Rather than merely improving the legal system from a technical perspective, the Resolution requires comprehensive reform ranging from perceptions, objectives and approaches to the procedures of law-making. This article analyzes the core contents of Resolution No. 66 and clarifies why it can be considered a “revolution in legal-development thinking” in the context of Vietnam’s new stage of development.
Keywords: Resolution No. 66; legislative thinking; law-making; rule-of-law state; institutional reform.
Building and improving the legal system constitutes one of the central tasks in the process of constructing the socialist rule-of-law state in Vietnam. In the context of accelerating industrialization, modernization and deep international integration, the requirements for the quality, effectiveness and enforceability of legal norms have become increasingly demanding. In response to these challenges, Resolution No. 66 of the Politburo was promulgated as a strategic orientation to fundamentally reform the work of law-making and law enforcement.
Many scholars and policymakers have argued that this Resolution represents a profound transformation in legislative thinking, both in terms of conceptual understanding and modes of action. The implementation of Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW dated 30 April 2025 has contributed significantly to addressing legal “bottlenecks”, particularly in areas directly affecting citizens, businesses and innovation. Legal regulations are becoming increasingly transparent, accessible, comprehensible and easier to implement, thereby strengthening public and business confidence in the enabling role of the socialist rule-of-law state.
From a broader perspective, Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW functions as a guiding document for the development and enforcement of law at a time when Vietnam is entering a new era characterized by higher demands for growth quality, national governance and international integration. The Resolution reflects an objective necessity arising from practical realities. Its overarching spirit is to place law at the center of the development process, considering law not merely as an instrument of governance but also as a driving force that safeguards the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and enterprises while unlocking resources for innovation and development.
Context of the resolution and the need for renewing legislative thinking
Prior to the issuance of Resolution No. 66, the law-making process in Vietnam had achieved considerable progress but still exhibited several limitations. Legislative thinking remained heavily oriented toward administrative management; the legal system lacked full coherence and stability and often contained overlapping provisions; the quality of policy forecasting and regulatory impact assessment remained limited; and legal frameworks had not yet fully functioned as instruments to stimulate innovation and development.
Under these circumstances, the challenge was not merely to revise legislative techniques but to fundamentally transform the underlying mindset of law-making, recognizing it as a pillar of national development. Resolution No. 66 was adopted precisely to meet this strategic requirement.
A new approach to the objectives of law-making
One of the most significant breakthroughs introduced by Resolution No. 66 lies in the redefinition of the objectives of legislative activities. Instead of emphasizing the quantity of legal documents or the formal completion of legislative tasks, the Resolution stresses that laws must originate from practical realities, support development and place people and businesses at the center.
Accordingly, law is no longer perceived solely as an administrative management tool but rather as a catalyst for development that facilitates resource mobilization, encourages innovation, and ensures the protection of human rights and citizens’ rights. This shift represents a fundamental transformation in legislative thinking from a model of “management and control” to one of “facilitation and service”.
From technical drafting to policy-oriented law-making
Resolution No. 66 calls for overcoming the long-standing tendency to focus excessively on legal technicalities and fragmented drafting practices lacking long-term vision. Instead, legislative activities must begin with policy thinking. This approach requires the clear identification of practical problems, comprehensive assessment of socio-economic impacts and only thereafter the selection of appropriate legal solutions.
By adopting such a policy-oriented approach, the legal system can avoid the problem of “short-lived legislation”, whereby laws quickly become obsolete or require frequent amendments. It also enhances the stability, transparency and predictability of the legal system hallmarks of modern legislative practice.
Emphasizing practical experience and stakeholder participation
Another transformative element of Resolution No. 66 is the emphasis placed on practical realities and the voices of stakeholders directly affected by legal regulations. The Resolution highlights the need to strengthen policy consultation and dialogue with citizens, enterprises, experts and scholars throughout the law-making process.
This approach reflects a fundamental shift in perception: laws should not be viewed solely as products of state institutions but as outcomes of broad social interaction that balance the interests of the state, the market and society.
Revolutionary elements in legal-development thinking
1. From “Management thinking” to “Development thinking”
A key breakthrough of Resolution No. 66 is the recognition that law should function not only as a mechanism for social management but also as a driver of development. While in the past legal norms primarily aimed to regulate and control behavior, the Resolution now requires the legal system to: Encourage innovation; Protect human rights and citizens’ rights; Provide a safe and transparent legal environment for investment and business activities.
This transformation elevates law from a reactive instrument that follows social developments to a proactive institution that guides and facilitates development.
2. Placing citizens and businesses at the center of law-making
Resolution No. 66 emphasizes that citizens and enterprises should occupy the central position in legislative activities. Laws must therefore be accessible, understandable and easy to implement, while ensuring the legitimate rights and interests of social actors and reducing compliance costs.
This perspective represents a shift from the traditional model of “the state legislates and society complies” toward a service-oriented governance model consistent with modern rule-of-law principles.
3. Prioritizing policy quality over the quantity of legal documents
Another significant reform lies in the emphasis on policy quality rather than the number of enacted legal documents. The Resolution requires improving policy design from the proposal stage, conducting rigorous regulatory impact assessments and minimizing fragmented and short-term amendments to legislation.
Such an approach reflects a scientific and long-term perspective, recognizing sound policy as the foundation of effective legislation.
4. Linking Law-making with Law enforcement
Resolution 66 also introduces an important innovation by closely linking law-making with law enforcement. Legal norms only achieve their intended value when effectively implemented in practice. Consequently, the Resolution requires that legislative drafting be closely aligned with implementation conditions, accompanied by enhanced supervision, monitoring and evaluation of enforcement outcomes.
By emphasizing implementation as a measure of legislative quality, the Resolution reflects a modern governance approach that prioritizes practical outcomes rather than procedural formalities.
5. Aligning legal development with international standards and digital transformation
The Resolution No.66 also demonstrates an open and globally oriented approach. It calls for selectively adopting international legal best practices, proactively implementing international commitments and applying digital technologies in the law-making and law-enforcement processes. Such orientations indicate that Vietnam’s legal system is being developed in a global context to meet the demands of the digital economy and digital society.
Major achievements after the implementation of Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW (dated April 30, 2025) of the Politburo
1. Completion of the objective of removing legal “bottlenecks” in 2025
By the end of 2025, the objective of “basically completing the removal of bottlenecks caused by legal regulations” had been achieved as planned. Overlapping and problematic provisions across various sectors of the legal system were comprehensively reviewed and significantly addressed.
2. Full completion of assigned tasks
A total of 100% (40 out of 40) of the tasks scheduled for completion in 2025 were fulfilled on time, demonstrating strong political determination and a rigorous implementation process from the central level to local authorities.
3. Significant transformation in legal thinking and institutions
Resolution No. 66 has generated a clear transformation in both the mindset and institutional framework of law-making and law enforcement. The approach has shifted from a purely administrative and management-oriented perspective to a development-oriented legal framework that fosters a more transparent, efficient and enabling legal environment.
4. Review and improvement of the legal system and normative legal documents
In 2025, the National Assembly adopted a large number of legislative bills and resolutions one of the highest volumes during the current legislative term. At the same time, the Government and various ministries issued numerous decrees, resolutions and normative legal documents to institutionalize the principles and orientations set forth in Resolution No. 66.
5. Innovation in the legislative process and strengthened application of technology
The law-making process has been modernized, with increasing application of digital technologies, artificial intelligence and open data throughout the drafting process, regulatory impact assessment and quality control of legal documents.
6. Establishing a foundation for a modern rule-of-law state
The Resolution has been widely regarded as a “revolution in legal thinking”, contributing to the unlocking of development resources and improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Vietnam’s legal system in the new stage of development.
7. Communication, dissemination, and enhancement of legal awareness
Relevant authorities have organized numerous communication and dissemination programs to widely introduce the contents of the Resolution to different levels of government and the broader community. These efforts aim to enhance awareness across the entire political system and society regarding the importance of legal reform.
8. Addressing legal bottlenecks and promoting development
It can be affirmed that many legal “bottlenecks” have been substantially addressed, particularly in the fields of finance, science and technology, and innovation. Decentralization in areas such as public investment and state budget management has been strengthened, while several tax laws have been amended to create institutional breakthroughs for development and to remove barriers and constraints.
These reforms place citizens and enterprises at the center of development policies, aiming to mobilize and unlock all available resources. They contribute to promoting the development of a socialist-oriented market economy and creating favorable conditions for the private sector to become an important driving force of the national economy. Ministries and sectors have also conducted substantial reviews and reductions of business and investment conditions, with reduction rates ranging from 30% to nearly 40% in certain sectors, thereby lowering compliance costs and improving the competitive environment.
Overall, Resolution No. 66 has produced notable transformations with numerous breakthrough initiatives in the development and improvement of legal institutions and regulatory frameworks to meet the country’s development requirements. Legal difficulties and obstacles have been clearly identified, enabling targeted and prioritized solutions according to their level of urgency.
The Theoretical and Practical Significance of the “Revolution in Legal Thinking”
The above-mentioned innovations demonstrate that Resolution No. 66 does not merely adjust working methods; more profoundly, it represents a renewal of legislative thinking from perception and methodology to objectives. This provides the basis for affirming the revolutionary nature of the Resolution, laying an important foundation for building a legal system that is coherent, feasible, transparent and effective in the new stage of development.
In theoretical terms, Resolution No. 66 contributes to: Refining the conceptual framework of the socialist rule-of-law state of Vietnam; Affirming the central role of law in modern national governance. In practical terms, the Resolution provides a foundation for: Improving the quality of the legal system; Enhancing the investment and business environment; Strengthening public and business confidence in the law.
Resolution No. 66 of the Politburo marks an important turning point in the process of reforming law-making and law enforcement in Vietnam. With breakthrough orientations in legal thinking, the Resolution not only contributes to improving the quality of legislation but also promotes the development of a socialist rule-of-law state, meeting the requirements of rapid and sustainable national development. It is precisely this profound transformation in legal thinking that constitutes the “revolutionary” value of Resolution No. 66 in the field of law-making.
Implementing Resolution No. 66: Toward a revolutionary transformation in legal thinking
To effectively implement Resolution No. 66 of the Politburo and promote a revolutionary transformation in legal thinking, it is necessary to adopt an approach consistent with the spirit of fundamental, comprehensive and substantive reform, avoiding formalism. Below is a set of key and systematic policy solutions:
1. Revolutionizing legal thinking in law-making
- Shifting from “management” to “development facilitation”: Law should not merely function as an instrument of control but must create enabling conditions for innovation and socio-economic development. The traditional mindset of “if it cannot be managed, it must be prohibited” should be replaced by an approach of “allowing innovation while managing risks”.
- Shifting from administrative command thinking to service-oriented governance: Citizens and enterprises must be placed at the center of the law-making process. Every legal provision should clearly answer key questions: What problem does it solve? What are the compliance costs? Who benefits and who may be adversely affected?
2. Improving the quality of law-making
- Reforming the legislative process: Policy impact assessment (Regulatory Impact Assessment - RIA) must be strictly conducted from the policy proposal stage. Laws should only be enacted when policies are sufficiently mature, thereby limiting the promulgation of framework laws and overly general legislation.
- Professionalizing the legislative workforce: A corps of specialized legislative experts should be developed, working in a stable and long-term professional environment. A clear separation should be maintained between regulatory authorities and policy-drafting bodies.
- Strengthening the use of knowledge and data: Law-making must be based on empirical evidence and practical data, rather than primarily on subjective experience. Artificial intelligence and big data technologies should be applied to identify legal overlaps, inconsistencies and conflicts within the legal system.
3. Breakthroughs in the organization of law enforcement
- Recognizing law enforcement as the decisive stage: The perception that “the task is completed once a law is promulgated” must be eliminated. The accountability of leaders and heads of agencies should be directly linked to the effectiveness of legal implementation.
- Establishing mechanisms for rapid feedback and adjustment: A system for monitoring and ex-post evaluation should be established. Legal experimentation mechanisms, such as regulatory sandboxes, should be introduced to allow pilot implementation and rapid amendment of inadequate regulations.
4. Reviewing and removing legal bottlenecks
- Comprehensive review of the legal system: A systematic review should focus on areas currently hindering development, including investment, land management, construction, environmental regulation and science and technology. Outdated and inappropriate regulations should be boldly abolished or simplified.
- Preventing sectoral interests in the law-making process: The entire legislative process must be made transparent, with strict controls to prevent the insertion of sectoral or vested interests into legal normative documents.
5. Promoting democracy and social intelligence
- Substantive consultation rather than formalistic consultation: The participation of businesses, professional associations, experts, and citizens in the legislative process should be expanded. All comments and feedback must be transparently explained, accepted or critically addressed.
- Building a culture of respect for the rule of law: Legal regulations must be clear, understandable, enforceable, and easily monitored. Public officials and civil servants must serve as exemplary role models in complying with the law.
6. Mechanisms for ensuring the implementation of Resolution No. 66
Resolution No. 66 should be translated into action programs with clear roadmaps and measurable indicators. Regular inspections, supervision, and independent evaluations of implementation outcomes should be conducted. The results of implementing the Resolution must be linked to cadre evaluation and political accountability.
The core spirit of Resolution No. 66 lies in promoting a fundamental shift in thinking in the process of lawmaking and law enforcement, accompanied by decisive actions and the use of practical effectiveness as the most important criterion for evaluation. The Resolution not only sets the goal of improving the legal system in a manner that is coherent, consistent and transparent, but also emphasizes ensuring that laws are effectively implemented in practice, becoming a powerful instrument for social governance and national development. This requires legislative and law-enforcement bodies to move beyond traditional administrative thinking toward a development-oriented approach, placing the interests of citizens, businesses and the overall progress of the nation at the center of policymaking.
In the context of a new stage of national development, where opportunities and challenges coexist, the need for institutional reform has become increasingly urgent. However, institutional reform can only truly fulfill its role when it is accompanied by a fundamental transformation in mindset and methods of action throughout the system. If lawmaking continues to be formalistic, lacking long-term predictability and if the enforcement of laws remains inconsistent or ineffective, reform efforts will struggle to produce substantive and lasting change.
Therefore, the implementation of Resolution No. 66 should not merely focus on refining legal provisions, but must also foster a profound transformation in awareness and action among relevant institutions and officials. Only when a genuine “revolution” in the thinking and practice of lawmaking and law enforcement is achieved can institutional reform become a real driving force for the country’s rapid and sustainable development in the new era.
Dr. Dang Thanh Ngan
References
- Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW (30 April 2025) of the Politburo on reforming the work of law-making and law enforcement to meet the requirements of national development in the new era.
- “Revolution No. 66-NQ/TW: A Revolution in Legal Thinking”.
- “Implementing Resolution No. 66-NQ/TW: From “Governing by Law” to “Developing through Law”. Vietnam Law Newspaper.
- “Resolution 66: Legal development thinking must aim at unlocking potential”. Voice of Vietnam (VOV).
