A comparative study of the systems of review of administrative action by courts and tribunals in australia and viet nam what vietnam can learn from australian experience

A COMPARATÍVÊ STUDY OP THE SYSTS ,-'S OF
REVIÊVV OF ACMINISTRATIVe ACTlOfỉ ŨY COURTS

AND TRBUNALS IN AUSTRAUA AND vlETNAM
WHAT VIETNAM CAN m m m * h AUSĨRALIAN EXPÉRIENCE

NGUYEN VAN QUANG

■tị"'- -•ỉâĩẫịsSểi:


A C 0M 1A R A T IV E ST U D Y O F T H E S Y S T E M S O F
R E V IE V V Ơ

A D M IN IST R A T IV E A C T IO N BY C O U R T S

A N D T R B U N A L S IN A U S T R A L I A A N D V I E T N A M
WHAT VIE NAM CAN LEARN FROM AU STR ALIAN EXPERIENCE

Submitted by
Nguven Van Quang
LL.B, LL.M (Hanoi Law University)

A thesis submitted in total íulíìlm ent
o f the requirements for the degree o f
Doctor o f Philosophy

School ot’ Law
Faculty o f Law and M anagem ent

La Trobe University

Bnndoora, Victoria 3086
Australia

April 2007


TABLE O F CO N TEN TS

A ckn ow ledgem en ts .......................................................................................................................................... ix

A b s tra c t ................................................................................................................................................................. X
Table o f A bbreviations..................................................................................................................... xi
Statement o f A uthorship.................................................................................................................xiii
Introduction........................................................................................................................................1
I. Introducing Adm inistrative Law Jurisdiction to V ietnam ’s People’s Courts:
Issues and Problem s.............................................................................................................. 1
II. R eform ing the Current System o f Review o f Adm inistrative Actions in
Vietnam: ‘Com parative Law ’ as a Tool o f Legal R eform ..........................................3
III. Why the Australian M odel?.......................................................................................... 4
IV. Thesis Structure.............................................................................................................. 7
Chapter O n e: M ethodological Issues: C om parative Law and Legal Transplantation
................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9
I. Com parative Law: a M ethod for the Study o f L aw ...................................................10
II. How To Com pare Law: a ‘Law in C ontext A pproach’...........................................13
III. Com parative Law and Legal Reform : Legal T ransplantation ............................. 17
A. Legal Transplantation: Possible or Im possible?..................................... ...17
B. Legal Transplantation: How to Successfully Transplant Law ?...............21
C onclusion.............................................................................................................................. 28

Chapter T w o: A dm inistrative Review System s o f A ustralia and Vietnam: Historical
and C onstitutional B ackground.................................................................................................. 30
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 30
I. A ustralian A dm inistrative Revievv S ystem ............................................................... 31
A. Historical Development o f the A ustralian LegalSystem:

British

Colonial Experience and C om m on Law T rad itio n ......................................... 31
B. C onstitutional Principles U nderpinning the Australian Administrative
Revievv S y s te m ....................................................................................................... 35
1. Responsible G overnm ent....................................................................36


38

2. Rule of Law

3. The Separation o f Pow ers...................................................................40
c . Development o f the Australian Adm inistrative Review System: a
Historical Perspective............................................................................................43
1. Australian Administrative Review System bịre the 1970s: the
N eed for Reform ....................................................................................... 43
2. ‘New Administrative Law’ and the Australian Administrative
Revievv System ......................................................................................... 47
II. Vietnamese Adm inistrative Review System .............................................................. 51
A. Historical Background o f the Vietnamese Legal System: the History o f
Foreign Influences.................................................................................................. 51
B.

Core

Constitutional

Principles

Underpinning

the

Vietnamese

Adm inistrative Revievv System: Iníìuences o f the Socialist Political and
Legal Ideology........................................................................................................58
1. Leadership o f the Comm unist Party o f V ietnam .......................... 60
2. Socialist Legality and a Socialist Law-Based State..................... 62
3. Concentration o f State Pow ers..........................................................66
c . System for Revievv o f Administrative Action in V ietnam .......................70
1. Supervision o f the National Assem bly and the Local people’s
C ouncils..................................................................................................... 70
2. Inspection by the State Inspectorate Bodies System ....................72
3. Resoiving Complaints and Denunciations: Intemal Revievv of
Adm inistrative A ction............................................................................. 73
4. Administrative Adjudication o f Courts: Judicial Review o f
Adm inistrative A ction.............................................................................74
C onclusion............................................................................................................................ 79
Chatter T h ree: M odels of Adm inistrative Adjudicative Bodies in Australia and
V ietia m .............................................................................................................................................. 80
lntroduction.......................................................................................................................... 80
I. Australian Adm inistrative Adjudicative B o d ie s ......................................................81

A. Australian Courts o f Law ............................................................................81
1. Australian Courts o f Law and Adm inistrative Law Jurisdiction
82
2. Composition o f Australian Courts Hearing Administrative Law
C ases..........................................................................................................91
B. Australian M erits Administrative Tribunals............................................. 94
1. Conception o f Australian M erits Revievv T ribunals...................94
2. Structure o fth e Australian Adm inistrative Tribunal S ystem ...99
III V ietnam ese Adm inistrative Adjudicative B odies.............................................. 105
A. Searching a Relevant Model o f Adjudicative Bodies Exercising
Adm inistrative Law Jurisdiction: Debates on M odels o f Administrative
Courts in V ietnam .................................................................................................107
1. An Independent Adm inistrative Court System ............................ 108
2. Administrative Courts under the G overnm ent............................. 109
3. A Sem i-Independent Adm inistrative Court System ....................110
4. Model o f Administrative Divisions o f the People’s Court
System .................................................................................................... 111
B. Vietnam ese People’s Courts and Adm inistrative Law Jurisdiction....l 13
1. Supreme People’s Court: the Removal o f Original Jurisdiction
113
2. Provincial People’s Courts: Adm inistrative Divisions with
Original and Appeals Jurisdiction.................................................... 115
3. District People’s Courts: No Adm inistrative D ivisions..........115
c . Com position o f Vietnamese People’s Courts Hearing Administrative
C ases..................................................................................................................... 117
1. Participation o f People’s A ssessors............................................. 117
2. Vietnam ese Judges..........................................................................119
II. Som e Com parative Rem arks on the Two System ............................................. 122

A. The Two Court Structures Compared: Several Distinctive Features .122


B. The Existence o f Australian Adm inistrative Tribunals: Unravelling the
C auses.................................................................................................................. 124
C onclusion........................................................................................................................ 126
Q npter F our: Judicially Reviewable Adm inistrative Action under the Laws of
Aiítralia and V ietnam ............................................................................................................... 130
Introduction........................................................................................................................130
I. Judicially Revievvable Administrative Action under the Law o f A ustralia... 131
A. Broad Scope o f Judicially Reviewable Adm inistrative A ctions............131
B. W ays to Limit the Scope o f Judicial Review o f Administrative Actions
135
1. Legislative Limits: Restricted Coverage o f the ADJR Act and
Privative Clauses................................................................................... 137
2. Judicial Limits: the Doctrine o f Justiciability............................ 139
c . C om m ents...................................................................................................... 141
II.

Judicially

Revievvable

Administrative

Action

under

the

Law

of

V ietnam .............................................................................................................................. 142
A. Adoption o f an Enumerative C lause........................................................... 142
B. The Object o f Judicial Review o f Adm inistrative A c tio n ...............148
1. ‘Administrative Decisions’ and ‘Adm inistrative A cts’ as the
Objects o f Judicial Review o f Adm inistrative Actions o f
Vietnamese C ourts................................................................................149
2. Judicial Review o f Adm inistrative Decisions o f a Legislative
Character: the Vietnamese C ontext...................................................151
III. Broadening the Scope o f Judicial Review o f Adm inistrative Actions under the
Law o f V ietnam ................................................................................................................157
C onclusion.........................................................................................................................160
Ciapter F ỉve: G rounds for Judicial Review o f Adm inistrative Action under the Law
oR u stralia and V ietn am ..........................................................................................................161
Introduction....................................................................................................................... 161


I An Overvievv o f Grounds for Review under the Laws o f Australia and
V ietnam .............................................................................................................................163
A. Com m only Accepted Principles in the Two Jurisdictions................... 163
B. No Clear-Cut Determination o f Detailed Grounds for Review under the
Laws o f V ietnam ................................................................................................. 164
1. Lack o f Legal Provisions Listing Detailed Grounds for Review
165
2. Lack o f Related Judicial Interpretations........................................167
3. Lack o f Scholarly Interest................................................................ 169

II. A Close Analysis o f Grounds for Judicial Review o f Administrative Actions
m ie r the Laws o f Australia and V ietnam ..................................................................170
A. Australian Law and Grounds for Judicial Review o f Administrative
A ction...................................................................................................................170
1. Common Law, Judicial Review Acts and Grounds for Revievv
170
2. ‘Substantive Requirem ents’ Grounds for R eview ...................... 174
3. ‘Procedural Requirem ents’ Grounds for Revievv......................182
4. ‘Catch-AlP Grounds for R eview .................................................... 185
B. G rounds for Judicial Revievv o f Adm inistrative Action in the
V ietnam ese Legal C ontext................................................................................186
1. ‘Substantive Requirem ents’ Grounds for Revievv................... 187
2. ‘Procedural Requirem ents’ Grounds for R e v ie w ...................198
II. Im proving Vietnam ese Law In Relation to Grounds for Judicial Review o f
Aỉm inistrative A ction....................................................................................................203
A. Fram ew ork Legal Provisions for G rounds for R eview .........................203
1. General O bservation....................................................................... 203
2. What Grounds for Review Vietnam Should Not Adopt: the Case
o f ‘ Unreasonableness’.........................................................................204
B. Enhancing the Role o f the People’s Supreme Court in Making Judicial
Interpretations..................................................................................................... 206


c . Call for the Adoption o f a Doctrine o f P recedent...................................207
C onclusion...........................................................................................................................212
Chapter S ix: Powers o f Australian and V ietnam ese C ourts in Judicial Review of
Adm inistrative A ction..................................................................................................................214
Introduction.........................................................................................................................214
I. Povvers o f Australian and Vietnam ese Courts to Issue Final O rder o f
R eview .................................................................................................................................. 215

A. Com m on Principle U nderpinning Powers o f C ourts in Judicial Review
o f Adm inistrative A ction.................................................................................... 215
B. Povvers o f Australian Courts to Issue Final O rders o f Review:
O verlapping Classes o f R em edies....................................................................217
1. Orders Quashing or Setting aside D ecisions (C ertiorari)........221
2. Orders Restraining A dm inistrators (Prohibition and Injunction)
224
3. Orders Requiring A dm inistrators to Perform D uties (M andam us
and lts E quivalents)............................................................................... 225
4. Declaratory O rders............................................................................ 228
5. D am ages...............................................................................................229
c . Povvers o f Vietnam ese C ourts to Issue Final O rders o f R eview ......... 230
1. Some Historical Background to the Process o f D raữing the
O rdinance for Procedures R esolving A dm inistrative C ases........231
2. Judicial Interpretations o f the Suprem e People’s Court o f
V ietnam .................................................................................................... 233
3. Final Orders o f Review M ade by V ietnam ese C ourts..............235
II. Interim O rders o f Review under the Laws o f A ustralia and Vietnam:
Sim ilarities betvveen the Tw o S ystem s..........................................................................239
III. Exercise o f Jưdicial Discretion to G rant O rders o f R ev iew ............................. 243
A. Discretion o f Australian C ourts to G rant O rders o f R eview .............. 243


B. Vietnamese Courts and Discretionary Povvers to Issue Orders of
Review: Should Vietnamese Courts Be Vested with the Discretion to
Grant Final Orders o f Review?........................................................................247
C onclusion........................................................................................................................ 252
ChiPter Seven: Towards a W ell-Functioning Adm inistrative Review System in
Vienam : Proposed R eíorm ....................................................................................................253
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 253

I. Current Channels o f Resolutions for Adm inistrative Disputes in Vietnam:
Revealing the Shortcom ings......................................................................................... 256
A. Resolving Complaints and Denunciations: the Question o f Reliability
256
B. Judicial Revievv o f Administrative Action in Vietnam: Continuing
Lim itations.......................................................................................................... 261
1. Public Avvareness o f Judicial Review o f Administrative Action

262
2. Legal C onstraints............................................................................... 265
3. Eníbrcement o f Administrative Judgm ents.................................. 271
4. Dependence o f Local Courts on Local Govemments: the
Question o f Judicial Indcpcndence.....................................................274
5. Administrative Judges: the Question o f Expertise..................... 277
II. Enhancing the Effectiveness o f Adm inistrative Adjudication o f Vietnamese
Courts: Several Proposals................................................................................................280
A. Restructuring V ietnam ’s Court System: the M odel o f Regional Courts

280
1. Initial Ideas o f the M odel.................................................................280
2. Dilem m a.............................................................................................. 282
B.

Expanding

the

Scope o f Judicially

Reviewable

Administrative

Decisions: Choosing an Appropriate Way for the Current Vietnamese
C ontext..................................................................................................................285
c.

Am endment o f Some

Procedural

Legal

Provisions:

a Careful

C onsideration....................................................................................................... 289


III. A Model o f Administrative Tribunals in Vietnam: Some Australian Ideas..291
A. Vietnam ese Administrative Tribunals: Some Initial Ideas..................292
B. Vietnam ese Administrative Tribunals: a Justification for the Proposal
294
c . Specialist Administrative Tribunals in Vietnam: the Case o f a Proposed
Model o f Land Tribunals (co quan tai phan ve dat d ai)...........................298
1. A Promising Proposal..................................................................... 298
2. Potential Challenges....................................................................... 302
C onclusion........................................................................................................................ 305
Gentral C on clusion....................................................................................................................307

I. U nderstanding the Context: Rịrming the Vietnamese Administrative Revievv
System in the Vietnam ese C onditions.........................................................................307
II. Proposed

Rịrm s o f the Vietnamese Adm inistrative Revievv System:

A dopting Australian Ideas Given the Vietnamese C onditions.............................. 309
1. M odel o f Vietnamese Administrative Adjudicative Bodies: Courts and
M erits Review Tribunals..................................................................................310
2. G radually Extending the Scope o f Judicially Reviewable
Adm inistrative Action: an Appropriate Solution for V ietnam .................310
3. A dopting Detailed Rules Relating to the Judicial Review o f
A dm inistrative Action: What Could Australian Experience Suggest to
V ietnam ese Law -M akers?................................................................................311
III. C onstructing a W ell-Functioning Adm inistrative Review System in Vietnam:
Challenges and Prospects.............................................................................................. 311
B ib lig r a p h y ..................................................................................................................................315


ACKNOVVLEDGEMENTS

r0 complete this thesis, I owe a great deal o f debts o f gratitude to many people and

orginisations.
would like to thank Hanoi Law University, where I work, and the Government o f
Vienam for providing me with such an excellent opportunity to study in Australia. My
speũal thanks go to the Law School and the Faculty o f Law and M anagem ent o f La
Trcbe University for their generous fínancial support for my outside research in Vietnam,
mytravel for conference, and my tuition fees and living expenses for the fmal year o f my
PhD candidature. W ithout such a kind support, I would not

be able to complete this

theìis. I also would like to thank the Asian Studies Association o f Australia (ASAA),

the

International Centre o f Excellence in Asia-Pacific Studies (ICEAPS) at the Autralian
Naicnal University (ANU) and the Asian Law Centre (ALC) at the University of
Mdbourne for providing me with opportunities to present my work.
I ovve a particular debt o f gratitude to my supervisors, Associate Proíessor, Dr.
Sptrner Zifcak and Associate Professor, Dr. Roger Neil Douglas who spent a great deal
oftim e, energy and patience in helping me to clariíy issues and shape ideas, reading
vaiicus earlier draíts o f my thesis, and giving me insightful comm ents. This thesis would
RSĩe' havc been completed without their valuable support.
Ny deep gratitude goes to my family: my parents in Vietnam who always look
foiwưd to hearing from me during the last four years; my wife Hoang Ly Anh and my
litllegirl Bong who had two lonely years in Vietnam while I was in Australia for the íìrst
two /ears o f PhD candidature and lost many weekends and holidays in Australia due to
mv fĩnal busy academic years; and my bothers and sisters in Vietnam who have
co isantly encouraged me with their interest in my study progress.
Deep thanks also go to Robyn Thomas and Gabi Duigu, who have helped me improve
mv ỉnglish expression in the course o f writing this thesis.
I am grateíul to my ữiends, colleagues and many other
Vietiam w ho in various ways help me complete this thesis.

people in A ustralia and


ABSTRACT

This thesis is a critical comparative study o f the system s o f review o f adm inistrative
a:tion by courts and tribunals in the Australian and V ietnam ese jurisdictÌ 0 ns. Its purpose
i to determine the feasibility and desirability o f applying A ustralian legal experience in
■'ietnamese conditions. It examines the law and legal institutions o f both countries with
rg ard to the subject m atter o f administrative law in order to m ake com parisons and,
nore importantly, to draw on Australian experiences which m ay be relevant to V ietnam ’s
lígal rịrm. It focuses on four related themes, nam ely, the m odels o f adjudicative
b d ies, the scope o f judicially revievvable administrative actions, the grounds for review
aid the povvers o f courts in the Australian and

V ietnam ese jurisdictions. This

om parative analysis establishes the basis for a num ber o f proposals for im provem ents in
tie judicial review m echanism and for the adoption o f a m odel o f adm inistrative tribunaís
ii Vietnam. The thesis argues that the key to a sensitive and accurate com parative law
sudy is the ‘law in context’ approach, based on vvhich proposals can be made that are
basible and desirable in the Vietnamese conditions. It then concludes that while
AUStralian

experience may offer Vietnam some ideas about how to reíorm

its

ídministrative law system, if the reíbrm is to be effective it needs to be carried out
ịradually, consistent with the Vietnamese context.

X

T A B B L E O F A B B R E V IA T IO N S
Theftlỉow ing abbreviations appear in the main text and/or íbotnotes o f this thesis. Most
are ípelled out in full or otherw ise explained when they are ĩirst mentioned.

Staies and O rg a n isa tio n s
AAĨ: Adm inistrative A ppeals Tribunal
ACT: Australian Capital Territory
AD3: Asian Developm ent Bank
ADĨ: Adm inistrative Decisions Tribunal
ARC: Adm inistrative Review Council
ARĨ: Adm inistrative Review Tribunal
AusAiD: Australian G ovem m ent’s Overseas Aid Program
CPV:Communist Party o f Vietnam
CSLJ Council for Selecting Local Judges (Vietnam )
DRV Democratic Republic o f Vietnam
FC:Fìderal Court o f A ustralia
FMC Federal M agistrates Court
GATT: General A greem ent on Tariffs and Trade
H 0 líigh Court o f A ustralia
IMf: International M onetary Fund
NíNRE: M inistry o f N atural Resources and Environm ent (Bo Tai nguyen va M oi truong,
Vietram)
MRT M igration R eview Tribunal
NSW N ew South W ales
NSWGT: New South W ales G uardianship Tribưnal
NT: llorthem Territory
PAR Public A dm inistration Rịrm
PRC People’s R epublic o f China.
Qld: ^ueensland
RRT Refugee Review Tribunal

SA: íouth Australia
SRV Socialist Republic o f Vietnam
SSA": Social Security A ppeals Tribunal
UNEP: United N ations D evelopm ent Program m e
USS(: The Union o f Soviet Socialist Republics


VCAT: Victorian Civil and Adm inistrative Tribunal
V F f: Vietnam Fatherland Front
Vic: Victoria
VRB: Veterans Review Board
WA: Western Australia
WTO: World Trade Organisation
UK: United Kingdom
US: United States o f Am erica
Laws
AAT Act: Adm inistrative Appeals Tribunal A ct 1975 (Cth).
A DJR Act: Adm inistrative D ecisions (Judicial Review) A cí 1975 (Cth).
BTA: 3ilateral Trade Agreem ent.
FOI A;t: Freedom o f In/orm ation A ct 1982 (Cth).
JR Ac:: Judicial Review Act.


ST A T E M E N T O F A U T H O R S H IP

Excejt where reference is made in the text o f the thesis, this thesis contains no material
publiihed elsew here or extracted in whole or in part from a thesis by which I have
qualiĩed for or been awarded another degree or diplom a.
No oher person’s work has been used without due acknow ledgem ent in the main text o f
the ữesis.

This thesis has not been subm itted for avvard o f any degree or diplom a in other
institition.

Signed:

......

Date ....... Ộ L L M .

MCTUi}tŨ}...U^N 61u MU [ĩ
0 1 ........................


Sope initiaỉ iđeas in relation to this thesis were published in:
1. Quang, Nguyen Van (2006). A M odel o f A dm inistrative Tribunals for Vietnam?
In The Developm ent o f Law in Asia: Convergence versus Divergence, 2, pp. 526544. Shanghai: East China University o f Politics and Law.
Symposium: ASLI Conference.
2. Nguyen, Quang. 2004. 'The O rganisation and O peration o f Adm inistrative Courts
in Vietnam .' In: Cribb, Robert (ed). 2004. A sia Examined: Proceedings o f the
15th Biennial Conference o f the ASAA, 2004, Canberra, Australia. Canberra:
Asian Studies Association o f A ustralia (ASAA) & Research School o f Paciíic and
Asian Studies (RSPAS), The Australian National University. ISBN 0-9580837-11.

coom bs.anu.edu.au/SpecialProj/A SA A /biennial-

conference/2004/proceedings.htm l.
3

Nguyen Van Quang, ‘On G rounds for Judicial review o f Administrative Action’
(2004) 4 Tap chi Luat Hoc (Jurisprudence Revievv), Hanoi, Vietnam [in

V ietnam ese language].

4.

N guyen Van Quang, A dm inistrative Pre-trial Period and the Issue o f Ensuring
Individuals and O rganisations to Initiate A ctions (2002) 5 Tap chi Luat Hoc
(Jurisprudence Revievv), Hanoi, Vietnam [in V ietnam ese language].

5. N guyen Van Quang, Som e Main Points about Solving Adm inistrative Disputes in
A ustralia [in Vietnam ese language] (2001) 3 Tap chi Luat Hoc Ợurisprudence
Review), Hanoi, Vietnam [in Vietnam ese language].
í. N guyen Van Quang, ‘Povvers o f the People’s C ourts in Solving Administrative
Cases

through

First-instance

Procedure’

(2001)

6

Tap

chi

Luat

Hoc

(Jurisprudence Revievv), Hanoi, Vietnam [in V ietnam ese language].

Sctre initial ideas in relation to this thesis also were presented at:

. Vietnam Studies Sum m er School, Research School o f Asia&Pacific Studies, the
Aưstralian National U niversity, January 31 - February 4, 2005.
I.

ALC Brovvn Bag Sem inar, Asian Law Centre, The University o f Melboume, 18
M ay 2005.

xiv


IN T R O D U C T IO N

l.

Introducing A dm inistrative Law Jurisdỉction to V ietnam ’s People’s Courts:

Issuei and Problem s
Eítablishing channels for the extemal review o f administrative action, including
reviev by courts and tribunals, has become a w orldw ide phenom enon.1 In Vietnam,
since 1 July 1996, the people’s courts have had jurisdiction to hear administrative cases.
On the same day the Ordinance on Procedures for Resolving Adm inistrative Cases (Phap
lenh fhu tuc giai quyet cac vu an hanh chinh) officially came into force to facilitate
proceedings against govem m ent actions in court. The granting o f administrative law
jurisciction to the people’s courts marked the establishm ent o f a channel for judicial

revie^ o f adm inistrative action in Vietnam vvhere, previously, complaints about
administrative actions could usually be resolved only via the intemal revievv system
which Dperated w ithin each govemm ent department. Thus, the introduction of judicia!
review o f adm inistrative action in Vietnam must be regarded as a m ajor effort by the
Vietriaưiese govem m ent to create a set o f tools for protecting the legitimate rights and
intercsis o f individuals and organizations, ensuring the accountability o f administrators,
promoting the process o f democratizing all aspects o f social life, and above all
constricting a rule o f law State. This also indicates that the doi moi (renovation) policy
vvhich was initiated by the Com m unist Party o f Vietnam (CPV) in 1986 has brought to
this country not only impressive achievements in econom ic development, but also
importint reíbrm s o f political and legal institutions.
Deipite V ietnam ’s efforts to íịrmally introduce laws and legal institutions relating to
judiciá review o f adm inistrative action into its legal system in order to exempliíy the
goals the inidequacies o f related legal and institutional fram eworks. This manifests itself in
lim itatons o f the court structure and in the Iegal constraints vvhich negatively affect the
resoluion o f adm inistrative law cases. Typical exam ples are the lack o f judicial
indepeidence o f courts, especially o f local courts, the limited scope of judicially
revievable adm inistrative actions, and the lack o f detailed legal rules facilitating the
proces o fju d ic ia l review o f administrative action.

1 S ee d Smith, Harry W o o lf and Jeffrey JoweII, Judicial R eview o f A dm inistrative Action (5lh ed,1995), 5-

6.

1


]f Vetnam is to becom e a rule o f law State, much work will be required to deal with
overconing those inadequacies. This task has become urgent in the context o f integration

and glcbalisation, especially since Vietnam ’s W TO accession, which was officially
recogni:ed on 11 January 2007. Within the WTO fram ework Vietnam has committed
itself to improving its legal system so to be consistent with the W TO requirements, one
o f whici is to raise the effectiveness o f the administrative review system. Indeed, for the
last fev years V ietnam ese law reformers have made attempts to improve their legal
environnent to respond to the requirements o f international integration. This has been
evidenced in some recent developments o f the laws and legal institutions relating to the
channes e f review ing administrative actions. Such developments, notably, are the
enactmỉnt o f a new version o f the Law on Complaints and Denunciations (Luat Khieu
nai, To cao) for raising the effectiveness o f the internal review mechanism, the gradual
extensbn o f judicially reviewable administrative actions and several proposals for
restruciurirg the court system and adopting a model o f adm inistrative tribunals.
Thtre iỉ a political and socio-economic impetus for these recent dynamic reíbrms of
the Vietnanese adm inistrative review system. The rịrm process has been strongly
suppored by the Com m unist Party o f Vietnam as ‘the force leading the State and
society’.2 At the sam e tim e, the socio-economic developm ent o f Vietnam in recent years3
has also led to changing attitudes to non-material values such as ‘legality o f treatm ent’
and ‘íaimtss or correctness o f treatm ent’, and to a growing vvillingness to pay the cost of
institutìoní.4 How ever, while the issue o f whether these recent developments have been
proven to be appropriate for adopting a well-functioning administrative review system
needs ìo bi exam ined, it remains clear that further signiíìcant steps need to be taken to

2 The Consltution 1992 o f Vietnam, article 4. The political support for reíorm o f the Vietnamese revievv
admiruisiratre system is reílected in Nghi quyet so 08-N Q/TW cua Bo Chình tri ve mo! so nhiem vu trong
tam CUIC con; ta c tu p h a p tro n g thoi gian toi [Trans: Resolution o f the Political Bureau N o 08-NQ/TW on
Som e Judicál Principal Tasks for the Forthcoming Period], and Nghi quyel so 49-N Q /TW ngay 02-6-2005
cua Bìo Chiìh tri ve "C hien luoc ca i cach tu ph ap den nam 2 0 2 0 " [Trans: Resolution o f the Political
Bureaiu No “9-N Q /T W on “ Strategy for Judicial Reform by the Year 2020 ’ ’].

3 In recen tyars Vietnam has demonstrated impressive achievem ents in econom ic development. According

to staitisticsfrom the International Monetary Fund (IMF), annual percentage growth in

real GDP in

Vietniam in2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 respectively was 6.9, 7.1, 7.3, 7.8, and 8.4 (see IMF,
Vietnưim: S ttic a l A ppen dix, Country Report N o .06/423
< httpi:/'ww/.im f.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2006/cr06423.pdf > at 15 January 2007).

4 See: Asia D evelopm ent Bank (A D B ), Vie: G overnance A ssessm ent with Focus on PAR an d AntiCornuptiửn (2 0 0 5 ),

15-28

< z/Documents/Reports/CGA/CGA-VIE-2005.pdf> at 30

Januair>' 20(7.
2


irm nve the legal and institutional frameworks for reviewing administrative actions in
Viỉtnam.
Cbviously it is unrealistic to expect the immediate adoption in Vietnam o f a judicial
re’iew system like that o f Western countries, where fundamental values like ‘rule of
lav’ ‘separation o f pow ers’, ‘civil society’, ‘good governance’ and ‘accountability’ have
b en developed over a long period o f time. It has to be recognized that in comparison
wi:h developed countries like Australia, or with a transitional country like China,
ađnnistrative adjudication

is new to V ietnanvs court system. Thus it is quite

urdírstandable that the Vietnamese legal and institutional frameworks relating to judicial

re/icw o f adm inistrative action still need to be improved. M oreover, one can understand
Wtythe inadequacies o f V ietnam ’s administrative revievv system still exist, in the context
oi í legal system in transition, shaped by a range o f distinctive ideological, sociopoliical, econom ic and cultural features.

]I. R eform ing the Current System o f Review o f Adm inistrative Actions in
VieTiam: ‘Com parative L aw ’ as a Tool of Legal Reform
leform ing V ietnam ’s legal system in general and its adm inistrative revievv system in
Pirtcular is, as in most transitional countries, a long process which requires much
eiidỉavour in seeking ways that are appropriate for the local conditions. This is a very
diffcult task for V ietnam ese law reformers. To fulfill this task, it is suggested that
‘conparative lavv’ m ay serve as a tool that could help !aw reíbrm ers to find solutions to
ther problem s through leam ing from ĩoreign legal experience. Although there are still
oppsing viev/points on the viability o f legal borrowing, and debates about how to
suc;essfully transplant law remain inconclusive, it is undeniable that borrovving íịreign
leg:l experience has becom e a practical method that is com m only used by law rịrmers,
espcially by those o f developing countries, for reform ing their legal system .5 This
apịroach is particularly emphasised in the context o f integration and globlisation, as
Neken has put it:
Borrovving other peop le’s law is seen as just a method o f the speeding up the process o f fìnding legal
solutions to similar problems - a process being encouraged all the more by pressures tovvards
convergence brought about by globalisation.6

5 Se Andrew Harding and Esin Ởriicỉl, 'Preface' in Andrew Harding and Esin ỐrticU (eds), Comparative
La' in the 2 1 sí C entury (2002) vii, ix.

6 Eivid N elk en , 'Legal Transplants and beyond: o f D isciplines and Metaphors' in Andrew Harding and
E si ỒrOcU (ed s), C om parative Law in the 2 ls t Century (2002) 19, 26-7.
3

n fact, during the course o f preparation for the establishm ent o f administrative law
juridiction o f the people’s courts, Vietnamese law-makers have inquired into how
fortign models could benìt them by suggesting relevant solutions to Vietnamese
pro>lems. To improve the ỉaws and legal institutions relating to the system o f reviewing
adninistrative actions, studying íịreign legal experience remains a promising tool, since
it (Ould point to the way in which Vietnamese law reformers should deal with the
inalequacies o f the system, consistent with Vietnamese conditions. This is the reason
wh/ this thesis seeks to draw on those Australian legal experiences which are meaningful
to he process o f reíbrm ing the Vietnamese administrative review system. This objective
wil be pursued by conducting a critical comparative study o f the laws and legal
inSitutions o f Australia and Vietnam relating to the review o f administrative actions by
coirts and tribunals. The main themes o f comparison will be the models o f
adninistrative adjudicative bodies, the scope o f judicially revievvable administrative
acions, the grounds for review, and the powers o f courts in judicial review o f
adninistrative action. These topics are relevant to this comparative study not only
bec&use they are amongst the main elements of an institutional and legal framework for
review o f adm inistrative action by courts and tribunals, but also because they point to
iracequacies in the system o f reviewing administrative actions which Vietnamese law
refcrmers need to overcome.

III. W hy the Australian M odel?
W hile it is assum ed that ‘comparative law ’ can serve as a tool for legal reíbrm, the
quỄStion that needs to be raised for Vietnamese adm inistrative law reformers is w hy the

Auitralian modei is worthwhile Consulting.
There are grounds for acknovvledging that the introduction o f ‘New Adm inistrative
Lav’ in the 1970s (based largely on the recom mendations o f the Kerr Com m ittee Report)
ha! brought about impressive changes to the Australian adm inistrative law system in
geieral, and that o f the Australian administrative revievv system in particular. The
rebrm s o f the 1970s have made Australian administrative law distinct from the

ađninistrative law o f other common law countries, including England.7 It has been

íee Justice Garry D ow nes AM, 'The Im plementation o f the A dm inistrative C ourts' D ecisions' (Speech
deivered to the International Association o f Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions v m th

Madrid Spain

2628 April 2004)
<lttp://www.aat.gov.au/SpeechesPapersAndResearch/speeches/downes/im plem entation.htm > at 30 July
2(06.


clained that Australian adm inistrative law, vvhich is now m ainly shaped by statutes, is
‘oní o f the most com prehensive system s o f adm inistrative law in the w orld’.8 This is
marifested by the presence o f a cohesive and integrated system

for reviewing

adrrinistrative action, in which the developm ent o f the system o f adm inistrative merits
revisvv tribunals has been a significant achievem ent. The A ustralian administrative
revew svstem , as Justice Deidre O ' C onnor has claim ed, is ‘in m any ways, an example
o f v o r ld 's best p ra ctice’.9

M oreover, changes to the Australian adm inistrative law system m ight also serve as a
good exam ple o f reform ing laws and legal institutions with the assistance o f studying
foreign m odels. This is because the recom m endations o f the K err C om m ittee Report on
how to rịrm the Australian administrative law system w ere also made by taking
acMunt o f the experience o f the adm inistrative law system s o f the UK, the u s , New
Zedand and France.10 Subsequent reíbrm s o f the A ustralian adm inistrative law system
ha\e also reílected the effectiveness o f borrow ing from such overseas experience.

As a result, in recent years, the developm ents o f the A ustralian adm inistrative law
System ‘have attracted intem ational attention and em ulation’ from both developed and
develooing

co untries."

For

example,

in

N ovem ber

2005

the

D epartm ent

for

Coastkutional Affairs o f the UK released a research report by T revor Buck showing the
UK’s interest in the distinctive reíbrm s o f the A ustralian adm inistrative justice system .12
Seversl countries in Southeast Asia, such as Thailand and Indonesia, have also been keen
to

stid y

the

A ustralian

adm inistrative

law

system ,

especially

the

Australian

8 R obinC reyke and John M cM illan, T h e Operation o f Judicial R eview in Austraỉia’ in Marc Hertogh and
Simon H alliday (eds), J u d icia l Review a n d B ureaucratic Im pact: In tern ation al a n d Interdisciplinary
P erspetlives (20 0 4 ) 161, 162.

9 See Jist:ice Deidre O ’ Connor, A dm inistrative D ecision -M aker in A u stralia: the S earch f o r Best Practice,
Paper leBivered to 2 nd International Conference on Administrative Justice, Q uebec, 17-20 June 2001
< http:/w'vvw.aat.gov.au/SpeechesPapersAndResearch/SDeeches/oconnor/adm inistrative.htm>

at

30

July

2006.

10 See Com m om vealth Adm inistrative R eview Committee, R eport (1 9 7 1 ) (the Kerr Com m ittee Report),
Chaptes 6, 7, 8 and 9.

" Robn C revk e and John M cM illan, above n 5, 162.

12 Seeĩtrevor Buck, A dm in istrative Justice a n d A lternative D ispute R esolution: the A ustralian Experience
(2005)< http://w w w .dca.gov.U k/research/20Q 5/8 2005 fu ll.p d f> at 31 July 2006.

5


adrrnistrative review model, in order to consider relevant experiences that may be useíul
for ne reform o f their system s.13
'he above practice has suggested that studying the A ustralian adm inistrative revievv
migit well provide Vietnam ese law reíbrm ers with useful lessons to help them to deal
witl the inadequacies o f the V ietnam ese adm inistrative revievv system . This proposition
hasbeen recently encouraged by the proposal from the M inistry for Environm ent and
Natiral Resources o f Vietnam to establish Iand tribunals, vvhich functionally resemble
Auíralian specialist m erits tribunals.
t is, hovvever, noted that it has not been an easy task for law reíbrm ers to successfully
borow from foreign legal experience, even if the borrow ing process is entirely
volintary. This thesis wiil exam ine w hether and how far this would be the case if it is
proosed that A ustralian legal experience is adopted in Vietnam . N otably, while the
Au.tralian model m ight work quite well under A ustralian political, legal, social,
ecơiomic and cultural conditions, this does not guarantee that it vvould w ork effectively
in tie Vietnam ese conditions. M oreover, even if it is assum ed that the A ustralian system
is an exam ple o f w orld’s best practice’, this system also has its own problem s and
reqiires Australian rịrm ers to continue to put efforts into reĩorm ing their system. Thus,
thi: thesis will argue that appropriate proposals suggested by the A ustralian experience to
Vittĩỉamese reíbrm ers can only be drawn from a critical com parative study and that the

‘lav in context’ approach is the key to the m aking o f such a study.
It should be noted that the com parative study in this thesis m ainly íbcuses on the
Aist*alian and V ietnam ese jurisdictions. Hovvever, at tim es, the related lavvs and
pnctices o f C hina are also reíerred to as an exam ple o f the legal developm ent o f a
coỉitry in transition which has socio-political, legal and cultural conditions sim ilar to
thcse o f Vietnam. Since China has taken up reform o f its legal system som ew hat earlier
thín Vietnam has, Chinese experience in relation to the adoption o f W estem legal ideas
rmy also suggest steps which V ietnam ese law reform ers should follow for a successful
relòim process.

13 Sẽ! Justice Garry D ow n es AM , ‘A u stralian a n d Thailand C o m p a ra tive A d m in istra tive L ơ w ', Thailand A istalia Mature Administrative Law Program V isit to A usừ alia by Professor Dr Ackaratom Chularat
Prcsilent o f the Supreme Adm inistrative Court and Other Judges and Court O fficials, Sydney 5 February
20)7
< tetp//www. aat.jJov.au/SpeechesPapersAndResearch/speeches/downes/pdf/Com parativeAdm inistrativeLa
wFelruav2007.pdf > at 28 February 2007; C h ief Justice HR Soerjono, 'O pening Address at Seminar' in
Rcbi\ Creyke, Julian D isney and John M acM illan (eds), A spects o f A d m in istra tive Revie\v in A ustralia and
ln io ie s ia , Australia-Indonesia Legal Seminar Series (1996) 3, 3-5.
6


I/. Thesis Structure
Tiis thesis is a critical com parative analysis in vvhich the main problem s that Vietnam
is cciữonting in establishing its institutional and legal schem es for an effective channel
o fjiiic ia l review o f adm inistrative action will be identiíìed, and A ustralian experiences
thatihoưld (or should not) be adopted given V ietnam ese conditions will be examined. It
alsovvill consider potential challenges that Vietnam would face in the course o f adopting
the >roposed reforms. In pursuing these research tasks the follow ing issues will be
discissed in this thesis:
(hapter One provides a discussion o f the theoretical fram ew ork o f ‘com parative law’
and ts utility in practice, in order to justify the assum ption that the ‘com parative law ’

apppach can assist law reform ers to draw experiences from íbreign legal system s that
maybe m eaningĩul to reĩorm ing their own legal system .
(hapter Tw o offers an analysis o f the historical and constitutional backgrounds o f the
admnistrative review system s o f A ustralia and V ietnam , thus establishing the basis for
lateicom parative discussions in the follow ing chapters. It focuses m ainly on historical,
ideoogical, political and legal factors affecting the developm ent and operation o f the
admnistrative review system s in both jurisdictions.
"he follow ing four chapters undertake four com parative analyses o f particular themes
In fea ter detail in relation to the institutional and legal fram ew orks for the review o f
adrrinistrative action by courts and tribunals in the A ustralian and Vietnam ese
juriídictions.
ìhapter Three deals with the m odels o f adm inistrative adịudicative bodies in
Ausralia and Vietnam, proviđing A ustralian-V ietnam ese com parisons that lay the basis
for aising several issues in relation to the restructuring o f the V ietnam ese adm inistrative
adjidicative bodies.
Chapter Four speciíìcally discusses the scope o f judicially review able adm inistrative
acti>ns under the laws o f A ustralia and Vietnam , pointing out lim itations o f the law o f
Vỉenam in this respect and raising the question o f how and to w hat extent those
limtations should be overcom e by m eans o f suggested A ustralian approaches,
3hapters Five and Six offer an extensive com parative analysis o f the laws of
A uíralia and Vietnam regarding grounds for review and the povvers o f courts in the
judciil review o f adm inistrative action, in vvhich problem s associated with the law o f
V iem m in these aspects are identiíied.

7


Chipter Five argues that while the lack o f V ietnam ese legal rules detailing grounds
for re'iew can be simply dealt vvith by technically borrow ing Australian rules, serious
consiceration should also be given to exam ining vvhether there are Australian legal rules

in ths regard which should not be adopted, given

Vietnam ese conditions. The

‘unre;sonableness’ rule is discussed in greater detail in this Chapter to support this
argunent.
It is argued in Chapter Six that although several com m only accepted principles
undenying judicial review o f adm inistrative action have been adopted in the law of
Vietram, the Vietnam ese legal ĩramevvork for judicial review o f administrative action is
still teing developed. The com parative analysis in C hapter Six illustrates this argument
and Ễxanines hovv far the Australian experience may suggest ideas for improving its
legal fhm ew ork in this regard to V ietnam ’s lawmakers. In particular, it contends that in
the Círrent Vietnam ese legal context ií would not be practical to introduce to Vietnamese
court; ihe discretion which exists in Australia, to decline to m ake orders o f revievv even
w her ilegality has been established.
Q upter Seven is concerned with some proposed reform s for the Vietnamese
adminiitrative revievv system which are m ainly dravvn from this critical comparative
stud). \ coherent picture o f the current system o f resolution for adm inistrative disputes

in Vienam is íìrst provided in this Chapter. This is follow ed by an analysis o f sevcral
p r o p o sìd

rbrm s and the potential challenges, both theoretical and practical, that

Vietnan vvould face in the course o f such refonn. This analysis illustrates the argument
that vvũle the Australian experience may offer Vietnam som e ideas about how to reform
its adninistrative law system, if the reform is to be effective it needs to be caưied out
gradudly, consistent with V ietnam ese conditions.

C H A PT E R O N E

M E T H O D O L O G IC A L ISSUES: C O M P A R A T IV E L A W AND
L E G A L T R A N S PL A N T A T IO N

]ntroduction
ĩTis study exam ines the review o f administrative action by courts and tribunals in
Auđnlia and Vietnam for the purposes o f determining the feasibility and desirability o f
appyng the Australian legal experience in Vietnamese conditions. The study has
reqiiiec the researcher to examine the law and legal institutions o f both countries with
regirú to the subject matter o f administrative law jurisdiction, in order to make
compìrsons, and m ore importantly, to draw on Australian experiences which may be
relm n to V ietnam ’s legal reíbrm process. The comparative method (in this case the
cornpintive law m ethod) has obviously had to be a key tool for conducting this research.
Mocem com parative law was born in 1900 when the íĩrst International Congress o f
Compa-ative Law w as held in Paris.1 As a m ethodology, com parative law has been
regardei as One which is ‘still at the experimental stage’.2 Hovvever, comparative lawyers
have ytt to agree on what comparative law entails, on the methods to be used in the
maiciig o f com parisons, and on the insights which can be drawn from the making of
compaũsons. In relation to the utility o f comparative law as a tool o f law rịrm, there is
contimed debate about the practicability o f legal transplants.3 While supporters o f legal
transohnts assume that íịreign laws and legal institutions can be transplanted, this, as we
shall ste, is a proposition with which some still disagrees. Consequently, it is necessary

1 See Peer De Cruz, C om parative Law in a Changing W orld (1995), 14. For a discussion about the history
o f comprative law, see Konrad Zweigert and Hein Kotz, An Inlroduction to C om parative Law (3rd rev.ed,
1998 , Q- 62.
2 Korrai Zweigert and Hein Kotz, above n 1, 33.

3 The dbates about the role o f comparative law as a tool o f lavv reform are concem ed vvith the issue o f

legal trnsplants. The possibility o f the transplanting o f legal rules is discussed by several comparative
lawy?rí See, for exam ple, Orto Kahn-Freund, 'On Uses and M isuses o f Comparative Lavv' (1974) 37
Moderi Lcm R eview 1; Alan VVatson, 'Legal Transplants and Legal Reform' (1976) 92 Law Quarierly
Review79; Eric Stein, 'U ses, M isuses - and N onuses o f Comparative Lavv' (1977-1978) 72 North Western
Law Rvie\V 198; and

Pierre Legrand, 'The Impossibility o f 'Legal Transplants" (1997) 4 M aastricht

Jovrna o f European a n d C om parative Lmv 111. Watson is one o f the major advocates for legal transplants
vvhiU bgrand is one o f the comparative lawyers who argue that legal transplants are impossible.

9