Public Policy and Abuse Risks in the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: Comparative Insights and Reform for Vietnam

As Vietnam accelerates its institutional integration and competitiveness, the rising intake of applications for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards requires greater predictability and legal incentive within its national judicial system. However, the prevailing broad interpretation of the public policy exception in judicial practice presents a significant risk. It is often invoked as a defence mechanism, contravening the pro-enforcement purpose of the New York Convention 1958. This article carries out a normative analysis, integrating comparative law and legal interpretation based on key jurisprudence from France and Singapore, to elucidate the dichotomy between the international public policy model and the judicial minimalism approach. The analysis reveals a critical need for Vietnam to transition its judicial mindset from a logic of legality review, which unreasonably involves a review of the case’s merits, to a framework that treats public policy as an ultimate exception (ultima ratio). This shift is evidently essential for standardizing the understanding of public policy in its international sense. Such a reform will not only protect fundamental national interests but also effectively enhance Vietnam’s capacity to integrate harmoniously with the global legal order.