It is not clear if under Vietnamese law, the parties can agree in an arbitration agreement that the award of the tribunal must be a unanimous award instead of a majority award.

In practice, in a three-arbitrator tribunal of which two are appointed by the parties, the vote of the chairman of the tribunal becomes crucial. This is because the party-appointed arbitrator will likely try to find arguments in favor of the relevant appointing party and the vote of the chairman will likely decide the case. Unlike a court judgement, an arbitration award is confidential (i.e., the public cannot know how an arbitrator decides or reaches his/her conclusion on a case), and is final and binding (i.e., there is no review of the awards by another arbitrator). Accordingly, there is limited public review and peer review of an arbitration award. This gives rise to the risk that the tribunal (or the chairman) decides the case wrongly. One possible way to mitigate this risk is to require the award of the tribunal to be a unanimous award (or to be subject to a higher-than-majority voting). If this is not possible then another way is to remove the rights of the parties to select the arbitrators so that there will be no influence by the parties on the party-appointed arbitrators.