This document discusses Vietnam's motivation to reform its juvenile justice system to better protect children's rights and handle rising juvenile crime rates. Vietnam aims to align its laws with international standards like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Currently, children in conflict with the law often have their rights violated during criminal proceedings. The reform proposes establishing more family and juvenile courts nationwide to focus on rehabilitation over punishment for juvenile offenders.

1. Don’t They Also Have Rights?
Promoting Children’s Rights in Vietnam’s Juvenile Justice Reform
Executive Summary
All children are guaranteed their basic rights under the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the children in
conflict with the law. However, the justice system in Vietnam
has limitations in protecting these rights. This urges a juvenile
justice reform to align the domestic laws with international
standards, to better handle the rising juvenile crime rate, and
to improve the situations of juvenile offenders.
By studying the cases of juvenile justice reform in Vietnam,
Singapore, Thailand, and Colombia, this policy brief suggests
Vietnam adopt four concrete strategies: 1) Increase training
on children’s rights and children development; 2) Expand the
Family and Juvenile Court model to the whole nation; 3)
Increase research and availability of data; and 4) Enhance
legal consistency regarding children’s rights.
Alice Cao – IEDP
April 27, 2017
Table of Contents
Executive Summary………………...…1
Introduction……………………………..2
Vietnam’s motivation in juvenile justice
reform…………………………………...3
Children in Vietnam’s legal system..…5
Lessons learned from other
countries………………………………..8
Conclusion………………………….…11
Policy Recommendations……………12
References……………………………13

2. 2
Introduction
“Overall, abuse of minors rages across the world.
No nation involved in this study fully used
detention only as a last resort, attempted to
rehabilitate the offender, and never resorted to
physical violence against youths. A number of
nations continue to allow juvenile capital
punishment. Other nations prohibit corporal
punishment in policy, but utilize it liberally in
practice. Young children are detained in
deplorable, unhealthy, and dangerous physical
conditions...” (Zalkind and Simon, 2004)
Protecting children’s rights in juvenile justice
system is a challenge for all countries, especially
in the current state of rising youth crimes across
the world. As the first country in Asia and the
second in the world to ratify the Convention on
the Rights of the Child (CRC), Vietnam has
demonstrated its commitment to protecting and
promoting children’s rights. However, there are
several obstacles hindering the system from
prioritizing children’s best interests, one of which
is a culture that has long suppressed the minor’s
voice.
In April 2016, the first Family and Juvenile Court
was launched in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. The
model is expected to be soon adopted by other
cities and provinces. As part of a wider juvenile
justice reform, this first-ever specialized court for
children in the country emphasizes the child-
friendly and gender-sensitive procedures, and
addresses other common issues related to
children’s rights in the formal justice system
(UNICEF, 2016a). This signifies the positive
changes in the Vietnamese government’s
attitudes toward the issue.
Juvenile justice includes several domains, such
as the prevention of juvenile delinquency and
child abuse, the treatment of juvenile offenders,
child victims and child witnesses of crime during
judicial proceedings, and the treatment of
children after the trial (Pham, 2015). Due to the
constraints of time and space, this policy brief
only discusses the issue of juvenile offenders
treatment during formal criminal proceedings. I
am going to examine the issues related to
children’s rights in the juvenile justice system in
Vietnam in comparison with international
standards, and provide some recommendations
for the government to implement an effective
juvenile justice reform.
Figure 1. Representative Image
(Source: Saint Joseph University, n.d.)

3. 3
Vietnam’s motivation in juvenile justice reform
1. To effectively handle the rising juvenile
crime rate
Rising juvenile crime rate has been a trend in the
recent years, and Vietnam is not an exception.
According to the Steering Committee for the Plan
“Prevention and Combat against Child Abuse and
Juvenile Delinquency,” between 2007-2013,
there were 94,000 children in conflict with the law
in Vietnam (Save the Children, 2014), a steep
increase compared to the 2001-2005 period. The
juvenile crime rate has accounted for about 20
percent of the total crime rate nationwide since
2001. In addition, the rate of juvenile offenders
was 151 per 100,000, whereas this rate of adult
offenders was 100 per 100,000 (Pham, 2015).
As the traditional approach to juvenile crime is
showing its limitations, Vietnam needs a new
approach to handle the issue more effectively.
2. To align with the international standards
on juvenile justice
The CRC was adopted by the UN General
Assembly on November 20, 1989 and came into
force on September 2, 1990. Vietnam ratified the
CRC on January 26, 1990. In 2000 and 2001,
Vietnam also signed and ratified all other optional
protocol, except for the Optional Protocol to the
Convention of the Rights of the Child on a
Communications Procedure.
Articles 37 and 40 of the CRC regulate the
rights of children in conflict with the law. Some of
the important points made include:
• Neither capital punishment nor life
imprisonment without possibility of release shall
be imposed for offences committed by persons
below eighteen years of age (37a);
• The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a
child shall be in conformity with the law and shall
be used only as a measure of last resort and for
the shortest appropriate period of time (37b);
• Every child alleged as or accused of
having infringed the penal law has at least the
following guarantees:
(ii) to have legal or other appropriate
assistance in the preparation and presentation
of his or her defense;
(iii) to have the matter determined without delay
by a competent, independent and impartial
authority or judicial body in a fair hearing
according to law, in the presence of legal or
other appropriate assistance;
(vii) to have his or her privacy fully respected at
all stages of the proceedings (40b).
64%
17%
15%
2%2% Property Crimes
Murder &
Intended Injury
Public Nuisance
Gambling
Rape & Forcible
Sexual
Intercourse
Figure 2. Vietnam's most common youth crimes 2006-13
(Source: Pham, 2015)

4. 4
To date, Vietnam and 195 countries are legally
bound to the CRC. Revising the law to align with
international standards is crucial in demonstrating
the nation’s commitment to protecting children.
3. To improve the situations for children in
conflict with the law
Case study: “He was at a lot of disadvantages”
On April 14, 2015, a group of law enforcement
came to the neighborhood in Long An province,
Vietnam, to force the local families to move from
the area for a damp project to be initiated. Mr.
Nguyen and his family resisted and violence
occurred. During the conflict, his son, who was
16 at that time, threw acid onto the chief of
police, causing him to suffer a burn of 35% total
body surface area. On March 2, 2016, Nguyen’s
son was sentenced 30 months of imprisonment
by the Provincial Supreme Court.
The court had limited his rights by ignoring some
of the very basic rules in trialing an adolescent.
First, it had even intended to implement a mobile
court for Nguyen, which later had to be dismissed
as it was confronted by many people. Second,
the court had neglected his physical, mental, and
emotional capacities as an adolescent and
treated him as an adult in the trial. Third, the
court had trialed him separately from the rest of
his family members. Regrettably, Nguyen’s
record of imprisonment will “haunt him forever.”
“If he had been trialed at the Family Court, it
would have been so different,” said lawyer Dong
Manh Hung (Phu Nu TPHCM, 2016).
Figure 3. Representative Image (Source: Ekatha Ann John, 2017)
Unfortunately, this 16-year-old’s case is not an
exceptional story in Vietnam. Examples about
children in conflict with the law being treated
without any regards to their legal rights can be
easily found on the daily news. They and their
families rarely receive legal counseling; their
confidentiality are not respected, as their
personal identifications are reported on news
articles; and the judges and other officials do not
often have expertise in trialing juveniles (Pham,
2015).
Even more concerning is that in Vietnam, legal
practices are not regarded as highly as traditional
customs, so concepts such as “children rights” or
“human rights” are still very new and
underestimated by many people. Although the
general social attitudes toward children are
tolerance, patronization, and caring, children who
violate the laws are often labeled “bad,”
“malicious,” and this stigma is hard to break.
Children who have been labeled “bad” will find it
immensely challenging to reintegrate into society.
With these three main motivation, Vietnam has
already undertaken the juvenile justice reform,
which is reflected on the national policy agenda
in the recent years (Cox, 2010).

5. 5
Children in Vietnam’s legal system
The law in Vietnam is written law. There are
many laws addressing different aspects of
children’s rights in Vietnam. The most prominent
and specialized law on children is the Law on
Child Protection, Care and Education of 2004.
There is no separate law on juvenile justice.
Issues related to juvenile justice are referred to
the Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure
Code. Altogether, they build the legal grounds to
protect the rights of children, including those in
conflict with the law.
However, in Vietnam, crime is often handled
informally between families of the offenders and
victims without the presence of police. On the
formal level, about 80 percent of cases is
handled by the administrative system, while the
rest is handled by the criminal system (Cox,
2010). A statistic from UNICEF (2005) said that
between 2000 and 2004, 48,698 administrative
sanctions were imposed on juveniles in Vietnam,
with family reeducation accounting for 45 percent
and community-level reeducation of 19 percent
(Cox, 2010). However, the rate of juvenile
offenders handled by the formal criminal
proceedings has increased significantly, which
alerts the rising seriousness of crimes (Pham,
2015).
1. Legal definitions of children and juveniles
In Vietnamese laws, there are three terms related
to children that often overlap each other,
including “children” (“trẻ em”), “juveniles” (“người
chưa thành niên”), and “youth” (“thanh niên”).
These definitions are not in full compliance with
the CRC, however. Children defined by the CRC
are those who are under 18 years old, while the
Vietnam’s Law on Child Protection, Care and
Education of 2004 defined children as
Vietnamese citizens below 16 years of age, the
Penal Code of 2005 defined juvenile offenders as
those whose age ranges from 14 to 18, and the
Civil Code of 2005 defined juveniles as those
who are not yet full 18 years of age. The Law on
Youth of 2005 defined youth as those from 16 to
30 years old.
2. Juvenile justice
Vietnamese justice system consists of legal
codes, decrees, and ordinance which provide a
legal framework for policing, protection,
reeducation, and treatment of young offenders
(Cox, 2010). The Penal Code and the Criminal
Procedure Code provide specific provisions to
handle juvenile offenders. The Penal Code also
distinguishes the penal liability between the two
age groups 14-under 16 and 16-18. Persons
whose ages range from 12 to under 14 do not
have to bear criminal responsibilities, but will
have to be dealt with by the administrative
procedures under the Law on the Handling of
Administrative Violations.
Regarding juvenile offenders, Articles 8 and 12 of
the Penal Code regulate the description of crime,
the maximum penalty bracket, and the criminal
liability:

6. 6
Category and description
of crimes
Maximum penalty bracket
Age of criminal liability
(in years)
Less serious crimes – cause no
great harm to society
3 years of imprisonment 16 and older
Serious crimes – cause great harm
to society
7 years of imprisonment 16 and older
Very serious crimes – cause very
great harm to society
15 years of imprisonment
- 16 and older
- 14 to under 16 if intentionally
committed
Particularly serious crimes –
cause exceptionally great harm to
society
- Over 15 years of
imprisonment
- Life imprisonment
- Capital punishment
14 and older
Table 1. Crime and Liability (Source: Penal Code of 2005)
There is not an official definition of the judicial
system in Vietnamese laws. The conventional
understanding is that it refers to the investigative
bodies, procuracies, courts, and judgment-
executing bodies (Pham, 2015). With regards to
juvenile justice:
- The investigative bodies are public security
bodies;
- The procuracies “conduct the public prosecution
and control of law observance in the
investigation, adjudication and execution of
judgment; and control the observance of law in
the custody, detention, management and the
education of prisoners” (Pham, 2015);
- The courts include the Supreme Court,
provincial courts, and district courts. In April
2016, the first Family and Juvenile Court was
launched in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. It is not a
separate court but rather a specialized court.
- The judgement-executing bodies include both
civil and criminal judgment-executing bodies
(Pham, 2015).
Figure 5. Representative Image (Source: Stier, 2009)Figure 4. Representative Image (Source: Johnson, 2016)

7. 7
3. Shortcomings of the juvenile justice
system in Vietnam
The shortcomings of the juvenile justice system
in Vietnam by Pham (2014) as:
• Domestic laws do not meet
international standards, especially those that
Vietnam are legally bound to such as the CRC.
The Penal Code and the Criminal Procedures
Code both failed to mention or pay attention to
the CRC’s principle “the best interests of the
child.” Concepts referred to juvenile justice in
international standards such as “diversion,”
“intervention,” and “restorative justice” are not
officially mentioned in Vietnamese laws.
• International regulations and domestic
practices remain distant. While international
standards require the time period for handling
juveniles to be much shorter than adults, it is not
the case in practice. Juveniles’ privacy is not well
protected; closed trials are only an option, not a
requirement (article 307, Criminal Procedures
Code), and the media are free to write news
articles about the cases with personal
identification information about the juvenile
offenders and victims. The rights to defense of
the juvenile offenders are not always informed to
them and their families, as well as not effectively
implemented.
• Data on children in contact with the
judicial system are not collected adequately.
Statistics remain inconsistent across the
government and NGOs, unreliable, hard to
access, and insufficient. This causes the
difficulties in researching, monitoring and
evaluating the situations of these children, as well
as the progress of juvenile justice reform.
Data remains a challenge in Vietnam in
many sectors. There is a need to
significantly improve routine data
management systems in the relevant line
ministries, from local up to national level,
and to support the use of data and
evidence in policy-making. (UNICEF, 2011)
Figure 6. Representative Image
(Source: The Logical Indian, 2015)
Figure 7. Representative Image
(Source: Libertysugar, 2008)

8. 8
Lessons learned from other countries
Singapore: Family Conferencing (FC)
Singapore’s Juvenile Court started adopting restorative
justice as the philosophy in its approach toward juvenile
offenders in 1997. Instead of using FC as a replacement
for formal criminal proceedings like in Australia or New
Zealand, Singapore organized FC in addition to the
formal proceedings with these objectives: “1) To ensure
that the juvenile understands the seriousness of the
offending behavior; 2) To minimize the likelihood of
juvenile re-offending; 3) To provide the juvenile with the
opportunity to accept responsibility for the offending behavior; 4) To address the issue of family and
community accountability; and 5) To provide the victim(s), where possible, with an opportunity to
contribute to the cautioning process” (Subordinate Courts of Singapore, 1998).
FC was catered toward selected juvenile offenders who had been found guilty or pleaded guilty with less
serious offense (less than 50,000 SGD of property damage, and less than “grievous hurt” in case of
personal injury). He or she should be capable of and willing to contribute to FC, and so should his/her
family. Additionally, the maximum number of offenses committed must be three, and the offenders
should not have a record of frequent and serious offenses (Chan, 2013).
Two studies done by the Subordinate Courts in 1995 and 1997 found FC “effective,” with the recidivism
rate lower among those who had gone through family conferences compared to those gone to court
(Chan, 2013). However, whether the objectives of the conferences, especially 1) and 5), were obtained
was a big question. Also, it was unclear about the participation rate of the victims and their families, as
well as the impact of FC on their lives afterwards (Chan, 2013).
After 2011, the victims were no longer involved in FC, unless they were willing to attend the “Project
HEAL” family conferences. The lack of involvement from the victim’s side somewhat diminished the
purpose of the conferences.
The case of Singapore’s FC points out several lessons. First, more research should be done to
evaluate the effectiveness of different practices of restorative justice to inform countries.
Singapore adopted restorative justice during its early stage while there was very little research and
evidence on its success, which was rather risky. Second, embracing restorative justice requires a
thorough change in legislation to fully comply with the philosophy, and ideally, we should “identify
the key goals of restorative justice” and “legislatively insert these into the law” (Chan, 2013).
Figure 8. Singapore's Legal Hierarchy (Source: Hierarchy.com)

9. 9
Thailand: Family Community Group Conferencing (FCGC)
In 2003, the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection of Thailand, after much planning and
preparation for regulations, guidelines, and intensive training of staff, began launching a FCGC pilot
project and soon expanded it to the whole nation. FCGC is based on the New Zealand’s family group
conferencing model with modifications that integrate community into the process to make it more suitable
for Thai culture (Porter, 2007).
FCGC is different from Singapore’s FC: 1) In order
to be eligible for FCGC, it must be the juvenile’s
first offense, and he/she must plead guilty and
want to repair the harm; 2) The victim must provide
consent to the conference, and must be present at
the conference (Porter, 2007); and 3) The offenses
should be punishable by less than five years’
imprisonment (Kattiya Ratanadilok, n.d.).
The results of FCGC implementation are very promising, as can be found in table 2:
Statistics June 2003 - June 2005 2010 2012
Number of children arrested 66,858 46,345 30,451
Number of potential FCGC cases 10,220 19,775 961
Number of FCGC successfully organized 7,217 4,976 772
Number of cases with non-prosecutorial orders 5,751 4,751 188
Table 2. Success of FCGC in Thailand (Source: Kattiya Ratanadilok, n.d.)
Additionally, the recidivism rate was 4 percent among those who participated in FCGC in comparison
with 15 to 20 percent among those who went through formal criminal proceedings. Sukothai University
(Thailand) reported that both the offenders and victims were satisfied with the conference results, and 94
percent of the police, prosecutors, judges, offenders’ parents, and community leaders interviewed
supported FCGC (Porter, 2007).
Lessons learned: First, there is not a “one-size-fit-all” model of restorative justice; we need to
carefully examine and apply the concept with regard to the local context. Second, mobilizing all
potential resources in the society, especially the community power and the emphasis of harmony in
the culture, is crucial in successfully facilitating the conferences that protect the rights and promote the
opportunity for rehabilitation for juveniles.
Figure 9. A FCGC case (Source: Kattiya Ratanadilok, n.d.)

10. 10
Colombia: The Criminal Justice System for Adolescents (Sistema de Responsabilidad
Criminal de Adolescentes - SRPA)
SRPA is an effort of the Columbian government to align its legislation with
international standards and to implement a restorative justice system for
juvenile offenders. To facilitate rehabilitation, SPRA uses strategies such
as “rules of conduct, community service, and partial confinement” instead
of correctional facilities. More lenient punishments were introduced for all
teenagers under 18, such as raising the age of imprisonment from 12 to
14, and imprisonment is only used in the case of teenagers 14 to 16 years
old committing homicide, kidnapping, and extortion (Ibáñez et al., 2013).
The researchers reviewed the effects of SRPA based on the limited data
from 2003 to 2010. They found that crime rates, especially thefts, did
increase across the country after the implementation of SRPA. Also, the
police had less incentive to apprehend juvenile suspects. They
contended that SRPA reduced the costs of committing crimes for
juveniles and affected their decisions to participate in illegal activities,
which is consistent with the Becker model that states the lower costs of
crimes will increase juvenile justice participation (Ibáñez et al., 2013).
However, it is important to know about the inherent problems of SRPA.
First, the implementation of SRPA was not consistent across districts.
Second, the professionals (judges, social workers, etc.) involved with
SRPA were not well trained and preferred the traditional approach.
Third, correctional facilities were overcrowded and did not offer school
programs as mandated. Fourth, children under 14 who committed
crimes were often released immediately instead of being sent to
prevention program (Ibáñez et al., 2013).
These notions caution us of criticizing such an approach for being ineffective. Nonetheless, it signifies an
important lesson: a change in legislation must be accompanied by many policies that address the
possible consequences following it. In the case of Colombia, a mechanism to ensure the consistent
implementation of SRPA in the whole country, and to coordinate the work of the police, judges, and
social workers would be necessary when SRPA began.
Moreover, SRPA raises
a question: Does
reforming juvenile
justice simply mean
switching between
the two modes of
the soft-on-crime
versus hard-on-
crime dichotomy, or
do we actually have
other options?
Figure 10. Colombia map
(Source: Google Image)

11. 11
Conclusions
As the traditional approach to juvenile offenders
is revealing its limitations, and both national and
international experts are urging the country to
demonstrate its commitment to the CRC and
improve the situations for juvenile offenders,
Vietnam is motivated to engage in juvenile justice
reform and has regarded it as a priority on the
national agenda.
Despite some significant achievements it has
had, Vietnam is still at its early stage in juvenile
justice reform. The main drawbacks of the system
include the inconsistency between domestic laws
and international standards, the gap between
international regulations and national practices,
and the insufficient, inadequately-collected data
on children in conflict with the law.
However, Vietnam can, and should, proactively
learn from other countries, especially Singapore,
Thailand, and Colombia. First, Vietnam needs to
challenge the common dichotomy of soft-on-
crime versus hard-on-crime. We have to be
smarter on crime rather than simply choosing
between a severe or a lenient punishment
because neither of these options is working.
Second, restorative justice has been pushed on
an international level in practicing juvenile justice.
However, there is not a one-size-fit-all model of
restorative justice, and more research should be
carefully put into the implementation process to
ensure the appropriation of the practice with the
culture and local context. Lastly, mobilizing all the
resources in the society is critical in handling the
issue, because after all, juvenile justice is not
simply a legal procedure, it is also an important
social matter that can determine the future of the
community.
Protecting the rights of the children in conflict with
the law means respecting their dignity, treating
them in a humane manner, trialing them with
regards to their developmental stage and their
potentials to reintegrate into community, and
providing the best opportunities for them to
correct their wrongdoings and improve
themselves to become better people. All children
have rights, and so do children in conflict with the
law.
Figure 11. Representative Image (Source: UNICEF, 2016)

12. 12
Policy recommendations
nvest in child development and children’s rights trainings
Lacking expertise among the judges, lawyers, police, and social workers who are involved with
juvenile justice is an urgent and critical issue in Vietnam. This limits the opportunity of the juvenile
offenders to be protected and supported adequately during both the formal proceedings and
reintegration into society. As Vietnam has good relationships with many international and national NGOs
working on children’s issues, we should utilize the resources from these organizations to provide
trainings on child development and children’s rights for the staffs involved with juvenile justice.
xpand the Family and Juvenile Court model nationwide
As the first Family and Juvenile Court has been established for one year, lessons and experiences
can be drawn from it to prepare for the establishment of the court in at least every region of Vietnam.
Ideally, there should be one court in each city or province; however, if the resources, especially expertise
in juvenile justice and children’s rights, are not ready on provincial level, we should focus on building the
capacity before opening a new court. The first and second policy recommendations are highly
interrelated, and by taking deliberate, strategic steps, we can soon protect many children in even the
most remote area from being mistreated by the legal system.
ncrease research on the juvenile justice system and current issues in Vietnam
The political climate in Vietnam strictly controls research on the issues of rights, justice, and crime. It
is hard to find publications on these issues in English, other languages, or even Vietnamese. Different
governmental departments and offices provide varied, unofficially-published statistics, which decreases
the reliability of the data. Data-based policies are a crucial factor in development, and we need to
increase quality research, as well as mandate the official data, on juvenile justice issues to help us create
impactful evidence-based policies.
nhance consistency among the laws regarding children’s rights
Vietnam has embarked on law revision regarding children’s issues, and this should continue to be
a priority on the national agenda. The lessons learned from other countries show that no justice reform
can be well implemented without a comprehensive and coherent legal foundation. To demonstrate
Vietnam’s vision and “pioneering stand” in protecting children’s rights (UNICEF, 2016b), we should invest
more in revising the laws so they become more consistent and align better with international standards.
I
E
I
E

13. 13
References
Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (2013). Unofficial translation from Vietnamese by
International IDEA.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989.
Cox, P. (2010). Juvenile justice reform and policy convergence in the new Vietnam. Youth Justice, 10(3),
227-244.
Ekatha Ann John. (April 24, 2017). Shrink shortage puts Juvenile Justice Act in nowhere land. The Times
of India. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/shrink-shortage-puts-
juvenile-justice-act-in-nowhere-land/articleshow/58334551.cms
Frabutt, J. M., Di Luca, K. L., & Graves, K. N. (2008). Envisioning a juvenile justice system that supports
positive youth development. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 22, 107–125.
http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23
Johnson, Raina. (September 9, 2016). New research could lead to reforms in juvenile justice system.
Wisconsin Independent. Retrieved from https://www.wiscindy.com/2016/09/new-research-lead-
reforms-juvenile-justice-system/
Kattiya Ratanadilok. (N.d.). Restorative justice practices in Thailand [PDF document]. Retrieved from
http://srsg.violenceagainstchildren.org/sites/default/files/consultations/restorative_justice/presenta
tions/kattiya/Restorative%20justice%20practices%20in%20Thailand.pdf
Libertysugar. (July 16, 2008). Luxurious? Juvenile system to cost California $378 million. Popsugar.
Retrieved from https://www.popsugar.com/love/Luxurious-Juvenile-System-Cost-California-378-
million-1788114
Pham, T. T. N. (2014). The establishment of juvenile courts and the fulfilment of Vietnam’s obligations
under the Convention on the rights of the child. Australian Journal of Asian Law, 14 (1).
Pham, T. T. N. (2015). The rights of the child in the judicial sector in Vietnam: compliance with
international legal standards (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/4524/
Phu Nu TPHCM. (April 4, 2016). Một bước tiến trong cải cách tư pháp (A step forward in justice reform).
Baomoi.com. Retrieved from http://www.baomoi.com/mot-buoc-tien-trong-cai-cach-tu-
phap/c/19041127.epi
Porter, A. J. (November 30, 2007). Restorative conferencing in Thailand: A resounding success with
juvenile crime. International Institute for Restorative Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.iirp.edu/news/1850-restorative-conferencing-in-thailand-a-resounding-success-with-
juvenile-crime
Saint Joseph University. (N.d.). Improving the effectiveness of the Juvenile Justice program. SJU.
Retrieved from http://online.sju.edu/graduate/masters-criminal-
justice/resources/articles/improving-effectiveness-of-juvenile-justice-program

14. 14
Save the Children. (2014). Child rights situation analysis – Vietnam country office 2014. Retrieved from
https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/sites/default/files/documents/child_rights_situation_an
alysis_in_vietnam_2014_-save_the_children.pdf
Stier, Ken. (September 6, 2009). Why reforming the juvenile system is so hard. Time. Retrieved from
http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1924255,00.html
Subordinate Courts of Singapore. (1998). The Singapore juvenile court. Judicare: A newsletter of the
Singapore Judiciary (October/November issue). Singapore: Subordinate Courts of Singapore.
The Logical Indian. (December 24, 2015). Juvenile Justice Bill: How the bill was passed in hasted without
proper discussions? The Logical Indian. Retrieved from https://thelogicalindian.com/story-
feed/opinion/watchread-juvenile-justice-bill-how-the-bill-was-passed-in-haste-without-proper-
discussions/
UNICEF. (2010). An analysis of the situation of children in Vietnam 2010. Retrieved from
https://www.unicef.org/sitan/files/SitAn-Viet_Nam_2010_Eng.pdf
UNICEF. (2016, April 4). Viet Nam launches the first-ever specialized court for children. United Nations
Vietnam. Retrieved from http://www.un.org.vn/en/unicef-agencypresscenter2-89/3986-viet-nam-
launches-the-first-ever-specialized-court-for-children.html
UNICEF. (2016, April 1). The revised Child Law: The opportunity for Vietnam to consolidate its
pioneering stand on child rights. Retrieved from http://unicefvietnam.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-
revised-child-law-opportunity-for.html
Zalkind, P., & Simon, R. (2004). Global perspectives on social issues: Juvenile justice systems. Lanham:
Lexington.
Cover page photo: Phu Nu TPHCM. (April 4, 2016). Một bước tiến trong cải cách tư pháp (A step
forward in justice reform). Baomoi.com. Retrieved from http://www.baomoi.com/mot-buoc-tien-
trong-cai-cach-tu-phap/c/19041127.epi
Total length: 4656 words