{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015873015873015872, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0026455026455026454, 'mean_word_length': 5.54978354978355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Trade Defence Instruments in Vietnam: Reality and Solutions

Increasing international trade liberalization has dramatically dropped tariff and non-tariff barriers in the last decade in line with the commitments of WTO Members. Anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard measures, three pillars of trade defence instruments (TDIs), are considered as an effective means of protectionism for countries to reversely impose tariff barriers against their trading partners for the benefit of domestic industries. WTO accession and regional economic integration presented Vietnam with considerable potential and opportunities to expand and to intensify its trade relations with the world. At the same time, growing trade may also bring many challenges, including issues related to unfair trade practices and fierce competition to domestic industries from imported products. Therefore, it is necessary for Vietnam to make effective use of TDIs for the legitimate benefits of domestic industries. Against this backdrop, although Vietnam's legislation on anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures had been sufficiently promulgated since 2004, there has been only one case on safeguard measure ending up with nonaffirmative result. The article aims at providing the general overview of the TDIs system in Vietnam and the application of the Vietnamese regulation on TDIs to explore the reasons for the inactiveness of TDIs in Vietnam before coming up with the recommendations for the better use of TDIs in the future.