No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Legal Reasoning and the Rise of Judicial Authority in Vietnam
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 November 2025
Abstract
Judges in Vietnam have increasingly been called upon by the state and society to resolve new social and economic problems. However, the expansion of judicial authority presents a problem for Vietnam’s authoritarian government, which wants courts that can resolve social problems without challenging state interests. This study draws on empirical research to explore whether judges in Vietnam’s authoritarian polity can harness legal reasoning to extend their authority. It uses a novel theoretical framework based on systems theory to understand how judges determine who is entitled to benefit from the law, which norms are appropriate to particular cases, and how such norms might direct them to reach decisions. Data from case studies and interviews with judges reveal that courts in Vietnam are increasingly using legal reasoning to manage the interaction between legal and extralegal norms, which is a decision-making process with the potential to expand judicial authority over socially significant disputes.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Bar Foundation
References
Alexander, Larry, and Sherwin, Emily. 2008. Demystifying Legal Reasoning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Rowland, and Flint, John. 2001. “Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations: Snowball Research Strategies.” Social Research Update (University of Surrey) 33: 1–4.Google Scholar
Brinks, Daniel, and Blass, Abby. 2017. “Rethinking Judicial Empowerment: The New Foundations of Constitutional Justice.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 15, no. 2: 296–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bui Bich Lien. 2016. “Regulatory Interaction in Court-Based Resolution of Inheritance Disputes in Vietnam.” PhD diss., Business School, Monash University.Google Scholar
Bùi Ngọc Sơn. 2003. “Sự Độc Lập Của Tòa Nả Trong Nhà Nước Pháp Quyền” [Court Independence in a Rule of Law State]. Nghiên Cứu Lập Pháp 4: 43–50.Google Scholar
Bui, Son. 2019. “The Socialist Precedent.” Cornell International Law Review 52: 421–74.Google Scholar
Centre for Community Support and Development Studies, Real-Time Analytics, and United Nations Development Programme. 2024. The Viet Nam Provincial Governance and Public Administration Performance Index (PAPI): Measuring Citizens’ Experiences, 2023: A Joint Policy Research Paper. Ha Noi, Vietnam: Centre for Community Support and Development Studies, Real-Time Analytics, and United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
Cotterrell, Roger. 1998. “Why Must Legal Ideas Be Interpreted Sociologically?” Journal of Law & Society 25: 171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Đinh Gia Trinh. 1961. “Mấy Ý Kiến Đóng Góp Về Vấn Đề Bảo Vệ Pháp Chế” [Some Opinions on the Protection of Legality]. Tập San Tư Pháp 3: 20–24.Google Scholar
Đinh Thế Hưng. 2009. “Thiếu ý Thức Pháp Luật” [Lack of Legal Consciousness]. In Người Việt: Phẩm Chất và Thói Hư tật Xấu [The Vietnamese: Good and Bad Qualities and Habits], edited by Nguyễn Hương Thủy, 52–54. Hà Nội, Vietnam: NXB Thông tin.Google Scholar
Đinh Văn Quế. 2018. Chuyện Pháp đình: Bình luận án [Court Stories: Case Commentaries]. Hà Nội, Vietnam: NXB Thông tin and Truyền thông.Google Scholar
Đỗ Văn Đại. 2020. Luật Hợp đồng Việt Nam: Bản án và Bình luận [Vietnamese Contract Law: Cases and Commentaries]. Hà Nội, Vietnam: NXB Đại học Quốc gia TPHCM.Google Scholar
Edelman, Lauren B., Erlanger, Howard S., and Lande, John. 1993. “Internal Dispute Resolution: The Transformation of Civil Rights in the Workplace.” Law & Society Review 27, no. 3: 497–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engel, David M., and McCann, Michael. 2009. “Introduction.” In Fault Lines: Tort Law as Cultural Practice, edited by David, M. Engel and McCann, Michael, 1–20. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Garth, Bryant, and Sterling, Joyce. 1998. “From Legal Realism to Law and Society: Reshaping Law for the Last Stages of the Social Activist State.” Law & Society Review 32: 409–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, John. 2011. “Exploring the Limits of Judicial Review in Urban Land Disputes in Vietnam.” Law & Society Review 45, no. 2: 241–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsburg, Tom, and Moustafa, Tamir, eds. 2008. Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiller, Petra. 2010. “Understanding Corruption: How Systems Theory Can Help.” In The Good Cause: Theoretical Perspectives on Corruption, edited by de Graaf, Gjalt, von Maravić, Patrick, and Wagenaar, Pieter, 64–82. Leverkusen, Germany: Verlag Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
Hoàng Thi Bích Ngọc. 2019. “Thi Hành Quy định về Nhiệm vụ Bảo đảm Công Lý của Tòa án Nhân Dân Trong Hiến Pháp Năm 2013” [Implementing Regulations on the Tasks of Ensuring Justice of the People’s Courts in the 2013 Constitution]. Khoa học Kiểm sát 3: 50–57.Google Scholar
Hualing, Fu, Gillespie, John, Nicholson, Pip, and Partlett, William, eds. 2018. Socialist Law in Socialist Asia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Hoffman, David, Evans, Danieli, Devins, Neal, Lucci, Eugene, and Cheng, Katherine. 2016. “‘Ideology’ or ‘Situation Sense’? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment.” Pennsylvania Law Review 164: 349–440.Google Scholar
Kaneko, Yuka. 2009–10. “A Procedural Approach to Judicial Reform in Asia: Implications from Japanese Involvement in Vietnam.” Columbia Journal on Asian Law 23: 313–56.Google Scholar
King, Michael. 2013. “The Radical Sociology of Niklas Luhmann.” In Law and Social Theory, edited by Banakar, R. and Travers, M., 59–73. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Lê Mạnh Hùng. 2017. “Án Lệ Trong Hệ Thống Pháp Luật Thông Luật Anh: Kinh Nghiệm Cho Việc Hoàn Thiện Quy Định Dề án Lệ ở Việt Nam” [Application of Precedent in Resolving Civil Disputes in the People’s Courts]. Tạp Chí Dân Chủ và Pháp Luật, February 22. https://danchuphapluat.vn/an-le-trong-he-thong-phap-luat-thong-luat-anh-kinh-nghiem-cho-viec-hoan-thien-quy-dinh-ve-an-le-o-viet-nam-1608.html.Google Scholar
Lê Thị Hoàng Thành. 2006. “Bước Tiến Mới Trong Việc Thực Thi Trách Nhiệm Của Nhà Nước Trước Cổng Dẫn” [New Steps in State Responsibility to Citizens]. Tập Chí Pháp Luật và Phát Triển, September 15.Google Scholar
Lê Văn Sua. 2020. “Án Lệ và Vai Trò Của án Lệ Trong Hoạt động Xét Xử Của Tòa án” [Precedent and the Role of Precedent in the Trial Activities of the Court]. Cổng Thông Tin Điện Tử Sở Tư Pháp Hà Tĩnh, February 9. http://tuphap.hatinh.gov.vn/chi-tiet-tin-tuc/An-le-va-vai-tro-cua-an-le-trong-hoat-dong-xet-xu-cua-Toa-an.Google Scholar
Letsoni, V. 1963. “Nền Tư Pháp Của Nước Việt Nam Dân Chủ Cộng Hòa” [The Judicial System of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam]. Tập San Tư Pháp 11: 26–28.Google Scholar
Li, Sitao. 2023. “Face-Work in Chinese Routine Criminal Trials.” Law & Society Review 57, no. 2: 254–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 2004. Law as a Social System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas. 2011. “The Unity of the Legal System.” In Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society, edited by Teubner, G., 12–35. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lưu Tiến Dũng. 2021. Ân Lệ Việt Nam Phân Tích và Luận Giải [Vietnamese Legal Analysis and Interpretation]. Hà Nội, Vietnam: Nhà xuất bản Tư pháp.Google Scholar
Maroney, Terry. 2016. “A Field Evolves: Introduction to the Special Section on Law and Emotion.” Emotion Review 8, no. 1: 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle, and Coutin, Susan. 2014. “Technologies of Truth in the Anthropology of Conflict. American Ethnologist 41: 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nassehi, Armin. 2005. “Organizations as Decision Machines: Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Organized Social Systems.” Sociological Review 53, no. 1: 179–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng, Kwai Hang, and Xin, He. 2017. Embedded Courts: Judicial Decision-Making in China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Trang (Mae). 2019. “In Search of Judicial Legitimacy: Criminal Sentencing in Vietnamese Courts.” Harvard Human Rights Journal 32: 147–88.Google Scholar
Nguyễn Anh Tuấn 2023. “Án Lệ và Một Số Kiến Nghị Giải Pháp Nâng Cao Hiệu Quả áp Dụng ở Việt Nam Hiện Nay” [Case Law and Some Recommendations for Improving the Effectiveness of its Application in Vietnam Today]. Trúởng Cao Đắng An Ninh Nhân Dân, December 19. https://cdannd1.bocongan.gov.vn/news/blog/4638/an-le-va-mot-so-kien-nghi-giai-phap-nang-cao-hieu-qua-ap-dung-o-viet-nam-hien-nay.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Penelope. 2007. Borrowing Court Systems: The Experience of Socialist Vietnam. Lieden: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Penelope, and Do, Hai Ha. 2020. “Vietnam: From Cadres to a ‘Managed’ Profession.” In Lawyers in 21st-Century Societies, edited by Abel, Richard, Sommerlad, Hilary, Hammerslev, Ole, and Schultz, Ulrike, 243–60. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Penelope, and Phuong, Pham Lan. 2018. “Roots and Routes: Adapting the Soviet-Inspired Vietnamese Court and Procuracy System.” In Hualing et al. 2018, 224–54.Google Scholar
Nobles, Richard, and Schiff, David. 2017. “Legal Argumentation: A Sociological Account.” Jurisprudence 8, no. 1: 52–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phạm, Điềm. 2013. “Nhà Nước và Pháp Luật Cách Mạng Từ 1945 đến nay” [Revolutionary State and Law from 1945 to Present]. In Giáo Trình Lịch Sử Nhà Nước và Pháp Luật Việt Nam [Textbook on History of Vietnamese State and Law], edited by Vũ Thị Nga, 45–62. Hà Nội, Vietnam: Nhà Xuất Bản Tư Pháp.Google Scholar
Pham Duy, Nghia, and Ha, Do Hai. 2018. “The Soviet Legacy and Its Impact on Contemporary Vietnam.” In Hualing et al. 2018, 97–132.Google Scholar
Phạm Thị Như Quỳnh. 2017. “Thực Tiễn và Giải Pháp Bảo đảm Thực Hiện Quyền Tư Pháp Của Tòa án Nhân Dân Trong tố Tụng Hình Sự Việt Nam” [Practices and Solutions to Ensure the Exercise of Judicial Rights of the People’s Courts in Vietnamese Criminal Proceedings]. Tạp Chí Dân Chủ and Phap Luat, February 22. https://danchuphapluat.vn/thuc-tien-va-giai-phap-bao-dam-thuc-hien-quyen-tu-phap-cua-toa-an-nhan-dan-trong-to-tung-hinh-su-viet-nam.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, Donald E. 2005. “Language and Meaning: Data Collection in Qualitative Research.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 52, no. 2: 137–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuel, Geoffrey. 2009. “Can Legal Reasoning Be Demystified.” Legal Studies 29, no. 2: 181–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 2001. When the State Kills: Capital Punishment and the American Condition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savelsberg, Joachim, and King, Ryan. 2007. “Law and Collective Memory.” Annual Review of Law & Social Science 3, no. 1: 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solomon, Peter H. 2015. “Law and Courts in Authoritarian States.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Science, edited by James, D. Wright, 427–34. 2nd ed. Vol. 13. Oxford: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, Alex. 2000. Governing with Judges: Constitutional Politics in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, Stacie. 2020. Legal Reasoning across Commercial Disputes: Comparing Judicial and Arbitral Analyses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teubner, Gunther. 2001. “Alienating Justice: on the Surplus Value of the Twelfth Camel.” In Law’s New Boundaries: Consequences of Legal Autopoiesis. edited by Priban, Jiri and Nelken, David, 21–44. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
Thành Duy. 1995. “Tư Tưởng đạo đức Hồ Chí Minh và Mối Quan Hệ Giữa Pháp Luật và đạo đức và lợi ích Công Dân” [Ho Chi Minh’s Moral Thought and the Relationship between Law and Morality, and Citizens’ Interests]. Tạp Chí Nhà Nước và Pháp Luật 3, no. 4: 6–12.Google Scholar
Timans, Rob, Wouters, Paul, and Heilbron, Johan. 2019. “Mixed Methods Research: What It Is and What It Could Be.” Theory & Society 48: 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trương Thí Hòa. 2019. “Án lệ Đã Từng Áp Dụng ở Nước Ta Từ Lâu Đời” [Case Law Has Been Applied in Our Country for a Long Time]. https://thegioiluat.vn/bai-viet-hoc-thuat/An-le-Ky-thuat-phap-ly-duoc-ap-dung-o-Viet-Nam-tu-lau-doi-6626/.Google Scholar
Tưởng Duy Lượng. 2007. “Vài Suy Nghĩ Về Việc Tổng Kết Thực Tễn Xét Xử Hướng Dẫn áp Dụng Thống Nhất Pháp Luật Của Toà án Nhân Dân Tối Cao” [Some Thoughts on Summarizing Judicial Practice and Guiding the Uniform Application of Law by the Supreme People’s Court]. Nhà Nước và Pháp Luật 9: 11–16.Google Scholar
Van Krieken, Robert. 2006. “Law’s Autonomy in Action: Anthropology and History in Court.” Social & Legal Studies 15, no. 4: 574–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoest, Koen, Maggetti, Martino, Guaschino, Edoardo, and Wynen, Jan. 2025. “How Trust Matters for the Performance and Legitimacy of Regulatory Regimes: The Differential Impact of Watchful Trust and Good-Faith Trust.” Regulation and Governance 19, no. 1: 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winczorek, Jan. 2013. “Making Law Together? On Some Intersytemic Conditions of Judicial Cooperation.” In Law and Intersystemic Communication, edited by Febbrajo, Alberto and Harste, Gorm, 229–54. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar