Seven Reforms to Prevent Injustice in Việt Nam’s Land Acquisition

Việt Nam’s land acquisition mechanism suffers from three bottlenecks, as previously established: ambiguous purposes for land recovery, opaque processes that are difficult for citizens to follow, and widely unsatisfactory compensation. 

Although it is common to blame local authorities for poor policy implementation, the fundamental problem exists within the law itself. 

Guided by the 2022 study “The Constitutionality of Compulsory Land Acquisition in Vietnam: Issues and Recommendations” by law professors Phan Trung Hiền (Cần Thơ University) and Hugh D. Spitzer (University of Washington), it is necessary to confront the central question behind almost every land dispute: How should Việt Nam amend its laws to ensure that land acquisition is less confusing, less unjust, and less likely to drive citizens into direct confrontation with the authorities?

Limiting State Land Acquisition

The most important change is to limit the state’s ability to buy land. 

While the 2013 Constitution permits the state to recover land for national defense, security, and “socio-economic development in the national and public interest,” the inherent vagueness of “socio-economic development” remains highly problematic. This ambiguity allows the state to leverage its authority to seize citizens’ land for commercial business ventures.

The law needs to be changed so that it is clear what is a public project and what is a private business. The state should only be permitted to recover land for truly public purposes. For private projects, investors must be required to negotiate directly with landowners rather than relying on the state to acquire land on their behalf.

The benefits of this reform are clear: it reduces the risk of invoking the public interest for private gain, lowers the potential for conflict by giving citizens a stronger negotiating position, and forces investors to properly account for land costs instead of using administrative mechanisms to obtain land cheaply.

Defining “Public Interest”

A major criticism from the study is that Vietnamese law fails to clearly define “socio-economic development in the national and public interest.” Because this foundational concept is vague, administrators can apply it at their discretion, which inherently increases the risk of abuse.

To resolve this issue, the law cannot rely on broad language and must instead implement three specific measures. 

First, it needs to set clear legal standards for figuring out if a project really serves the public good. 

Second, it must explicitly outline scenarios where land acquisition mechanisms cannot be utilized. 

Finally, any classification of a project under the “public interest” must include a mandatory explanation that details why it meets the criteria, why compulsory acquisition is required over private negotiation, and who the primary beneficiaries will be. 

Projects lacking this rigorous justification must not be eligible for land recovery.

Enforcing Transparency Obligations

Addressing a familiar reality in land acquisition cases, the study dedicates a section to the fact that citizens frequently lack sufficient information. Hence, the direction for reform must explicitly specify how, when, and to whom it discloses information, as well as how citizens can verify it. These requirements must be enshrined in the law as concrete obligations.

The law must mandate that authorities leave a verifiable procedural trail. This necessitates maintaining detailed records that show when information was disclosed, how citizens were consulted, how their feedback was recorded, and whether authorities explained their reasons for accepting or rejecting that feedback. 

To this end, the study proposes requiring strict documentation on transparency, accountability, and public participation, alongside records proving the involvement of affected individuals in the valuation and compensation processes.

Making Community Consultation a Substantive Right

To ensure both transparency and fairness, the study argues that concrete legal provisions must guarantee the participation of affected individuals. 

Article 28 of the Constitution already mandates openness and transparency in receiving and responding to citizens’ opinions and proposals. Building upon this constitutional foundation, the study also suggests that the land law must formally establish processes for collecting, explaining, and responding to public input.

As a result, a new reform direction is necessary: authorities must conduct a mandatory, multi-round consultation process prior to any land acquisition decision, rather than relying on a single, formalistic meeting. 

If a majority of affected residents oppose key aspects of a project, the state must organize additional dialogue before finalizing a decision. Furthermore, lawmakers should consider granting communities or affected households the right to request an independent review. 

While some might fear endless delays, these reforms would actually reduce subsequent conflicts; a slightly slower process at the outset could ultimately prevent years of protracted disputes.

Valuation Must be Independent

The question that most frequently inflames public opinion in land acquisition cases is, “Where does this compensation price come from?” 

As the study notes, the state directly determines compensation prices in Việt Nam, which inevitably leads to controversy and public distrust. This creates a severe conflict of interest that requires decisive legal reform: the authority acquiring the land currently holds near-total power over determining the compensation, meaning that the party taking the land effectively dictates how much the displaced party receives.

To resolve this issue, the law must mandate that compensation prices be calculated by independent valuation organizations. These bodies must operate with clear professional accountability, use transparent methodologies, and provide publicly available comparative data. Furthermore, citizens must be granted the option to commission independent counter-valuations if they dispute the state’s offer.

The study emphasizes that current Vietnamese law fails to fully compensate for damages incurred before, during, and after the acquisition process. Calculating compensation solely per square meter while ignoring broader impacts is inherently unjust. 

Therefore, the law must transition toward a comprehensive compensation model that covers land value, assets on the land, relocation costs, losses from interrupted production, the costs of establishing new livelihoods, job transition support, and the social costs of resettlement.

Strengthening Judicial Power and Oversight

A notable recommendation from the study is the necessity of enhancing the role of the courts to review compensation values and ensure fairness in land acquisition. 

The study highlights that independent oversight mechanisms are essential, as leaving the entire process almost entirely in the hands of administrative authorities contradicts the core principles of a rule-of-law state. 

If land disputes remain confined to administrative complaint processes overseen by the very system acquiring the land, citizens will inevitably encounter it difficult to trust that their grievances are being addressed fairly.

To resolve this issue at its root, we must significantly strengthen judicial power. Courts must go beyond merely checking whether they correctly followed procedures; they must also examine substantive issues. 

This includes determining whether a project genuinely serves the public interest, whether compensation is adequate, whether consultation was meaningful, and whether resettlement conditions meet minimum living standards. 

Granting courts this authority will compel administrative bodies to act much more carefully from the very beginning.

Revising the Language and Spirit of Constitution Provisions

The study also suggests reconsidering the constitutional provisions regarding land acquisition to better protect the fundamental rights of land users. The current legal provisions must be revised to place a greater emphasis on transparency and to guarantee compensation for all damages arising before, during, and after the compulsory transfer of land use rights.

This thought-provoking suggestion highlights that the quality of legislation depends heavily on how the Constitution establishes its foundation. At the very least, the law must reflect a core principle: state land acquisition is not merely an ordinary administrative decision but a disruption to people’s property and lives. 

Therefore, stricter requirements must be imposed regarding the reasons for acquisition, the procedural steps, and the overall level of compensation.

***

To summarize this reform agenda into a single formula, the state must narrow the grounds for land acquisition, clearly define the public interest, mandate transparency, ensure meaningful consultation, require independent valuation, provide comprehensive compensation, and strengthen judicial oversight. 

This goes far beyond a mere technical legal adjustment. Rather, it redefines the relationship between the state and its citizens in one of the most sensitive areas of social life. The long-standing tensions surrounding land will only have a genuine chance to subside when the law recognizes that land users cannot perpetually remain the weaker party in every acquisition.

---

Thúc Kháng wrote this article in Vietnamese and published it in Luật Khoa Magazine on April 2, 2026. Đàm Vĩnh Hằng translated it into English for The Vietnamese Magazine.