No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 September 2022
International law has ruled out the application of the death penalty on drug offenses. Despite failure to meet the threshold to be categorised as one of the ‘most serious crimes’, the practice of capital punishment for drug offences in many parts of the world continues to dismay human rights activists and practitioners. This article aims to exhibit a dynamic view on drug offences under Vietnamese law. It contends that the nation's understanding of the severity of drug offences has witnessed incremental changes corresponding with international standards, although not completely compatible. Drawing on comparative scholarship, the article then moves on to ask whether there is any room left for the total abolition of capital punishment for drug offences. It suggests that Vietnam's incrementalism towards abolition has reached its bounds. Renovation in the understanding on the severity of drug crimes is very much needed to re-fuel the abolitionist movement in the country.
Research fellow, Institute of State and Law, Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences; PhD Candidate, University of Campania ‘Luigi Vanvitelli’, Italy. The authors would like to thank the Editors of the Asian Journal of Comparative Law and the anonymous reviewers for constructive and helpful comments on various drafts of this article. Special thanks to Mr. Shazny Ramlan for superb editing assistance, professionalism, and care.
Lecturer (LLM), Public International Law Division, Hanoi Law University.
1 Johnson, David & Zimring, Franklin, The Next Frontier: National Development, Political Change, and the Death Penalty in Asia (Oxford University Press 2008)Google Scholar.
2 See Amnesty International's annual global report series Death Sentences and Executions for the years 2015 (Amnesty International ‘Death Sentences and Executions Report 2015’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/3487/2016/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022); 2016 (Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2016’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/5740/2017/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022); 2017 (Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2017’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/7955/2018/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022); 2018 (Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2018’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/9870/2019/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022); 2019 (Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2019’ https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/1847/2020/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022) and 2020 (Amnesty International, ‘Death Sentences and Executions 2019’ <https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act50/3760/2021/en/> accessed 2 Jun 2022); Cornell Center on the Death Penalty Worldwide ‘Database’ <https://deathpenaltyworldwide.org/database/> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
3 Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) Regional Office for South-East Asia, ‘Drug-related Offenses, Criminal Justice Responses and the Use of the Death Penalty in South-East Asia’ (2018) <http://fileserver.idpc.net/library/drug-offences-death-penalty-in-south-east-asia.pdf> accessed 31 Jan 2022.
4 UN General Assembly, Moratorium on the use of the death penalty, 26 Feb 2020, A/C3/75/L41 <https://undocs.org/A/C.3/75/L.41> accessed 1 Feb 2022.
5 Sebastian Strangio, ‘Explaining southeast Asia's addiction to the Death Penalty’ (The Diplomat, 25 Nov 2020) <https://thediplomat.com/2020/11/explaining-southeast-asias-addiction-to-the-death-penalty/> accessed 1 Feb 2022.
6 For example, see the amendment made by Uruguay and Colombia (UN Doc A/C3/L644) during the drafting of the ICCPR as discussed in: UN General Assembly, ‘Agenda Item 33: Article 6 on the Draft Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (E/2573, Annex I B) (continued)’, UN Doc A/C3/SR814 (19 Nov 1957) <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/863164?ln=en> accessed 8 Jun 2022.
7 Schabas, William A, The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2002) 96CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Nowak, Manfred, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary (2nd rev edn, Engel 2005) 141Google Scholar.
9 Ministry of Home Affairs, ‘Singapore-The Death Penalty: A Hidden Toll of Executions’ (Press Release, 30 Jan 2004) <https://www.nas.gov.sg/archivesonline/speeches/record-details/77734712-115d-11e3-83d5-0050568939ad> accessed 7 Jul 2022.
10 UN General Assembly, ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee’, UN Doc A/44/40 (29 Sep 1989), 95 <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N89/229/15/IMG/N8922915.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 2 Jun 2022 (Bolivia's country report). See also ibid paras 507–508 (Mauritius’ country report).
11 See UN Human Rights Committee, ‘CCPR General Comment No 6: Article 6 (Right to Life)’ (30 Apr 1982) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/45388400a.html> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
12 See eg, UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding Observations, Sri Lanka’, CCPR/C/79/Add.56 (27 Jul 1995), para 14 <https://www.hr-dp.org/files/2014/03/07/Sri_Lanka-_1995.pdf> accessed 2 Jun 2022; UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding Observations, Thailand’, CCPR/CO/84/THA (8 Jul 2005), para 14 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/43f2ff76a.html>; see also UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Thailand’, CCPR/C/THA/CO/2 (25 Apr 2017), para 17 <https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/concluding-observations/ccprcthaco2-concluding-observations-second-periodic-report> accessed 2 Jun 2022. This view is also held by the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, who on several occasions reminded States that international law ‘requires that capital punishment for drug trafficking be abolished and that death sentences already imposed for drug trafficking be commuted to prison terms.’ See UN Human Rights Council, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston – Addendum’, A/HRC/11/2/Add1 (29 May 2009), 188 <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/136/62/PDF/G0913662.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 2 Jun 2022. In 2008, in their letter to the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs (the UN's drug policy-making body), the Special Rapporteurs on Torture and the Right to Health suggested that the ‘weight of opinion indicates clearly that drug offenses do not meet the threshold of “most serious crimes” to which the death penalty might lawfully be applied’. See ‘UN Human Rights Experts Call upon CND to Support Harm Reduction: Letter to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs from UN Special Rapporteurs’ (Human Rights Watch, 10 Dec 2008) <https://www.hrw.org/news/2008/12/10/un-human-rights-experts-call-upon-cnd-support-harm-reduction> accessed 5 Feb 2022.
13 See UN Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment no 36, Article 6 (Right to Life)’, CCPR/C/GC/35 (3 Sep 2019), para 35 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/5e5e75e04.html> accessed 5 Feb 2021.
14 ibid.
15 See generally Kavanagh v Governor of Mountjoy Prison [2001] IEHC 77. In that case, the High Court of Ireland suggested that the HRC's outputs have nothing more than the moral authority. Some commentators opine that the Committee's outputs are of recommendatory nature, see eg, McGoldrick, Dominic, The Human Rights Committee – Its Role in the Development of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Cambridge University Press 1991) 347Google Scholar; Mutua, Makau wa, ‘Looking Past the Human Rights Committee: An Argument for De-Marginalizing Enforcement’ (1998) 4 Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 231Google Scholar.
16 This view was advanced by the United States in its 2006 dialogue with the Human Rights Committee that ‘only the parties to a treaty were empowered to give a binding interpretation of its provisions.’ UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Summary Record of the 2380th Meeting: Consideration of Reports Under Article 40 of the Covenant: Second and third periodic reports of the United States of America’, UN Doc CCPR/C/SR2380 (27 Jul 2006), 8 <http://www.bayefsky.com/summary/usa_ccpr_c_sr_2380_2006.pdf> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
17 Legal legitimacy is distinct from normative legitimacy. While the former flows from a legal source, the latter is concerned with whether the contents of the General Comments are sufficiently persuasive to induce compliance. For further analysis, see Bodansky, Daniel, ‘The Legitimacy of International Governance: A Coming Challenge for International Environmental Law?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 596, 604CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Keller, Helen & Grover, Leena, ‘General Comments of the Human Rights Committee and their legitimacy’, in Keller, Helen & Ulfstein, Geir (eds), UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies: Law and Legitimacy (Cambridge University Press 2012) 127–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
19 Tobin, John, ‘Seeking to Persuade: A Constructive Approach to Human Rights Treaty Interpretation’ (2010) 23 Harvard Human Rights Journal 201, 204Google Scholar.
20 ibid 207.
21 It is axiomatic that the treaty-based bodies’ interpretation must meet certain quality requirements in order to attain normative legitimacy. Four criteria should be met include (1) the interpretation must be principled, (2) the body's reasoning must be clear, practical, and coherent, (3) they are consistent with obligations under international law, and (4) contextual sensitivity to each State and the international legal order. See Tobin (n 19).
22 Tobin (n 19) 207
23 Joseph Weiler, ‘Prolegomena to a Meso-theory of Treaty Interpretation at the Turn of the Century’ (Paper presented at the NYU Institute for International Law and Justice Legal Theory Colloquium ‘Interpretation and Judgment in International Law’, NYU Law School, 14 Feb 2008) 16, cited in Tobin (n 19) 209.
24 There is scant evidence in other international treaties to suggest drug offenses deserves to be regarded as ‘the most serious crimes’, those concerning international criminal law. As observed by William Schabas, ‘international crimes’ are so heinous that they touch upon the concerns of the international community. This category includes genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression, and shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). To be sure, during the drafting process of the Rome Statute, the backbone document of the ICC, there were various attempts to include drug offenses within the ICC's jurisdiction. However, such attempts failed to garner support from the international community, and its insertion was eventually set aside. This failure indicates a lack of consensus on the definition of drug offenses and their seriousness under international criminal law. See Schabas, William A, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press 2011) 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Further, State practice and laws on capital drug offenses are far from coherent and clear to produce a binding customary norm. The definition of drug offenses diverges considerably even in the legislation of retentionist countries. Rick Lines has concluded that the divergent thresholds for a capital drug offense in national legislations reflect the disagreement and incoherence among retentionist countries on whether drug offenses are indeed of the most serious nature. This suggests a lack of general consensus at best, and arbitrariness at worst, in the making of drug laws and policies at the national level. See Rick Lines, ‘A “Most Serious Crime?” – The Death Penalty for Drug Offenses and International Human Rights Law’ (2010) 21 Amicus Journal 21.
25 Sidney Harring, ‘Death, Drugs and Development: Malaysia's Mandatory Death Penalty for Traffickers and the International War on Drugs’ (1991) 29 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 365–401.
26 Lynch, Colman, ‘Indonesia's Use of Capital Punishment for Drug Trafficking Crimes: Legal Obligations, Extralegal Factors, and the Bali Nine Case’ (2009) 40 Columbia Human Rights Law Review 523, 523–527Google Scholar. See also International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1994 (United Nations 1995).
27 Michael Hor, ‘Misuse of Drugs and Aberrations in the Criminal Law’ (2001) 13 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 54.
28 UN General Assembly, ‘Moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/62/149 (18 Dec 2007) <https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/62/149> accessed 1 Feb 2022.
29 See UN General Assembly, ‘Moratorium on the use of the death penalty: Report of the Secretary-General’, A/73/260 (27 Jul 2018) para 60. See also UN Human Rights Council, ‘Question of the death penalty: Report of the Secretary-General’, A/HRC/33/20 (12 Jul 2016) para 62; UN General Assembly, ‘Moratorium on the use of the death penalty’, A/RES/71/187 (19 Dec 2016) (see seventh preambular paragraph); Roger G Hood, The Question of the Death Penalty and the New Contributions of the Criminal Sciences to the Matter: A Report to the United Nations Committee on Crime Prevention and Control (UN Committee on Crime Prevention and Control 1988).
30 Hood, Roger & Hoyle, Carolyn, The Death Penalty: A Worldwide Perspective (Oxford University Press 2008) 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
31 John Gillespie, ‘Changing Concepts of Socialist Law in Vietnam’, in John Gillespie & Pip Nicholson (eds), Asian Socialism Legal Change: The Dynamics of Vietnamese and Chinese Reforms (Australian National University Press 2005); Maria Łoś, Communist Ideology, Law and Crime: A Comparative View of the USSR and Poland (Macmillan Press 1988).
32 Tran Kien & Vu Cong Giao, ‘The Changing Nature of Death Penalty in Vietnam: A Historical and Legal Inquiry’ (2019) 9 Societies 7.
33 John Quigley, ‘Vietnam at a Legal Crossroads Adopts a Penal Code’ (1988) 36 American Journal Comparative Law 351; Phuong-Khanh T Nguyen, ‘The Criminal Code of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam’ (1987) 13 Review of Socialist Law 103, 103–105.
34 In the 1985 Criminal Code, the death penalty was provided in 29 articles, making up for 15% out of the total 195 articles on crimes. However, after four amendments (1989, 1991, 1992, and 1997), the number of articles providing for the death penalty under the 1985 Criminal Code had grown considerably.
35 John Quigley, ‘Vietnam's First Modern Penal Code’ (1988) 9 Journal of International Comparative Law 143.
36 Hoa Phuong T Nguyen & Gregory L Rose, ‘Criminalization of Drug Trafficking in Vietnam: Developments and Challenges’ (2016) 29 Columbia Journal of Asian Law 146.
37 Tran & Vu (n 32) 1–5.
38 Tim Lindsey & Pip Nicholson, Drugs Law and Legal Practice in Southeast Asia: Indonesia, Singapore and Vietnam (Bloomsbury Publishing 2016) 272; See also Daniel Pascoe, ‘Explaining Death Penalty Clemency in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam from 1986 to 2015’ (2016) 10 Vienna Journal on International Constitutional Law 165. Pascoe argues that since the Đổi Mới reforms in 1986 the Executive has shown willingness to reprieve a large minority of prisoners sentenced to death through Presidential clemency, even though executions themselves have continued unabated.
39 In the context of Vietnam's Party-State, the Party's lines normally precede and pave the way for the State's documents and their implementation. This is especially true in light of significant changes, reflecting the principle of the Viet Nam Communist Party's leadership under Article 4 of the 2013 Vietnamese Constitution.
40 Hai Thanh Luong, ‘The Application of the Death Penalty for Drug – Related Crimes in Vietnam: Law, Policy and Practice’ (2014) 17 Thailand Journal of Law and Policy <http://thailawforum.com/articles/Vietnam-death-penalty.html> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
41 Tran & Vu (n 32) 16.
42 Minh Thúy, ‘Đại biểu Quốc hội tranh luận về án tử hình [The National Assembly Members Debate on the Use of the Death Penalty]’ (VnEconomy, 14 Nov 2008) <https://vneconomy.vn/doanh-nhan/dai-bieu-quoc-hoi-tranh-luan-ve-an-tu-hinh-2008111402395241.htm> accessed 7 Feb 2022.
43 ‘Tham ô, hối lộ sẽ không còn án tử hình? [Bribery and Corruption to Be Free from the Death Penalty?]’ (Thư Viện Pháp Luật, 4 Apr 2009) <https://thuvienphapluat.vn/tintuc/vn/thoi-su-phap-luat/thoi-su/-9588/tham-o-hoi-lo-se-khong-con-an-tu-hinh> accessed 7 Feb 2022.
44 ibid.
45 Lindsey & Nicholson (n 38) 277–278.
46 Decree 82/2011/NĐ-CP on the Execution in the form of Lethal Injection, which is replaced by Decree 43/2020/NĐ-CP (8 Apr 2020); The Law on the Enforcement of Criminal Sentences 2019, art 82(1).
47 Vietnamese Constitution 2013, art 19.
48 ‘Chính phủ, Tờ trình về dự án Bộ luật hình sự sửa đổi [The Government's Explanatory Report on the Amendment of the 1999 Criminal Code]’ (Ban Quản lý Lăng Chủ tịch Hồ Chí Minh, 27 Apr 2015) <https://www.bqllang.gov.vn/142-du-thao-bo-luat-hinh-su-sua-doi/4093-to-trinh-ve-du-an-bo-luat-hinh-su-sua-doi.html> accessed 7 Feb 2022.
49 ibid.
50 In English versions of the Criminal Code, this provision may be labelled as Article 185(dd).
51 ibid.
52 ibid. Exceptions to the application of the death penalty extend to those under the age of 18 at the time of the commission of the crime, pregnant women and those with children under 36 months of age, persons aged 75 years and above: Criminal Code 2015, art 40(2).
53 Phạm Văn Beo, ‘Xóa bỏ hay duy trì hình phạt tử hình đối với một số tội phạm cụ thể? [Abolition or Retention of the Death Penalty against Certain Offenses]’ (2015) 20 Journal of Legislative Studies <http://lapphap.vn/Pages/tintuc/tinchitiet.aspx?tintucid=208505> accessed 21 Feb 2022.
54 Vu Cong Giao & Nguyen Thuy Duong, ‘Criminal Justice or Criminal Injustice? Reflection from Debated Death Penalty Cases in Vietnam’ (Paper presented at the ‘Death Penalty in Asia: Law and Practice’ Online Conference co-hosted by the University of Melbourne, Vietnam National University Hanoi School of Law, Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN) and Graduate Academy of Social Sciences, Vietnam, 18–19 Feb 2021) 9–10 <https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/3607189/Vu-Cong-Giao_Nguyen-Thuy-Duong.pdf> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
55 Dave McRae, ‘Indonesian Capital Punishment in Comparative Perspective’ (2017) 173 Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde 1.
56 Johnson & Zimring (n 1).
57 See David Johnson, The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan (Palgrave 2020) 1–18.
58 Eric Neumayer, ‘Death Penalty: The Political Foundations of the Global Trend Towards Abolition’ (2008) 9 Human Rights Review 241, 250–251; David F Greenberg & Valerie West, ‘Siting the Death Penalty Internationally’ (2008) 33 Law & Social Inquiry 295.
59 Johnson & Zimring (n 1).
60 Greenberg & West (n 58) 320; Neumayer (n 58) 259.
61 Roger Hood & Carolyn Hoyle, ‘Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide: The Impact of a “New Dynamic”’ (2009) 38 Crime and Justice 1.
62 Sangmin Bae, ‘South Korea's De Facto Abolition of the Death Penalty’ (2009) 82 Pacific Affairs 407; Sangmin Bae, When the State No Longer Kills: International Human Rights Norms and Abolition of Capital Punishment (SUNY Press 2007) 110–114.
63 Neumayer (n 58).
64 Sangmin Bae, ‘Human Security, Capital Punishment, and East Asian Democracies’, in Benny Teh Cheng Guan (ed), Human Security: Securing East Asia's Future (Springer 2012) 217–230.
65 ibid; Johnson & Zimring (n 1).
66 Johnson & Zimring (n 1).
67 Hood & Hoyle, ‘Abolishing the Death Penalty Worldwide’ (n 61).
68 Bae, When the State No Longer Kills (n 62) 27.
69 Greenberg & West (n 58) 335.
70 McRae (n 55).
71 We consciously use the term ‘renovation’ given its peculiarity in Vietnam's context. While ‘revise’ and ‘revision’ seem to denote a more neutral tone, ‘renovation’ itself is often associated with liberal-oriented changes, including but not limited to economic matters. Our suggestion is that a progressive mentality in the country is much needed for abolitionist purposes.
72 Martin K Dimitrov, ‘Understanding Communist Collapse and Resilience’, in Martin K Dimitrov (ed), Why Communism Did Not Collapse: Understanding Authoritarian Regime Resilience in Asia and Europe (Cambridge University Press 2013) 6–9.
73 See generally John Gillespie & Albert HY Chen (eds), Legal Reforms in China and Vietnam: A Comparison of Asian Communist Regimes (Routledge 2011).
74 See Bui Ngoc Son, Constitutional Change in the Contemporary Socialist World (Oxford University Press 2020) 141–200.
75 Vietnamese Constitution 2013, art 8.
76 Michael Dowdle, ‘Introduction to Part II: Developing an administrative law system’, in John Gillespie & Albert HY Chen (eds), Legal Reforms in China and Vietnam: A Comparison of Asian Communist Regimes (Routledge 2011) 105–108.
77 Tran & Vu (n 32) 13.
78 Đào Lệ Thu, ‘Xu hướng quốc tế hóa của luật hình sự Việt Nam và vấn đề đặt ra cho lập pháp hình sự [The Internationalization Trend of Viet Nam's Criminal Law and Issues for the Criminal Law Making]’ (2020) 412 Journal of Legislative Studies <http://lapphap.vn/Pages/tintuc/tinchitiet.aspx?tintucid=210569> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
79 ‘Đại biểu Quốc hội tranh luận về đề xuất bỏ án tử hình với 7 tội danh [The National Assembly Members Debate on the Proposal for Abolition of 7 Capital Crimes]’ (Voice of Vietnam News, 26 May 2015) <https://vov.vn/chinh-tri/quoc-hoi/dai-bieu-quoc-hoi-tranh-luan-ve-de-xuat-bo-an-tu-hinh-voi-7-toi-danh-403629.vov accessed 20 Feb 2022.
80 ibid.
81 See generally Pham Duy Nghia & Do Hai Ha, ‘The Soviet Legacy and Its Impact on Contemporary Vietnam’, in Hualing Fu et al (eds), Socialist Law in Socialist East Asia (Cambridge University Press 2018) 97–132; Spencer Weber Waller & Lan Cao, ‘Law Reform in Vietnam: The Uneven Legacy of Doi Moi’ (1997) 29 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 555.
82 Le Hong Hiep, ‘Vietnam's Over-reliance on Exports and FDI’ (ISEAS Yusof Ishak Institute Perspective no 96, 2 Sep 2020) <https://www.iseas.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ISEAS_Perspective_2020_96.pdf> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
83 Bui Ngoc Son, ‘The Global Origins of Vietnam's Constitutions: Text in Context’ (2017) 2 University of Illinois Law Review 525.
84 ibid 484–485.
85 See generally Giao Cong Vu & Kien Tran, ‘Constitutional Debate and Development on Human Rights in Vietnam’ (2016) 11 Asian Journal of Comparative Law 235; Bui (n 83).
86 Tran & Vu (n 32) 21–23.
87 Vu Thi Thuy, Limiting the Death Penalty in Vietnamese Criminal Law: Changes from the Criminal Code 1999 to Criminal Code 2015 (Ho Chi Minh City Law University 2017).
88 Nguyen Thi Thanh Hai, Nguyen Van Hoan & Nguyen Minh Khue, ‘On the possibility of Viet Nam ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on civil and political rights aiming at the abolition of the death penalty’ (EU Justice and Legal Empowerment Programme, Oct 2019) <https://www.vn.undp.org/content/dam/vietnam/docs/Publications/Death%20Penalty%20Report%20(ENG).pdf> accessed 21 Feb 2022.
89 See eg, ‘Nỗi đau từ “cái chết trắng” [Suffering from the “White Death”]’ (Vietnamese Communist Party Online Newspaper, 5 Jun 2019) <https://dangcongsan.vn/xa-hoi/noi-dau-tu-cai-chet-trang-524583.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022; ‘Trả giá cho kẻ buôn bán cái chết trắng [Payback to Those Sells the “White Death”]’ (The People's Court of Dak Lak Province, 31 Dec 2020) <http://toaandaklak.gov.vn/tin-xet-xu/tra-gia-cho-ke-buon-ban-cai-chet-trang-5283.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022; ‘Bản án thích đáng cho những kẻ gieo “cái chết trắng” cho xã hội [Adequate Sentences for Those Dispersed the “White Death” into the Society]’ (The People's Procuracy of Gia Lai Province, 1 Oct 2020) <http://vksquangngai.gov.vn/index.php/vi/news/Phap-Luat-Doi-Song/Ban-an-thich-dang-cho-nhung-ke-gieo-cai-chet-trang-cho-xa-hoi-2886/> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
90 ‘Phó Chủ tịch Quốc hội: “Gia đình có con em nghiện ma tuý thì tan cửa, nát nhà” [Vice Chairman of the National Assembly: “Families with Addicted Children Are Destined to be Doomed”]’ (Thanh Tra, 11 Sep 2020) <https://thanhtra.com.vn/chinh-tri/doi-noi/pho-chu-tich-quoc-hoi-gia-dinh-co-con-em-nghien-ma-tuy-thi-tan-cua-nat-nha-171057.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
91 The Bangkok Declaration 1993; See also Ngo TM Huong, Vu Cong Giao & Nguyen Minh Tam, ‘Asian Values and Human Rights: A Vietnamese Perspective’ (2018) 2 Journal of Southeast Asian Human Rights 302.
92 For a discussion, see Bui Ngoc Son, ‘Globalization of Constitutional Identity’ (2017) 26 Washington International Law Journal 463.
93 Sangmin Bae, ‘Is the Death Penalty an Asian Value?’ (2008) 39 Asian Affairs 47.
94 Confucius, Analects: With Selections from Traditional Commentaries (Edward Slingerland tr, Hackett Publishing Company 2003) 144, cited in Bae (n 94).
95 See Bui (n 93) 505–506.
96 John Gillespie, ‘Human Rights as a Larger Loyalty: The Evolution of Religious Freedom in Vietnam’ (2014) 47 Harvard Human Rights Journal 139.
97 See eg, European Union, ‘8th EU-Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue’ (Press Release, 4 Mar 2019) <https://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/timor-leste/59036/8th-eu-vietnam-human-rights-dialogue_de> accessed 2 Jun 2022; Australian Government, ‘Australian Statement on the 15th Annual Australia–Vietnam Human Rights Dialogue’ (Press release, 31 Aug 2018) <https://www.dfat.gov.au/news/media/Pages/australian-statement-on-the-15th-annual-australia-vietnam-human-rights-dialogue> accessed 2 Jun 2022; Sippachai Kunnuwong, ‘Human Rights Dialogue between Norway and Vietnam’ (ScandAsia, 11 Dec 2012) <https://scandasia.com/human-rights-dialogue-between-norway-and-vietnam/> accessed 2 Jun 2022; Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ‘Dialogue between Switzerland and Vietnam on human rights’ (Press release, 15 Mar 2008) <https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-17832.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
98 See ‘Amnesty International - Vietnam Dialogue on human rights’ (Viet Nam Union of Friendship Organizations, 4 Mar 2014) <http://vufo.org.vn/Amnesty-International---Vietnam-Dialogue-on-human--rights-03-198.html?lang=en> accessed 21 Feb 2022.
99 See OHCHR, ‘UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies – Treaty Body Database: Vietnam’ <https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=En&CountryID=192> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
100 UN Human Rights Council, ‘Universal Periodic Review - Viet Nam’ <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/VNindex.aspx> accessed 20 Feb 2022; UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Concluding observations of the third periodic report of Viet Nam’, CCPR/C/VNM/CO/3 (25 Mar 2019) <https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FVNM%2FCO%2F3&Lang=en> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
101 On its first cycle of the UPR in 2009, the Vietnamese delegation stated that: ‘Public opinion in Viet Nam is not yet ready for the complete removal of the death penalty’: see UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Viet Nam’, A/HRC/12/11 (5 Oct 2009), para 76.
102 UN Human Rights Committee, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Viet Nam’, A/HRC/41/7 (28 Mar 2019), para 22.
103 OHCHR Southeast Asia Regional Office (n 3) 34.
104 Daniel Pascoe & Sangmin Bae, ‘Idiosyncratic Voting in the UNGA Death Penalty Moratorium Resolutions’ (2021) 25 The International Journal of Human Rights 974.
105 Lindsey & Nicholson (n 38) 11.
106 OHCHR, ‘Country Information: Viet Nam’ <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/VNIndex.aspx> accessed 20 Feb 2021.
107 Trinh Hai Yen, ‘Viet Nam’, in Simon Chesterman, Hisashi Owada & Ben Saul (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Asia and the Pacific (Oxford University Press 2019) 493–495.
108 Vietnamese Constitution 2013, art 4.
109 Reuters, ‘The bloody reign of Rodrigo Duterte “The Punisher”’ <https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/philippines-duterte-photos/> accessed 22 Feb 2022.
110 Grace Keane O'Connor, ‘Adoption of Bill Allowing the Imposition of the Death Penalty for a New Crime’ (World Coalition, 30 Apr 2021) <https://worldcoalition.org/2021/04/30/adoption-of-bill-allowing-the-imposition-of-the-death-penalty-for-a-new-crime/> accessed 24 Feb 2022.
111 Republic of the Philippines Commission on Human Rights, ‘Statement of Commissioner Karen Gomez-Dumpit on the Passage of House Bill No. 7814, providing for the ‘Presumption Of Guilt’ and Reintroduction of the Death Penalty as amendments to the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002’ (3 Mar 2021) <http://chr.gov.ph/statement-of-commissioner-karen-gomez-dumpit-on-the-passage-of-house-bill-no-7814-providing-for-the-presumption-of-guilt-and-reintroduction-of-the-death-penalty-as-amendments-to-th/> accessed 7 Jun 2022.
112 ‘IGP: Cops back death sentence review, but total scrapping a step backward’ (Malay Mail, 27 Aug 2015) <https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2015/08/27/igp-cops-back-death-sentence-review-but-total-scrapping-a-step-backward/959075> accessed 24 Feb 2022.
113 Kate Lamb & Claire Phipps, ‘Indonesia executions: 14 people who could face the firing squad this week’ (The Guardian, 27 Jul 2016) <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/27/indonesia-executions-firing-squad-this-week> accessed 24 Feb 2022.
114 See UN Economic and Social Council, ‘Letter dated 27 June 1997 from the Permanent Mission of Singapore to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions’, UN Doc E/CN4/1998/113 (5 Dec 1997) <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G97/144/15/PDF/G9714415.pdf?OpenElement> accessed 2 Jun 2022. It should be noted that death penalty activism in Singapore has become increasingly visible. As domestic politics and litigation against the death penalty gain some steam in Singapore, this might be the harbinger of ‘the beginning of the end.’ See Michael Hor, ‘Confronting Capital Punishment’, in Roger Hood & Surya Deva (eds), Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics, Public Opinion and Practices (Oxford University Press 2013) 141–167.
115 ‘FM spokesperson: Vietnam pushes ahead with legal reform’ (VCCI, 12 Apr 2019) <https://en.vcci.com.vn/fm-spokesperson-vietnam-pushes-ahead-with-legal-reform> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
116 ‘Leaders to promote drug-free ASEAN’ (Philstar Global, 9 Sep 2016) <https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/09/09/1621898/leaders-promote-drug-free-asean> accessed 25 Feb 2022.
117 Jorn Dosch & Alexander L Vuving, ‘The Impact of China on Governance Structures in Vietnam’ (German Development Institute Discussion Paper no 14/2008) <https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP_14.2008.pdf> accessed 25 May 2021; Tran & Vu (n 32).
118 See Miao, Michelle, ‘Examining China's Responses to the Global Campaign against the Death Penalty’, in Hood, Roger & Deva, Surya (eds), Confronting Capital Punishment in Asia: Human Rights, Politics, Public Opinion and Practices (Oxford University Press 2013) 46–66Google Scholar.
119 Miao, Michelle, ‘The Penal Construction of Drug-related Offenses in the Context of “Asian Values” – The Rise of Punitive Anti-Drug Campaigns in Asia’ (2018) 1 International Comparative, Policy & Ethics Law Review 46, 60–66Google Scholar.
120 Tran & Vu (n 32) 15–16.
121 Luong (n 40).
122 ibid.
123 ibid.
124 Đỗ Thành Trương, ‘Một số vấn đề về tình hình tội phạm ma túy trên toàn quốc 2007-2017 (Phần 1) [Issues on the Situation of Drug Crimes Nationwide in 2007-2017 (Part 1)]’ (The Supreme People's Procuracy of Viet Nam, 21 Nov 2018) <https://www.vksndtc.gov.vn/thong-tin/mot-so-van-de-ve-tinh-hinh-toi-pham-ma-tuy-tren-to-d12-t7697.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
125 Đỗ Thành Trương, ‘Một số vấn đề về tình hình tội phạm ma túy trên toàn quốc (2007-2017) (Phần 2) [Issues on the Situation of Drug Crimes Nationwide in 2007-2017 (Part 2)]’ (The Supreme People's Procuracy of Viet Nam, 21 Nov 2018) <https://vksndtc.gov.vn/thong-tin/mot-so-van-de-ve-tinh-hinh-toi-pham-ma-tuy-tren-to-d12-t7698.html> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
126 Luong, Hai Thanh, ‘Why Vietnam Continues to Impose the Death Penalty for Drug Offenses: A Narrative Commentary’ (2021) 88 International Journal of Drug Policy no 103043, 5–6Google Scholar <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0955395920303819> accessed 2 Jun 2022.
127 Stack, Steven, ‘Public Opinion on the Death Penalty: Analysis of Individual-level data from 17 Nations’ (2004) 14 International Criminal Justice Review 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
128 ibid 86.
129 For a thorough study of public opinion on the death penalty, see Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty (n 30) 350–381.
130 Bae (n 62) 117.
131 ibid 117.
132 Herbert H Haines, Against Capital Punishment: The Anti–Death Penalty Movement in America, 1972–1994 (Oxford University Press 1996) 164.
133 Stack (n 128) 87–88.
134 Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty (n 30) 376.
135 Garland, David, Punishment and Modern Society: A Study in Social Theory (University of Chicago Press 1990) 246CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
136 ‘Support for death penalty drops below 50% for the first time’ (BBC News, 26 Mar 2015) <https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32061822> accessed 20 Feb 2022.
137 Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty (n 30) 376–377.
138 Zimring, Franklin E, The Contradictions of American Capital Punishment (Oxford University Press 2003) 23Google Scholar.
139 Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty (n 30) 353.
140 ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review: Viet Nam’ (n 103).
141 Hood & Hoyle, The Death Penalty (n 30) 357.
142 Nguyen, Nguyen & Nguyen (n 88) 33–35.
143 ibid.
144 See eg, ‘Universal Periodic Review - Viet Nam’ (n 101); ‘Concluding observations of the third periodic report of Viet Nam’ (n 99) paras 23–24; OHCHR Southeast Asia Regional Office (n 3) 49.
145 ‘Dialogue between Switzerland and Vietnam on Human Rights’ (n 98).
146 OHCHR Southeast Asia Regional Office (n 3) 34.
147 Confucius (n 95).