CONSTITUTIONAL TREATY-MAKING: A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND THAILAND

Abstract

This article presents a comparative analysis of the treaty-making processes between the Czech Republic and Thailand across five primary dimensions. The research findings reveal that: 1) the Czech Republic adopts a monist system that directly incorporates international law, whereas Thailand strictly adheres to a dualist approach, thereby limiting the scope of human rights protection; 2) the Czech Constitution restricts military missions to national defense and mandates parliamentary oversight for troop deployments, while Thai constitutional provisions regarding "war-making" remain inconsistent with international standards and lack sufficient oversight; 3) the Czech Republic employs a clear classification of treaties, in contrast to Thailand’s Section 178, which remains ambiguous and reliant on ad hoc judicial interpretations; 4) Thailand’s public participation mechanisms are redundant, hindering the efficiency of foreign policy execution; and 5) the Czech Republic utilizes an ex-ante review system that empowers the legislature to initiate cases, whereas Thailand restricts this standing to the executive branch. Consequently, the researcher proposes a reform of Section 178 of the Thai Constitution by formally recognizing international customary law, aligning military missions with international standards under parliamentary oversight, adopting an "enumeration" system to clearly define treaties requiring parliamentary approval, and granting standing to the parliament to seek ex-ante review from the Constitutional Court, in order to ensure that the incorporation of international law and treaties into Thailand is consistent with international standards and truly upholds the rule of law.