Some Observations on Competent Courts according to the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002)

Abstract

This article aims to study issues related to competent courts under Article 9 of the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) to answer the question of how much discretion parties have in choosing a competent court under the mentioned act. The analysis considers the interpretation of the provisions by Thai courts, the Committee on Jurisdiction of Courts, and the Model Arbitration Law provided by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). The study reveals that parties cannot freely choose any of the four designated competent courts in Article 9. The assessment of the jurisdiction of each competent court mentioned in Article 9 still requires consideration of other applicable laws. Furthermore, the lack of clear provisions in the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) regarding geographical jurisdiction issues leads to unnecessary legal questions and disputes concerning competent courts under the Act, especially in cases involving international arbitration. The article suggests that the Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) should clearly define the geographical scope of jurisdiction of Thai courts, aligning it with international legal standards. For domestic jurisdiction, the article proposes clearly designating the jurisdiction of the Courts of Justice and Administrative Courts, as well as specifying the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court. Additionally, it recommends clearly specifying the competent court in granting assistance in arbitration proceedings and in the annulment or enforcement of arbitral awards.