THE LEGAL STATUS AND LEGALITY REVIEW OF RULES OF COURTS GENERALLY ENFORCED

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine and suggest a possible solution to legal ambiguities like legal status and legality review of rules promulgated and enforced generally by courts, i.e. the court
of Justice, the Constitutional Court as well as the Administrative Court. This work is based upon textbooks, articles, researches including court’s rulings.

According to the research it is found that delegation of legislative power is employed to adopt judicial rules differently in each country. In common law countries, the legislative power is delegated
to the judiciary broadly to make its procedural rules with prior and post constitutional and legal control. By contrast, civil law countries have adopted a specific delegation of rulemaking to comparatively restrict
 the judiciary to promulgating its rules including procedural matters. On this ground there is no constitutional and legal control to protect people’s rights violation.

Similar to common law countries, Thai judiciary has broad power to declare its rules. But there is unclear whether they can be constitutionally and legally reviewed.

In conclusion, findings of the research is that albeit limited in each country constitutional
and legal review of judicial rules are appropriately allowed. On the contrary, in Thailand, such control system cannot be found and established because there is no clear legal status of judicial rules.