Human Rights and the Hanoi Convention: The Exclusive Power of the National Assembly

It is no coincidence that the proper authority to ratify the United Nations Convention against Cybercrime, also known as the Hanoi Convention, is the National Assembly rather than the president. [1] [2] 

The National Assembly is vested with the authority to ratify international treaties concerning human rights, sovereignty, and other major changes to the fundamental policies of the nation. This reflects a consistent strategic legal vision that runs from the 2013 Constitution through the Law on International Treaties. [3] [4]

Protecting the People’s Sovereignty

The National Assembly, serving as the highest representative body, is entrusted with deciding matters of fundamental importance on behalf of the public. This authority reflects the core constitutional principle that “the people are the masters” and that “all state power belongs to the people,” as enshrined in Clause 2, Article 2 of the 2013 Constitution. [5]

Because international human rights treaties touch upon the most fundamental values of society, only the National Assembly possesses the authority to ratify them. This ensures that potential alterations to constitutionally guaranteed rights stem from democratic representation rather than the unilateral will of the executive branch. 

Furthermore, Clause 2, Article 14 of the Constitution establishes that “human rights and citizens’ rights may only be restricted in accordance with the law,” thereby cementing the National Assembly’s exclusive power to limit such rights.

Ratifying a human rights treaty is deeply consequential for domestic governance, as it impacts the entire legal system. Clause 2, Article 5 of the Law on Promulgation of Legal Normative Documents dictates that domestic legislation must “not contravene international treaties to which the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam is a party.” [6] Therefore, ratifying such a treaty establishes a binding framework for drafting and amending future laws.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Hanoi Convention serves as a prime example. [7] Upon ratification, it will become a legislative foundation for the National Assembly. Following the spirit of the convention, laws adopted after April 7, 2026, could potentially be revised to narrow privacy rights and freedom of expression under the guise of cybersecurity.

Given these profound legislative implications, lawmakers must carefully weigh any treaty concerning human rights against national interests and citizens’ rights prior to ratification. Only the constitutionally established legislative body—the National Assembly—has the legitimacy to exercise this authority.

Ultimately, protecting the sovereignty of the people means more than just safeguarding their current rights; it also means preserving their right to determine how those rights may evolve. In principle, this decision-making power must belong to the people through the National Assembly and cannot exist outside the boundaries of democratic representation.

Ensuring a Mechanism to Check State Power

Article 8 of the Law on International Treaties says that government agencies, working with the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam, the Supreme People’s Procuracy of Vietnam, and the State Audit Office of Vietnam, have the most power to suggest negotiations and sign international treaties. [8]

However, a treaty concerning human rights cannot simply bypass the legislative branch and move straight from the executive branch to the president. Instead, it must pass through a critical “checkpoint” at the National Assembly, the highest state authority. 

During this stage, the government is required to explain the content thoroughly, implications, and consequences of the treaty. Within the legislative chamber, National Assembly deputies—the formal representatives of the people—subject the treaty to discussion, review, questioning, and voting.

As a result, this ratification process strengthens transparency and accountability, mitigating the risk that provisions affecting the rights of citizens receive approval without adequate oversight.

While the National Assembly in a one-party political system like Việt Nam is often criticized as a “rubber stamp,” making ratification seem like a mere formality, removing this institutional oversight would be dangerous. [9] Without it, the risk of executive overreach intensifies, leaving human rights increasingly vulnerable to unchecked interference.

Therefore, a core principle of the legislative process must be upheld: when human rights are at stake, the ultimate decision must remain with the body representing the entire population, rather than in the hands of a single branch of government or, even worse, the top leader of that branch.

Trường An wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 22, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.