Provisions on frivolous claims in the European Union – Vietnam investment protection agreement – would they be benefits to Vietnam?

Purpose This paper aims to examine two issues: whether provisions on frivolous claims in the European Union (EU)–Vietnam Investment Protection Agreement (EVIPA) would be Vietnam’s intrinsic demand, and to what extent, Vietnam may enjoy the benefits from these provisions. Design/methodology/approach This paper combines both doctrinal legal analysis and policy research. It offers an in-depth case study of the provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA, compares them with those of other existing international investment agreements and arbitrations rules, examines how similar provisions in these instruments are interpreted in available practical international investment disputes, uncovers the Vietnam’s position through interviewing Vietnamese senior experts, who were members of the Vietnamese delegation negotiating the EVIPA, and through available collected data and then evaluates whether these provisions may be favourable to this country. Findings While the new investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the EVIPA can be viewed as explicit evidence of the EU’s achievement, it may also be Vietnam’s benefits to entertain new ISDS provisions on frivolous claims. They were drafted, based on the ISDS arbitration practice, states’ experience and actual situations in Vietnam. These novel provisions, among other things, serve as Vietnam’s prerequisites to consider whether to accept the new two-tier standing mechanism or not. The inclusion of such ISDS provisions in the EVIPA, therefore, is supposed to meet the Vietnam’s intrinsic demands for defending against unfounded frivolous cases. Originality/value This is the first time the EU concluded an investment treaty containing innovative ISDS provisions with a developing country. This paper therefore may help envisage Vietnam’s perspective during its negotiation of provisions on frivolous claims in the EVIPA and prove that the avails of these provisions to a frequent respondent State like Vietnam can be realised. The paper’s findings mean for research in investment law as well as for policymakers as far as the frivolous cases are concerned.