Tô Lâm and the Hanoi Convention: Did the State President Bypass the National Assembly?

On April 7, 2026, Tô Lâm signed a decision to ratify the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, commonly known as the Hanoi Convention, on the very first day of his term as State President for 2026–2031. [1] [2]

While this action initially appears to fall within his jurisdiction, given that the head of state represents the country in ratifying international treaties, the specific contents of the agreement complicate the matter.

A closer examination of the Hanoi Convention, particularly its provisions concerning human rights, raises significant questions regarding whether the authority to ratify this treaty properly belongs to the president or the National Assembly.

National Assembly Ratification

Clause 14, Article 70 of the 2013 Constitution clearly stipulates that the National Assembly has the authority to ratify, decide on accession to, or terminate “international treaties on human rights, fundamental rights and obligations of citizens, and other international treaties that are inconsistent with the laws or resolutions of the National Assembly.” [3] This authority is further reaffirmed in Point c, Clause 1, Article 29 of the Law on Treaties. [4]

The crucial question is whether the Hanoi Convention falls into this specific category. At first glance, the Hanoi Convention merely establishes a legal framework to strengthen international cooperation in preventing and combating cybercrime, ensuring cybersecurity, and protecting data. [5] 

Because it does not explicitly strip away human rights, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) of Việt Nam has also assessed the convention in this manner. [6] The MOFA’s submission to sign the treaty focused heavily on technical terminology and standardized offenses, entirely omitting any analysis of potential human rights impacts, thereby concluding that ratification remains the president’s prerogative.

Yet behind these cybersecurity provisions lies a series of issues that directly affect some of the most fundamental human rights, such as the right to privacy and freedom of expression as protected by the 2013 Constitution. [7]

The threat to privacy is evident in the convention’s language. The exact phrase “sharing of evidence in electronic” appears six times, highlighting mechanisms for data sharing among countries without adequately establishing binding safeguards against abuse.

Because ratifying states must integrate these provisions into domestic law, the legal system of Việt Nam would face adjustments that expand governmental data collection. At that point, the Constitution and the Civil Code would significantly alter or narrow the scope of citizens’ privacy rights as currently defined. [8] [9]

The risks to freedom of expression are equally severe. Chapter II mandates the criminalization of acts like unauthorized access and interference with electronic data. Because these acts are vaguely defined, they create a legal gray area that could easily criminalize dissenting online opinions. 

Furthermore, Article 37 facilitates extradition among member states, even for offenses not criminalized domestically by the requested state, provided local laws permit exceptions. 

These provisions directly threaten the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution, potentially granting Vietnamese authorities the leverage to suppress dissent and extradite individuals for prosecution.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, activists, and major technology companies have all expressed concern about the potential for vague provisions in the Hanoi Convention to be abused. [10] Meta and Microsoft have even branded it a “surveillance convention,” warning of its potential to streamline personal data exchanges between governments.

In reality, even before ratifying this convention, the Vietnamese authorities have already used the Cybersecurity Law and the Law on Personal Data Protection to tightly control personal data and online activities, making the risk of further encroachments highly apparent. [11] [12] 

This is also why many countries and international organizations have criticized the choice of Việt Nam—often assessed as a country with serious human rights concerns, particularly regarding online expression—as the venue for signing the convention. [13] [14]

Given these profound impacts on fundamental rights, it is clear that the Hanoi Convention demands the oversight and ratification authority of the National Assembly.

Previous Legislative Practice

Historically, the National Assembly has consistently exercised its constitutionally and legally mandated authority to ratify human rights conventions.

Because most of these treaties were clearly identifiable as human rights instruments, it was evident that their ratification fell under legislative jurisdiction. Prominent examples include the United Nations Convention against Torture, ratified by Resolution 83/2014, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Resolution 84/2014. [15] [16] [17] [18] This process was also followed even earlier during Việt Nam’s accession to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1982. [19]

The Hanoi Convention presents a more complex scenario. While it does not explicitly address the modification, restriction, or termination of citizens’ rights, its impact on fundamental human rights remains undeniable.

For many years, the National Assembly has ratified numerous international treaties that merely had the potential to alter domestic rights. For instance, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2018 and the EU–Việt Nam Free Trade Agreement in 2020 were both ratified by the National Assembly because they could impact labor regulations, intellectual property, the right to strike, and data protection. [20] [21]

In this context, the unilateral decision by Tô Lâm to ratify the Hanoi Convention raises serious questions regarding the boundaries of authority among state institutions and the ultimate role of the National Assembly in human rights decisions. 

Viewed from any angle, this action sets a troubling precedent.

---

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 21, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.