Minh Nhật wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on December 18, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.
Blue Dragon, one of Việt Nam's leading non-governmental organizations, has made significant contributions to the fight against human trafficking. However, the organization’s recent use of the term “circuit court” in its English-language publications has raised concerns about accuracy and the potential for misunderstanding Việt Nam's judicial practices.
Since 2017, Blue Dragon has promoted what it calls “circuit courts” as an “innovation” in combating human trafficking. The organization notes that these cases are typically tried at provincial courts in urban centers, making it difficult for victims from remote, mountainous, or border areas to attend. To address this, Blue Dragon advocates for bringing trials back to the districts where the crimes took place, allowing the hearings to be held closer to the affected communities..
In a post dated March 24, 2023, the organization highlighted two key benefits of this approach: it allows local authorities to learn from real trafficking cases, and it enables the public to witness court proceedings, thus raising awareness and deterring future crimes.
Despite the organization’s good intentions, using “circuit court” to describe these trials is contextually inaccurate. In Việt Nam's legal framework, the practice is more accurately referred to as “mobile trials” (xét xử lưu động). The Vietnamese court system is structured around fixed administrative divisions—district, provincial, and higher courts—as defined by the 2014 Law on the Organization of People’s Courts.
The term “circuit court” stems from a very different legal tradition. In 12th-century England and later in the United States, judges would travel on designated routes or “circuits” to hear cases, a practice known as “circuit riding.” This was done to promote a uniform legal system or to allow higher-level judges to sit on appeals. Today, circuit courts in both countries are stationary regional courts, making the traveling aspect a relic of the past.
Therefore, applying this term to Việt Nam’s mobile trials is a misrepresentation based on an archaic meaning that causes unnecessary confusion. To improve accuracy, Blue Dragon would do well to adopt the correct translation—“mobile trial” (xét xử lưu động)—in its English publications, perhaps with an explanatory note on the format and context of these important proceedings.
While Việt Nam has a clear legal framework to combat human trafficking, the practice of using mobile trials in such cases raises serious questions about their effectiveness and fairness. These complex crimes are typically handled at the provincial level and criminalized under Articles 150 and 151 of the 2015 Penal Code. Human Trafficking is also further discussed in the 2017 amended Penal Code and Resolution No. 02/2019/NQ-HDTP.
However, Blue Dragon advocates for relocating these trials to the district level where the crime occurred, arguing for two main benefits:
While these goals are undeniably important, there are serious questions about whether mobile trials are the appropriate or most effective instrument to achieve them.
While trafficking is a severe crime, the fundamental rights of the accused must be protected. Mobile trials, however, often prioritize the goals of public education and deterrence—objectives that can conflict with a defendant’s right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and other legal protections enshrined in both Vietnamese and international law.
Blue Dragon's own publications highlight this potential conflict. The organization describes working “with the justice department” to relocate these trials and notes that its lawyers have represented 172 trafficking victims, resulting in the conviction of 219 traffickers. While commendable from a victim-support perspective, such deep involvement by an advocacy group raises legitimate questions about whether these specific mobile trials can remain impartial and focused on justice for all parties, including the accused.*
International organizations like the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) agree that court proceedings can have an educational role in preventing human trafficking. However, they never recommend using real criminal trials for this purpose due to the risk of infringing on defendants’ rights.
Instead, they advocate for mock trials—simulated court proceedings that mimic real cases but do not involve actual defendants or victims. This approach achieves the same goals of educating local communities and training law enforcement while ensuring that the fundamental rights of all individuals are protected. Both UNODC and OHCHR have developed detailed guidelines on how to conduct such mock trials effectively.
Mobile trials can create a powerful impression that justice is being served when traffickers are convicted. The language used by advocates, referring to “betrayals” and highlighting long prison sentences, reinforces this simple narrative of good versus evil. However, this approach risks oversimplifying the deep and complex causes of human trafficking.
As a 2014 OHCHR report argues, the root of the problem is often structural: discrimination, poverty, and a lack of access to socio-economic rights make certain groups, such as women and migrants, especially vulnerable. Social exclusion limits their options, making them more likely to accept risky opportunities. Addressing these root causes is critical to preventing trafficking, yet mobile trials alone cannot solve these deeper societal issues.
While individual traffickers must be held accountable, focusing too heavily on public punishment—especially when these trials portray the accused as “monsters”—risks violating human rights while allowing the state to sidestep the broader structural reforms needed. Ultimately, these trials are unlikely to foster the kind of meaningful, long-term dialogue required to address systemic inequality and vulnerability.
—-
* For a more detailed legal analysis of this issue, readers are referred to the article “Defendants’ Rights in Mobile Trials” on Luật Khoa Magazine.
—-
Bảo Khánh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 29, 2025. Đàm Vĩnh
Hoàng Dạ Lan wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on January 29, 2025. Đàm
Thiên Lương wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luat Khoa Magazine on August 2, 2025. The tariff
Đan Thanh wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luat Khoa Magazine on July 23, 2025. I write
Vietnam's independent news and analyses, right in your inbox.
