Women’s Land Rights: The Development of Vietnamese Law in Line with International Standards on Gender Equality

Abstract

Although Vietnam is committed to complying with international frameworks on gender equality such as CEDAW, the Beijing Platform, and the 2030 Agenda, women still face many barriers in exercising their land use rights in practice. This study uses a doctrinal legal research method combined with comparative analysis to: (i) systematically analyze the provisions on gender equality in the 2024 Land Law; (ii) compare these provisions with the 2013 Land Law and relevant international standards; and (iii) assess the challenges in implementation from the perspective of substantive equality. The results show three notable areas of progress: (1) gender equality is recognized for the first time as a specific right of land users; (2) gender discrimination is included in the list of prohibited acts in land management and use; and (3) the scope and procedures for joint land use rights certification for spouses are clarified. However, gaps in legislative drafting, enforcement mechanisms, and the persistence of patriarchal social norms continue to widen the gap between equality on paper and equality in practice, as evidenced by the persistent 32% proportion of certificates registered solely in men’s names with no updated official data released nearly four years later; the absence of specific sanctions for gender discrimination in land use under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP; and the lack of mandatory enforcement mechanisms for joint spousal certification under the 2024 Law’s implementing regulations. Based on this, the article proposes several recommendations to improve the law and strengthen enforcement mechanisms to better align with CEDAW and SDG 5.a standards.

1. Introduction

Land rights are essential for economic development, food security, and women’s empowerment, especially in developing countries where agriculture remains the primary source of livelihood (Gender Inovation Lab 2020). Women account for 43% of the global agricultural labor force, but only about 15% of agricultural landowners are women. This imbalance not only violates the principle of gender equality but also causes serious economic and social consequences. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that gender inequality in agriculture is costing the world nearly $1 trillion annually (Gender 2023), while increasing food insecurity for tens of millions of people. Empirical research shows that if women have equal access to productive resources, agricultural productivity could increase by 20–30% (Renee et al. 2013).

International human rights law has long recognized women’s right to equality in accessing and controlling property, particularly land. The 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is the most comprehensive international legal document on women’s rights, with Article 14 specifically addressing rural women the most vulnerable group in terms of land access. Article 14(2)(g) clearly stipulates the obligation of member states to ensure that rural women have access to land. Articles 15 and 16 of CEDAW further affirm women’s right to equality in civil legal capacity, the right to enter into contracts, manage property, and, in particular, the right to equality between spouses in the ownership, purchase, management, and disposal of property (United Nation 1979). Alongside CEDAW, the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action made an unprecedented commitment to guarantee women’s access to land. The Beijing Declaration emphasized that empowering women economically, including through land ownership, is essential for sustainable development. More recently, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development made women’s land rights a specific target under Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) on gender equality. Target 5.a calls for the following: “Undertaking reforms to grant women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to, ownership and control over land and other forms of property.” However, data from 49 countries shows that in nearly 80% of countries, less than half of women in agricultural households have ownership or security rights to agricultural land (FAO 2023).

Vietnam is one of the pioneering countries in Southeast Asia in terms of legal commitment to gender equality. Vietnam signed the CEDAW Convention and, in 1982, became one of the first countries in Asia to ratify this important document. The ratification of CEDAW demonstrates Vietnam’s binding legal commitment to the international community to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women (Vietnam 2025). At the national legal level, the 2013 Constitution clearly recognizes the principle of gender equality. To concretize the provisions of the Constitution and international commitments, the 2006 Law on Gender Equality (amended in 2019) established a comprehensive legal framework for promoting gender equality in Vietnam. In addition, the 2015 Law on Promulgation of Legal Documents (amended and supplemented in 2020) stipulates that gender equality integration is a mandatory principle in the process of drafting laws, ordinances, and resolutions.

Despite this progressive legal framework, gender inequality in the land sector persists in Vietnam due to the profound influence of cultural and social factors. Vietnamese society bears the strong imprint of Confucian culture with its “male-centered” ideology, patriarchal system, and patrilineal inheritance customs (Tram 2022). According to traditional customs, land the most valuable asset of rural families is usually passed on to sons, while daughters are expected to marry and become members of their husband’s family (Gina et al. 2015). According to the 2022 report of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, of the 24.69 million land use certificates issued, approximately 32% were registered solely in men’s names, despite legal provisions requiring joint spousal certification for marital property. No updated official data on this indicator has been released since—a data gap that this article addresses in Section 3.3. As the UN SDG framework emphasizes, the absence of timely gender-disaggregated data is itself a barrier to evidence-based policymaking and accountability.

Numerous empirical studies worldwide have demonstrated that women’s land rights are not only a matter of fairness but also bring significant development benefits. Agarwal’s pioneering research (2003) on South Asia persuasively argued that the single most important economic factor affecting women’s status is the gender gap in asset control, and that in rural South Asia, agricultural land is the most important form of asset, indicating that women’s land ownership can enhance their economic welfare, social status, and power (Bina 1995). In Rwanda, a pilot program formalizing land ownership doubled rural households’ investment in land conservation measures, particularly among women who previously had insecure land rights (Gender Inovation Lab 2020). FAO estimates that if women had equal access to production inputs as men, agricultural productivity could increase by 20–30%, contributing to a reduction in world hunger by 100–150 million people. A recent FAO report (2023) further asserts that closing the gender gap in farm productivity and the wage gap in agricultural employment would increase global gross domestic product (GDP) by nearly $1 trillion and reduce food insecurity by 45 million people (FAO 2023). This has driven the emergence and development of international standards on women’s rights in the land sector, particularly regarding access to land, with the goal of sustainable development.

Although there have been many domestic and international studies on gender and land rights, three important gaps remain to be fully addressed in Vietnam. First, existing works mainly approach the issue from an economic–social and empirical perspective, while systematic doctrinal legal analysis of the new provisions in the 2024 Land Law on gender equality is limited. Second, there has been no systematic comparative study of the provisions of the 2013 and 2024 Land Laws against international standards from the perspective of formal and substantive equality. Third, the gap between legal equality “on paper” and equality in practice is still evident in statistics such as the proportion of land certificates registered solely in the names of men, but analyses of the specific legal and institutional causes remain scattered.

Therefore, this study aims to achieve three objectives: (i) systematically analyze the provisions on gender equality in the 2024 Land Law, particularly Articles 11 and 23; (ii) to compare the development of these provisions with the 2013 Land Law in the context of formal equality and substantive equality; and (iii) to assess the extent to which Vietnam’s legal framework complies with international standards on women’s land rights, while identifying gaps in the enforcement mechanism.

The article is structured as follows: Section 1 introduces the study; Section 2 presents the research methodology; Section 3 background of study; Section 4 introduces the theoretical framework and; Section 5 analyzes the 2013 and 2024 land legal frameworks from a gender perspective; Section 6 discusses implications for international standards and policy; Section 7 conclusion and recommendations.

2. Research Methodology

2.1. Research Design

This study employs the doctrinal legal research method, the dominant and most influential method in legal research, designed to systematically analyze codified legal frameworks and legal principles (Majeed et al. 2023). The doctrinal legal research method is particularly suitable for examining the development of law and assessing the coherence of legal systems (Hutchinson and Duncan 2012). The doctrinal analysis in this study is operationalized through: (i) close interpretive reading of the 2013 and 2024 Land Laws, with particular attention to the wording, structure, and implicit assumptions of Articles 11, 23, and related provisions; (ii) systematic comparison with international benchmarks including CEDAW Articles 14, 15, 16, CEDAW General Recommendations No. 25 and No. 34, SDG target 5.a.1, and the VGGT; and (iii) critical assessment of implementing decrees (particularly Decree 102/2024/ND-CP and Decree 123/2024/ND-CP) to evaluate the gap between legislative intent and actual enforceability.

This study applies a mixed doctrinal approach combining three complementary analytical strategies:

First, comparative legal analysis to identify similarities and differences between the 2013 and 2024 Land Laws, while comparing Vietnam’s legal framework with international standards. Comparative legal analysis is an essential tool for understanding the context and significance of national legal reforms in a global context (Uwe 2019).

Second, contextual analysis places Vietnam’s legal framework within the context of international commitments on gender equality, economic and social conditions, and cultural standards. Hutchinson (2015) emphasizes that modern doctrinal legal research increasingly recognizes that the scope of the purely doctrinal method is too limited, and academic legal researchers are becoming eclectic in their use of research methods, combining the doctrinal method with interdisciplinary methods when necessary (Hutchinson 2015).

Third, critical legal analysis to assess the effectiveness and potential implementation challenges of new regulations. This method allows research to go beyond describing what the law is to analyze what the law should be and how it can be improved.

2.2. Limitations of the Study

First, the doctrinal focus is a legal analysis; this study examines “law on paper” (law in books). Although the study incorporates secondary evidence on implementation, it does not conduct original empirical research on “law in action.” Empirical research is necessary to assess the actual effectiveness of the 2024 Land Law. Hutchinson and Duncan (2012) note that while the doctrinal method differs from “empirical” or evidence-based methods, both approaches have value and complement each other in comprehensive legal research (Hutchinson and Duncan 2012).

Second, time constraints. The 2024 Land Law takes effect on 1 August 2024. Therefore, this study analyzes primary legislation but cannot yet assess the full regulatory framework or observe actual implementation outcomes. These time constraints mean that certain findings are more predictive than descriptive. Longitudinal tracking will be necessary to confirm or revise preliminary findings.

Third, language barriers. While the study incorporates international literature in English, some Vietnamese sources (particularly government reports, secondary legal texts, and domestic academic articles) may limit comparative insights. However, this study provides detailed translations and explanations of key legal provisions and main findings to ensure international audiences can understand and evaluate the results.

Fourth, limitations in scope. This study focuses specifically on gender equality regulations. Broader land law reforms (e.g., land valuation, compensation mechanisms, land use rights transfers) are only discussed insofar as they relate to gender impacts. This means the study does not provide a comprehensive assessment of all aspects of the 2024 Land Law.

Despite these limitations, the doctrinal legal research method remains appropriate for achieving the study’s objectives of systematically analyzing legal provisions, identifying changes over time, assessing compliance with international standards, and providing a basis for evidence-based policy recommendations. As Vranken argues, doctrinal legal research, when conducted rigorously and with self-awareness of methodological choices, remains an essential and valuable tool for understanding and improving legal systems (Mark 2010).

3. Background

3.1. The Context of Vietnam

Vietnam’s legal framework on gender equality has developed significantly. The 2013 Constitution guarantees equality between men and women, and the 2006 Law on Gender Equality stipulates comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions. Specifically, regarding land, the 2013 Land Law introduced progressive measures including mandatory joint certificates for married couples unless otherwise agreed, equal rights for household members including daughters in the use of household land, and gender-neutral language in land rights provisions. However, empirical studies consistently reveal a persistent implementation gap between women’s formal land rights and their realised rights in practice. A systematic synthesis of available quantitative and qualitative evidence on this gap is presented in Section 3.3; the key finding is that approximately 32% of LURCs remain registered solely in men’s names, a figure that has not been officially updated since 2020.

Studies also show that this situation is caused by a combination of factors. Cultural factors include the custom of patrilineal inheritance and the preference for sons in Vietnamese society, which is influenced by Confucianism. Legal complexity arises from ambiguity regarding exceptions to the requirement for joint certificates—the phrase “unless otherwise agreed” creates loopholes that can be exploited in a patriarchal cultural context. Institutional capacity is constrained by inadequate gender training for land officials and a lack of mechanisms to monitor compliance with joint certification requirements. Economic barriers include fees for modifying certificates to add the name of a spouse, which prevents many households from updating their existing certificates. ICRW (International Center for Research on Women) in their study on Vietnam notes that although the legal framework appears progressive, rural women continue to face multiple systemic barriers in exercising their land rights (Gina et al. 2015).

A more precise analysis of the causal pathways between legal provisions and implementation failures is essential. The 32% single-name certificate rate can be traced to three interacting causal mechanisms: First, legislative drafting deficiencies: The phrase “unless both parties agree otherwise” in Article 98(4) of the 2013 Land Law creates an exception that, in a patriarchal context, becomes a loophole. Women’s weaker bargaining power within households means that “voluntary” agreements to exclude wives’ names from certificates are often coerced by customary norms rather than freely given. The 2024 Land Law has not addressed this ambiguity. Second, weak enforcement mechanisms: Decree 102/2024/ND-CP, the primary implementing regulation for the 2024 Land Law, contains no specific provision mandating proactive verification of joint spousal certification or establishing sanctions for non-compliance. Local land officials lack both clear guidance and performance incentives to enforce joint certification requirements. Third, administrative capacity constraints: The World Bank has documented that conversion requests are not pursued due to lack of awareness of women’s rights, concerns about complex procedures and associated costs, and household-level sensitivities (Tsjeard et al. 2005). These barriers are compounded by limited gender training for land officials and the absence of compliance monitoring mechanisms. The absence of updated official gender-disaggregated land data for nearly four years exemplifies this capacity gap: without data, monitoring is impossible, and without monitoring, accountability cannot function. The relative weight of these factors can be preliminarily assessed: cultural barriers provide the underlying social context (enabling condition), while drafting deficiencies and weak enforcement constitute the immediate legal causes. However, administrative capacity constraints operate as the critical multiplier—even where laws are well-drafted and cultural norms are shifting, inadequate institutional capacity prevents effective implementation.

3.2. Research on Women’s Land Rights

Research on women’s land rights is approached from many different angles. Many international studies have pointed out the benefits of ensuring gender equality in the land sector. The pioneering work of Carmen and Magdalena on women’s land and property rights in Latin America showed how women have historically been excluded from land rights through various mechanisms. Based on comparative research in 12 Latin American countries (Carmen and Magdalena 2003), Deere and León argue that gender inequality in land ownership in Latin America can be attributed to the family, community, state, and market. Deere and León show that gender inequality in land ownership stems from male preference in inheritance, male privilege in marriage, male bias in state land distribution programs, and gender inequality in the land market, where women are less likely to be buyers than men. World Bank analysis across multiple countries shows that closing the gender gap in land ownership could increase agricultural GDP by up to 4 percent. Specific case studies provide even more compelling evidence. In Rwanda, a pilot program to formalize land ownership doubled rural households’ investment in land conservation measures, particularly among women who previously had insecure land rights (Abbott et al. 2018). In Benin, a large-scale program led to a 23–43% increase in the probability of households planting perennial cash crops and investing in trees on their land. Importantly, these studies also found that registering land in women’s names significantly increased their decision-making power within the household, particularly regarding income allocation (Gender Inovation Lab 2020).

Regarding empowerment outcomes, land rights enhance women’s bargaining power within the household, decision-making authority, and protection from domestic violence. The groundbreaking research by Pradeep and Bina (2005) in Kerala, India, provided strong empirical evidence of the link between women’s property ownership and reduced marital violence. Based on a survey of 502 married women, Panda and Agarwal found that women who owned real estate (land or houses) faced a significantly lower risk of marital violence than women without property (Pradeep and Bina 2005). Subsequent studies in other countries, including Bangladesh and China, confirmed these findings. Research by Gahramanov and colleagues (2020) shows that women’s property ownership significantly reduces the risk of psychological and physical violence (Gahramanov et al. 2021). Regarding intergenerational effects, children, especially daughters, benefit from their mothers owning land through improved nutrition, health, and educational outcomes. A recent study on Vietnam by Nguyen and Le provide empirical evidence of the positive impact of women’s land ownership. Using Vietnamese household survey data, Nguyen found that women who own land have significantly greater bargaining power within the household, particularly in decisions related to children, easier access to formal credit, and greater ability to invest in human capital. Furthermore, women’s land ownership positively impacts household spending and saving behavior, as well as enhances household social capital (M. Nguyen and K. Le 2023).

3.3. Systematic Synthesis on Empirical Evidence on the Implementation Gap

The doctrinal analysis presented in this article is grounded in a systematic synthesis of available empirical evidence drawn from national administrative data, regional field studies, and household survey research. While original field data collection falls outside the scope of this study’s doctrinal design, the convergence of findings across multiple independent empirical sources provides a robust evidentiary basis for the legal analysis that follows. This section organises that evidence across three analytical tiers: national-level administrative data, sub-national and community-level findings, and institutional data gaps that are themselves analytically significant.

National-level administrative data: The most comprehensive national dataset on gender and land certification in Vietnam remains the 2022 report of MONRE, which recorded a total of 24.69 million land use rights certificates (LURCs) issued to households and individuals, of which 15.68 million—approximately 68%—included at least one woman’s name (Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2024). While the 68% figure is frequently cited as evidence of progress, its corollary is analytically more significant: approximately 32% of all LURCs—representing millions of certificates nationwide—were registered solely in men’s names, despite the 2013 Land Law’s requirement that joint marital property be certified in the names of both spouses. Critically, MONRE has not released updated gender-disaggregated land data since this 2022 report, leaving a data gap of nearly four years at the time of writing. This silence is not administratively neutral: the absence of updated official data constitutes evidence of weak institutional monitoring capacity, and the inability to track trend data prevents authorities from determining whether the gap is narrowing, stable, or widening under the 2024 Land Law’s new provisions.

Complementing the MONRE data, a World Bank analysis of Vietnamese household data found that among residential LURCs issued to married couples, 39% were registered to male household heads compared to only 6.2% to female household heads—a ratio of more than six to one (Buchhave et al. 2020). The same study found that women named on individual LURCs were disproportionately single (unmarried, widowed, or divorced), suggesting that joint certification for married couples remains significantly underimplemented in practice. These figures establish an empirical baseline against which the 2024 Land Law’s new gender provisions must be evaluated.

Sub-national and community-level evidence: Regional field studies consistently confirm that the national implementation gap documented above is produced by a combination of legal, institutional, and cultural mechanisms operating at the local level. ActionAid Vietnam’s survey across six development regions found that women continue to face significant restrictions on land access as evidenced by prevailing LURC issuance patterns, attributing these restrictions to three primary factors: women’s limited awareness of their legal land rights, patriarchal norms that prioritise the household head—typically male—on land documents, and administrative procedures that do not proactively enforce joint certification requirements (ActionAid Việt Nam 2013). These findings indicate that the implementation gap is not primarily a product of individual choice but of structural conditions that systematically disadvantage women within formally neutral legal procedures.

The ICRW study Women, Land and Law in Vietnam (Gina et al. 2015) further documented that despite specific provisions in the 2013 Land Law and related instruments, including the Marriage and Family Law, requiring gender equality in land certification, women’s land rights remained structurally restricted in practice. The study identified multiple compounding barriers: women’s lower household bargaining power, the cost and complexity of certificate modification procedures, and the absence of proactive institutional support for women seeking to enforce their land rights. Taken together, these findings demonstrate that the 2013 Land Law’s joint certification requirement—reproduced and reinforced in the 2024 Land Law—has not been sufficient to close the implementation gap in the absence of complementary enforcement mechanisms and institutional supports.

At the community level, research on ethnic minority women reveals that the implementation gap is compounded by intersecting vulnerabilities. A study of Co Tu ethnic minority women in Nam Dong District, Thừa Thiên Huế Province found that women frequently did not know their land rights or did not regard having their names on certificates as a priority, reflecting the internalisation of traditional gender norms specific to their ethnic and geographic context (Lê et al. 2020). A subseq uent mixed-methods study across ethnic minority communities in central Vietnam confirmed that women’s land tenure security is shaped not only by gender but by the intersection of ethnic identity, geographic remoteness, and economic vulnerability (Pham et al. 2023). These sub-national findings demonstrate that the uniform gender equality framework of the 2024 Land Law—which does not differentiate protections based on vulnerability—risks producing a “one-size-fits-all” approach that is structurally inadequate for the most marginalised women.

The evidential significance of institutional data gaps: The pattern of data absence is itself empirically meaningful and must be incorporated into the analysis rather than treated merely as a limitation. Three specific data gaps are relevant to this study’s assessment of the 2024 Land Law. First, MONRE’s failure to publish updated gender-disaggregated LURC data for nearly four years—despite the 32% single-name certificate rate identified in 2022 representing a clear policy concern—indicates that no mandatory data collection or public reporting requirement exists for this indicator. Second, no official data exists on the number of administrative complaints or litigation cases involving gender discrimination in land management, making it impossible to assess whether Article 11’s prohibition on gender discrimination has been invoked in any enforcement proceeding since the 2024 Land Law came into effect on 1 August 2024. Third, implementing regulations—specifically Decree 102/2024/ND-CP on land registration and Decree 123/2024/ND-CP on administrative sanctions—contain no provisions mandating the collection of gender-disaggregated compliance data at provincial or district level. As the UN SDG monitoring framework emphasises, the absence of timely gender-disaggregated data is itself a barrier to evidence-based policymaking and accountability (United Nations Department of Economic Social Affairs 2025). In this context, the data gaps identified here are not peripheral to the legal analysis—they are constitutive of the enforcement gap that the 2024 Land Law’s gender provisions have yet to address.

Contemporary case illustrations of the implementation gap, the structural barriers identified above are not merely statistical abstractions but are illustrated by documented individual cases that reveal how the implementation gap operates at the household and administrative level. Three categories of contemporary cases are particularly instructive.

Case 1—Exclusion from joint certification through “voluntary” agreement: A pattern documented by ICRW and ActionAid Vietnam involves married women in rural provinces (notably in Thanh Hoa and Nghe An) who reported that land certificates were issued solely in their husbands’ names because the husband, as household head, submitted the application without including the wife’s name. Local land officials processed these applications without enquiring into spousal consent, treating the absence of a joint application as evidence of the “other agreement” exception under Article 98(4) of the 2013 Land Law. In several cases, women reported that they were unaware a certificate had been issued until a marital dispute arose, at which point they faced significant procedural barriers to challenging the registration (Gina et al. 2015; ActionAid Việt Nam 2013).

Case 2—Ethnic minority women and compounded exclusion: Research in Nam Dong District, Thừa Thiên Huế Province documented cases where Co Tu ethnic minority women were systematically excluded from land certificates due to the intersection of patrilineal customary norms and limited legal awareness. In one representative scenario, when a household’s land certificate came up for renewal, community elders intervened to ensure that only the male household head’s name appeared on the renewed certificate, treating the exclusion of women’s names as consistent with customary land governance. The women affected did not challenge these decisions, reporting that they “did not know they had the right to be included" and feared social sanction for asserting individual claims against community norms (Lê et al. 2020). These cases illustrate the intersectional vulnerability that the 2024 Land Law’s uniform framework fails to address.

Case 3—Barriers to certificate conversion after marital breakdown: Court records and legal aid casework in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi have documented cases where women sought to assert land rights following separation or divorce, only to discover that the family home or agricultural land was registered solely in the husband’s name despite being acquired during the marriage. The procedural complexity of applying to convert individual certificates to joint certificates—combined with the cost of legal proceedings and the husband’s refusal to cooperate—left many women unable to enforce their entitlements, effectively losing rights to marital property that the law nominally guaranteed them (C. T. K. Nguyen 2022; Q. S. Nguyen and H. H. Le 2023).

These cases collectively illustrate that the implementation gap is not a product of isolated administrative errors but of systemic patterns—procedural passivity by officials, cultural coercion normalized as “voluntary agreement,” and prohibitive barriers to legal recourse—that the 2024 Land Law has yet to systematically address.

Taken together, the available empirical evidence converges on a consistent finding: the implementation gap between women’s formal land rights under Vietnamese law and their realised land rights in practice is substantial, persistent, and structurally produced. National data establish the scale of the gap (approximately 32% of LURCs registered solely in men’s names); regional and community studies identify its mechanisms (legal loopholes, institutional inertia, cultural norms, and intersecting vulnerabilities among ethnic minority women); and institutional data absence confirms the monitoring deficit that allows the gap to persist without triggering accountability. This synthesis provides the empirical foundation for the doctrinal analysis in Section 5 and Section 6, which examines whether the legal innovations of the 2024 Land Law—notably Articles 11 and 23—are structurally capable of addressing these identified mechanisms, or whether they primarily reinforce a formal equality framework that leaves the underlying causes of the implementation gap intact.

4. Theoretical Framework

Feminist legal scholars have long criticized property law systems as patriarchal institutions that systematically disadvantage women (Lacey 2004). In 1989, Catharine MacKinnon, one of the leading American feminist legal theorists, pioneered the development of a legal theory designed from a woman’s perspective and aimed at countering patriarchal hierarchies in social relationships. MacKinnon argued that the injustice women experience stems not primarily from gender-based discrimination in the law, but from their subordination to men in society. In her work “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State” (1989), MacKinnon analyzes how social power shapes how we know and how what we know shapes social power in terms of social inequality between women and men’s work, MacKinnon emphasizes that the law does not merely reflect existing social norms but actively creates and reinforces gender inequality through how it defines legal subjects, rights, and procedures (Catharine 1989).

Another important contribution to feminist legal theory is the concept of intersectional feminism, introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw in her groundbreaking 1989 article “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” Rooted in Black feminism and Critical Race Theory, intersectional feminism is a method and orientation, an analytical tool (Devon et al. 2013). Kimberlé Crenshaw further developed this theoretical framework, using intersectionality to highlight how social movements and campaigns against violence against women have overlooked the vulnerabilities of women of color, particularly those from immigrant and socially disadvantaged communities (Intersectionality 2026). In the Vietnamese context, intersectionality is not merely a theoretical abstraction but a lived reality for millions of ethnic minority women. Empirical research confirms that women from ethnic minority groups face compounding barriers due to the intersection of gender, ethnicity, geography, and poverty. A 2024 mixed-methods study in Thừa Thiên Huế province surveyed 398 ethnic minority households and found that women’s land tenure security is shaped not only by gender but also by ethnic identity and climate vulnerability (Gina et al. 2015). Research on Co Tu ethnic minority women has shown that women often do not know their rights or do not prioritize having their names on certificates, reflecting the internalization of traditional gender norms within specific ethnic contexts (Lê et al. 2020). The USAID Country Profile notes that ‘ethnic minority communities, particularly in the central highlands, require enhanced tenure security through formalized communal land-use certificates (Gina et al. 2015). Moreover, a 2025 project report found that ethnic minority people in general, and ethnic minority women in particular, still have limited access to legal information on land. These findings demonstrate that gender provisions in land law must be analyzed through an intersectional lens to assess whether they adequately address compounded vulnerabilities—or risk reproducing a “one-size-fits-all” approach that benefits primarily urban, Kinh majority women while leaving ethnic minority women behind.

Discrimination theory, which distinguishes between formal equality and substantive equality, is particularly relevant to land rights. Formal equality refers to equal treatment under the law, while substantive equality concerns equal outcomes for disadvantaged and marginalized groups and, more broadly, all subordinate groups in society. The concept of substantive equality arises from the recognition that formal equality may not be sufficient to ensure that women enjoy the same rights as men. Substantive equality requires that equality be interpreted in the broader context or reality of women’s disadvantages and the impact of these circumstances in terms of eliminating disadvantages in outcomes or results. It is a channel through which women can fully exercise and enjoy all human rights and freedoms on an equal basis with men (Substantive Equality 2018). In addition, the concept of gender mainstreaming has become the dominant international framework for promoting gender equality (Zeinab 2017). This transforms the concerns and experiences of both women and men into an integrated dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of policies and programs in all political, economic, and social spheres so that women and men benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated, with the ultimate goal of achieving gender equality (Guzura 2017). This means that assessing the effectiveness of gender mainstreaming in Vietnam’s 2024 Land Law must consider not only legal provisions but also the political, economic, institutional, and cultural factors that influence implementation.

Within the scope of this article, the three theoretical concepts mentioned above are applied as follows. First, the concepts of formal equality and substantive equality are used as a yardstick to assess whether the provisions of the 2013 and 2024 Land Laws merely ensure equal treatment in legal documents or have created specific mechanisms to overcome the practical disadvantages women face in accessing land. Second, the intersectionality theory serves as the foundation for analyzing the multiple layers of barriers faced by ethnic minority women, poor women, or women living in remote areas when accessing land rights, especially in the context where provisions on “other agreements” in joint certificates may be applied disadvantageously. Third, a gender mainstreaming framework is used to assess the extent to which the provisions of the 2024 Land Law have fully integrated a gender perspective into the entire land governance cycle, from allocation and management to dispute resolution, or whether they are limited to a few declarative provisions.

5. Legal Framework on Women’s Rights in Land in Vietnam

5.1. The Vietnam 2013 Land Law

The 2013 Land Law is an important step forward in Vietnam’s efforts to promote gender equality in land governance, particularly through the strengthening of provisions on joint land use rights for married couples. This law was developed in the context of Vietnam’s ratification of CEDAW in 1982 and the enactment of the Gender Equality Law in 2006, reflecting the state’s growing commitment to substantive gender equality (Buchhave et al. 2020). The gender provisions in the 2013 Land Law stem from an important legal development that began with the 2003 Land Law, when it first required both spouses to be named on the land use rights certificate (LURC) for the couple’s joint property.

The most crucial gender-related provision in the 2013 Land Law is Article 98 (4), which stipulates that “the full names of both spouses must be recorded on the LURC for joint property, unless both parties have agreed otherwise.”. This provision establishes mandatory joint certification as the default rule for the couple’s joint property, unless there is a clear agreement to the contrary (C. Nguyen 2022). This is an important improvement over previous practice, where the LURC often only listed the head of the household, who was usually male according to traditional patriarchal norms. This joint certification requirement is consistent with the provisions of the Marriage and Family Law on joint property of spouses. Additionally, the 2013 Law uses gender-neutral language such as “individual” and “land user” instead of gendered terms, reflecting the principle that land reform should not discriminate in granting rights. However, the clause “unless both parties agree otherwise” creates an important exception to the joint certification requirement. In a patriarchal cultural context, where women have weaker bargaining power within the family, this exception risks becoming a channel for legalizing agreements that are disadvantageous to women, even if ostensibly “voluntary”. From a substantive equality perspective, ensuring the genuine voluntariness and full informed consent of the wife when agreeing not to be named on the certificate is a legislative gap that the Vietnam 2013 Land Law has not addressed (T. L. Nguyen 2020).

The provisions on gender equality in the Vietnam 2013 Land Law are also supported by provisions in related laws. The 2006 Gender Equality Law prohibits gender discrimination in all areas of social life, including access to property. The Marriage and Family Law stipulate that property acquired during marriage belongs to both spouses, creating a legal basis for joint certification requirements. Article 26 of the Vietnam 2013 Constitution affirms the principle of gender equality at the constitutional level, creating a comprehensive legal framework to protect women’s land rights. Thus, the Vietnam 2013 Land Law does not operate independently but is part of a broader legal system aimed at promoting gender equality.

In practice, data from the Vietnam Household Living Standards Survey shows that the rate of jointly issued LURCs has increased significantly since the 2003 Land Law, when the joint certification requirement was first introduced. However, progress remains uneven (C. T. K. Nguyen 2022). A World Bank study (2018) on the benefits of joint land certification in Vietnam found that women named on individual LURCs were more likely to be single (unmarried, widowed, or divorced) than men. Among residential land use certificates issued to married couples, 39% were issued to male heads of household compared to 6.2% to female heads of household, indicating that in the absence of a requirement to convert existing individual land certificates into joint certificates, married women are less likely to hold clear land use rights than their husbands (Buchhave et al. 2020).

The 2020 report by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment provides important evidence on the status of implementation. The total number of land use rights certificates issued to households and individuals is 24.69 million, of which 15.68 million (68%) are in women’s names. Although 68% seems impressive, it also implies that 32% of certificates are solely in the name of men. This disparity is largely due to the fact that many certificates issued before 1 July 2004, still bear the name of only one spouse, usually the husband, and the rate of conversion of individually held land certificates to joint certificates remains low (Vietnam Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment 2024). The World Bank notes that conversion requests are not pursued due to a lack of awareness of women’s rights to land, concerns about complex and lengthy procedures and associated costs, and sensitivity within households and communities when a wife or husband requests joint certification. Qualitative research provides insight into barriers to implementation. ICRW’s study “Women, Land and Law in Vietnam” indicates that although the 2013 Land Law and previous versions of the land law since 2008 include specific provisions to regulate equal access to land for women and men by requiring the LURC to include the names of both spouses, but despite these provisions and other legal documents requiring gender equality, such as the Marriage and Family Law, women’s land rights remain restricted (Gina et al. 2015). Research by ActionAid Vietnam conducted in six developing regions confirmed that women still face significant restrictions on their access to land, as evidenced by the current situation of LURC issuance (ActionAid Việt Nam 2013).

An analysis of the implementation gap reveals three main groups of barriers that hinder the full implementation of gender provisions in the 2013 Land Law. First, legal loopholes and ambiguities create gaps that allow for violations. The phrase “unless both parties agree otherwise” in Article 98 (4) creates an important exception to the joint certification requirement. In a patriarchal culture where women may face pressure to comply with their husbands’ decisions, this exception can be exploited. Second, institutional and capacity challenges weaken enforcement. The World Bank notes that the need to transfer certificates should be reinforced by raising awareness of women’s land rights, simplifying procedures, and addressing cost concerns. However, the capacity of local land management agencies to implement awareness-raising and support measures remains limited. Third, barriers stem from cultural and social factors deeply rooted in patriarchal norms and practices. ICRW research indicates that gender inequality in land rights in Vietnam is perpetuated by patrilineal inheritance customs and the preference for sons in Confucian-influenced societies. Research by Pham Thi Hang and colleagues (2023) among ethnic minority women in Vietnam found that women often do not know their rights or do not prioritize having their names on certificates, reflecting the internalization of traditional gender norms. These cultural barriers demonstrate that legal reform alone is insufficient to achieve substantive gender equality without simultaneous efforts to transform social attitudes and beliefs (Pham et al. 2023).

The legal, institutional, and cultural barriers indicate that the progressive provisions of the Vietnam 2013 Land Law remain primarily formal equality. The question is whether the Vietnam 2024 Land Law, by elevating gender equality to a specific right and prohibiting gender discrimination, will be sufficient to overcome these limitations or merely reinforce the existing legal framework on paper.

5.2. The Vietnam 2024 Land Law

The Vietnam 2024 Land Law demonstrates significant progress in Vietnam’s legal framework for land governance, with notable improvements to gender equality provisions. Regarding gender equality, the Vietnam 2024 Land Law introduces three key innovations that distinguish it from its 2013 predecessor. First, the Vietnam 2024 Land Law elevates gender equality for the first time to the status of an explicit right of citizens to land, rather than an implied principle or procedural obligation. Second, it incorporates an explicit prohibition on gender discrimination in land management and use as a prohibited act, creating a clear basis for sanctions and enforcement measures. Third, while maintaining the general certification requirement, the Vietnam 2024 Land Law clarifies the procedures and scope of this provision, addressing some ambiguities that undermined enforcement under the Vietnam 2013 Land Law. These innovations reflect a shift from a formal equality approach towards substantive equality, consistent with Vietnam’s international commitments under CEDAW and SDG 5.a.

The enactment of the Vietnam 2024 Land Law also comes amid increased international advocacy and technical support. The Mekong Region Land Governance (MRLG) project notes that the new provisions of the 2024 Land Law are an important achievement, promoting the project’s core principles of advancing land tenure security, equitable access, and improved governance (Luật 2024). This international recognition demonstrates that Vietnam’s 2024 Land Law is increasingly seen as a progressive model for land governance that emphasizes gender equality in the region. The gender-progressive aspects of the Vietnam 2024 Land Law are reflected in the following areas:

Gender equality is defined as a legal right. Article 23(3) of the Vietnam 2024 Land Law stipulates “The right to equality and gender equality in land management and use.” The inclusion of gender equality in the list of citizens’ fundamental rights regarding land has profound legal significance. Legally, it transforms gender equality from a guiding principle or policy objective into an affirmed legal right that the state must respect, creating a comprehensive vision of citizens’ rights in which gender equality is an essential dimension. The wording of Article 23(3) is also noteworthy from a technical legal perspective. It refers to both “rights to equality” and “gender equality” indicating that the legislature recognizes the difference between equality in general and gender equality specifically. This approach reflects the concept of substantive equality advocated by the CEDAW Committee, whereby states must not only ensure formal equality but also take positive measures to achieve equality in outcome (UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) 2004). The legislature’s choice to refer separately to “rights to equality” and “gender equality” in Article 23(3) reflects an implicit recognition that formal equality equal treatment under the law is not sufficient to guarantee gender equality in practice. Gender equality requires additional measures to address the specific, historically entrenched disadvantages that women face in accessing and controlling land. This drafting choice thus embodies, at least implicitly, the CEDAW Committee’s distinction between formal and substantive equality. However, as will be argued in Section 6, the Law does not follow through on this distinction with concrete enforcement mechanisms or temporary special measures—a gap that threatens to reduce this progressive wording to a declaratory statement.

Regarding the structure of rights. First, regarding the subjects of rights, Article 23(3) recognizes equality and gender equality in land management and use as a right of “land users”, thereby covering individuals, households, and organizations. However, the law does not clearly identify vulnerable groups that need enhanced protection, such as rural women, ethnic minority women, or single women, even though these groups are emphasized by CEDAW and General Recommendation No. 34. Second, regarding the content of rights, the current provisions are limited to general declarations without specifying the obligations of state agencies in ensuring gender equality in each stage of land administration (allocation, registration, transfer, recovery, compensation). Third, regarding enforcement mechanisms, the Law does not specify remedies or specific procedures when gender equality rights are violated, putting these rights at risk of becoming more symbolic than effectively enforceable.

The scope of rights, which includes both “management” and “use” of land in Article 23(3) is very important. It indicates that gender equality must be ensured not only in the use of land at the household and community levels, but also in decision-making structures and governance of land allocation, regulation, and supervision. This is consistent with the principles of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests (VGGT), which emphasize the importance of women’s participation at all levels of decision-making on land governance (Castañeda et al. 2023). However, the effectiveness of the provision on gender equality will depend on how it is implemented and whether there are strong accountability mechanisms in place. The law does not specify specific remedies or enforcement mechanisms available when gender equality rights are violated. Implementing regulations will need to clarify these procedural aspects to translate rights on paper into enforceable rights in practice. From an intersectional perspective, this universal framing is problematic. The Law does not clearly identify vulnerable groups that need enhanced protection—such as rural women, ethnic minority women, single women, widows, or women with disabilities—even though CEDAW General Recommendation No. 34 specifically emphasizes the need for targeted measures for rural women, who face “multiple forms of discrimination” based on the intersection of gender and rurality. By adopting a uniform approach, the Law risks creating a “one-size-fits-all” gender equality framework that overlooks how ethnicity, rurality, marital status, and disability compound women’s vulnerabilities in accessing land rights. Empirical evidence supports this concern: a 2024 study on ethnic minorities in central Vietnam found that women’s access to land use rights is significantly affected by the intersection of gender and ethnicity, with ethnic minority women facing greater barriers than Kinh-majority women (Lê et al. 2020).

Regarding the prohibition of gender discrimination. Article 11 of the Vietnam 2024 Land Law lists prohibited acts in the land sector, and for the first time in the history of Vietnam’s land law, it includes an explicit prohibition on gender discrimination. This provision creates a basis for enforcement through administrative and judicial measures. Unlike declarations of principles or positive rights, prohibitions are often easier to enforce because they clearly define illegal acts and are usually linked to sanctions. Although the inclusion of gender discrimination in the list of prohibited acts is an important step forward, the design of this provision still raises some questions about its enforceability. First, the Law does not define what constitutes “gender discrimination” in the field of land, nor does it clearly distinguish between direct and indirect discrimination, even though these are central concepts in international human rights law. Second, the mechanism for proving discrimination has not been clarified, particularly whether the burden of proof is reversed in land disputes involving gender, as has been applied in other areas. Third, a close reading of the two principal implementing instruments reveals a structural discontinuity between the 2024 Land Law’s gender commitments and the regulatory framework through which those commitments must be operationalized. Regarding registration procedures, Decree 102/2024/ND-CP—which governs land allocation, registration, and issuance of LURCs—specifies detailed procedural requirements across its chapters on land allocation, land lease, change of land use purpose, and land registration, but contains no provision mandating proactive verification of joint spousal certification as a compliance obligation for land registration officials. The Decree does not specify what documentation must evidence a valid “other agreement,” does not require officials to inform both spouses of their rights before processing a sole-name application, and establishes no reporting requirement for cases where joint certification is not pursued. In operational terms, local officials processing a sole-name LURC application for marital property face no regulatory obligation to enquire into the basis for the absent spouse’s exclusion, meaning that coerced exclusion is processed as procedurally compliant with voluntary agreement. Regarding sanctions, Decree 123/2024/ND-CP provides detailed sanction schedules covering encroachment, unauthorized land use conversion, and violations of land registration procedures but a systematic review of its provisions reveals no article specifying an administrative sanction for gender discrimination in land management and use, despite Article 11 of the 2024 Land Law explicitly listing gender discrimination as a prohibited act. In Vietnamese administrative law, a prohibition unaccompanied by a corresponding sanction lacks effective deterrent force: without a defined penalty, enforcement authorities have no clear legal basis on which to act, and the prohibition functions as a declaratory norm rather than an enforceable obligation. Neither Decree establishes any mandate for gender-disaggregated data collection at provincial or district level, institutionalizing the monitoring gap that MONRE’s failure to publish updated LURC statistics since 2022 has already illustrated nationally. Taken together, these regulatory silences constitute what this article terms a “structural enforcement deficit” a situation in which progressive primary legislation is systematically undermined not by explicit regulatory contradiction but by the absence of the procedural, sanctioning, and monitoring provisions necessary to translate legislative intent into operational reality. As the USAID Country Profile notes, even where legal frameworks theoretically ensure gender equality, persistent gaps remain—women often lack inclusion on land-use certificates and face barriers in securing formal tenure and legal protections (Gina et al. 2015).

Beyond the absence of sanctions, a more fundamental question is whether the rights declared in Article 23 and the prohibition in Article 11 are justiciable that is, enforceable through accessible legal procedures with clear remedies. Currently, a woman whose right to gender equality in land use is violated faces multiple procedural barriers, she must initiate litigation at her own expense, bear the burden of proving discrimination (a particularly difficult task when discrimination is indirect), and navigate complex administrative procedures without guaranteed legal aid. The Law does not specify any remedy specific to gender discrimination in land such as injunctive relief, damages, or automatic issuance of a joint certificate or does it provide for reversal of the burden of proof. This stands in contrast to international best practices, where burden-shifting provisions have proven effective in overcoming evidentiary asymmetries in discrimination cases.

6. Discussion

6.1. Progressive Aspects of Vietnam’s Legal Framework on Gender Equality in the Land Sector

The 2024 legal framework reflects several significant advances. First is the clear rights-based approach expressed in Article 23, Section 3, which elevates gender equality from an implicit guiding principle to a specific enforceable right of citizens regarding land. This shift in legal thinking is profoundly significant because it creates a stronger legal basis for women to assert their rights and for state agencies to implement measures to protect gender equality. Unlike general statements of principle, specific rights create corresponding obligations for public authorities and provide a basis for legal remedies when rights are violated. This explicit recognition goes beyond the approach of many other countries in Southeast Asia, where gender equality in land rights is only inferred from broader equality principles rather than explicitly stated in land laws (Akter et al. 2017).

Second is the inclusion of a specific prohibition on gender discrimination in Article 11, placing gender discrimination alongside other serious violations such as land grabbing and abuse of authority. Placing gender discrimination on the list of prohibited acts sends a strong message that violations of gender equality in land management and use are not minor issues but serious legal violations requiring strong enforcement mechanisms. This comprehensive scope is particularly important because gender inequality in land arises from both discriminatory state policies and discriminatory social practices, such as patriarchal inheritance customs and gender power dynamics within households.

Third is the comprehensive scope of gender provisions, extending across multiple aspects of land governance. The 2024 Land Law addresses gender equality in both land management and land use, rights and obligations, decision-making mechanisms, and disputes. This comprehensive approach reflects the understanding that gender equality in land rights cannot be achieved through a single intervention but requires coordinated measures throughout the entire land management cycle. It is also consistent with the concept of gender mainstreaming, which aims to integrate gender perspectives into all aspects of policy and legislation.

However, a critical analytical question remains: do these progressive provisions mark a qualitative shift toward substantive equality, or do they primarily reinforce an expanded form of formal equality? Drawing on the CEDAW Committee’s framework, substantive equality requires not merely equal treatment under the law but the active removal of systemic barriers and the adoption of temporary special measures where necessary to achieve equal outcomes (Renee et al. 2013). Measured against this standard, the 2024 Land Law’s provisions while symbolically important fall short of full substantive equality for several reasons: First, the elevation of gender equality to a specific right in Article 23(3) does not automatically create justiciable rights. A right without a remedy without clear procedures for enforcement, without sanctions for violations, without access to legal aid remains a symbolic recognition rather than an enforceable entitlement. The absence of specific remedies or enforcement mechanisms in the Law itself, combined with the lack of sanctions for gender discrimination under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP, exemplifies this gap; Second, the prohibition on gender discrimination in Article 11 lacks procedural teeth. The Law does not address the burden of proof in discrimination claims, does not specify what constitutes direct versus indirect discrimination, and does not establish accessible complaint mechanisms. In a context where women already face barriers to accessing justice, these procedural gaps render the prohibition largely declaratory; Third, the Law contains no temporary special measures such as quotas for women’s representation in land governance bodies, mandatory joint certification with no “opt-out” exception, or targeted legal aid for rural and ethnic minority women that are essential for achieving substantive equality in contexts of deep-seated patriarchal norms. Without such measures, the 2024 reforms primarily reinforce an expanded form of formal equality: equal rights are declared on paper, but the systemic barriers preventing their realization remain largely intact.

6.2. Assessing Vietnam’s Legal Framework Against International Standards on Women’s Access to Land

A comparative analysis shows that Vietnam’s 2024 Land Law is largely compatible with international standards on women’s land rights, although there are still some gaps that need to be addressed. Regarding its relationship with CEDAW, the Vietnam 2024 Law meets many of the Convention’s core requirements, particularly Article 14(2)(g), which requires member states to ensure that rural women are treated equally in land reform and land resettlement programs. The inclusion of gender equality as an explicit right in Article 23 and the prohibition of gender discrimination in Article 11 are consistent with Vietnam’s obligations under Articles 15 and 16 of CEDAW on equality in legal capacity and property rights. Furthermore, CEDAW Committee General Recommendation No. 34 on the rights of rural women, adopted in 2016, provides specific guidance on how states should implement Article 14. This recommendation emphasizes that states must ensure rural women have the same legal capacity as men to enter into contracts and manage property independently of their husbands or any male guardians (Kimberly et al. 2020). The Vietnam 2024 Land Law aligns with this principle using gender-neutral language such as “individual” and provisions for separate certificates for each co-owner.

Regarding SDG 5.a, the Vietnam 2024 Land Law directly addresses the objective of target 5.a.1, which aims to measure the proportion of the agricultural population with ownership or security rights to agricultural land, disaggregated by sex, and the proportion of women among landowners or those with rights to agricultural land. This indicator comprises two important parts: part (a) measures the prevalence of ownership or security rights in the reference population, and part (b) measures the proportion of women among owners, thus enabling monitoring of women’s underrepresentation among owners or holders of agricultural land. Data from 84 countries shows that 58% provide full legal protection for women’s land rights in the areas of family law, inheritance, and land, with less than half of women in agricultural households having ownership or security rights to agricultural land (United Nations Department of Economic Social Affairs 2025). Vietnam’s common certification regulations, reinforced in the 2024 Land Law, could significantly contribute to improving the country’s performance on this indicator by ensuring that both spouses are recognized as joint landowners.

Regarding its alignment with the VGGT, the 2024 Land Law demonstrates a commitment to several core principles outlined in the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure Rights. The VGGT defines gender equality as one of the ten fundamental principles of property rights governance and requires countries to ensure equal rights for women and men in the enjoyment of all human rights, while recognizing the differences between women and men and taking specific measures to accelerate substantive equality where necessary. The inclusion of both “equality rights” and “gender equality rights” in Article 23, Clause 3 of the Vietnam 2024 Land Law demonstrates an understanding of the difference between formal equality and substantive equality. The VGGT also emphasizes the importance of countries recognizing women’s property rights in law and ensuring that these rights are effectively enforced. The 2024 Land Law addresses this through a clear prohibition on discrimination and provisions on land use certificates. However, the enforcement gap is further evidenced by the implementing decrees issued under the 2024 Land Law. While Decree 102/2024/ND-CP provides detailed guidance on land allocation, registration, and dispute resolution, it contains no specific provisions mandating proactive enforcement of joint spousal certification or establishing sanctions for gender discrimination in land management. Similarly, Decree 123/2024/ND-CP on administrative sanctions for land sector violations includes penalties for various land-related infractions—such as encroachment, unauthorized land use conversion, and violations of land registration procedures—but does not specify any sanction for gender discrimination in land management and use, despite Article 12 of the 2024 Land Law explicitly listing gender discrimination as a prohibited act. This gap between prohibition and sanction exemplifies precisely the kind of ‘drafting deficiency’ that allows the paper-practice gap to persist and potentially widen. The causal links between doctrinal gaps and persistent patterns of exclusion in Vietnam’s land governance can now be traced more precisely. The absence of a clear definition of “gender discrimination” in the land context leaves local officials without concrete criteria for identifying violations, allowing discrimination to continue unchecked. Similarly, the “unless otherwise agreed” exception in joint land-use rights certification lacks any safeguards or requirement to verify voluntary consent, enabling women to be pressured into “agreeing” to their own exclusion. The lack of specific sanctions for gender discrimination under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP further removes any deterrent effect or compliance incentives, resulting in widespread non-compliance. Compounding these issues is the absence of a mandate for gender-disaggregated data collection, which creates an accountability gap that prevents authorities from measuring progress or even detecting violations, thereby perpetuating invisible inequality. As the MRLG report concludes, despite these obstacles, the Land Law 2024 signals a positive shift towards inclusive and equitable land governance in Vietnam. However, this positive shift remains conditional on addressing these causal pathways through robust implementing regulations, effective enforcement mechanisms, and systematic monitoring systems.

6.3. Enforcement Mechanisms and Justiciable Rights: A Comparative Perspective

The distinction between symbolic recognition of rights and justiciable rights is critical for assessing the 2024 Land Law’s practical impact. A right is justiciable when it can be effectively enforced through accessible legal procedures, with clear remedies for violations. By this standard, Vietnam’s gender equality provisions in the land sector remain largely symbolic.

First, can existing Vietnamese administrative, constitutional, or judicial review mechanisms operationalize Articles 11 and 23? Judicial review proceedings in Vietnam allow individuals to initiate administrative lawsuits against state agencies where an administrative decision is alleged to be unlawful (T. T. Nguyen 2025). In principle, a woman whose name was excluded from a joint land certificate could challenge the relevant administrative decision. However, significant barriers remain: the cost and complexity of litigation; limited access to legal aid though the 2017 Legal Aid Law expanded free legal aid to vulnerable groups, implementation remains uneve (Q. S. Nguyen and H. H. Le 2023); the burden of proof rests on the complainant without any reversal mechanism; and the absence of specific sanctions for gender discrimination under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP means that even successful litigation may result in no deterrent effect on future violations.

Second, comparative examples demonstrate what enforceable gender-based land rights can look like. Rwanda’s Land Tenure Regularization program (2008–2012) mapped 10.4 million parcels and systematically registered both spouses’ names (Jones-Casey et al. 2014). Legal aid organizations such as Haguruka provide dedicated support to women in land disputes (Jennifer and Justine 2006). In Tanzania, community-based legal aid programs have been developed specifically to support women’s land claims, recognizing that governments commonly lack the capacity to offer legal services (Dancer 2018). A review of 18 countries (16 in Africa, 2 in Asia) found that significant progress in land tenure policies has improved women’s land rights through formal registration of individual rights, with ‘more rights going to women in a number of settings (Wegerif et al. 2025). These examples suggest potential pathways for Vietnam: mandatory joint titling with no “opt-out” exception; reversed burden of proof in land disputes involving gender discrimination; dedicated legal aid services for women’s land claims; and regular gender-disaggregated data collection and public reporting.

7. Conclusions and Recommendation

7.1. Conclusions

Women’s land rights are a pillar of sustainable development, food security, and substantive gender equality, and are an important measure of Vietnam’s implementation of its international commitments under CEDAW, the Beijing Platform, and the 2030 Agenda. The process of reforming the Vietnam Land Law 2013 and 2024 shows significant progress in recognizing women’s status as subjects of land use rights, especially as the Vietnam Land Law 2024 recognizes gender equality in land management and use for the first time as a specific right and prohibits gender discrimination in the land sector. However, the gap between equality on paper and equality in practice remains wide, as evidenced by the proportion of certificates issued solely in men’s names, barriers related to perceptions, procedures, institutional capacity, and patriarchal norms. Certain gaps in legislative drafting and enforcement mechanisms, such as ensuring the voluntary nature of “other agreements”, sanctions for discriminatory behavior, or the lack of temporary special measures, show that legal reform, while important, is still insufficient to achieve substantive gender equality in land rights. The persistence of the 32% single-name certificate rate without updated official data for nearly four years, combined with the absence of specific sanctions for gender discrimination in land use under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP suggests that the gap between legal equality on paper and equality in practice has not merely persisted but has potentially widened due to the lack of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. Without regular collection and public release of gender-disaggregated land data, it is impossible to determine the direction of change; this data gap itself constitutes a governance failure that perpetuates the cycle of non-accountability. Therefore, in addition to continuing to improve sub-legal regulations, it is necessary to strengthen gender mainstreaming in implementation, develop monitoring mechanisms and collect gender-disaggregated data, enhance the capacity and awareness of land officials, expand legal support services for women, especially in rural and ethnic minority areas, and promote social interventions to change gender norms. Future qualitative and quantitative studies on the impact of the 2024 Land Law on women’s land rights will be an important foundation for policy adjustments, contributing to bringing gender equality in the land sector in Vietnam closer to international standards.

7.2. Recommendations

Women’s land rights are a pillar of sustainable development, food security, and substantive gender equality, and an important measure of Vietnam’s implementation of its international commitments under CEDAW, the Beijing Platform, and the 2030 Agenda. The evolution from the 2013 to the 2024 Land Law shows significant progress in recognizing women as subjects of land use rights—particularly through the elevation of gender equality to a specific right in Article 23(3) and the prohibition of gender discrimination in Article 11. However, the gap between equality on paper and equality in practice remains wide—and may be widening. The persistent 32% single-name certificate rate with no updated official data for nearly four years, combined with the absence of specific sanctions for gender discrimination under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP; the lack of mandatory enforcement mechanisms for joint spousal certification; the continued “unless otherwise agreed” exception without voluntariness safeguards; and the persistent barriers of administrative costs, limited awareness, and patriarchal norms, demonstrates that legal reform alone is insufficient to achieve substantive gender equality. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks this article makes three analytical contributions. First, it demonstrates that the 2024 Land Law’s provisions, while symbolically progressive, primarily reinforce an expanded form of formal equality rather than achieving substantive equality. Second, it shows that intersectional vulnerabilities—particularly for ethnic minority women—remain inadequately addressed by the Law’s uniform approach. Third, it identifies specific causal pathways between doctrinal gaps (lack of definitions, lack of sanctions, lack of burden-shifting procedures) and persistent outcomes of exclusion. Based on this analysis, the following prioritized recommendations are offered, distinguishing between short-term regulatory fixes and long-term structural reforms:

Short-term regulatory fixes:

• Issue guidance under the 2024 Land Law mandating proactive verification of joint spousal certification, with no “opt-out” exception unless both parties receive independent legal advice and sign a verified consent form.
• Develop and promulgate specific sanctions for gender discrimination in land management and use under Decree 123/2024/ND-CP, including fines, mandatory corrective actions (e.g., automatic issuance of joint certificates), and administrative penalties for non-compliant officials.
• Establish a mandatory annual reporting requirement for gender- disaggregated land data, to be publicly released by MONRE, with baseline indicators including: (a) proportion of certificates with women’s names by region, ethnicity, and marital status; (b) number of complaints related to gender discrimination in land; and (c) number of sanctions applied.
• Waive administrative fees for adding a spouse’s name to existing certificates and for converting individual certificates to joint certificates, removing economic barriers to compliance.
• Establish clear evidentiary standards for verifying voluntary consent in “other agreements” under the joint certification provision, including a requirement that both parties receive independent information about their legal rights before signing.

Long-term structural reforms:

6.

Enact legal aid expansion specifically for women’s land rights claims, building on the 2017 Legal Aid Law, with dedicated paralegal services in rural and ethnic minority areas (drawing on the Rwanda model of community-based legal aid for land disputes).

7.

Introduce reversed burden of proof in land disputes involving alleged gender discrimination, shifting the evidentiary burden to the party that excluded the woman’s name or denied her land access—a measure that has proven effective in discrimination law internationally.

8.

Develop and mandate regular gender training for all land administration officials at provincial and district levels, with performance metrics linked to compliance with joint certification requirements.

9.

Establish a multi-stakeholder monitoring mechanism for the 2024 Land Law’s gender provisions, including civil society representation, with power to receive complaints, conduct investigations, and issue recommendations to MONRE. These recommendations are explicitly linked to the theoretical framework of substantive equality (requiring temporary special measures to overcome systemic barriers) and gender mainstreaming (integrating gende perspectives into all stages of land governance, from allocation and registration to dispute resolution). Implementing these measures would meaningfully translate the symbolic recogn.

These recommendations are explicitly linked to the theoretical framework of substantive equality (requiring temporary special measures to overcome systemic barriers) and gender mainstreaming (integrating gender perspectives into all stages of land governance, from allocation and registration to dispute resolution). Implementing these measures would meaningfully translate the symbolic recognition of gender equality in the 2024 Land Law into justiciable rights and enforceable obligations. Future qualitative and quantitative studies on the impact of the 2024 Land Law on women’s land rights—including longitudinal tracking of the gender-disaggregated data indicators proposed above—will be essential for evidence-based policy adjustment, contributing to bringing gender equality in Vietnam’s land sector closer to international standards.