Pham Thi Thu Hien, LL.D.
 |
| A re-enactment of the Nguyen Dynasty’s Lunar New Year court ceremony at Thai Hoa Palace in the Hue Imperial Citadel on February 11, 2026__Photo: Nguyen Ly/VNA |
Overview of the Hoang Viet Luat le during the Nguyen dynasty
The Hoang Viet Luat le (Vietnamese Imperial Code, or the Code), promulgated in 1815 during the reign of Emperor Gia Long, is commonly referred to in historical texts as the Gia Long Code. Structurally, the Code is divided into 22 volumes, comprising 398 articles with titles and contents corresponding to the names and functions of six ministries:
· The Ministry of Civil Affairs’ Law consists of 27 articles in volumes 4 and 5, namely Regulations on Officials (13 articles) and General Rules (14 articles), including regulations concerning officials and general rules applicable to public officials.
· The Ministry of Revenue’s Law consists of 66 articles in volumes 6, 7 and 8, divided into seven sections: Household Public Service (Household taxable male registries, 11 articles), Land (10 articles), Marriage (16 articles), Storehouses (22 articles), Taxes (two articles), Debts (three articles), and Marketplaces (two articles).
· The Ministry of Rites’ Law consists of 26 articles in volume 9, divided into two sections: Worshipping and Rituals (six articles) and Ceremonial Regulations (20 articles), stipulating rituals for worshipping deities, ceremonies for past emperors, and regulations governing court ceremonies.
· The Ministry of War’s Law consists of 58 articles in volumes 10 and 11, divided into five sections: Protection of the Forbidden Palace (16 articles), Military Administration (20 articles), Border Gates and Ferries (five articles), Care of Elephants and Horses (five articles), and Postal Services (12 articles).
· The Ministry of Criminal Justice’s Law consists of 166 articles in volumes 12 thru 18, divided into 11 sections: Bandits and Thieves (28 articles), Homicide (20 articles), Brawling (22 articles), Insults (eight articles), Litigation (11 articles), Bribery (nine articles), Fraud (11 articles), Illicit Sexual Relations (nine articles), Miscellaneous Offenses (11 articles), Pursuit of Fugitives (eight articles), and Judgments and Prisons (29 articles), concerning crimes such as theft, murder, brawling, and embezzlement/bribery.
· The Ministry of Public Works’ Law consists of 10 articles in volume 21, divided into two sections: Construction of Works (six articles) and Maintenance of Dykes (four articles).
Codification activities during the Nguyen dynasty
Process of formulating the Code
In 1811, Emperor Gia Long directed the selection of capable and reputable officials, including Nguyen Van Thanh, Vu Trinh, and Tran Huu, to form a drafting council. During the drafting process, the laws of other countries were consulted, and the emperor ultimately reviewed and signed the Code for promulgation. In 1812, the draft Code was completed. In 1815, the emperor issued a decree to enforce the Code, which was applied uniformly nationwide from the beginning of 1818. The Code remained in force until it was abolished in 1949.
The Code incorporated elements of Chinese legislation, particularly the Great Qing Code. In terms of form and structure, the Code followed the approach of the Qing Code, rather than that of the Quoc Trieu Hinh Luat (the National Dynasty Penal Code) of the Le dynasty. Regarding the structure of articles, the Code adopted the Chinese dynasties’ structural division of articles into two parts: laws and sub-law rules, rather than customs, with the latter consisting of judicial precedents considered important in practice). The adoption of this technique ensured both legal stability and flexibility in implementing legal provisions, making it convenient for both law enforcers and subjects. Alongside articles, commentaries were often included. Between each major printed article or clause, smaller text was often inserted to explain terms used in the Code, together with interpretations of the main text, with some terms rephrased for easier comprehension). Following each article and commentary section, relevant precedents were provided.
Legal articles
Of the 436 articles in the Qing Code, the Code adopted 396, omitted 40, and added two new articles (Articles 73 and 164), bringing its total to 398 articles.
· Article 73 on “Concealment of household taxable males” originated from the practical conditions at the time, in which the management of public-service labour, household registries, and taxable males was delegated by the State to villages and communes, headed by village chiefs.
· Article 164 on “Obstruction of another person’s household affairs” was established by the Nguyen dynasty to enhance the State’s administrative efficiency in governing villages, allowing central governance to reach the grassroots level and ensuring harmony between state law and village customs.
Among the provisions adopted from China, Nguyen dynasty lawmakers also made modifications. For instance, the article on “Violating imperial edicts” in the Qing Code stated: “Whoever receives an imperial edict to execute and (intentionally) violates [fails to execute] it shall be beaten with 100 strokes of the heavy stick; violating the commands of the Crown Prince carries the same punishment. Altering the intent of the decree in any way reduces the penalty by three degrees. Delaying the execution of an imperial edict or the Crown Prince’s command by one day incurs 50 strokes of the light stick. Each additional day of delay increases the punishment by one degree, up to a maximum of 100 strokes of the heavy stick.” On this matter, Article 60 of the Code stipulates: “Whoever receives an imperial edict to execute and (intentionally) violates [fails to execute] it shall be beaten with 100 strokes of the heavy stick. Altering the intent of the decree in any way reduces the penalty by three degrees. Delaying the execution of an imperial edict by one day incurs 50 strokes of the light stick. Each additional day of delay increases the punishment by one degree, up to a maximum of 100 strokes of the heavy stick.” Compared with the corresponding provision in the Qing Code, Article 60 of the Nguyen Code omitted references to the commands of the Crown Prince. Although this did not alter the core substance of the article, it indicates that the authority of the Qing Crown Prince was significantly greater than that of the Nguyen Crown Prince.
Sub-law rules
The Code contained only 593 sub-law rules, whereas the Qing Code contained 1,765 sub-law rules. Among these nearly 600 sub-law rules, only around 50 were uniquely created by the Nguyen dynasty, while other contained minor modifications to their content or penalties, and over 300 were copied verbatim from the Qing Code. This suggests that Nguyen dynasty lawmakers investigated, modified, eliminated and supplemented provisions to suit Vietnam’s realities. For example, Article 302 of the Qing Code (corresponding to Article 270 of the Code) on “Brawling” had a single sub-law rule based on Sub-law rule 6 of the Qing Code, with minor revisions to its provisions. Sub-law rule 6 of the Qing Code stipulated: “Injuring or disabling an offender is categorised according to precedents ranging from non-punishable to reduced punishment for wounding, and compensation from assets for maintenance is not required.” Meanwhile, the Code’s corresponding sub-law rule stipulated: “Injuring an offender convicted of illicit sexual relations or theft to the extent of permanent disability shall be judged according to differentiated sub-law rules, without requiring the division of property for maintenance.”
There were also instances in which a single sub-law rule from the Qing Code was divided by Nguyen dynasty lawmakers into two separate sub-law rules. For example, sub-law rules 5 and 6, Article 17 of the Code, “Offenders retained to support relatives” (corresponding to Article 18 of the Qing Code), were built upon Sub-law rule 4 of the Qing Code. Additionally, the Nguyen dynasty introduced numerous new sub-law rules not found in the Qing Code. For instance, the first sub-law rule under Article 85 of the Code, “Inspecting disaster-stricken farmland” (corresponding to Article 91 of the Qing Code), stipulated: “From Quang Binh southwards, garrison towns have followed a custom since previous dynasties of collecting grain taxes, completed within the fifth, sixth, and seventh months. Towns like Gia Dinh complete the collection in the second, third and fourth months, once a year. In any locality experiencing disasters such as floods or droughts, garrison towns from Quang Binh southwards must report to the authorities during the second and third months, while towns like Gia Dinh must report in the twelfth and first months. Local officials shall conduct factual inspections and report fully so the court may consider leniency and tax exemptions. If only a few plots produce a rice harvest, they do not fall under mandatory tax collection rules, and thus even if subjected to disasters such as drought or flood, they do not qualify for tax reduction or exemption.”
Although the Code added two new provisions and adopted, with slight modifications, dozens of articles and sub-law rules from the Qing Code, it was not sufficient to establish a distinct identity for Vietnamese legislation. Nevertheless, it should be recognised as reflecting “the endeavours of Nguyen dynasty lawmakers during the process of adopting a legal code from another dynasty in another country, to minimise difficulties in applying it to Vietnamese society under the Nguyen dynasty.”[1]
Progressive values inherited from Le dynasty legislation
When compiling the Code, Emperor Gia Long instructed the compliers to refer to the Hong Duc Code. Some scholars have argued that during the process of consulting and incorporating the Qing Code, Nguyen lawmakers failed to preserve the progressive elements of the early Le dynasty Code. As Prof. Vu Van Mau observed: “The Gia Long Code lost all personality of a Vietnamese legal system... Not a single trace of the novel and extraordinary innovations in the Le dynasty Code remained in the Nguyen dynasty Code,” and “there were no provisions concerning ancestral hall property, wills, marriage conditions, or the marital property regime...”[2] However, in recent years, researchers have made different assessments regarding the progressive and humanitarian values reflected in the Code. Huynh Cong Ba stated: “The status and rights of women were respected, and their personal status and capacity were guaranteed within the framework of feudal rule of law, to some extent, even more progressive than both eastern and western feudal legal systems.”[3] Explaining why Emperor Gia Long and the compilers adopted a large portion of the Qing Code without fully preserving the creative features and national character of the preceding Hong Duc Code, Keith Taylor noted: “The Le dynasty Code did not represent the legal experience of the Vietnamese people but merely the social reality of the northern Vietnamese. Gia Long’s ancestors had ruled the south for two centuries without needing the provisions of the Le dynasty Code... Any attempt to enforce the Le dynasty Code in the south would have been considered obsolete and unacceptable to southern people of Gia Long’s era, because they viewed northern ruling habits as representing a suffocating reality and having been enemies to their forebears. Conversely, any legal system applied in the south could not be accepted in the north.”[4] Emperor Gia Long and his minister Nguyen Van Thanh resolved these issues by introducing the Qing Code while adding and removing provisions to create a legal framework suited to Vietnamese circumstances.
Positive values reflected in the Code
Regarding the protection of the rights of the elderly, orphans, persons with disabilities and children: Article 21 of the Code stipulates that the elderly, young children and the infirm are permitted to pay a ransom instead of punishment. Individuals aged 70 or older, 15 or younger, or those who are disabled or ill (such as being blind or missing a limb) who commit a crime punishable by exile or a lesser penalty are permitted to pay ransom. Those aged 80 years or older, 10 years or younger, or severely disabled (being blind in both eyes, missing two limbs) who commit murder punishable by death may have their cases reviewed and submitted to the Emperor for decision; those convicted of theft resulting in injury to others may also be permitted to pay ransom.
Article 369 of the Code stipulates: “For those who enjoy the eight privileges (eight classes of privileged individuals), or those aged 70 years or older, 15 years or younger, or disabled, and commit a crime, government officials shall not subject them to torture during interrogation, but shall determine their guilt based on the evidence. Violating this rule is punishable in accordance with the article on intentionally increasing or reducing penalties for others. Anyone who clearly knows that such a person enjoys privileges, is elderly, a child, or disabled, yet intentionally torturing them until they can no longer bear the pain and falsely confess, shall be punished according to the article on intentionally increasing penalties. If unaware and mistakenly subjecting them to interrogation resulting in a false confession, the penalty shall be assessed in accordance with the law on intentional penalty increase, reduced by three degrees.”
The provisions on denunciations in Article 308 of the Code clearly state: “Individuals aged 80 years or older, 10 years or younger, and disabled persons, women and girls, except in cases of treason, rebellion, unfilial conduct towards parents and ancestors, or when they and their co-residents are defrauded, robbed of property, or physically harmed (where denunciations are permitted), are otherwise prohibited from filing denunciations.” The General Rules section of the Code also stipulates that individuals aged 80 years or older, or 10 years or younger, and persons with disabilities who commit crimes shall not be prosecuted, while women and girls are exempted from exile and penal servitude.
Regarding the protection of commoners, those facing difficult circumstances (poverty, illness, etc.) are protected by law, and local officials and irresponsible citizens who are aware of violations but fail to report them shall be severely punished. The law also protects commoners and lower classes (such as bondservants) against oppression and harassment by local gentry and officials. Prisoners without family members to visit them are also provided with food allowances. Article 366 of the Code stipulates: “All prisoners without relatives shall be provided with clothing and rations; those who are ill shall be provided with medicine. Prisoners with serious illnesses (excluding those sentenced to death who may not have their fetters removed) shall have their fetters reviewed and may have them removed, while prisoners sentenced to light strokes are permitted to request bail. Prisoners suffering critical illness are permitted to request family visits.”
Regarding the protection of women’s rights, articles and sub-law rules concerning women were found across various sections of the Code, with the largest concentration in the Ministry of Revenue’s Law and the Ministry of Criminal Justice’s Law, accounting for a substantial number (17 articles and 48 sub-law rules). Regarding their obligations, female offenders were subject to the punishments prescribed by law. However, upon the execution of sentences, women could pay ransom to mitigate or substitute for certain penalties. Before law, women were also guaranteed their fundamental rights, such as bodily protection, property inheritance, freedom of marriage, the right to renounce betrothals, and the right to divorce. Regarding the enforcement of law concerning women, the offences committed by women and subject to punishment were diverse: murder, illicit sexual relations, theft, unfilial conduct, beating one’s husband, etc. During the execution of these penalties, some offences were subject to full punishment, while in other cases women received lighter sentences. Specifically as follows:
· Permission to pay monetary ransom: In the first volume of the Code, the section “Tables of Ransom Rules for Penal Servitude” noted categories prioritised for ransom payment: “1. Cases in which offenders are the elderly, children, the infirm, persons with disabilities, meteorological staff, and women shall have their sentences assessed and permitted to pay ransom according to rules;... 4. Supplementary note on women in cangues also permitted to pay ransom.” Sub-law rule 9 of the five punishments stipulated: “Women convicted of illicit sexual relations who are sentenced to the heavy stick and placed in a cangue are permitted to pay a ransom.”
· Relaxation or mitigation of penalties for women: Article 385 of the Code (Female offenders), together with four accompanying sub-law rules, provided relatively lenient provisions governing offences committed by women: “All women who commit crimes, excluding illicit sexual relations and capital crimes requiring confinement, shall be placed in the custody of their husbands. If unmarried, they shall be placed in the custody of their relatives (within degrees of mourning) or to village communities for custody.”
· With regard to marriage and family, the Code had provisions protecting women’s rights prior to marriage. The Nguyen dynasty’s laws granted adult daughters the right to marry and establish a family. Anyone obstructing a woman’s marriage was penalised: Sub-law rule 1 of Article 109 of the Code provides: “Gentry and commoner families with female bondservants or daughters who remain unmarried to the point of widowhood shall be judged according to the law on inappropriate delays and punished with 80 strokes of the heavy stick. Commoners shall be sentenced immediately, while gentry members shall be permitted to pay ransom and compelled to select a spouse for them.” Even after becoming betrothed, women retained the right to break off the engagement if the prospective groom suffered serious health issues, squandered family assets, or committed crimes. Similarly, Article 94 of the Code stipulated: “When young men and women are newly betrothed, if they encounter cases of disability, illness, old age, infancy, concubine-born status, stepchildren, or adopted children requiring careful examination, and discoveries are made, depending on the wishes of each party, they shall draw up marriage documents and conduct the wedding ceremony in accordance with ritual propriety. If the bride’s family engages in fraud, the marriage master shall be punished with 80 strokes of the heavy stick... The groom’s family engaging in fraudulent substitution (such as a disabled groom substituting his brother as the groom) shall have their penalty increased by one degree. If the wedding ceremony has been performed, divorce is permitted.”
The Code also specified five grounds upon which a woman could petition for divorce: a husband who condoned or compelled his wife or concubine to commit adultery; a husband who ran away for three years without returning; a husband who inflicted severe bodily injury on his wife; a husband who pawned his wife and children; and a wife who suffered severe physical abuse from her parents-in-law without having committed any offence.
It can be observed that although the Code did not address ancestral hall property or marital property regimes, it protected the rights of commoners and women in certain instances. This can be regarded as an incorporation and preservation of values derived from Vietnamese customs and culture, and the preservation of elements of the early Le dynasty Code.
Conclusion
Codification activities during the Nguyen dynasty, exemplified by the compilation of the Code, demonstrated clear progress in organisational and legislative techniques. The Nguyen dynasty placed importance on the qualification of those involved in codification work, selecting individuals who were well-versed in law and had practical experience. Consequently, Nguyen-era codification became more professional and systematic. Given Vietnam’s geographical proximity to China, and its relatively underdeveloped socio-economic conditions, the adoption of the Qing dynasty’s laws was understandable. Nevertheless, the Nguyen dynasty proactively drew on laws from preceding dynasties and selectively adapted them to suit the conditions of Dai Nam[5]. This approach reflected a clearer awareness of the need to build a unified legal system capable of broad application.-
REFERENCES
1. Nguyen Hoai Anh (2021), Discussing the codification of the system of legal norms in Vietnam, Finance Magazine, issue No. 2, June 2021.
2. Huynh Cong Ba (1994), Nguyen dynasty legal system regarding the personal status of women, Scientific Bulletin on the Nguyen dynasty, issue No. 3, Hue Pedagogic University Publishing House, Hue city.
3. Vu Thi Phung, Ancient Vietnamese legal codes and their contemporary values. http://www.hids.hochiminhcity.gov.vn/Hoithao/VNHOC/TB7/phung.pdf
4. Nguyen Phan Quang, How the Vietnamese Imperial Code referenced Qing dynasty law, Historical Research Magazine, No. 1/1995.
5. National History Bureau of the Nguyen Dynasty (2002), Veritable Records of Dai Nam, Vol. 1, Education Publishing House.
6. Tran Thi Thanh Thanh, Additional remarks on the Nguyen dynasty’s Vietnamese Imperial Code, Historical Research Magazine, issue No. 4/2002.
7. Nguyen Thu Thuy (2011), On the relationship between the Vietnamese Imperial Code and the Qing Code, China Studies Magazine, issue No. 7 (119).
8. Taylor, K.W. (2013), A History of the Vietnamese, Cambridge University Press.
9. Vu Van Mau (1975), Comprehensive study of ancient Vietnamese law and judicial history lectures, Saigon.
10. Institute of History (2009), Ancient Vietnamese Law - National Dynasty Penal Code and Vietnamese Imperial Code, Education Publishing House.
[1] Nguyen Thu Thuy (2011), On the relationship between the Vietnamese Imperial Code and the Qing Code, China Studies Magazine, No. 7 (119), pp. 77-78.
[2] Vu Van Mau (1971), A brief study of ancient Vietnamese law, vol. 1, op. cit., pp. 155, 243, 244.
[3] Huynh Cong Ba (1994), The Nguyen dynasty’s legislation on the personal status of women, the Scientific Bulletin on the Nguyen Dynasty, issue No. 3, Hue Pedagogic University Publishing House, Hue city, p. 119.
[4] Taylor, K.W. (2013), A History of the Vietnamese, Cambridge University Press, p. 417.
[5] Vietnam was called Dai Nam from 1838 (or officially and widely from 1839 under the reign of Emperor Minh Mang) until 1945.
