Amended Law on the Capital City: Institutionalizing a New Development Space and Establishing a New Governance Framework for Hanoi

Legalizing the New Development Requirements of the Capital

Discussion on the Law on the Capital City (Amendment) project at the First Session of the 16th National Assembly revealed an increasingly clear understanding: Hanoi can no longer continue to develop under conventional administrative management thinking, nor operate within a legal framework that has shown delays in meeting new development requirements. In this context, continuing to amend the Capital Law is no longer merely a legislative technical option, but a strategic political-legal requirement aimed at reconstructing the institutional space for the Capital.

Notably, the spirit of this law amendment is framed within a much broader vision than merely adjusting certain mechanisms. Speaking at the group discussion, General Secretary and State President Tô Lâm emphasized that amending the Capital Law represents a “substantial opportunity, a strategic step to create a new development model for the Capital,” while also calling for the Capital Law to become a “specialized, superior legal institution with sufficiently strong guiding capacity to remove development bottlenecks.” This statement carries clear directional significance, as it positions the law not merely as a management tool, but as an institutional foundation for Hanoi to fulfill its role as the political, administrative, economic, cultural, and innovation-driven leading city of the country.

From a legislative perspective, this message carries a larger requirement: the amended Capital Law must reflect Hanoi’s distinctive status, functions, and development demands, while also being capable of addressing long-standing bottlenecks in planning, infrastructure, urban governance, decentralization, delegation of authority, and resource mobilization. In other words, amending the law is meant to provide Hanoi with a legal “framework” commensurate with the stature of a special city, rather than merely adding a few isolated priority mechanisms.

Alongside this, National Assembly Chairman Tran Thanh Man also pointed out a thought-provoking reality: although the Capital Law was amended in 2024, during 2025 the legal system underwent significant changes, with many mechanisms and policies surpassing the current law, exposing the Capital Law’s relative obsolescence. This assessment indicates that continuing to amend the law is not a sign of unstable policy, but a necessary adjustment to ensure that the Capital Law does not fall behind the evolving pace of the national legal system.

From Management Thinking to Development-Oriented Governance and Power Oversight

If one were to identify the core idea of this amendment, it is the shift from “management” thinking to “development-oriented” thinking. As emphasized during the group discussion, the Capital Law should not stop at specifying what may or may not be done, but must open institutional space for Hanoi to proactively design, pilot, and implement policies suited to its unique characteristics.

This represents an important advance in lawmaking thinking. A special city like Hanoi does not simply need more powers, but mechanisms to exercise those powers flexibly, creatively, and responsibly. Therefore, the requirement to include only principled matters in the law, while leaving issues that require flexibility to be regulated by the Government and the city authorities, is essentially aimed at enhancing the vitality and durability of the law. A law that tries to cover too many operational details is prone to quickly becoming outdated; conversely, a law that preserves core principles while allowing appropriate implementation space is the one capable of accompanying long-term development.

At a deeper level, a major highlight of the draft law is the relationship between decentralization and power oversight. National Assembly Chairman Trần Thanh Mẫn summarized the spirit of the amendment in a brief but very clear directive: “Hanoi decides, Hanoi acts, Hanoi is responsible.” This statement not only reflects the determination to advance decentralization, but also clearly establishes the principle that responsibility accompanies authority.

This is precisely the point that shows the lawmaking approach this time is more rigorous. The issue is not merely granting more powers to the Capital, but allocating authority in a clear, substantive manner—with limits, adequate implementation resources, and control mechanisms. Experience over many years has shown that granting powers without accompanying conditions, without clearly defining the scope of responsibility, and without linking to financial resources and organizational capacity, easily leads to half-hearted management or even institutional risks. Therefore, the principle that “greater decentralization must be accompanied by clearer accountability and stricter power oversight mechanisms” is of crucial significance.

In particular, regarding the mechanism for piloting and experimenting with policies, the opinions expressed during the group discussion proposed a fairly comprehensive approach. Hanoi needs an experimental mechanism because it concentrates resources, intellectual capacity, scientific and technological conditions, and organizational capability far beyond other localities. However, experimentation cannot become a legal vacuum. Any mechanism outside or beyond the law can only be implemented within truly necessary limits, with a defined duration, supervision, evaluation, and a clear handling mechanism. This aspect constitutes the balancing value of the draft law: breakthrough yet disciplined; granting authority yet maintaining rigor; expanding creative space while upholding the principle of the rule of law.

Enabling Hanoi to Lead with a Modern Governance Model

A law for the Capital, ultimately, cannot serve only the operation of the administrative apparatus; it must also aim at improving the quality of life for residents and the developmental competitiveness of the entire city. Therefore, the emphasized contents—such as long-term planning, synchronized infrastructure development, satellite cities, science and technology, innovation, finance and budgeting, development investment, and regional connectivity—demonstrate that the draft law is framed within a comprehensive development axis, rather than approached through isolated policy segments.

The significance of amending the Capital Law, therefore, is not only to address immediate bottlenecks such as traffic congestion, environmental pollution, social infrastructure shortages, or obstacles in resource mobilization. Beyond that, it represents a step toward institutionalizing a new governance model for Hanoi: modern governance with a long-term vision, capable of coordinating regional development, piloting policies, and upholding higher accountability.

Hanoi must take the lead, but leading does not mean institutional exceptions; it certainly does not mean special mechanisms separated from the general legal system. Hanoi truly leads when it becomes a model of modern urban governance, disciplined public administration, efficient use of public resources, and the ability to translate institutional advantages into tangible benefits for its citizens. Therefore, if properly incorporated and refined, the amended Capital Law will not only be a law specifically regulating Hanoi, but can also serve as an important reference model for lawmaking approaches applicable to Vietnam’s other special cities in the new development phase.