INTRODUCTION
In the context of globalization and the rapid development of the market economy, countries are facing new legal challenges as infringing actions not only stop at personal interests but also spread, negatively affecting public values and interests, as well as state interests. In China, the emergence of large-scale disputes over environmental pollution, food safety, and personal data breaches has revealed the fundamental limitations of the traditional civil litigation model. Therefore, it requires a shift in the litigation model, from merely protecting private interests to safeguarding public and national interests thru proactive legal tools.
As a country with a socialist legal system that shares many similarities in political institutions and legal traditions with Vietnam, China has pioneered the development and refinement of the public interest civil procedure system. Formed thru the amended Civil Procedure Law in 2012, piloted in 2015, and comprehensively legislated in 20171, this institution is considered a strategic governance tool aimed at protecting public interests, state interests, and realizing the goal of social justice. The in-depth study of the operational mechanisms of public interest civil litigation in China, particularly the role of the Procuracy and the socialization mechanism of litigation, is not only of theoretical value but also provides valuable practical references for Vietnam in the context of the National Assembly of Vietnam recently passing Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15, allowing for a pilot implementation of granting the right to initiate civil lawsuits to the People’s Procuracy in six key localities starting from January 1, 2026.
OVERVIEW OF PUBLIC INTEREST CIVIL PROCEDURE IN CHINA
A. The History of the Formation of Public Interest Civil Litigation in China
Public interest civil litigation in China was officially mentioned thru the amendment of the Civil Procedure Law in 2012, and then underwent an important pilot phase starting in 2015 under the authorization of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress before being fully legalized in 2017. The formation of public interest civil litigation is not only the result of practical needs for pollution control and food safety but also the realization of the top legal theories of Chinese scholars, notably Professor Zhang Weibing’s “Socialization of Litigation”2 theory from Tsinghua University and Professor Fan Jianfeng’s “Humble Supervision”3 principle from Peking University.
The evolution of this institution is also reflected in the recent amendments to the Civil Procedure Law in 2021 and 2023, during which China strengthened regulations on jurisdiction over cases with foreign elements and modernized the process of collecting electronic evidence. Especially, the announcement of the Draft Public Interest Litigation Law at the end of 2025 marks an important milestone, an effort to systematize the pilot experiences of the past decade into a specialized law, unifying the regulations on conditions for filing lawsuits, burden of proof, and mechanisms for managing ecological restoration funds. This is a significant turning point in the history of civil justice, shifting from a traditional litigation model focused on individual rights to a more diverse system where the interests of society and the state are protected thru proactive legal tools. Officially established thru the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code in 2012 and subsequently strengthened by pilot programs in 2015 as well as comprehensive approval in 2017, this system now serves as an integral part of the national governance strategy based on the rule of law.
B. Entities entitled to initiate public interest civil lawsuits
Determining who has the right to file a lawsuit for public interest or state interest is always one of the most sensitive and complex issues in Chinese law. Unlike the public interest litigation model in Western countries where the right to sue is often broadly granted to citizens (Citizen Suit), current Chinese law establishes a strict hierarchical system of subjects, in which the People’s Procuratorate plays a central role, social organizations have a conditional supplementary role, and individuals are completely excluded from independent plaintiff status.
For social organizations (NGOs), the Environmental Protection Law and the Civil Procedure Law set three conditions to qualify as plaintiffs: (1) Regarding legal registration: The organization must be legally registered with the civil administration authority at the city level (with district subdivisions) or higher.4 This eliminates spontaneous groups or small grassroots organizations, ensuring that the plaintiff has legal entity status and legal liability capacity; (2) Regarding duration and experience: The organization must have continuously operated for 5 years or more in the field of public interest protection and have no legal violation records;5 (3) Regarding the operational principles: The organization’s charter must clearly define the goal of protecting public interests as its main function. Although the law has opened the door for social organizations, in reality, the number of organizations that meet these standards and actually participate in lawsuits is very small. These technical and financial barriers have resulted in the number of lawsuits initiated by NGOs being very limited compared to their potential.6 Among the hundreds of social organizations operating in the environmental sector, only about 20-30 entities have actually exercised the right to sue in recent years. The main reason lies in the enormous litigation costs and the burden of scientific proof that exceed the financial capabilities of most non-profit organizations.
In the context of the power vacuum left by the limitations of social organizations, the People’s Procuracy has emerged as a “post-check” and “supplementary” but decisive litigating entity. As a constitutionally mandated legal supervisory body, the People’s Procuracy possesses investigative, verification, and evidence collection powers that no social organization can match. However, to ensure that it does not encroach upon the space of civil society, the right to initiate lawsuits by the People’s Procuracy is designed based on the principle of subsidiarity, specifically: this agency can only file a lawsuit after completing the public notification process (30 days for civil proceedings) without any social organization stepping in to file or refuse to file a lawsuit. Especially in cases of defamation of war heroes, this supplementary nature is also reflected in the requirement that the People’s Procuracy7 must respect the wishes of the martyrs’ relatives; they only file a lawsuit when the relatives do not exercise this right or in cases where the martyr has no surviving relatives.
The mechanism for delineating the prosecution authority of the People’s Procuracy is also strictly regulated from Article 14 to Article 18 of the Public Interest Litigation Rules, reflecting a centralized and unified governance mindset. Accordingly, the authority to initiate lawsuits, in principle, belongs to the People’s Procuracy at the grassroots level where the violation or damage occurs, in order to optimize the collection of on-site evidence and technical examination. However, for serious, complex cases or those involving economic groups with political influence at the local level, the authority will be transferred to the District People’s Procuracy or even the Supreme People’s Procuracy. Especially for damages of an administrative cross-border nature — such as pollution of river basins flowing thru multiple provinces — the authority belongs to the higher-level People’s Procuracy, creating a continuous oversight network to counter local government protectionism. Moreover, the mechanisms in Articles 11 and 17 allow the higher-level People’s Procuratorate to withdraw cases, assign cases, or transfer prosecutors across administrative borders.
Finally, it should be emphasized that current Chinese law firmly does not grant individuals the right to file public interest lawsuits. Individual efforts of citizens on behalf of the community are often dismissed by the Court due to lack of standing. This legislative perspective stems from concerns about the surge of “abusive litigation,” which overloads the judicial system or is exploited for unhealthy competitive purposes and political pressure. Instead, the role of the people is positioned as a source of information, evidence, and social oversight to support the prosecution’s litigation activities.8
C. Scope of Public Interest Civil Litigation
The scope of public interest civil litigation in China is not a rigidly closed catalog but an open system, operating under the “4+N” strategic model, reflecting the high sensitivity and adaptability of the judicial system to the rapid changes in modern socio-economic life. Among them, the “4” group represents traditional, foundational fields, while the “N” group represents emerging and future-oriented fields.
The group of four pillar fields includes: First, the field of environment and natural resources. This is the earliest developing sector, accounting for the largest share and playing a leading role in the effort to modernize ecological governance, covering issues from air, water, and soil pollution to biodiversity protection. Secondly, the field of food and pharmaceutical safety. Originating from a series of shocking food safety scandals, this area has been included in the scope of public interest litigation to protect public health against large-scale production and trade of counterfeit and substandard goods. Thirdly, the field of protecting national assets, focusing on preventing the loss of state capital in state-owned enterprises or public investment projects, reflecting the function of protecting the economic foundation of the socialist regime. Fourth, the field of transferring public land use rights.
Among them, the field of environment and resources always accounts for the largest proportion, playing a spearhead role in China’s efforts to modernize ecological governance, with hundreds of thousands of cases handled each year aimed at restoring damaged ecosystems. However, the new “N” category truly demonstrates the expansive vision of the legislator, as the scope of public interest civil litigation has been extended to areas such as protecting the honor of national heroes and martyrs, personal information security, the rights of minors, and even anti-monopoly. At that time, the scope of public interest litigation in China had evolved significantly from traditional resource areas to modern social issues under the “4+N” strategy. The “N” category represents the flexible adaptation of the judiciary to new challenges. A groundbreaking step is the inclusion of Personal Data Protection within the scope of public interest litigation, allowing the People’s Procuracy to sue social media platforms or Big Tech companies for unauthorized collection and use of user data, thereby internalizing the negative externalities of the digital economy. In addition, the amendments to the Antitrust Law in 2022 and the judicial interpretation by the SPC in 2024 have formalized the right to sue against anti-competitive practices that harm the general public.9
Not only limited to material interests, the scope of lawsuits has expanded to areas with strong political and ethical significance, such as Protecting the Honor of Heroes and Martyrs. The legalization of this area shows that public interest litigation in China also undertakes the function of protecting core spiritual values, maintaining social and historical moral standards of the nation against trends of historical revisionism on the internet. In addition, areas such as protecting the rights of minors, people with disabilities, women, production safety, and cultural heritage preservation are gradually becoming important sectors, affirming the role of the judiciary in filling the gaps that administrative management has yet to reach, especially in complex cross-border and cross-sector issues.
Thus, from the initial 4 traditional fields (environment, food, public property, land), the Draft Law presented to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China in October 2025 has systematized 14 current fields (including the protection of minors, production safety, personal information, anti-monopoly…) and added 2 new fields: Cultural Heritage Protection and National Defense – Military Interests.10 The expansion of authority into the fields of national defense and cultural heritage demonstrates a new legislative mindset: Public interest litigation has been upgraded to a tool for protecting sovereignty and national security, going beyond the framework of purely consumer rights protection.
D. Order and procedures for resolving public interest civil cases
The process of resolving public interest civil cases in China is designed with specific characteristics compared to ordinary civil proceedings, notably the establishment of mandatory pre-litigation procedures and the proactive, active role of the Court during the trial phase.
The Pre-litigation Procedure is considered a crucial and decisive stage, especially for lawsuits initiated by the People’s Procuracy. According to mandatory regulations, before filing a public interest civil lawsuit, the People’s Procuracy must carry out a public notification process thru national media within a 30-day period. The content of the announcement includes information about the actual public interest being harmed, the right to sue of the appropriate entities, and the deadline for relevant social organizations or individuals to exercise their rights. For cases of defamation against war heroes and martyrs, this process also includes consulting the families of the martyrs, ensuring respect for family sentiments and social ethics. Practice shows the outstanding effectiveness of this mechanism when about 90% of public interest cases are thoroughly resolved at the pre-litigation recommendation stage without the need for trial, significantly saving judicial resources and reducing pressure on the court system.
When the case is officially accepted, a powerful procedural tool is activated, known as temporary emergency measures, or “Behavioral Preservation.” This mechanism allows the Court, at the request of the plaintiff, to order the defendant to immediately cease any actions that pose a risk of pollution or ecological destruction before a final judgment is made.
Regarding jurisdiction and trial models, public interest cases are often assigned to Intermediate People’s Courts or specialized courts (such as Environmental Courts, Maritime Courts) to ensure objectivity and expertise in handling complex technical issues. To enhance social representation and democratize judicial proceedings, high-impact cases often adopt the extended trial panel model “3+4,” which includes 3 professional judges and 4 people’s assessors. The participation of people’s assessors is not merely formal but plays an important role in evaluating the violated social values and supervising the activities of the prosecuting authorities. In the trial phase, Chinese courts often adopt an inquisitorial model rather than a purely adversarial one. Judges have the right and obligation to independently investigate and collect necessary evidence for resolving the case if they find that the parties involved have not provided sufficient information to protect public interest. This is extremely necessary to rectify the information asymmetry between the public interest plaintiff and the defendant, who are large corporations holding technological secrets.
The mediation mechanism in public interest litigation also has its own unique characteristics. Although the law encourages mediation to save resources, it absolutely prohibits any compromise that harms the common interest. Therefore, all settlement agreements are subject to strict scrutiny: they must be publicly disclosed in the media for 30 days to gather public opinion. The court has the right to reject the agreement if it finds that the content of the settlement is insufficient to remedy environmental damage or shows signs of collusion for profit, ensuring that community interests are not sacrificed for selfish calculations.
The enforcement phase is also highly “socialized”: instead of merely enforcing the payment of money, the Court and the People’s Procuracy regularly supervise the process of the defendant fulfilling their obligation to restore the environment, ensuring that the compensation money is transformed into improved living environmental quality.
E. The status of participants in the trial
Basically, the status of participants in court proceedings is determined according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. However, the establishment of the status of participation in litigation in public interest civil cases initiated by the People’s Procuracy has a distinct difference compared to general civil litigation cases and public interest civil litigation cases initiated by other entities.
In ordinary civil proceedings, the plaintiff files a lawsuit based on the infringement of their own ownership rights or personal rights. On the contrary, the status of the People’s Procuracy — specified from Articles 49 to 57 of the Procedural Rules and the Judicial Interpretations of the Supreme People’s Court. Specifically, Articles 49 and 51 of the Procedural Rules affirm that the Prosecutor has full rights and obligations as a plaintiff: from filing a lawsuit, presenting evidence to participating in cross-examinations and debates. The specificity of the prosecutorial status of the People’s Procuracy also lies in the “superior power” enshrined in law to protect public interests, something that ordinary civil plaintiffs cannot possess. According to Article 55 of this Code, during the trial process, the Prosecutor has the right to conduct supplementary investigations on-site if deemed necessary to clarify the objective truth. Therefore, the People’s Procuratorate can be considered not only as a party to the litigation but also as an “active guardian of the law,” helping the Court fill the technical information gaps that are often concealed by the defendants in pollution or data violation cases.
A notable aspect of the participation of the People’s Procuratorate of China in litigation is the simultaneous maintenance of the function of supervising the enforcement of the law. Even tho it directly exercises the right to sue, the People’s Procuratorate is still not stripped of its role in supervising compliance with the law in judicial activities. The presence of the Prosecutor in court (Article 49) along with the mechanism of a 7-member Trial Panel11 creates a multi-layered counterbalance structure: the People’s Procuracy supervises the defendant and the process, the Court supervises the People’s Procuracy and the final verdict, while the People’s Jury supervises both to ensure the “will of the community” is implemented.
F. Litigation costs and financial mechanisms in public interest civil litigation
In public interest lawsuits, litigation costs are always the biggest barrier preventing the participation of social organizations, as an environmental lawsuit can drag on for years with expert and lawyer fees reaching millions of yuan. To address this issue, China has established a highly supportive litigation financial mechanism, combining the reduction of the burden on plaintiffs with increased penalties for defendants.
The core rule in this financial system is fee-shifting. Accordingly, if the plaintiff wins the case, the Court will order the defendant to bear all court fees, expert evaluation costs, appraisal fees, and especially the reasonable attorney fees of the plaintiff. This is a groundbreaking regulation aimed at encouraging social organizations (NGOs) to participate in complex lawsuits without the fear of financial bankruptcy. In addition, policies for waiving, reducing, or allowing the deferral of court fees are also applied flexibly to social organizations with limited budgets, maximizing access to justice.
Another important component of the financial mechanism is the management of compensation funds thru specialized public interest damage compensation funds. The compensation money obtained from the defendant is not paid directly to the plaintiff (except for the advance litigation costs) but is deposited into the budget or funds managed by the State. This fund is strictly used for two purposes: directly paying for environmental restoration activities at the site and supporting litigation costs for other public interest cases in the future, including risk support for social organizations that lose lawsuits due to objective reasons.
Especially, to enhance deterrence and implement the principle of “the polluter pays,” the 2020 Civil Code12 officially allows the application of punitive damages for intentional acts that seriously harm the environment. This level of compensation exceeds the actual damage, aiming to deprive the business of all the illicit economic benefits obtained from the violation, thereby internalizing the negative externalities and forcing the business to consider the high cost of disregarding the law. The combination of input support mechanisms (waiving or reducing court fees) and output penalties (cost shifting, punitive damages) has created a comprehensive litigation financial system that both encourages the protection of public interests and effectively deters violations.
EVALUATION OF THE LEGAL REGULATIONS ON PUBLIC INTEREST CIVIL LITIGATION IN CHINA
Looking back on the development journey over the past decade, it can be affirmed that the public interest civil procedure system in China is not merely a new procedural technique, but an essential component of the strategy to modernize the national governance system, closely linked to the goal of building a “socialist rule of law state” and “ecological civilization.”
Regarding the advantages, thru the leading role of the Procuracy, acting as the “guardian of public interest,” it has thoroughly addressed the shortage of financial resources and evidentiary capabilities of social organizations when facing large economic corporations or local administrative agencies. According to statistics from the Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China, by the end of 2019, the People’s Procuratorates at all levels had resolved over 200,000 public interest civil litigation cases, with a significant breakthrough in 2020 when 150,000 cases13 were handled for the first time. In addition, breakthroughs in legislative techniques such as the reversal of the burden of proof, the fee-shifting mechanism, and punitive damages have created a strong legal framework to deter violations, forcing business entities to fully account for the costs of actions that harm the environment and community interests. China’s public interest litigation prosecution, as a new and modern legal model with a clear legal system, will effectively address the conflicting and pressing issues in society that have been neglected, ensuring that no one, no organization can stand above the law, and that national interests and public interests are not infringed upon or, if infringed, are minimized and restored promptly.14
However, in terms of limitations, the absolute dominance of the Procuracy with the power to directly initiate lawsuits is becoming a “double-edged sword” for the long-term development of China’s legal system. Although the strong intervention of the state ensures immediate effectiveness, it inadvertently obscures and diminishes the role of social organizations – the entities that should play a central role in public interest civil lawsuits. The dependence of social organizations on the Prosecutor’s Office or their restriction by stringent technical barriers can lead to the “administrativization” of civil litigation relationships, resulting in the loss of the necessary diversity and dynamism of litigation activities. Moreover, the boundary between public interest civil litigation and administrative litigation is sometimes blurred; many civil lawsuits are essentially alternatives to lax state management, leading to the risk of overlapping functions between branches of power and difficulties in determining the actual legal responsibilities of the parties involved.
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPRO-VEMENT OF PUBLIC INTEREST CIVIL PROCEDURE LAW IN VIETNAM.
A. Assessment of Vietnamese law on public interest civil litigation
The history of Vietnamese civil procedure legislation records the continuous evolution in the thinking about the right to sue for public benefit. In Vietnam, the regulation on lawsuits for the benefit of others first appeared in Articles 8 and 28 of Decree No. 27-LCT/HĐNN on civil case resolution procedures in 1989 (Decree 1989). It was not until the Civil Procedure Code of 2004 was enacted that this issue was comprehensively addressed in Article 162, allowing agencies and organizations to file lawsuits to protect public interests and the interests of the State within their respective fields of responsibility. A noteworthy point in this period is the fundamental change in the role of the People’s Procuracy: the previously broad right to initiate civil cases has been narrowed, shifting the focus to the function of supervising compliance with the law. Accordingly, the People’s Procuracy is no longer granted the general right to initiate civil lawsuits as before, but mainly performs the function of supervising compliance with the law during the resolution of cases and expressing opinions in court sessions.
By the Civil Procedure Code of Vietnam 2015, amended and supplemented in 2025, the mechanism for initiating lawsuits to protect the rights and interests of others, as well as public interests and the interests of the State, has been recognized in Article 187. In addition to social organizations and institutions, for the first time, the law recognizes the right of individuals to initiate lawsuits in marriage and family cases to protect the rights of others. In reality, there are currently some cases where public interests and state interests are violated without directly involving any individual, agency, or organization. Therefore, these violations do not have any information reflecting or recommending them, and there is no one to file a lawsuit to resolve them thru civil or administrative procedures.15
An important legal turning point with the enactment of Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15 by the National Assembly. This document marks the re-establishment of the civil litigation powers of the People’s Procuracy but at a new level of development: more stringent, focused, and strictly adhering to the principle of subsidiarity. Resolution 205 not only officially identifies the concept of “public interest civil cases” for the first time but also establishes a pilot legal framework for three years in key localities (Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Da Nang, Can Tho, Quang Ninh, Dak Lak). Accordingly, the People’s Procuracy is granted the proactive authority to verify and initiate lawsuits to protect vulnerable groups (children, people with disabilities, ethnic minorities…) and public interests in essential areas (environment, land, food safety, consumer rights…). Vietnamese civil procedural law in the current period continues to inherit the orientation of protecting public interests, but there has been an important adjustment by reaffirming and expanding the prosecutorial role of the People’s Procuracy thru Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15 of the National Assembly.
Based on Resolution 205/2025, Joint Circular No. 09/2025 has specified the procedures and processes from the stage of receiving reports, verifying information to issuing specialized litigation decisions. The combination of Resolution 205 and Circular 09 has created a proactive “pre-control” legal framework, allowing the People’s Procuracy to intervene early to prevent acts that harm public interests, addressing the power gaps in previous Civil Procedure Codes. The emergence of Resolution 205/2025 and Circular 09/2025 has initially formed a relatively comprehensive legal framework for the public interest litigation model, with the People’s Procuracy at its core; simultaneously, it has created an important practical basis for amending and perfecting the Civil Procedure Code toward stabilizing the public interest civil procedure mechanism in the future.
B. Recommendations for building and perfecting the law on public interest civil procedure in Vietnam
In the context of Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15 of the National Assembly on piloting the People’s Procuracy to initiate civil lawsuits to protect the civil rights of vulnerable groups or public interests, and Circular No. 09/2025 guiding the implementation of Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15, which is laying the initial legal foundation for the public interest civil litigation mechanism in Vietnam, practical experience from China shows that the effectiveness of this model is determined more by legislative techniques and procedural design than by policy slogans. Currently, the Resolution has granted the People’s Procuracy the power to initiate lawsuits to protect vulnerable groups and public interests, as well as state interests, clearly delineating the scope of authority in terms of fields and pilot areas, as well as the relationship with the litigation rights of other entities; simultaneously, Circular 09/2025 has specified the procedures for supervision, verification, litigation, and inter-agency coordination. However, to ensure that the pilot mechanism truly plays its role as an institutional experimental tool, it is necessary to supplement it with technical regulations, selectively adopting elements from the Chinese public interest litigation model but localizing them to fit the current Vietnamese legal context, especially in terms of pre-litigation mechanisms, specific evidentiary rules, ensuring financial resources, and enforcement supervision mechanisms. Specifically:
First, regarding the pre-litigation process and case filtering mechanism, the provisions in Resolution 205/2025 and Circular 09/2025 currently mention the supervision of information resolution activities but have not yet legalized a mandatory and clearly defined pre-litigation procedure like the Chinese model. Experience from Chinese law shows that the court system is very prone to becoming overloaded, or the People’s Procuracy will get caught up in unnecessary lawsuits that could have been resolved thru administrative measures if the pre-litigation stage were absent. Referring to the public notification and prosecution recommendation procedures in China, the authors suggest that the guidance document should be supplemented with more specific regulations regarding the pre-litigation stage. Accordingly, before officially filing a lawsuit, the People’s Procuracy must issue a recommendation for the violating agency or organization to rectify the consequences or make a public announcement within 30 days so that the relevant social entities can exercise their right to sue. If the violating party agrees to fully rectify the issue, the People’s Procuracy will suspend the lawsuit. This mechanism not only helps save judicial resources but also ensures the principle of “subsidiarity” of the People’s Procuracy, avoiding the prosecution agency taking over the functions of state management or encroaching on the space of civil society, while also providing an opportunity for businesses to correct their mistakes without having to bear the heavy legal consequences of a verdict.
Secondly, regarding the evidence mechanism and the burden of proof, referencing the investigation mechanism of the People’s Procuratorate of China, it is necessary to propose the establishment of specific proof rules dedicated to public interest litigation in Circular 09/2025. Accordingly, the People’s Procuracy or the public interest plaintiff only has the obligation to provide “preliminary” evidence of the violation and the actual risk of damage; the burden of proof regarding the absence of a causal relationship or compliance with technical standards will be shifted to the defendant. At the same time, it is necessary to empower the People’s Procuracy to use special investigative measures, verification, and evidence collection methods such as independent expert assessments and requests for automatic monitoring data right from the pre-litigation stage without waiting for the Court to accept the case. This aims to ensure a balance of litigation weapons between the party defending public interests and economic corporations that have advantages in information and technology.
Thirdly, regarding the financial regime and compensation management, China’s experience warns that without a supporting financial mechanism, the right to sue will remain merely on paper due to the high costs of appraisal and litigation. Although Resolution 205/2025 has provided for exemption from court fees, the issues of appraisal costs, asset valuation, and handling compensation funds still need to be clarified further. The group of authors recommends fully applying the principle of “Fee-shifting” and “Polluter Pays”. Specifically, it is necessary to clearly stipulate in Resolution 205 and the guiding documents for the pilot implementation of public interest civil litigation in Vietnam as follows: “If the People’s Procuracy wins the case, the defendant must be responsible for reimbursing all expert appraisal, valuation, and other reasonable costs to the state budget.” In particular, it is necessary to establish a “Public Interest Damage Compensation Fund” mechanism to manage compensation funds obtained from cases where specific beneficiaries cannot be identified, such as environmental pollution cases or widespread consumer rights infringement cases. This fund will be used to refinance local environmental remediation activities and support costs for subsequent public interest lawsuits, creating a sustainable financial cycle for litigation activities and reducing the burden on the state budget.
Fourth, regarding the scope of lawsuits and adaptability, China’s “4+N” practice demonstrates the necessity of having an open mechanism so that public interest litigation does not lag behind societal development. Resolution 205/2025 is currently limited to pilot projects in certain areas; however, to prepare for the subsequent evaluation and legalization phase, consideration should be given to expanding jurisdiction into non-traditional fields. It is recommended that during the pilot implementation, the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuracy regularly review and report to the National Assembly to allow the expansion of the pilot to areas such as personal data protection, anti-monopoly, and digital cultural heritage protection. This helps Vietnam proactively internalize the negative externalities of the digital economy, protecting citizens from risks arising from cyberspace and new business models. At the same time, the dissemination and education of laws regarding the pilot public litigation should be innovated in a more in-depth and widespread manner, helping citizens and businesses clearly understand the role and responsibility of each individual in the process of building and perfecting the law in the new era.
CONCLUSION
The formation and development of the public interest civil procedure system in China over the past decade have successfully established a unique mechanism for resolving public interest civil cases. The model, centered around the leadership of the People’s Procuratorate, has created a special litigation mechanism where judicial authorities actively intervene to protect common interests that the market or the administrative apparatus alone cannot fully cover. The Chinese public interest civil litigation system has demonstrated outstanding effectiveness in mobilizing judicial resources to address pressing social issues.
However, the practical operation in China also raises theoretical issues that need further research regarding the risk of “administrativization” of civil relations and the encroachment of prosecutorial agencies on the development space of civil society. These are important indicators for Vietnam in the context of the National Assembly recently issuing Resolution No. 205/2025/QH15, piloting the granting of public interest civil lawsuit rights to the People’s Procuracy. Experience from China confirms that, during the transitional period when social organizations do not yet have sufficient financial and technical resources to tackle non-traditional challenges, the leadership of the People’s Procuracy is necessary and inevitable. However, it is important to clearly define that the Prosecutor’s Office is the last line of defense, not the entity that replaces the functions of state management or the right of citizens to file lawsuits. Selective adoption of the public interest civil litigation model from China—particularly the specific evidence collection mechanism, mandatory pre-litigation procedures, and public interest compensation fund—will be key for Vietnam to realize the goals of Resolution 205/2025.
*****
Footnotes
1. Article 55, National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2017). Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Third Amendment, adopted on June 27, 2017).
2. Zhang, W. (2016). “The Transformation of Civil Litigation Model”, China Legal Science, 4, 15-28.
3. Pan, J. (2018). Research on the Role of Procuratorate in Public Interest Litigation. Peking University Law Journal, 30.
4. Article 58 of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2014). Environmental Protection Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2014).
5. Explanation of SPC 2015.
6. Stern, R. E. (2013), “Environmental Litigation in China: A Study in Political Ambivalence”, Cambridge University Press
7. Article 25, National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2018). Law on the Protection of Heroes and Martyrs of the People’s Republic of China.
8. Article 24 of the Public Interest Litigation Rules of the People’s Procuratorate of the People’s Republic of China.
9. Article 60, National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2022). Anti-Monopoly Law of the People’s Republic of China (Revised in 2022).
10. Supreme People’s Procuratorate of China (2025). Draft law defines litigation scope, adds new areas of national concern.
11. Article 16, National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Law on People’s Assessors of China.
12. Article 1232, National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China. (2020). Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China.
13. Vũ Thị Hải Yến, Bùi Việt Dương (2021), “Exploring the Public Interest Civil Procedure System of China”, Prosecutorial Journal, No. 07/2021, p. 62.
14. Nguyễn Huy Tiến, The Role of the People’s Procuracy in Protecting Public Interests in China: Lessons Learned for Vietnam, accessed on 29/10/2025, https://kiemsat.vn/vai-tro-cua-vien-kiem-sat-nhan dan-trong-bao-ve-loi-ich-cong-o-trung-quoc-bai hoc-kinh-nghiem-doi-voi-viet-nam-64795.html.
15. Dr. Nguyễn Duy Giảng (2025), “Enhancing the Role and Responsibility of the People’s Procuracy in Protecting Public and State Interests,” Journal of Prosecution, No. 14/2025, p. 14 “,Journal of Prosecution, No. 14/2025, p.14