Arbitration governance in chain disputes: Urgent practical requirements for the modern economy

At a conference, Prof. Dr. Lê Hồng Hạnh, Chair of the Vietnam International Arbitration Centre (VIAC), said the global economy and Vietnam are undergoing changes not only in the scale and speed of development, but also in the structure of economic–legal relations. Commercial and economic transactions are increasingly organized as value chains—multi-layered, multi-party, and cross-border networks—creating both opportunities for cooperation and new, more complex risks that are harder to control. One clear manifestation, she noted, is the rise of “chain disputes.”

“If previously disputes arose and were resolved within a single legal relationship between two parties, recently a dispute can quickly expand to involve many related disputes, forming tightly linked chains in both parties and content,” Prof. Dr. Lê Hồng Hạnh said.

Chain disputes challenge the traditional arbitration model

Prof. Dr. Lê Hồng Hạnh said chain disputes can develop vertically, through cause–effect relationships, or horizontally, where many disputes arise from a common cause. This pattern, she argued, exposes limitations of the traditional arbitration model, which was designed to resolve single cases.

She added that commercial arbitration is often viewed as an optimal option for businesses—particularly in international supply chains—because parties may be reluctant to bring cases before the courts of the opposing party. However, she emphasized that arbitration jurisprudence is no longer only about resolving individual disputes; it has shifted toward governing the broader “dispute ecosystem” in a coherent manner.

In this context, arbitration governance involves more than following procedural steps. It includes early identification of links among disputes, selecting appropriate dispute-resolution mechanisms, coordinating among parties and arbitral tribunals, and ensuring the consistency and effectiveness of awards.

Vietnam faces practical hurdles in managing chain disputes

VIAC and other arbitral bodies in Vietnam are gradually adopting advanced governance approaches. However, experts said that managing chain disputes remains difficult due to the legal system’s characteristics and the pace of market development—particularly in identifying, collecting, and assessing evidence, coordinating procedures, and ensuring consistency of awards.

According to the discussions, improving the legal framework for arbitration is necessary, not only through procedural rule changes, but also through enhancements to the current arbitration framework.

Procedural coordination and consolidation of related disputes

Ms. Mạc Trang Anh, Lecturer in International Law at Hanoi Law University, analyzed core issues in arbitration governance for chain disputes. She proposed a “procedural-coordination” mechanism to improve resolution efficiency, especially in cases involving sequential chain disputes and mass claims.

For sequential chain disputes, she said consolidation of cases and adding third parties could be considered, but Vietnamese law does not clearly regulate this. For mass chain disputes, she noted that the international mechanism of “grouping cases – batching” can serve as a reference, though its application in Vietnam is limited due to differences in legal frameworks and dispute characteristics.

Evidence management to shorten resolution timelines

Dr. Trần Thúy Hằng said evidence management is increasingly important in chain disputes, particularly where cases share common contractual elements and developments. She proposed allowing the use of common or cross-referenced evidence to shorten resolution times.

However, she cautioned that evidence is often abundant and scattered, and that current law does not clearly define how to handle such complexity. As a result, arbitral panels are expected to control evidence tightly—focusing on essential materials to ensure fairness while avoiding delays and overload.

Exemplar adjudication and confidentiality constraints

Attorney Đặng Việt Anh, Director of Anhisa Law Firm, discussed a model in which a “sample case” is heard first to guide the resolution of similar disputes. He said that in Vietnam, this approach faces two major challenges: confidentiality, because sample-case information cannot be freely shared with other cases, and independence, because each arbitral panel must decide autonomously.

He noted that exemplar adjudication has been applied successfully in many countries, but in the context of chain disputes and Vietnam’s legal framework, it requires careful consideration to avoid legal risk.

Managing conflicting outcomes through a controlled precedent approach

To address the risk of conflicting judgments within the same chain of disputes, many participants suggested creating an anonymized “precedent library” so parties can access a controlled approach without breaching confidentiality.

Implications for trade and investment dispute resolution

The discussions linked the rise of chain disputes to the need for improved arbitration governance to support consistent, efficient, and fair resolution across linked disputes—especially in cross-border contracting.

Participants also referenced related materials dated 13/01/2024 and 06/08/2025, including proposals to raise the role of international arbitration in resolving trade and investment disputes and to create a specific legal framework and policies for the operation of the International Arbitration Center in Vietnam.

Key themes highlighted included chain disputes, procedural coordination mechanisms, VIAC, grouping of cases, anonymized precedents, and dispute resolution governance for cross-border contracts.