules and operating practice at signing, where the counterparty’s assets make enforcement feasible, language and applicable law needs of the transaction, and the arbitrator pool’s understanding of financial products. Financial centre arbitration has the advantage of attachment to the special mechanisms of Resolution 222/2025/QH15 and the English language, but its detailed rules are still forming; SIAC has more mature rules and practice. For a high-value contract in the transition period, a multi-tier clause with fallback choices is the best risk balance.
How are language and applicable law agreed in arbitration at the IFC?
The main working language at the financial centre is English, and the parties should agree the arbitration language expressly in the arbitration clause rather than leaving it to default. On applicable law, centre members may agree to apply foreign law or international practice to the transaction within the scope Resolution 222/2025/QH15 permits, while keeping three law layers distinct: the law governing the contract, the law governing the arbitration agreement, and the procedural law of the seat. Because details await guidance, the clause should carry a review mechanism for when the centre’s arbitration rules are fully issued.
How FLAT Law Firm drafts arbitration clauses for International Financial Centre contracts
Before signing a contract with a member of the International Financial Centre, FLAT Law Firm can design an arbitration clause balancing the separate mechanism of Resolution 222/2025/QH15 against mature international options, based on the counterparty’s enforcement asset map and the language and governing law the transaction truly needs. We track guiding documents on the centre’s arbitration body continuously so a client’s signed clause is reviewed the moment detailed rules appear.
This article has been quality-reviewed by the FLAW AI Legal Council