You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 25, 2016

Investment Protections in Vietnam under the TPP

Subscribe to Updates
Informed Counsel

On February 4, 2016, Vietnam and 11 other countries signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). The TPP includes Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, the United States, Vietnam, and Singapore. According to the World Bank, the TPP represents 36 percent of global GDP and more than 25 percent of world trade. Assuming that the treaty is ratified by its various participants, it will significantly impact business in Asia.

Vietnam’s economy is expected to benefit greatly from the TPP, which lowers tariffs and nontariff trade barriers. The World Bank predicts that the TPP could add 8 percent to Vietnam’s GDP over the next 20 years. Lower tariffs will translate into higher exports for Vietnam. This will lead to higher inflows of foreign investment. And importantly, three of Vietnam’s key economic partners—Japan, Singapore, and the United States—are TPP members. 

The TPP encourages investment through its investment protections. The protections aim to give investors confidence that they and their investments will be treated fairly by a host state. The TPP also contains an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) section that allows investors to bring arbitration claims against TPP member states. The ISDS is especially important for Vietnam, where it is generally difficult to sue the government.

Investment Protections

Almost all forms of foreign investments are covered by the TPP. Investments are defined as everything from enterprises to contracts to intellectual property rights. For a party to be eligible for the TPP’s investment protections in Vietnam, the investor must be from another TPP member state that is attempting to make, is making, or has made an investment in Vietnam (TPP Investor). Investments covered by the TPP (Covered Investments) mean an investment in Vietnam that already exists when the TPP becomes effective, or is set up, acquired, or expanded after the TPP enters into force.

National treatment and most-favored nation treatment.  The TPP requires Vietnam to treat TPP Investors in the same way as it would treat domestic investors in similar circumstances. In other words, Vietnam is required to give “national treatment” to TPP investors. In addition, Vietnam must treat Covered Investments in the same way as it would locally-owned projects. The TPP also requires Vietnam not to discriminate against any foreign investor.

Exceptions exist to these national treatment and most-favored nation obligations. Vietnam and other member states have negotiated various “non-conforming measures.” The measures consist of sectors where national treatment obligations do not apply. In other words, Vietnam can restrict foreign investment in these areas without violating the TPP.

The restricted sectors are divided into two annexes. Annex I measures cannot be amended by Vietnam to become more restrictive, though they can be made more open. These measures generally cover services (e.g., education and transportation) and nationally sensitive areas such as electricity production. The Annex II measures fall out of the TPP’s scope altogether. Examples of Vietnam’s Annex II measures include prohibitions on investment in land, agriculture, and the media.

Expropriation.  The TPP prohibits member states from expropriating investments. However, expropriation is allowed if it is for a “public purpose.” Under the TPP, Vietnam can expropriate land if it is for a purpose sanctioned by domestic law. Vietnam must promptly provide compensation to the investor equivalent to market value. The TPP further mandates that any expropriation is done without discrimination.

Minimum standard of treatment.  Covered Investments must be granted a minimum standard of treatment under the TPP. Vietnam must therefore ensure that all Covered Investments receive equitable treatment and full protection. Equitable treatment means that Vietnam cannot deny a TPP Investor due process in criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings, among other things. The protection requirement obliges Vietnam to provide the necessary level of police protection under international law.        

Transfers.  Transferring money across borders is a key requirement for foreign investors. Under the TPP, Vietnam must allow investors to freely make all such transfers related to a Covered Investment. Most transfers are included in this provision. Examples include capital contributions; profits and dividends; interest; various types of fees; royalties; sale proceeds (from the sale of an investment project); payments under a contract; and payments resulting from a dispute.

Investor-State Dispute Settlement

Scope.  A TPP Investor can bring a claim against Vietnam under the ISDS when: (1) the government has breached an investment obligation in the TPP, an investment authorization, or an investment agreement; and (2) the investor has incurred damage from the breach. An investment authorization is the permission given by the regulatory authority in relation to a Covered Investment. The TPP defines an investment agreement as a contract between an authority at the central level of government and a Covered Investment or TPP Investor.

Initially, the parties must attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiations. If the dispute is not resolved within six months, the investor can submit an arbitration claim. An investor cannot bring a claim if the matter is already being heard in a Vietnamese court or administrative tribunal. Time limitations apply to filing a claim. Claims must be submitted within three years and six months from when the claimant knew of the breach and that damages were incurred.

Arbitration.  The TPP allows for arbitration under the World Bank’s ICSID, ICSID Additional Facility Rules, UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and any other arbitral institution or rules agreed by the parties. However, because Vietnam is not a party to the ICSID, only the UNCITRAL rules or other agreed arbitral institutions or rules can be used. Arbitral proceedings can therefore take place anywhere on agreement by the parties.     

Arbitral tribunals consist of three arbitrators, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. Each party can choose one arbitrator, and the third is appointed by agreement. Arbitrators are bound by a special Code of Conduct under the TPP. The arbitrators must follow this code of ethics, as well as the applicable arbitral rules.   

The governing law of the arbitration is the TPP itself and applicable international law. For claims arising from an investment authorization or investment agreement, the law cited in the agreement or governing the authorization would apply. In most cases, this would be Vietnamese law. The parties can also agree on the governing law.  

Awards.  An arbitration award can be monetary damages and interest, or restitution of property (or monetary damages in lieu of restitution), or both. Costs and attorney’s fees can also be awarded. If the arbitration tribunal determines that a claim is frivolous, a respondent can be awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. Punitive damages are not permitted in the ISDS.    

The TPP also contains enforcement provisions. A losing party must promptly abide by the award. The TPP also requires that Vietnam provide for the enforcement of an award in its territory. The claimant can enforce the award under the New York Convention for the Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, of which Vietnam is a member. However, enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Vietnam is challenging.

The TPP has an interesting mechanism to handle situations where a member state does not comply with an arbitral award. If a state fails to comply, the investor’s home country can ask a special panel to issue a determination that the losing state has breached its TPP obligations. The panel can also recommend that the losing state comply with the award. In other words, a failure by Vietnam to abide by an award can result in an official rebuke by the TPP’s special panel.

Outlook

The TPP is expected to create new business opportunities in Vietnam. The investment protections will reduce risk and increase confidence, which will add to investment inflows. Perhaps most importantly, the TPP’s investment protections, and especially the ISDS, can help the development of Vietnam’s own legal infrastructure. Regulatory authorities will have to be mindful of the TPP when making investment-related decisions. And by making the state accountable, the ISDS can help ensure that the TPP’s investment protections and benefits are complied with. This has the potential to help further develop the rule of law, which will have intangible economic benefits to both investors and Vietnam.

Thailand and the TPP

Thailand is not a member of the TPP but may join in the future. Thai government officials have indicated some interest. According to news reports, a high-ranking official told an audience in Japan that Thailand is interested to join.

Like Vietnam, Thailand has an export-driven economy, so it would likely benefit from the reduced tariffs that the TPP will bring. Moreover, Thailand has strong economic links to TPP member states, including Japan and the United States. And not joining may cause Thailand to lose out on investment opportunities. 

There are challenges to Thailand joining the TPP. Domestic markets would have to be opened up. And the investor-state dispute mechanism, which allows foreign investors to haul governments before an independent arbitration tribunal, may be viewed as a challenge to sovereignty.

Thailand has currently adopted a “wait-and-see” approach. Investors should expect more news later this year.

Download Full Article
Related Professionals

Practices

Corporate/M&A

Locations

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

June 9, 2026
On April 28, 2026, the Central Bank of Myanmar (CBM) issued Notification No. 18/2026 introducing the new Foreign Remittance Business Regulations. The new regulations apply to companies intending to operate foreign remittance businesses in Myanmar that are not licensed banks, non-bank financial institutions, or other financial institutions. The regulations supersede and replace the previous regulatory framework governing foreign remittance businesses under CBM Notification No. 21/2019. While the overall structure remains familiar, the new regulations introduce more detailed requirements for licensing, operations, reporting, and compliance, with a stronger focus on transparency and regulatory oversight. Broader Licensing Requirements Under the new regulations, applicants must submit detailed business plans describing the use of information technology and mobile platforms, along with clear plans for handling remittances from workers abroad and resolving customer complaints. Financial Thresholds and Reporting Requirements The baseline financial thresholds remain unchanged. Licensees must maintain a security deposit of MMK 100 million in an escrow account, along with a separate revolving fund dedicated solely to remittance operations. The new regulations introduce more structured reporting obligations. Licensees are now required to submit daily remittance transaction data by the next business day before noon, in addition to monthly and periodic reporting requirements. Foreign bank account statements must also be submitted regularly, and licensees must provide updates on business operations every six months. Strengthened AML and CFT Framework The new regulations place a greater emphasis on anti-money laundering (AML) and counter financing of terrorism (CFT), with tighter controls over management changes. Any changes in shareholding, share transfers, or the appointment of key management personnel such as the managing director require prior approval from the CBM. Licensing Fees and Validity The new regulations increase licensing costs, while maintaining the same validity period of three years. The new regulations provide more detailed grounds for suspension and
Read More
June 4, 2026
On May 19, 2026, the Cabinet of the Royal Thai Government approved, in principle, revisions to Thailand’s visa exemption scheme and visa on arrival (VOA) program, as proposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Tourism and Sports. The revisions represent a tightening of Thailand’s immigration framework and will affect a broad range of short-term visitors. Background On July 15, 2024, Thailand expanded its visa exemption scheme by increasing the permitted period of visa-exempt stay from 30 days to 60 days in order to promote tourism, support the country’s post-pandemic economic recovery, and facilitate international travel. Under this revised scheme, passport holders from 93 countries and territories (an increase from the previous 57 countries and territories) have been permitted to enter Thailand without a visa and remain in the country for up to 60 days per entry for purposes including tourism, business engagements, urgent work, and ad hoc assignments. In addition, eligible visitors may apply at the Thai Immigration Bureau for a further 30-day extension of stay. Key Changes The proposed revisions would revoke the current 60-day exemption and reinstate the previous stay period, thereby reducing the maximum permitted stay for eligible travelers to 30 days per entry. In addition, the number of countries and territories eligible under the 30-day visa-exemption scheme is expected to be reduced to 54. The scope of the VOA scheme would likewise be significantly narrowed, with the number of eligible countries reduced from 31 countries to just four (Azerbaijan, Belarus, Serbia, and India). Further, Thailand is expected to introduce a new 15-day visa exemption category for nationals of Seychelles, the Maldives, and Mauritius. The revised framework would also limit each country or territory to a single visa exemption privilege in order to simplify Thailand’s immigration framework and reduce overlapping immigration privileges.
Read More
May 25, 2026
After several years of policy discussion and continued efforts led by the Ministry of Commerce (MOC) to relax the list of reserved businesses under the Foreign Business Act B.E. 2542 (1999) (FBA), the reform process has now reached a significant milestone. On May 12, 2026, the Thai cabinet approved in principle two draft subordinate legislative instruments aimed at delisting certain reserved business activities under the FBA and reducing licensing requirements for foreign business operators. These developments signal a renewed and concrete effort by the government to modernize Thailand’s business regulatory framework in order to attract foreign investment and boost Thailand’s competitiveness in the global market. Nine Businesses Set for FBA Delisting Below is a list of the nine businesses that are being targeted for delisting from the FBA’s restrictions. A draft ministerial regulation would delist the first eight reserved businesses, while a royal decree has been drafted to delist the ninth business: Telecommunications services (Type 1 license only, covering operators without their own telecommunications infrastructure), under the supervision of the Office of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission. Treasury center services subject to the Foreign Exchange Control Act B.E. 2485 and under the supervision of the Bank of Thailand. Securities-collateralized lending, pursuant to the laws governing securities and exchange and derivatives regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Agency, dealer, advisory, or fund management services relating to derivatives where the underlying assets fall outside the scope of the Derivatives Act B.E. 2546 (2003) Intra-group shared services, including administrative, human resources, and IT functions Intra-group domestic debt guarantee services Leasing of partial space for installation of financial service machines and automatic vending machines for employee use Petroleum drilling services Trading of agricultural product derivatives through a futures exchange, with physical delivery or receipt of agricultural products at a futures exchange–designated
Read More
April 29, 2026
Vietnam’s education sector is entering a new regulatory era. On December 10, 2025, the National Assembly adopted a series of new and amended laws in the field of education, including the 2025 Law on Vocational Education, the 2025 Law on Higher Education, and the amended Law on Education No. 123/2025/QH15 (Amended Law on Education). These laws together took effect on January 1, 2026, marking a significant reform of Vietnam’s legal framework governing the education sector. The legislative package introduces a new lawmaking approach under which foundational and principle-based provisions are codified in the Amended Law on Education, while the Law on Higher Education and the Law on Vocational Education serve as specialized statutes providing supplementary, sector-specific regulatory detail tailored to their respective subsectors. The Amended Law on Education fundamentally restructures how educational institutions are established, governed, and licensed, with direct implications for private investors, foreign-invested entities, and education service providers operating in Vietnam. Below are several highlights of the key changes under the amended law, especially in the private sector, that stakeholders should understand: Change in the National Education System In addition to primary education, lower secondary (junior high school) education is now compulsory in Vietnam. Accordingly, diplomas are no longer awarded upon completion of lower secondary school but only for upper education levels. The national education system is also expanded through the introduction of vocational high school as a new level of vocational education. Such reform creates additional learning pathways that not only enable learners to pursue both further education and participate in the labor market, but also better align education and training with socioeconomic development needs. New Hurdle for Joint Investors: Mandatory Corporate Entity Requirement Where two or more investors jointly establish an education institution, the investors are no longer permitted to directly establish such an institution.
Read More