Việt Nam’s Terrorism Laws vs. International Standards

In 2023, the Ministry of Public Security announced that it would prosecute suspects arrested in the Central Highlands incident, verifying observations from Việt Nam’s political commentators at the time. [1] The investigation focused on four categories of charges: “terrorism aimed at opposing the people’s government,” “failure to report crimes,” “harboring criminals,” and “organizing or brokering illegal entry, exit, or residence in Việt Nam.”

Of these, “terrorism aimed at opposing the people’s government” was the primary charge faced by 75 defendants. Understanding this charge requires an examination of its specific definition and defining characteristics under Vietnamese law and an analysis of how it compares to international standards.

Basic Analysis of the Crime of Terrorism in Việt Nam

The legal framework for terrorism in Việt Nam rests on two primary documents. The 2015 Penal Code (amended and supplemented in 2017) defines the elements of the offense and its categorization. The 2013 Law on Counter-Terrorism provides the definitions for “terrorism” and “terrorist financing,” lists specific acts of terrorism, outlines counter-terrorism principles, and identifies the responsible state agencies. [2]

Việt Nam’s concept of terrorism is notably broad. According to the Law on Counter-Terrorism, terrorism is defined as a set of acts aimed at: 

(1) Opposing the people’s government; 

(2) Coercing the people’s government, foreign organizations, or international organizations, or creating difficulties in the international relations of the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam; or 

(3) Causing public panic.

Thus, even actions that do not directly oppose the government or pressure foreign entities, but merely cause public panic, can still be considered acts of terrorism. This approach is exceedingly broad, encompassing almost every conceivable act that could be associated, even indirectly, with the notion of terrorism. To better understand this, the following table outlines the specific groups of acts and how they are classified.

When interpreting the table of specific acts, it is important to note that the main categories of conduct do not necessarily occur together, nor must they target all three defined objectives of terrorism.

For example, act (1)—infringing upon the life, health, or personal freedom of another person, or threatening or coercing them—can be linked with objective (C), to cause public panic. Similarly, act (5)—establishing, joining, recruiting for, training, or instructing an organization—can be linked with objective (A), to oppose the people’s government. All such combinations would still be classified under the general category of terrorist acts.

Under this interpretation, the current Penal Code divides these groups of acts and their elements into three separate offenses:

1. The crime of terrorism aimed at opposing the people’s government (Article 113 of the Penal Code), which carries the maximum penalty of death.
2. The crime of terrorism (Article 299 of the Penal Code), which also carries the maximum penalty of death. [3][4]
3. The crime of terrorist financing (Article 300 of the Penal Code). [5]

In the Đắk Lắk case, authorities determined the suspects’ objective was to oppose the people’s government (objective A). Therefore, all related acts were classified as terrorism aimed at opposing the people’s government.

Possibility of the Death Penalty

Given the severity of the incident—in which multiple police officers, government officials, and civilians were killed or injured—and the Ministry of Public Security’s characterization of the case, the decision to prosecute under Article 113 makes the death penalty highly plausible for certain defendants.

The penalty for such acts is clearly stated in Clause 1, Article 113: “Anyone who, with the intent to oppose the people’s government, infringes upon the life of officials, public employees, or other persons […] shall be sentenced to imprisonment from 12 to 20 years, life imprisonment, or death.”

Differences with International Law

While a comprehensive comparison of legal definitions and practical application is difficult—especially given the distinct controversies in fields like air, sea, and cyber counterterrorism—Việt Nam's law is not fundamentally different from international law at the level of concept and philosophy.

For example, Article 2 of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999) states that any act intended to cause death or bodily injury to a civilian can be regarded as terrorism. [6] The Convention also states the act's purpose is to intimidate the public or pressure a government or international organization.

Moreover, as scholar Marcello Di Filippo noted in Research Handbook on International Law and Terrorism (2020), several draft counterterrorism instruments remain stalled at the United Nations General Assembly due to disagreements over rhetoric and fears that such measures could be used to justify political repression in the name of global security. [7]

Nevertheless, the general trend among governments—whether in the United States, Europe, Russia, China, or Việt Nam—is a shared commitment to combating terrorism in broad terms. This remains one of the few international fronts that faces minimal resistance. To better understand how Việt Nam has adapted and reinterpreted international norms related to counterterrorism, the following table offers a clearer comparison:

Thus, from the actions themselves to their intended objectives, the Vietnamese state largely borrows from and interprets the provisions and debates of the international community. The only innovation claimed to fit Việt Nam’s specific circumstances is treating terrorism as conduct aimed at opposing the people’s government.

Nguyễn Quốc Tấn Trung wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on June 29, 2023. The Vietnamese Magazine has the copyright of its English version.