LEGAL FRAMEWORKS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PRACTICES IN COMBATING DRUG-RELATED CRIME: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF VIETNAM AND CHINA

ABSTRACT

Drug-related crime constitutes a significant transnational threat to public security and sustainable development. This article provides a comparative legal analysis of Vietnam and China’s frameworks and law enforcement practices in combating drug-related offenses. It examines criminal legislation, drug control laws, and operational enforcement mechanisms in both jurisdictions. Findings indicate that while both countries maintain stringent criminal policies, their approaches diverge in the management of drug users, regulation of precursors, and adoption of advanced law enforcement technologies. The study underscores the importance of integrating preventive, rehabilitative, and punitive measures to enhance effectiveness and offers policy-oriented insights for strengthening transnational drug control strategies.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Преступления, связанные с незаконным оборотом наркотиков, представляют собой серьёзную транснациональную угрозу общественной безопасности и устойчивому развитию. В статье проводится сравнительно-правовой анализ правовых основ и практики правоохранительных органов Вьетнама и Китая в сфере противодействия наркопреступности. Исследуются уголовное законодательство, законы о контроле над наркотиками и механизмы их применения. Результаты показывают, что при общем строгом уголовно-правовом подходе государства различаются в регулировании потребителей наркотиков, контроле за прекурсорами и применении современных технологий правоохранительной деятельности. Исследование подчёркивает важность интеграции профилактических, реабилитационных и карательных мер для повышения эффективности и предоставляет ориентированные на политику рекомендации для укрепления транснациональной борьбы с наркопреступностью.

Keywords: drug-related crime; comparative criminal law; drug control legislation; law enforcement practices; Vietnam; China

Ключевые слова: преступления, связанные с наркотиками; сравнительное уголовное право; законодательство о контроле над наркотиками; правоохранительная практика; Вьетнам; Китай.

1. Legal Framework for Drug Crime Control in Vietnam

Vietnam’s legal framework for drug crime control is primarily anchored in the Penal Code 2015, as amended in 2025, and the Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021. Together, these instruments establish a comprehensive approach combining strict criminal repression with preventive, regulatory, and rehabilitative measures.

Criminal Law Provisions on Drug-Related Offenses

Vietnamese criminal policy adopts a stringent stance toward drug-related crime, treating it as a particularly serious threat to public security and social order. The Penal Code devotes a separate chapter to drug-related offenses, criminalizing a wide spectrum of conduct, including the illegal possession, transportation, trading, and manufacture of narcotic substances, as well as the organization of illegal drug use and related acts (Chapter 20) [1].

The statutory penalty framework reflects the legislature’s assessment of the exceptional gravity of drug-related offenses. Penalties escalate in accordance with the quantity of narcotics involved and aggravating circumstances such as organized criminal activity. For offenses involving particularly large quantities of narcotic substances, the Penal Code authorizes extremely severe sanctions, including long-term imprisonment, life imprisonment, and, in the most serious cases, the death penalty (Article 251) [1]. Through this structure, Vietnamese criminal law conveys a clear deterrent message that large-scale drug trafficking and production constitute among the most serious criminal offenses under national law.

The Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021

Beyond criminal sanctions, Vietnam has progressively developed a preventive and regulatory framework through the Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021, which entered into force on 1 January 2022. This statute represents a significant evolution in drug control policy by expanding the legal focus from repression alone to a more balanced approach encompassing prevention, management, treatment, rehabilitation, and international cooperation.

The 2021 Law refines and clarifies key legal concepts, including “illegal drug user,” “drug addict,” and “drug rehabilitation,” thereby distinguishing criminal conduct from drug-related social problems (Article 2) [2]. Notably, the Law defines drug-related social evils as acts such as illegal drug use and addiction that do not meet the threshold for criminal liability. This conceptual differentiation enables criminal justice authorities to concentrate punitive measures on serious offenders, while applying appropriate preventive and rehabilitative responses to drug users and addicts. As a result, the legal framework seeks to enhance both effectiveness and fairness in drug control.

A major innovation of the 2021 Law is the establishment of a distinct legal regime for the management of illegal drug users. Individuals identified as illegal drug users may be subject to a period of community-based management aimed at counseling, education, and early intervention (Chapter 4) [2]. These measures are preventive rather than punitive in nature and are designed to reduce the risk of progression from drug use to addiction and drug-related crime. This approach reflects a more humane orientation, treating drug users primarily as subjects requiring social support rather than as offenders.

Drug Rehabilitation and Post-Rehabilitation Management

The Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021 maintains a dual system of voluntary and compulsory rehabilitation while revising the conditions and procedures for compulsory measures (Chapter 5) [2]. A notable reform is the judicialization of compulsory rehabilitation decisions for minors, with district-level People’s Courts vested with decision-making authority. This reform strengthens procedural safeguards, enhances judicial oversight, and reflects increased attention to the protection of children’s rights. The revised framework demonstrates a more cautious and rights-sensitive approach to the application of coercive measures, particularly in cases involving juveniles.

Control of Precursors and Drug-Related Substances

In response to the growing challenge posed by synthetic drugs, the 2021 Law significantly strengthens the regulation of precursors, narcotic drugs, and psychotropic substances. It expands the range of prohibited acts to include illegal research, testing, instruction, and promotion related to narcotic substances. Regulatory control is also extended to veterinary drugs and other precursor-containing products that may be exploited for illicit drug manufacture (Article 5) [2]. Activities involving the import, export, circulation, and temporary import for re-export of precursors are placed under strict state supervision, aiming to close legal loopholes and prevent the misuse of legitimate supply chains by criminal organizations.

Overall Assessment

Overall, Vietnam’s legal framework for drug prevention and control can be regarded as relatively comprehensive and increasingly coherent. The combination of severe criminal sanctions under the Penal Code and preventive, regulatory, and rehabilitative measures under the Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021 reflects a dual strategy of deterrence and social management. Supplementary regulations and inter-agency guidelines further support the effective implementation of statutory provisions.

Moreover, Vietnam is a party to all three United Nations drug control conventions and has incorporated most international obligations into its domestic legal system. This alignment with international standards enhances the legitimacy of Vietnam’s drug control regime and provides a solid legal basis for international cooperation in combating transnational drug-related crime.

2. Practical Enforcement in Combating Drug-Related Crime in Vietnam

In recent years, drug-related crime in Viet Nam has become increasingly complex. Law enforcement authorities detect over 20,000 cases annually, apprehending more than 31,000 offenders, with drug seizures totaling several tons [10]. Synthetic drugs—particularly methamphetamine, ecstasy, and ketamine—now constitute the dominant category, with annual seizures exceeding five tons, compared to approximately one ton of heroin. In the first nine months of 2025, seized synthetic drugs reached 3.4 tons, surpassing the annual average and indicating a sharp upward trend [8].

Transnational organized crime groups increasingly exploit Viet Nam as both a transit hub and a destination market. Illicit drugs primarily enter Viet Nam from the Golden Triangle via Laos and Cambodia, while heroin is further trafficked onward to China. Viet Nam has also emerged as a transit point for cannabis from Thailand and synthetic drugs from Europe and the Americas, transported through air cargo and international postal services. These developments underscore the growing globalization of illicit drug supply chains and the urgent need to strengthen international cooperation and border control.

Domestically, drug-related crime in Viet Nam has become increasingly violent and sophisticated. Offenders are often armed and prepared to use lethal force against law enforcement officers, while concealment and transportation methods constantly evolve—from embedding drugs in food products and export goods to exploiting express delivery and logistics services [8]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, traffickers further abused interprovincial delivery services amid mobility restrictions [5]. Notably, illicit drug manufacturing has re-emerged within the country after a period of decline. A landmark case in March 2025 involved the dismantling of the largest synthetic drug laboratory ever discovered in Viet Nam, resulting in the seizure of 1.4 tons of ketamine and large quantities of precursor chemicals and equipment [8]. The operation was facilitated by early intelligence sharing from Chinese law enforcement authorities, underscoring the decisive role of international cooperation in combating transnational drug crime.

Alongside repression, Viet Nam emphasizes prevention and rehabilitation through compulsory treatment centers, court-mandated measures, and community-based voluntary rehabilitation programs. Recent policy reforms adopt a more humane approach, prioritizing psychological counseling, vocational training, and social reintegration, complemented by sustained public awareness campaigns aimed at reducing supply, demand, and harm.

Despite significant achievements, Viet Nam’s efforts to combat drug-related crime continue to face substantial challenges. The large volume of illicit drugs trafficked across national borders, combined with complex border terrain—particularly along the Viet Nam–Laos corridor—poses persistent difficulties for effective control. Socioeconomic vulnerabilities among ethnic minority communities in border areas remain a critical risk factor, as limited livelihood opportunities expose residents to exploitation by trafficking networks. Moreover, the rapid emergence of new psychoactive substances requires continuous updates to criminal legislation and forensic identification capacity. Although investigative and surveillance technologies have been enhanced, they remain inadequate in light of increasingly sophisticated methods, including online transactions via social media platforms and the use of cryptocurrencies.

3. Legal Framework and Drug Control Policies in China

China has established one of the most comprehensive and stringent legal frameworks for combating drug-related crime worldwide. The cornerstone of this framework is the Anti-Drug Law of the People’s Republic of China, which entered into force in 2008 and provides an overarching legal basis for drug prevention, control, treatment, precursor management, and international cooperation. This statute reflects a holistic approach to drug governance, integrating criminal repression with administrative regulation and preventive measures [4].

China’s drug control regime is further reinforced by a network of interrelated legal instruments, including the Criminal Law, the Criminal Procedure Law, the Public Security Administration Punishments Law, and sector-specific legislation such as the Drug Administration Law. Together, these statutes form an integrated legal system that enables both criminal prosecution and administrative intervention. Within the Criminal Law, more than a dozen offenses directly address drug-related conduct, encompassing smuggling, trafficking, transportation, manufacture, cultivation of drug-producing plants, and illegal possession of narcotic substances [3]. This dense normative framework underscores the centrality of drug control within China’s criminal justice system.

China’s criminal policy toward drug-related crime is characterized by exceptional severity and a declared zero-tolerance stance. Criminal liability may arise regardless of the quantity of drugs involved, and penalties imposed by courts are frequently extremely harsh. Sanctions range from long-term imprisonment to life imprisonment and, in particularly serious cases, the death penalty. Death penalty remains a legally sanctioned and actively applied penalty for major drug trafficking and manufacturing offenses, including cases involving foreigners [9]. Judicial practice demonstrates that Chinese courts continue to impose the death penalty on high-level traffickers whose conduct is assessed as posing an especially grave threat to society [6].

From a policy perspective, the continued application of capital punishment reflects China’s prioritization of collective social security, public order, and national stability over individual penal leniency in the context of drug control. Drug-related crime is officially framed as a serious social hazard capable of undermining public health, social stability, and national security. This framing provides the normative justification for the retention of the most severe criminal sanctions, notwithstanding persistent international criticism concerning proportionality and human rights standards.

Beyond punitive criminal law, China has developed an advanced regulatory regime governing precursors, psychotropic substances, and emerging drugs. Administrative regulations, such as those on the control of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, and drug precursors, impose strict supervision over the production, circulation, import, export, and use of substances that may be exploited for illicit drug manufacture. Regulatory control is extended across the entire supply chain, significantly limiting opportunities for criminal organizations to divert legitimate chemical and pharmaceutical products into illegal drug production.

A particularly distinctive feature of China’s approach is its responsiveness to new psychoactive substances. Since 2015, Chinese authorities have implemented emergency control mechanisms allowing newly identified substances to be rapidly placed under regulation. Notably, China has adopted a class-based control strategy, whereby entire categories of substances—such as fentanyl analogues and synthetic cannabinoids—are brought under legal control rather than listing individual compounds sequentially [6]. This flexible regulatory technique substantially reduces legal lag and has positioned China as one of the most proactive jurisdictions globally in addressing rapidly evolving drug technologies.

At the policy level, drug control is embedded within China’s broader strategies for social governance, economic development, and national security. Senior political leadership has consistently emphasized that drug-related crime constitutes a fundamental threat to the nation and requires coordinated action by the entire political system. The guiding principle is one of comprehensive governance, combining prevention, strict control, prohibition of cultivation, production, trafficking, and use, and the mobilization of multiple state and social actors [6].

Institutionally, China has established a highly centralized and coordinated drug control architecture. The National Narcotics Control Commission (NNCC), operating under the State Council, serves as the principal inter-agency coordination body and includes representatives from more than forty central government agencies. Chaired by the Minister of Public Security, the NNCC is responsible for formulating national strategies, coordinating enforcement efforts, and supervising implementation nationwide. Parallel narcotics control commissions at provincial, municipal, and local levels ensure vertical integration and policy consistency throughout the administrative hierarchy [12].

China also places strong emphasis on science, technology, and preventive governance. Specialized laboratories and research institutions support law enforcement through forensic identification, chemical tracing, and early detection of emerging drug trends. Preventive strategies include nationwide public education campaigns, school-based programs, and digital outreach targeting youth, reflecting an effort to reduce demand alongside strict supply-side control [12].

Overall, through the combination of severe criminal sanctions, expansive regulatory control, centralized institutional coordination, and technological innovation, China has constructed a drug control regime characterized by both severity and comprehensiveness. This framework reflects the state’s conviction that only a resolute, multi-layered, and centrally coordinated approach can effectively address the scale and complexity of contemporary drug-related crime.

4. Law Enforcement Practices and Drug Control in China

China’s enforcement practice in combating drug-related crime is characterized by scale, continuity, and a high degree of institutional coordination. Drug control is framed as a long-term national security task rather than a periodic campaign. Public security authorities at all administrative levels conduct sustained operations targeting major trafficking networks, cross-border smuggling routes, and organized criminal groups involved in drug production and distribution.

Enforcement efforts are marked by a strong focus on organized and transnational crime [12]. Large-scale operations regularly dismantle trafficking rings operating across provincial and international borders, particularly those connected to major drug-producing regions in Southeast Asia. Unlike approaches that concentrate primarily on retail-level offenses, Chinese enforcement prioritizes upstream stages of the drug economy, including production sites, transportation corridors, and financial flows linked to drug-related crime.

A defining feature of China’s enforcement model is the principle of “full-chain suppression” [6]. Investigations are designed to identify and neutralize all links in the drug trafficking chain, including organizers, financiers, manufacturers, transporters, distributors, and facilitators. This strategy results in a high proportion of cases involving organized crime and contributes to the imposition of particularly severe penalties on individuals occupying key positions within criminal networks [6].

Arrest, prosecution, and conviction rates in drug-related cases remain consistently high [12]. Judicial practice demonstrates a strong alignment between legislative intent and sentencing outcomes. Penalties imposed by courts range from long-term imprisonment to life imprisonment, while the death penalty continues to be applied in cases involving exceptionally large quantities of narcotics or especially serious social consequences. Sentencing is largely quantity-driven, with statutory thresholds serving as decisive benchmarks. Once these thresholds are exceeded, courts tend to impose sanctions near the upper limits prescribed by law, particularly in cases involving recidivism, organized crime, or cross-border trafficking.

This consistency between law enforcement practice and judicial adjudication reinforces the deterrent function of criminal law and conveys a clear message regarding the state’s zero-tolerance stance toward drug-related crime. The predictability of sentencing outcomes also contributes to the overall coherence of China’s drug control regime.

China reports the seizure of substantial quantities of narcotic drugs each year, including heroin, methamphetamine, ketamine, cannabis, and various synthetic substances, as well as large volumes of precursor chemicals. Enforcement agencies place particular emphasis on suppressing the illegal manufacture of synthetic drugs and preventing the diversion of chemical precursors. Regular inspections are conducted at chemical enterprises, pharmaceutical manufacturers, logistics companies, and e-commerce platforms. Violations of precursor control regulations result in severe administrative penalties and, where criminal elements are present, criminal prosecution. This supply-side enforcement strategy reflects the policy view that disrupting production capacity and material inputs is more effective than focusing exclusively on end users.

Border control constitutes another core pillar of enforcement. Given China’s long land borders and extensive coastline, customs, border police, and maritime law enforcement agencies conduct coordinated inspections focusing on high-risk routes and shipments. Particular attention is devoted to border regions adjacent to major drug-producing areas. China also actively engages in joint patrols, intelligence sharing, and coordinated operations with neighboring countries through regional mechanisms, contributing to the interception of large consignments of narcotics before they reach domestic markets or are transshipped to third countries.

Although criminal suppression occupies a dominant position, China’s enforcement practice also incorporates elements of preventive governance and social management. Drug users are subject to registration and monitoring systems, and individuals identified as drug addicts may be placed under compulsory detoxification or community-based rehabilitation measures [4]. Public security organs cooperate with community organizations, employers, and families to monitor compliance and prevent relapse. While these measures have attracted criticism for their intrusive nature, Chinese authorities justify them as necessary to maintain public order and reduce recidivism.

Overall, China’s law enforcement practice in drug control is defined by severity, scale, and centralized coordination. The integration of harsh criminal sanctions, extensive regulatory oversight, advanced technological tools, and strong border control has proven effective in disrupting large-scale trafficking networks and deterring high-level offenders. At the same time, the heavy reliance on punitive and surveillance-based measures reflects a governance model that prioritizes collective security and social stability, raising ongoing debates concerning proportionality, due process, and individual rights. These characteristics provide a critical reference point for comparative analysis with Vietnam’s drug control enforcement model.

5. Comparative Perspectives on Drug Control in Vietnam and China

Comparative Legislative Structure

Both Vietnam and China have established comprehensive legal frameworks to address drug-related crime, combining criminal law, administrative regulation, and preventive measures. In both systems, drug offenses are classified as particularly serious crimes, and criminal law occupies a central role in the overall drug control regime. Separate chapters in the respective criminal codes are devoted to drug-related offenses, reflecting a shared legislative intent to prioritize the suppression of drug trafficking, manufacturing, and organized criminal activity.

Despite this structural similarity, the internal organization of the two legal frameworks differs significantly. Vietnam’s model reflects a clearer normative distinction between criminal conduct and non-criminal drug-related behavior. This distinction is institutionalized in the Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021, which differentiates drug-related crimes from drug-related social problems and prescribes distinct legal responses for each. Criminal sanctions are primarily reserved for traffickers and organizers, while non-criminal measures address drug use and addiction.

China’s framework, by contrast, adopts a more unified and enforcement-oriented structure. Criminal sanctions and administrative measures are closely intertwined, and the boundary between punitive intervention and preventive control is less sharply defined. This integration reflects a legal design that emphasizes comprehensive state intervention across the entire spectrum of drug-related conduct.

Criminal Policy Orientation and Severity of Sanctions

Both countries pursue strict criminal policies, yet they differ markedly in the degree and expression of penal severity. Vietnam retains the death penalty for certain exceptionally serious drug offenses, but recent legal developments indicate a growing emphasis on differentiation and proportionality [7]. Vietnamese criminal policy increasingly seeks to distinguish between high-level traffickers and drug users, directing the latter toward management, education, and rehabilitation rather than punitive punishment.

China maintains a consistently high level of penal severity throughout its drug control regime. The death penalty remains an integral component of criminal policy and is justified primarily by deterrence and the protection of social stability. Criminal liability may arise regardless of drug quantity, and sentencing practices demonstrate a strong tendency toward severe sanctions once statutory thresholds are exceeded. This approach reflects a criminal policy that prioritizes absolute deterrence over individualized penal moderation.

Regulation of Drug Users and Rehabilitation Models

The treatment of drug users constitutes one of the most pronounced points of divergence between the two systems. Vietnam has gradually adopted a more public health–oriented perspective, particularly following the enactment of the 2021 Law. Community-based management of drug users has been expanded, and procedural safeguards for compulsory rehabilitation—especially for minors—have been strengthened [11]. The involvement of judicial authorities in decisions on compulsory rehabilitation reflects an effort to enhance legal accountability and protect individual rights.

China’s approach, while incorporating rehabilitation and treatment, remains largely grounded in administrative control and social management. Compulsory detoxification and community-based rehabilitation are implemented primarily through administrative mechanisms, with limited judicial oversight. This model reflects a governance philosophy that treats drug addiction as both a medical issue and a public order concern requiring close state supervision.

Vietnam has also strengthened its legal framework in this area, particularly under the 2021 Law, but its regulatory system remains more reactive. Limited technical capacity, institutional resources, and data integration constrain the effectiveness of precursor control. This divergence reflects broader differences in state capacity and regulatory infrastructure. China’s centralized governance model facilitates uniform enforcement, whereas Vietnam’s more decentralized administrative structure requires enhanced inter-agency coordination to achieve comparable outcomes.

Law Enforcement Capacity and Institutional Design

Institutional design further differentiates the two systems. China operates a highly centralized and vertically integrated drug control apparatus, with specialized narcotics control bodies at all administrative levels operating under unified command. This structure enables rapid resource mobilization, consistent enforcement standards, and large-scale technology-driven operations.

Vietnam’s enforcement system, although increasingly specialized, is more fragmented. Multiple agencies share overlapping responsibilities, and disparities in resources and capacity across localities affect enforcement uniformity. While coordination mechanisms exist, structural fragmentation poses challenges to implementing highly centralized or technology-intensive enforcement strategies.

Underlying Governance Rationales

At a deeper level, the differences between Vietnam and China reflect contrasting governance rationales. Vietnam’s drug control regime shows a gradual shift toward balancing criminal repression with social prevention and human-centered intervention, influenced by international legal norms and public health perspectives. China’s regime embodies a security-oriented governance model that prioritizes social stability, centralized control, and deterrence through severe punishment.

Although both states share the objective of suppressing drug-related crime and protecting society, their differing governance philosophies shape legislative design, enforcement priorities, and institutional arrangements. These systemic differences provide a critical foundation for evaluating the strengths and limitations of each model and for situating Vietnam–China comparison within broader comparative criminal law scholarship.

6. Policy Implications and Recommendations

Refining the Balance Between Repression and Prevention

The comparative analysis of Vietnam and China demonstrates that strict criminal sanctions remain a central component of effective drug control, particularly in addressing large-scale trafficking and organized crime. However, the findings also suggest that excessive reliance on punitive measures alone may not be sufficient to address the full spectrum of drug-related problems. For Vietnam, the current legal framework already reflects an effort to balance repression with prevention and rehabilitation, particularly through community-based management of drug users and judicial oversight of compulsory rehabilitation. Further refinement of this balance could enhance the long-term effectiveness of drug control by reducing recidivism and alleviating the burden on the criminal justice system.

China’s experience underscores the deterrent value of severe punishment and centralized enforcement, especially in disrupting major trafficking networks. Nevertheless, the Chinese model also illustrates the risks associated with a predominantly security-oriented approach, including concerns related to proportionality and individual rights. Comparative insights suggest that integrating more transparent procedural safeguards and expanding the role of voluntary treatment could contribute to greater legal legitimacy without undermining enforcement effectiveness.

Enhancing Regulatory Control of Precursors and Synthetic Drugs

One of the most salient lessons emerging from the comparison concerns the regulation of precursors and emerging synthetic substances. China’s class-based control mechanisms and real-time monitoring of chemical supply chains offer a highly effective response to the rapid evolution of drug technologies. Vietnam’s recent legislative reforms represent an important step forward, yet the comparative analysis indicates a need for further legal and technical development in this area.

Policy refinement should focus on expanding the scope of precursor control, strengthening inter-agency data sharing, and investing in technological infrastructure capable of early detection of diversion risks. Such measures are particularly important in the context of transnational synthetic drug production, where legal loopholes and regulatory delays can be rapidly exploited by criminal organizations.

Strengthening Institutional Capacity and Professionalization

Differences in enforcement outcomes between Vietnam and China highlight the critical role of institutional capacity. China’s centralized and specialized drug control apparatus enables rapid mobilization and consistent enforcement, whereas Vietnam’s more decentralized system faces challenges related to uneven resources and coordination. Comparative analysis suggests that enhancing professional specialization, improving training for narcotics officers, and clarifying inter-agency responsibilities could significantly improve enforcement efficiency in Vietnam.

At the same time, the Chinese experience demonstrates the importance of sustained investment in human resources, forensic capacity, and technical equipment. Institutional strengthening should therefore be understood as a long-term policy commitment rather than a short-term reform measure.

Integrating Technology While Safeguarding Legal Principles

The extensive use of advanced technologies in China’s drug control practice illustrates the potential of data-driven enforcement to enhance detection, investigation, and prevention. For Vietnam, the gradual integration of big data analytics, chemical monitoring systems, and digital surveillance tools could substantially improve enforcement effectiveness, particularly in border areas and high-risk supply chains.

However, comparative insights also emphasize the need to align technological innovation with fundamental legal principles. Clear legal bases, accountability mechanisms, and safeguards against abuse are essential to ensure that technological tools enhance, rather than undermine, the rule of law. This consideration is particularly relevant for jurisdictions seeking to expand surveillance-based enforcement within a framework of legal accountability.

Reassessing the Role of the Death Penalty in Drug Control Policy

The retention and application of the death penalty in both Vietnam and China raise complex legal and ethical questions that remain central to international debate. Comparative analysis suggests that while capital punishment may serve a strong deterrent function in the context of large-scale drug trafficking, its effectiveness must be assessed alongside broader policy objectives, including legal consistency, international cooperation, and human rights considerations.

Rather than adopting a uniform normative stance, this study highlights the importance of contextual evaluation. For states that retain the death penalty, ensuring strict statutory thresholds, consistent judicial application, and procedural safeguards is critical to maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of criminal justice systems.

Conclusion

Drug-related crime remains a critical challenge, particularly for states along major trafficking routes. This comparative analysis of Vietnam and China highlights distinct yet effective legal and enforcement strategies shaped by national governance priorities. Both jurisdictions treat drug offenses as exceptionally serious, imposing severe sanctions and maintaining sustained enforcement efforts.

Vietnam’s framework increasingly balances criminal repression with prevention, rehabilitation, and judicial oversight, differentiating between traffickers and drug users. China emphasizes centralized control, full-chain suppression, and deterrence through severe penalties, including the death penalty, supported by advanced technology and integrated regulatory oversight.

The comparison underscores that effective drug control requires alignment between legal instruments, institutional capacity, and governance philosophy. Vietnam’s experience illustrates the benefits of community-based management and human-centered interventions, while China demonstrates the operational advantages of centralized coordination and technological integration.

Policy implications include the need for Vietnam to enhance technical capacity, inter-agency coordination, and cross-border cooperation, while maintaining proportionality and social support measures. These insights inform the design of context-sensitive drug control policies capable of addressing evolving transnational threats without undermining legal fairness or public trust.

References:

1. The 2015 Penal Code of Vietnam // URL: https://www.policinglaw.info/assets/downloads/2015_Criminal_Code_of_Vietnam_(English_translation).pdf (accessed on 21.12.2025)
2. The 2021 Law on Drug Prevention and Control of Vietnam // URL: https://english.luatvietnam.vn/law-on-drug-prevention-and-control-no-73-2021-qh14-dated-march-30-2021-of-the-national-assembly-201171-doc1.html (accessed on 21.12.2025)
3. The 1997 Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China // URL: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Law/2007-12/13/content_1384075.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)
4. The 2007 Anti-Drug Law of the People’s Republic of China // URL: http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Law/2009-02/20/content_1471610.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)
5. The Law on Drug Prevention and Control 2021 officially enters into force // URL: https://tiengchuong.chinhphu.vn/luat-phong-chong-ma-tuy-2021-chinh-thuc-co-hieu-luc-11336586.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)
6. Introduction to China’s successful efforts in drug control // URL: https://us.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zggs/202307/t20230706_11108971.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)
7. Drug Crime in Vietnam: Illegal Possession of Narcotic Substances – Latest Penalties under Vietnamese Criminal Law (2025 Update) // URL: https://anlawvietnam.com/en/drug-crime-vietnamese-criminal-law/?srsltid=AfmBOoob74GeM8ZLb2tmJdm6IEKA51ONMxH0y_E6ZUqayUEPflKFuEJb (accessed on 21.12.2025)
8. Nearly 3.4 tons of narcotics and over two million synthetic drug pills seized in nine months // URL: https://hanoionline.vn/thu-giu-34-tan-va-hon-2-trieu-vien-ma-tuy-tong-hop-371600.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)
9. Korean national executed in China for drug trafficking // URL: https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/foreignaffairs/20230804/korean-national-executed-in-china-for-drug-trafficking (accessed on 21.12.2025)
10. Nearly 30,000 drug-related criminal cases dismantled in 2024 // URL: https://www.qdnd.vn/phap-luat/tin-tuc/pha-gan-30-000-vu-an-ve-ma-tuy-trong-nam-2024-810339(accessed on 21.12.2025)
11. 60% of first-time drug users are aged between 15 and 25// URL: https://dantri.com.vn/phap-luat/cuc-truong-c04-60-nguoi-su-dung-ma-tuy-lan-dau-trong-do-tuoi-15-25-20241015231100678.htm(accessed on 21.12.2025)
12. Narcotics Control in China // URL: https://lt.china-office.gov.cn/eng/zt/zfbps/200405/t20040530_2910844.htm (accessed on 21.12.2025)