Examining the China-Vietnam Border Liaison Office Mechanism in Combating Drug Trafficking
Beyond Borders
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 23311491 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Thuyet Van Nguyen (Wuhan University), Rong Gong He (Wuhan University), Hai Luong (0000-0003-2421-9149, Griffith University, autor correspondente) |
| Ano | 2026 |
| Data de publicação | 2026-07-29 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Sim |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | East Asia (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 1874-6284 • E-ISSN: 1096-6838 |
| Editora | Springer Science and Business Media LLC (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s12140-026-09482-6 |
| OpenAlex | W7171716203 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Referências citadas | 24 |
Positioned within the geopolitically sensitive border regions linking Southeast and East Asia, the Vietnam–China frontier has historically served as a key conduit for narcotics from the Golden Triangle. This study explores the Border Liaison Office (BLO) mechanism along the Vietnam–China border, using the Laocai–Hekou corridor as a case study of cross-border governance in combating drug trafficking. Promoted by the UNODC since the early 2000s, the BLO framework aims to improve real-time intelligence sharing, enforcement coordination, and local cooperation. Due to limited access and sensitive border enforcement, the research relies on secondary sources to address three questions: how BLOs operate in practice, how sovereignty and border governance are managed, and what factors influence their implementation. Findings indicate that BLOs support rapid intelligence exchange, joint investigations, controlled deliveries, and coordinated patrols, leading to measurable enforcement success. However, their effectiveness depends on trust, administrative discretion, and disparities in legal authority and capacity. Variations are evident that Vietnam aligns with UNODC standards on transparency and regional integration, while China emphasizes sovereignty, viewing BLOs as semi-formal or pilot initiatives. The study concludes that BLOs provide a practical, locally grounded mechanism for cross-border policing, yet their success is limited by political asymmetries, contested sovereignty, and uneven institutional commitment, making them both operational tools and symbolic gestures of cooperation.
Corporate governance · Enforcement · Frontier · Law enforcement · Mechanism (biology) · Politics · Sovereignty · Transparency (behavior) · Crime, Illicit Activities, and Governance · HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk · Sex work and related issues
The institutionalization of regions
Transnational drug trafficking in Southeast Asia
Blurred Borders
Dark Logic
Border People
Asean cooperation to combat transnational crime
Vietnam and China
Repositioning security spaces of exclusion, exception, and integration in China–Southeast Asia borderlands
Distinguishing Between China and Vietnam
Sino-Vietnamese Relations in the Early Twenty-first Century
Drug Production, Consumption, and Trafficking in the Greater Mekong Sub-Region
Sub-Regional Cooperation in Southeast Asia
State Sovereignty in International Relations
Constructing the Neighbourly Other
Effective Policy Implementation in China’s Local State
The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations
Drug Policy History, Design and Practice
From Frontier to Bridgehead
Border Politics and the Broader Politics of Thailand's International Relations in the 1990s
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
|---|---|
| Altamente citado | Não |