More than fifty years after the end of the Vietnam War, Agent Orange is still too often treated as part of a distant past. The spraying stopped decades ago. The war ended in 1975. Yet for many families in Vietnam, its consequences have not disappeared with time.

During my internship in Đồng Hới, Quảng Ninh, Lệ Thủy and Ba Đồn, Quang Tri, Viet Nam, I have had the opportunity to see how local organisations continue to work with families affected by the long-term consequences associated with Agent Orange. This has made the issue much more tangible to me than it appears in historical accounts or legal debates alone.

It has also made one thing increasingly clear: Agent Orange is not only a historical issue. It is also a present-day question of disability, recognition, justice and memory.

Recent developments in France make this particularly visible. In 2026, two events have brought renewed attention to the legacy of Agent Orange: the ongoing legal action brought by Trân Tô Nga and the inauguration in Paris of the first European memorial dedicated to victims of Agent Orange.

They represent two different forms of recognition. The court proceedings raise the question of whether responsibility can still be examined decades after the war. The memorial gives victims a place in European public memory.

But there is also a third dimension: the everyday reality of families in Vietnam who continue to face issues related to disability, healthcare, education, employment, financial vulnerability and long-term care.

This article looks at these three dimensions together because they are not separate stories. They are different parts of the same unfinished history.

A legal battle that is still ongoing

Trân Tô Nga’s case has become one of the most important legal attempts in Europe to obtain accountability for the consequences of Agent Orange. She is a French-Vietnamese woman, who has been exposed to herbicides during the Vietnam War. She brought proceedings in France against several chemical companies involved in the production and supply of Agent Orange to the United States military.

The case does not simply ask whether Agent Orange caused harm. At its current stage, one of the central legal questions is whether the companies can be sued before French courts at all.

The companies argue that they were acting under orders from the United States government and should therefore benefit from immunity linked to sovereign State action. Trân Tô Nga’s legal team argues, on the contrary, that they remained private commercial companies and should not automatically be protected simply because they were supplying a government during wartime.

This may appear to be a highly technical legal debate, but its consequences are concrete.

If companies can successfully rely on immunity in such circumstances, victims may never obtain a judicial examination of the underlying questions of responsibility, toxicity and causation. If French courts consider that the companies acted as private commercial actors, the case could move closer to an examination of the merits.

In July 2026, the French Court of Cassation referred the case to its Assemblée plénière, its highest judicial formation. The referral does not mean that Trân Tô Nga has won her case. It means that the legal issue is considered sufficiently important to require examination by the Court’s most authoritative formation.

The fact that this question is still being debated more than fifty years after the war is itself significant. It illustrates how difficult it can be for victims of wartime environmental and toxic harm to obtain access to justice, particularly when the alleged damage involves States, multinational corporations, conduct committed decades earlier and complex questions of causation.

From the courtroom to public memory

The legal battle is not the only recent development in France.

On 25 April 2026, a memorial dedicated to victims of Agent Orange and dioxin was inaugurated in the Parc de Choisy in Paris. It has been presented as the first memorial of its kind in France and Europe.

Its significance should not be underestimated.

Legal proceedings deal with responsibility, admissibility, evidence and jurisdiction. Memorials operate differently: they recognise that an event, and those affected by it, deserve a place in collective memory.

For decades, the consequences of Agent Orange have remained much more visible in Vietnam than in Europe. Families, local associations and support organisations have had to live with these consequences every day, while public awareness abroad has often remained limited.

The creation of a memorial in Paris cannot resolve questions of responsibility or provide assistance to affected families. But it does create a physical space in Europe in which victims are publicly acknowledged.

The memorial and the court proceedings therefore represent two very different forms of recognition. One asks whether legal responsibility can still be examined decades after the events. The other asks society not to forget.

Both matter.

What remains less visible

Yet there is a danger in focusing only on exceptional moments such as court hearings or memorial inaugurations. The everyday consequences associated with Agent Orange receive far less attention.

In Đồng Hới, Quảng Ninh, Lệ Thủy and Ba Đồn, what I see is not an abstract historical debate. I see organisations working with families who require long-term support. I see how disability can affect not only one individual but an entire household. I see how access to education, rehabilitation or employment can depend heavily on the availability of local services and financial assistance.

These experiences also make the question of generations particularly important.

Agent Orange is often discussed primarily in relation to those who were directly exposed during the war. Yet many families understand their experience across generations. Children and grandchildren may also live with disabilities or illnesses that families associate with dioxin exposure.

This is a sensitive area. Although there is still insufficient scientific evidence to conclusively establish that Agent Orange/dioxin causes disabilities across generations, the reality in Vietnam shows that some families continue to face disabilities and health problems across multiple generations: from people who were directly exposed during the war to their children, grandchildren, and, in some cases, great-grandchildren.

But uncertainty over individual causation should not make the families themselves invisible.

There is an important difference between recognising that causation is complex and ignoring the social realities experienced by affected families.

This is also why the developments taking place in France matter beyond France itself. The court proceedings concern the possibility of legal accountability. The memorial concerns public recognition and memory. Meanwhile, organisations in Vietnam continue the much less visible work of supporting families in their everyday lives.

These are not three separate stories. They are different dimensions of the same unfinished history.

Agent Orange therefore sits at the intersection of issues that are too often discussed separately: disability, environmental harm, access to justice, corporate responsibility, and memory.

An unfinished history

Keeping this issue visible cannot depend only on major court decisions, memorial inaugurations or anniversaries of the Vietnam War. It also requires sustained attention to the people who continue to live with its consequences.

That means creating stronger links between local organisations in Vietnam and associations abroad. It means enabling families to share their experiences when they wish to do so, while respecting privacy, consent and dignity. It means explaining complex legal proceedings in a way that makes their human significance understandable.

Above all, it means challenging the assumption that the end of a war necessarily marks the end of its consequences. More than fifty years later, the story of Agent Orange is still being written: in courtrooms in France, in places of public memory, and, most importantly, in the everyday lives of families in Vietnam.

Agent Orange should therefore not be remembered only as something that happened during a past war. For many people, its consequences remain part of the present.