The VIAC Arbitration Rules 2026 took effect on 1 July 2026 and replaced the 2017 Rules. The new Rules apply to arbitral proceedings commencing from 1 July 2026, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. This article introduces the verified new points of the VIAC Rules 2026, focusing on the provisions that may matter to foreign-invested enterprises (FDI enterprises) resolving disputes by arbitration at the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC).
One distinction should be made at the outset: VIAC in this article is the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (viac.vn), not the Vienna International Arbitral Centre (viac.eu). The VIAC Rules 2026 are procedural rules issued by the arbitration centre itself to govern proceedings at that centre; they are not a law, decree or circular issued by the State.
When do the VIAC Rules 2026 apply?
Under Article 1 of the 2026 Rules, the Rules apply to arbitration at VIAC where the parties have agreed to resolve their dispute under these Rules, where the parties have agreed to arbitration administered by the Centre or resolved at the Centre (or words to similar effect), or where one or more parties file a Request for Arbitration with the Centre — unless the parties have agreed otherwise.
The decisive point under Article 1.4 is when the proceedings commence: the 2026 Rules apply to arbitral proceedings commencing from 1 July 2026, unless the parties have agreed otherwise. The preceding Rules are the 2017 Rules, in force from 1 March 2017. This article does not state a decision number or an adoption date for the 2026 Rules, because those details have not been verified from the original text.
1. Consolidation: the VIAC Chairperson may decide to consolidate (Article 17)
In addition to cases where the parties agree, the Chairperson of VIAC may decide, at the request of a party or the parties, to consolidate arbitral proceedings where all claims and counterclaims are made under the same arbitration agreement, or under compatible arbitration agreements and the disputes arise from the same legal relationship or the same transaction or series of related transactions.
This differs from the general approach under the 2017 Rules, under which consolidation essentially took place only where the parties agreed. The 2026 Rules move to a mechanism under which the Chairperson may decide consolidation even without the agreement of all parties, where a party or the parties so request and one of the grounds above applies. The Rules also provide a balance: a party that has no opportunity to appoint an arbitrator after consolidation is deemed to have waived that right, but retains the right to seek the replacement of an arbitrator under Article 15 where there are grounds relating to qualification, independence, impartiality or objectivity.
Hypothetical example (not a real case, and not a case handled by FLAT): a project involving several contracts in the same chain of transactions — for example, a construction contract and an equipment supply contract for the same project — may raise the question whether disputes arising from those contracts can be consolidated into one proceeding. The answer in any specific case depends on the arbitration agreements and the conditions in Article 17.
2. Joinder: a new mechanism (Article 18)
Article 18 is a new mechanism compared with the 2017 Rules. Under it, a third party may be joined as a claimant or respondent where all parties, including the party to be joined, agree in writing, or where the party to be joined is bound by the arbitration agreement invoked.
In the second case, the assessment is only at a prima facie (preliminary) level that the party is bound by the arbitration agreement. That preliminary assessment does not affect the Arbitral Tribunal’s final decision on jurisdiction. As with consolidation, a party that has no opportunity to appoint an arbitrator is deemed to have waived that right, but retains the right to seek the replacement of an arbitrator under Article 15.
3. Expedited procedure: the deepest reform on speed (Article 24 and Appendix II)
An expedited procedure already existed under the 2017 Rules, but the 2026 Rules detail and broaden the grounds for its application. Under Article 24, the expedited procedure may apply where the parties agree, or where the total value of the dispute does not exceed a threshold set and published by VIAC at the time of filing, or where the circumstances of the case are suitable and the Chairperson of VIAC so decides, taking into account the circumstances in Article 24.3 and the views of the parties (if any); the Centre may consult the parties before deciding. A request to apply the expedited procedure must be made before VIAC notifies the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
This article does not state a specific threshold figure, because the threshold is set and published by VIAC at the time of filing and no figure had been verified at the time of writing. Readers should check the threshold published by VIAC at the time of filing before relying on this ground.
The 2026 Rules distinguish two regimes according to when the arbitration agreement was signed, and this is the most important transitional point for enterprises with older contracts:
- Arbitration agreements signed before 1 July 2026: the expedited procedure applies only if the parties have agreed to its application before VIAC issues the notice on the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal.
- Arbitration agreements signed from 1 July 2026: merely choosing VIAC arbitration or the VIAC Rules is treated as agreement that the Chairperson of VIAC may decide to apply the expedited procedure, unless the parties exclude it by written agreement.
As to composition and timing, the Arbitral Tribunal in an expedited procedure by default consists of a sole arbitrator, unless the parties agree on three arbitrators. The award is to be rendered no later than two months from the date VIAC notifies the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal; that two-month time limit may be extended where necessary; and in all cases the award is to be rendered within 30 days after the close of the last hearing. Under Appendix II Article 1.4, the Chairperson of VIAC, on his or her own initiative or at the request of a party or the parties, after consulting the parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, may decide to discontinue the expedited procedure and return to the ordinary procedure if new circumstances make it no longer suitable. Under Article 24.4, a party objecting to the application of the expedited procedure files its objection with the Centre within the time limit set by the Centre.
4. Multi-contract disputes: detailed from the filing stage (Article 6)
Article 6 of the 2026 Rules details how disputes arising from multiple contracts are handled. A claimant may choose to file separate requests under each arbitration agreement, or to file a single request together with a request for consolidation, stating which claims arise under which agreement.
The Chairperson of VIAC decides whether to consolidate within five working days from the date the claimant has paid the fees in full, on the basis of the three conditions in Article 6.2: (a) the claims arise from related contracts, or the same transaction, or a series of transactions; (b) the legal or factual questions under the arbitration agreements are similar; and (c) the arbitration agreements are compatible with each other. The Rules do not define “compatible arbitration agreements”, so this article states that criterion only as a condition in the Rules and does not offer a definition in place of the Rules. If the Chairperson does not accept the consolidation request (in part or in full), the right to seek consolidation under Article 17 remains preserved under Article 6.4.
The two mechanisms should be kept apart: Article 6 governs the scope of proceedings from the filing stage, while Article 17 applies to cases already pending. Article 6.2 requires all three conditions to be met, whereas Article 17.1 requires only one of the listed grounds.
5. Case management and administrative conferences: two different mechanisms (Articles 16 and 23)
The 2017 Rules had no separate provision on a case management conference. The 2026 Rules give the Arbitral Tribunal flexibility to decide whether such a conference is needed, on the Tribunal’s own initiative or at a party’s request. The conference serves early planning of the proceedings and discussion of progress and procedural efficiency.
The administrative conference under Article 23 is a different mechanism and should not be merged with the case management conference. Throughout the proceedings, for the purpose of performing its organisational and coordination functions in resolving the dispute, VIAC may convene an administrative conference with the parties to give guidance and consult on procedural matters and matters falling within the authority of the President of the Centre.
Also at the case management conference, under Article 16.4, the Arbitral Tribunal may recommend to the parties the possibility of mediation, including mediation at the Vietnam Mediation Centre (VMC) under VIAC’s Arbitration–Mediation linkage procedure. In that case, mediation is conducted by a mediator under the VMC Rules, not by the Arbitral Tribunal itself under this mechanism. Readers may find further background on mediation mechanisms in disputes with a foreign element in Court-Annexed and Out-of-Court Commercial Mediation: Choosing the Mechanism for Foreign-Element Commercial Disputes.
6. Digitalisation and communications: email, VIAC.eCase and direct sending (Article 3)
Under Article 3, notices and documents may be sent by direct delivery, registered post or courier, fax, email, through the VIAC.eCase platform, or any other means of communication that can preserve evidence of sending.
As decided by the Arbitral Tribunal or agreed by the parties, the parties may send notices and documents directly to each other and at the same time to the Arbitral Tribunal and VIAC, instead of all communications having to go through the Secretariat as was the practice under the 2017 Rules. All or part of an expedited procedure may also take place by electronic means, unless otherwise agreed by the parties (Appendix II Article 1.3).
One timing point should be stated correctly: VIAC launched the VIAC.eCase platform in June 2024, that is, before the 2026 Rules. The 2026 Rules recognise this platform in Article 3; they did not “invent” eCase in 2026. Article 3 lists several methods in parallel, so this article does not claim that electronic filing entirely replaces paper filing in all cases.
7. Transparency and arbitrators: third-party funding, appointment and limitation of liability (Articles 16.7, 11, Appendix I and 44)
Disclosure of third-party funding (Article 16.7)
A funded party must disclose and identify the funder; the Arbitral Tribunal may require further disclosure of information about the funding agreement. According to analyses of the 2026 Rules, the purpose of this provision is to support the assessment of conflicts of interest, security for costs and allocation of costs. This article does not infer from it an obligation to disclose the entire funding agreement.
Expanded appointment power (Article 11)
Previously, VIAC’s appointment power was mainly a fallback where a party failed to nominate an arbitrator or the arbitrators could not agree on a presiding arbitrator. The 2026 Rules extend the power of the Chairperson of VIAC, after consulting the parties, to apply the default appointment rules where the agreed appointment procedure is incomplete, hinders the constitution of the Tribunal, or leads to unequal treatment of the parties’ rights and obligations, potentially affecting the validity and enforceability of the award.
Standards for off-list arbitrators (Appendix I)
Appendix I sets standards for arbitrators who are not on VIAC’s list, including a written commitment as to the ability to resolve the dispute in the language of the arbitration promptly and efficiently. The specific standards in Appendix I do not apply when an arbitrator on VIAC’s list is selected or appointed. This article presents only the framework of the standards in Appendix I and does not state specific figures for years of experience or numbers of cases.
Limitation of arbitrators’ liability (Article 44)
Article 44 is a new provision: arbitrators, the Centre and personnel of the Centre are not liable for acts or omissions, whether negligent or otherwise, relating to the content or procedure of issuing decisions, awards or other documents, or for procedural errors, except where it is proved that the act was done fraudulently or dishonestly. After an award, a decision recognising a successful mediation or a decision terminating the proceedings has been made, and when the possibility of correcting, interpreting or supplementing the award has expired or been exhausted, the parties are deemed to have agreed that the arbitrators, the Centre and its personnel have no obligation to present, explain or answer, and to have waived the right to require, summon or invite them to participate in any capacity in other legal proceedings relating to the dispute, unless the law provides otherwise. This is not an absolute immunity.
8. Authority of representatives: a brief note (Article 4)
Under Article 4, VIAC (before the constitution of the Tribunal) and thereafter the Arbitral Tribunal decide the form of proof of representative authority. Disputes about the scope, content and validity of a power of attorney are finally decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. This article notes this point only briefly and does not go into case law or arguments about setting aside awards.
Points commonly checked together when reviewing a file
At the level of general information, the following points are commonly checked together when considering a file under the 2026 Rules, without replacing an assessment of each individual agreement and case:
- The time when the proceedings commence, because that point determines the application of the 2026 Rules under Article 1.4.
- The date the arbitration agreement was signed, because agreements signed before and from 1 July 2026 are subject to two different regimes for the expedited procedure under Article 24.
- Whether the dispute arises from multiple contracts or involves multiple parties, because Articles 6, 17 and 18 govern those situations through different mechanisms.
- Whether the selection of an off-list arbitrator meets the standards in Appendix I.
- Disclosure of third-party funding under Article 16.7 and the method of communication under Article 3.
Collecting and presenting evidence remains an important part of arbitral proceedings; readers may also find Evidence in FDI Arbitration: Effective Collection and Presentation useful. This article makes no recommendation on the choice of arbitral institution for any specific case.
Sources
Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC) — Rules of Arbitration 2026: https://viac.vn/en/rules-of-arbitration-2026.html. The secondary analyses used by the research dossier for orientation were Pinsent Masons (29 May 2026), Kluwer Arbitration Blog (11 September 2026), EP Legal (29 July 2026), Forvis Mazars Vietnam (2026) and Lexology (2026) on the expedited procedure.
Contact
For further discussion of the general information in this article, readers may contact FLAT Law Firm via the contact page or via the official Zalo account: zalo.me/0988424851.
This article provides general legal information about the VIAC Arbitration Rules 2026. It is not legal advice for a specific case; enterprises should consult a lawyer before applying it to their contracts or disputes.
Related articles
- Robbery or Assault in Vietnam: Reporting and Compensation
- Scenario: If Sued in Vietnam, What Should FDI Enterprises Do?
- Commercial Mediation: New Decrees and Practice
- International Rail Freight (Vietnam-China, Vietnam-Europe): Procedures
- Disputes With Local Partners: Vietnam vs Thailand vs Indonesia
This legal analysis has been verified against current Vietnamese regulations and cross-border FDI transaction practices by the attorneys at FLAT LAW FIRM.
