The VIAC Arbitration Rules 2026: International Convergence With a Vietnamese Twist

After nearly a decade, the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (“VIAC” or the “Centre”) has adopted a new set of arbitration rules, marking their fifth iteration. The Rules of Arbitration of the VIAC in force as from 1 July 2026 (“2026 VIAC Rules”) replace the Rules of Arbitration of the VIAC in force as from 1 March 2017 (“2017 VIAC Rules”) and introduce a significantly expanded procedural framework reflecting features commonly found in the rules of leading international institutions.

The revisions are notable not merely because they modernize the VIAC’s procedural toolkit, but because they demonstrate an effort to align the Centre’s practices with those of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (“SIAC”), Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (“HKIAC”), and International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), while also addressing issues specific to Vietnamese arbitral practice.

This post examines some notable changes introduced by the 2026 VIAC Rules, focusing on reforms designed to improve efficiency and accommodate modern arbitral practice. It then considers how these reforms may enhance the VIAC’s attractiveness as a forum for resolving international commercial disputes.

A. Efficiency Measures

1. Consolidation and Joinder (Articles 17 and 18)

The 2026 VIAC Rules adopt a considerably broader framework for consolidation. Whereas the 2017 VIAC Rules permitted consolidation only by consent of all parties, the 2026 VIAC Rules also enable the President of the Centre (the “President”) to consolidate arbitrations upon the request of a party where all claims and counterclaims are made under (i) the same arbitration agreement, or (ii) compatible arbitration agreements and the disputes arise from the same legal relationship or the same transaction or series of related transactions.

The newly introduced joinder regime also reflects a similar expansion to the rules. Without prejudicing the tribunal’s final determination of jurisdiction, a party may be joined where it is prima facie bound by the arbitration agreement, even absent unanimous consent. These reforms bring the VIAC substantially in line with leading regional institutions such as the SIAC and the HKIAC when it comes to consolidation and joinder, and recognize the practical need to address multi-party and multi-contract disputes without requiring the parties’ unanimous consent.

As under many institutional rules, the efficiency benefits of consolidation and joinder are balanced against the parties’ participation in the constitution of the tribunal. Where joinder or consolidation is granted, any party that did not have the opportunity to select an arbitrator is deemed to have waived such right (Articles 17.5 and 18.7). While this avoids disruption from reconstituting the tribunal mid-proceeding, it limits newly joined parties from influencing the tribunal’s composition. The significance of that trade-off is mitigated by the VIAC’s challenge mechanism under Article 15, which remains available to any affected party seeking replacement of an arbitrator where circumstances raise concerns regarding eligibility, qualifications, independence, impartiality, or objectivity under Article 12.3.

2. Expedited Procedure (Article 24 and Appendix II)

For disputes arising based on arbitration agreements concluded after 1 July 2026, in addition to party agreement, the Expedited Procedure may be invoked—by decision of the President or at a party’s request—where the aggregate amount in dispute does not exceed the threshold to be published by the Centre, or where the circumstances otherwise justify its application.

Specific procedural steps have also been streamlined. Among other things, all or part of the expedited arbitration may take place electronically, and the tribunal has the authority to disregard documents and evidence submitted contrary to the time limits or manner determined by the tribunal and without justification. The President is also permitted to discontinue the Expedited Procedure on their own initiative or upon a party’s request if new circumstances render it unsuitable, after consulting the parties and tribunal.

However, the most striking feature of the VIAC’s reformed Expedited Procedure is not the grounds on which it may be invoked, or the streamlining of procedures, but the speed with which it is intended to operate.

Subject to extension by the Centre where necessary, the award must be rendered within two months from the date on which the Centre notifies the parties of the tribunal’s constitution and, in any event, within thirty days after closure of the final hearing. Even with the possibility of extension, this is a remarkably ambitious timetable by international standards—considerably faster than the six-month periods prescribed under the expedited procedures of the SIAC and the HKIAC, and closer to the three-month periods prescribed under the SIAC’s Streamlined Procedure and the ICC’s Highly Expedited Arbitration Provisions.

While several major institutions have steadily increased the value thresholds applicable to their expedited procedures, those regimes generally operate on substantially longer timetables. Until the VIAC publishes its applicable threshold, it remains difficult to assess whether the two-month procedure will be confined to straightforward and low-value disputes or deployed more broadly.

3. Case Management Conference (Article 16)

Although case management conferences have long been routine under many leading institutional rules, that has not always been the case with VIAC arbitrations, as the 2017 VIAC Rules contained no express provision for them. The 2026 VIAC Rules now adopt a flexible approach empowering the tribunal to determine whether one is necessary, either on its own initiative or at a party’s request.

This amendment reflects an increasing institutional emphasis on proactive case management. By providing the tribunal with tools for early procedural planning, timetable discussions, and consideration of procedural efficiencies, the provision aligns the VIAC’s practice with the broader direction of travel among leading arbitral institutions.

B. Modernized Proceedings

1. Digitalization and Communication (Articles 3 and 16)

The VIAC’s new digitalization provisions continue a broader trend toward electronic case management and reduced reliance on physical filings. The 2026 VIAC Rules also permit parties, where the tribunal so determines, or the parties agree, to exchange documents directly without routing all communications through the Centre.

Although the amendments increase procedural flexibility and efficiency, it will be interesting to see how the VIAC’s practical guidance develops. As matters stand, the VIAC’s rules on delivery and notification remain framed primarily around communications transmitted through the Centre, offering limited guidance on direct transmission. This differs from the SIAC and the HKIAC, which provide clearer guidance for direct transmission.

2. Authority of Representatives (Article 4)

While many of the amendments mirror developments already seen elsewhere, the new provisions on representative authority address an issue particularly significant in Vietnam.

The 2026 VIAC Rules empower the Centre, before the constitution of the tribunal, and the tribunal thereafter, to determine the form in which a representative’s authority to act for a party must be demonstrated. Any objection concerning the scope, substance, or validity of the authorization documents is now ultimately determined by the tribunal.

This establishes a clearer mechanism for addressing disputes over powers of attorney, corporate approvals, and other evidence of representative authority, permitting such issues to be resolved within the arbitral process. This would likely help to address a unique source of practical uncertainty in Vietnamese arbitration. As discussed in an earlier blog post, some Vietnamese courts have set aside VIAC awards for perceived defects in foreign-issued powers of attorney or corporate authorization documents under Vietnamese law, including failures to satisfy consular-legalization requirements at the time arbitration commenced, and have declined to allow retroactive cure for such defects. By contrast, the People’s Court of Hanoi has also upheld a VIAC award where the power of attorney was legalized only after the submission of the request for arbitration, and the tribunal had not requested the legalization of the request for arbitration. The 2026 VIAC Rules expressly allow the VIAC or the tribunal to determine the required form of authorization, potentially avoiding unnecessary formalities where authority is not disputed, while referring contested questions of validity or legal effect to the tribunal.

3. Arbitrator Appointment and Eligibility (Article 11 and Appendix I)

Previously, the VIAC’s arbitrator appointment powers largely operated as a fallback where a party failed to nominate an arbitrator or the party-appointed arbitrators failed to agree on a presiding arbitrator. Under the 2026 VIAC Rules, the President has broader authority to apply VIAC’s default appointment provisions when the agreed appointment procedure (i) is incomplete, causing hindrances to the constitution of the tribunal, or (ii) results in unequal treatment in the rights and obligations of the parties that may affect the validity and enforceability of the award. This expands the VIAC’s supervisory role beyond resolving appointment deadlock to safeguarding the fairness and effectiveness of the tribunal’s constitution.

The 2026 VIAC Rules also introduce detailed eligibility requirements for arbitrators nominated from outside the VIAC’s List of Arbitrators. Although parties were already permitted to nominate off-list candidates, the 2017 VIAC Rules did not prescribe equivalent minimum qualifications. The new eligibility requirements are uncommon from an international perspective. Many leading institutions maintain closed rosters, such as the SIAC or the HKIAC, or retain institutional control over the appointment and confirmation of arbitrators, such as the ICC. But few impose detailed qualification criteria on arbitrators nominated by the parties. The VIAC approach therefore seeks to strike a balance between preserving party autonomy while ensuring that off-list appointees satisfy minimum standards of arbitral experience and professional competence.

4. Third-Party Funding (Article 16.7)

Under the 2026 VIAC Rules, parties receiving third-party funding must now disclose and identify the funder and may be ordered by the tribunal to make further disclosure of information relating to the funding agreement. This follows a broader trend across international arbitration. Similar disclosure requirements now appear, in different forms, in the rules or practice of institutions including the ICC, SIAC, and HKIAC, reflecting growing recognition that knowledge of a funder’s identity may be relevant to conflicts analysis, security for costs applications, and the allocation of costs.

C. Conclusion

The headline message from the 2026 VIAC Rules is one of convergence: many of the amendments, including those relating to joinder, consolidation, expedited proceedings, case management, and third-party funding, bring the VIAC’s framework closer to the procedural models adopted by leading arbitral institutions across Asia and beyond.

At the same time, certain amendments, notably those concerning representative authority and minimum eligibility requirements for off-list arbitrator candidates, reflect issues arising uniquely in Vietnamese arbitral practice and seek to address challenges particularly relevant to users of arbitration in Vietnam.

Whether the reforms ultimately achieve their intended objectives will depend on how they are applied in practice. Nevertheless, the 2026 VIAC Rules represent a substantial overhaul after almost a decade and constitute an important step in the Centre’s continuing development as a venue for international commercial arbitration.

All views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of the authors’ respective firms.