Việt Nam has officially announced its candidacy for re-election to the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) for the 2026–2028 term. The move comes during widespread criticism of its human rights record during its current tenure on the council. The announcement has reignited debates about the legitimacy of the UNHRC and whether countries accused of violating human rights should be allowed to influence global human rights policies. Given Việt Nam’s history of human rights abuses, the United Nations and the Human Rights Council have failed in their global service by allowing the country to run for immediate re-election.
A Troubled History of Human Rights Violations
Việt Nam’s human rights issues are deeply intertwined with its political structure and history. Since gaining independence from French colonial rule in 1945, Việt Nam has been governed by the Communist Party of Việt Nam (CPV), which has maintained tight control over all aspects of society. While this centralized authority initially helped unify the nation, the Party leadership abuses this trust to violate human rights and oppress its people. As the Foundation for Economic Education puts it plainly, “a government that is giving you things can take them away.”
Since its independence in 1945, Việt Nam has continuously altered their Constitution. Compared to the original Constitution in 1946, sections containing provisions on human rights have been pushed back, altered, or even removed in its later incarnations.1 Of the reported crimes, the most common issues include police mistreatment of suspects, politics being distorted by the judicial system, and limited privacy rights.2 Việt Nam now uses its socialist regime as justification for its abuses of human rights and political enemies. Pro-democracy activists are normally subjected to surveillance and harassment while police are sent to squash protests while censoring journalists.
Việt Nam’s approach to human rights has been characterized by widespread restrictions on freedom of speech, assembly, and association. Independent media outlets, labor unions, and civil society organizations are banned, leaving little room for citizens to challenge the government or advocate for change.3 Pro-democracy activists are frequently subjected to surveillance, harassment, and imprisonment under vaguely worded laws such as “propaganda against the state” or “threatening national security.”
One particularly alarming case that drew international press attention occurred in May 2022 when a prominent human rights defender, Truong Van Dung, was sentenced to six years in prison for giving interviews to foreign media outlets and possessing banned books. Following his arrest, he was held incommunicado for more than nine months and denied access to both legal counsel and family visitation.4 During his trial, he additionally claimed that two officers at the Hỏa Lò Prison had beaten him and left him with severe pain, for which he was also denied medical help.5 Such incidents highlight the government’s intolerance for dissent and its willingness to use the judiciary as a tool for political repression. The U.S. Department of State has also criticized Việt Nam’s electoral process, describing the May 2021 National Assembly elections as “neither free nor fair.”
These practices have drawn condemnation from human rights organizations worldwide. Human Rights Watch has repeatedly called out Việt Nam for its failure to uphold basic freedoms, while Amnesty International has documented numerous cases of arbitrary detention and torture. Despite these concerns, Việt Nam secured a seat on the UNHRC for the 2023–2025 term—a decision that sparked outrage among activists and observers who questioned the council’s commitment to its mission.
The UNHRC’s Membership Dilemma
Việt Nam’s bid for re-election raises broader questions about how membership in the UNHRC is determined. The current UNHRC is organized through regional bodies in which Việt Nam is one of thirteen countries representing the Asia-Pacific States region.
Critics argue that the inclusion of nations with poor human rights records undermines the council’s credibility. China, Ethiopia, Cuba, and other authoritarian regimes have also secured seats on the council despite facing accusations of systemic abuses. This pattern has led many to question whether the UNHRC is capable of fulfilling its mandate to promote and protect human rights globally.
This makes sense when realizing how relatively simple the process for joining the council is: any United Nations member state can declare candidacy and secure a seat with an absolute majority vote from the General Assembly (97 votes).6 There are no formal vetting procedures to assess candidates’ human rights records or ensure they meet certain standards. Without oversight, countries accused of egregious violations can gain influence over international human rights policies.
The lack of a formal process of declaring candidacy for the council is far more than just symbolic; it is telling of how little the United Nations guarantees that members are vetted for the positions they apply for. For example, just within the Council, there are numerous members who have debated against the use of Human Rights Defenders.7 The UNHRC has proven that its member countries don’t need to care about human rights to join. Instead, they can have complete influence on global human rights by passing a simple majority vote. Very rarely do countries not get elected if they declare candidacy. The last Member Country to be denied a bid to the Council was Saudi Arabia, an anomaly which came as a result of election to that regional body being actually competitive for the first time in years.
Suspension from the council is even rarer and requires a two-thirds majority vote from the General Assembly. To date, only two countries—Libya in 2011 and Russia in 2022—have been suspended due to extreme actions that violated UN principles. Even when member states undergo a Universal Periodic Review every 4.5 years to assess their progress on human rights issues, enforcement mechanisms remain weak.
Việt Nam’s Controversial Candidacy
Việt Nam’s announcement that it will seek re-election has sparked renewed criticism from activists, experts, and international observers. Even since Việt Nam committed to an “active, constructive, and responsible role” in their next term, its image as a defender of human rights is sullied by its past and present actions. Many argue that Việt Nam’s continued presence on the council tarnishes its legitimacy and diminishes public trust in its ability to advocate for human rights.
Dr. Nguyen Dinh Thang, director of BPSOS (Boat People SOS), an international human rights organization focused on Southeast Asia, suggested that Việt Nam’s bid serves political purposes rather than a genuine commitment to improving human rights. According to Thang, Việt Nam aims to “prove to its people that it has a good reputation,” push back criticism from other countries and human rights defenders, and build closer economic ties with the West. This isn’t far from what Radio Free Asia also hypothesizes: that Việt Nam wants to spite human rights defenders who believe they should not have a seat. Regardless of true intention, Việt Nam’s primary goal is to legitimize their role in the council amidst the pushback and secure another term.
Such tactics are not unique to Việt Nam; other countries have been accused of using their positions on the council for political gain rather than meaningful reform. Australia faced similar criticism during its 2018–2020 term when activists accused it of performative participation rather than substantive advocacy.8 Despite outright slander from media and pushback from citizens of the country itself, the UNHRC still allows these countries to submit claims for candidacy. Việt Nam is not the first, and certainly not the last, country to take advantage of the eerily few qualifications needed to join the council. This begs the question: why does the United Nations, an organization that prides itself on its credible international reputation, allow countries that disregard human rights to create international standards for human rights?
The Broader Implications
Việt Nam’s re-election bid underscores a critical challenge for the United Nations: balancing inclusivity with accountability and maintaining legitimacy. While diversity among member states, especially those who falter in their ability to uphold pristine standards for human rights, can foster dialogue and collaboration across different perspectives, it also risks undermining its credibility. And when the UNHRC has multiple countries that have severe offenses on their human rights, they need to draw a line to ensure effective decision-making for international human rights.
The UNHRC was established in 2006 as a successor to the discredited UN Commission on Human Rights, which faced similar criticisms over its lack of membership criteria.9 However, nearly two decades later, it is clear that these structural flaws persist—most notably the absence of rigorous standards for candidacy and the inclusion of countries who consistently violate what the council stands for. Yet, despite the obvious complications that the UNHRC has in its very foundation, they have made little to no efforts to respond to the community’s requests for accountability.
As debates continue over Việt Nam’s suitability for re-election, some experts call for broader reforms within the UNHRC itself. These could include stricter vetting processes for candidates, more frequent reviews of member states’ performance, and stronger enforcement mechanisms to hold violators accountable. Some argue for the dismantling of the council as a whole in hopes of overhauling the corruption and replacing it with a new system. Leading countries such as the United States have openly condemned the UNHRC dating back to 2020, and the new Trump Administration has withdrawn from the council completely. Should the UNHRC not respond to these calls to action, they run the risk of losing legitimacy and standing as a council in general.
Proposed Measures for Rejoin
Given Việt Nam’s track record, many experts believe that its candidacy should be contingent upon concrete reforms aimed at addressing its human rights violations. The United Nations should acknowledge the shortcomings of the country and only allow Việt Nam to rejoin under certain circumstances. First, Việt Nam should release arbitrarily detained activists who have been imprisoned under vague charges such as “propaganda against the state.” This step forward would prove Việt Nam’s commitment to free press and acceptance of criticism. The government should also publicly denounce excessive force by law enforcement officials and take steps to address corruption within the judicial system, namely its frequent physical abuse of detainees. Additionally, Việt Nam should formally commit to upholding international human rights standards during its term on the council and accept suspension if it fails to meet these obligations.10 These measures would signal a genuine commitment to reform while helping restore trust in Việt Nam’s government and its role within the UNHRC.
While Việt Nam needs to be held accountable for their actions by the council, the UNHRC also must reform parts of their system, specifically in regards to candidacy, if they wish to retain legitimacy on a global stage. To target the issue of retaining legitimacy, the UNHRC should create a set list of qualifications for countries to run for the council. Some of these criteria should include that countries should not have any accusations of human rights violations on mainstream media networks. Additionally, the UNHRC needs to create stronger review systems. The Universal Periodic Review takes place every 4.5 years and uses only three documents to determine if a country is violating human rights. They should create a new review system that not only reviews countries more frequently, but also more closely. And although they review countries, there are few mechanisms to ensure that countries are following the UNHRC standards. These include authorizing commissions of inquiry and treaty-based bodies. However, there is little accountability if these countries are found to violate standards. The UNHRC should commit to enforcing their standards and upholding proper discipline if they are violated.
Conclusion
Việt Nam’s candidacy for re-election poses significant ethical questions about how global institutions, such as the UNHRC, should operate. Should a country accused of systemic abuses be allowed to shape international human rights policies? And if so, what safeguards can be implemented to ensure accountability?
For now, Việt Nam faces mounting pressure from activists and international observers who demand tangible reforms before it can reclaim a seat on one of the world’s most influential human rights bodies. As these debates unfold, they will likely shape not only Việt Nam’s future but also broader discussions about how the United Nations as a whole can better uphold their principles on an international level.
Featured/Headline Image Caption and Citation: The Allee des Nations with the Flags of Member Countries at United Nations Office | Image sourced from Pexels | CC License, no changes made