https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/issue/feedChulalongkorn University Law Journal2025-09-29T09:06:25+07:00Editor-in-Chiefjournal@law.chula.ac.thOpen Journal Systems<p>Chulalongkorn University Law Journal is an academic journal of Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University which publishes scholarly works within the scope of or relating to law. The aim is to disseminate academic articles and research articles that fall within the scope of the journal whose contents are, in the view of the editorial board, interesting, timely, creative, as well as containing recommendations which are useful for legal academia and the general public.</p>https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/283496Parliament and the Amendment of the Constitution for the Drafting of a New Constitution2025-09-17T10:43:07+07:00Narongdech Srukhositnarongdech.s@chula.ac.th<p>-</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Narongdech Srukhosithttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/270433Parent Company’s Civil Liability to Victims Affected by a Subsidiary’s Hazardous Substance Contaminated Site2023-11-02T00:21:26+07:00Patthanith Promarakpatthanith.npp@gmail.com<p>The main purpose of this study is to examine the civil liability of parent company to victims affected by a subsidiary’s hazardous substance contaminated site. In this regard, this research adopts a qualitative methodology through an analysis of comprehensive legal materials, including legal provisions, court judgments, legal textbooks, and academic papers.</p> <p>The study found that the Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality Act, B.E. 2535 does not currently provide adequate provisions for imposing civil liability on the parent company in cases where environmental damage arises from a subsidiary’s contaminated site. In cases where the parent company oversees or is involved in managing operations related to the pollution source but does not physically possess or hold the site for its own benefit, it may not be regarded as a “possessor” under Section 96. As a result, liability may not be imposed under the current legal framework. In addition, where the parent company’s conduct does not constitute a tort but involves the misuse of the subsidiary’s separate legal personality—such as using the corporate structure to avoid responsibilities or commingling assets— In the absence of a tortious act, the parent company cannot be held accountable under existing law. Therefore, it is necessary to introduce specific provisions on parent company liability under the Act in order to ensure that victims of environmental harm receive fair and adequate redress.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Patthanith Promarakhttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/278878Regulation of Holding Companies under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 25602025-02-06T14:04:52+07:00Peerapong Jongpaisalsakuljongpaisansalkul@gmail.com<p>This research aims to examine the regulation of holding companies under the Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017) through a comparative analysis with foreign laws and practices to propose appropriate legislative reforms for Thailand. The research employs a documentary research methodology, conducting comparative analyses of statutory provisions, regulatory practices, and judicial decisions concerning holding company regulation under the competition laws of the United States, the European Union, and the Republic of Korea.</p> <p>The findings reveal significant limitations in Thailand’s competition law regarding holding company regulation, as the definition of “business operator” is restricted to direct business operators, thus failing to encompass holding companies that, despite controlling subsidiaries, do not directly engage in business operations. In contrast, foreign jurisdictions either broadly interpret their laws to include companies exert influence over other businesses’ operations or maintain specific provisions for holding company regulation. This research proposes amendments to the definition of “business operator” to include companies that exercise control or significant influence over other business operators. Additionally, it recommends improvements to the notification concerning criteria for determining policy relationships or controlling power and the establishment of clear guidelines for assessing the control and liability of holding companies. These recommendations aim to enhance regulatory effectiveness and align with international standards.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Peerapong Jongpaisalsakulhttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/279114Constitutional Review: Study of Conflict of Laws Rules2025-02-17T14:07:47+07:00Mookkrachang Charanimookcharani@gmail.comAwnrumpa Waiyamukawnrumpa@gmail.com<p>This documentary research investigates two principal issues:</p> <p>1) Whether the provisions of conflict of laws rules may be subject to constitutional review under Thai law; and</p> <p>2) Whether the provisions that designate the nationality of the husband as the connecting factor in marital relationships and the nationality of the father in parent-child relationships contravene the constitutional principles of gender equality under Thai law.</p> <p>The study finds that the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938) ought not to be exempt from constitutional review. This is because the selection of connecting factors for each legal category is influenced by the legal concepts embedded in civil law and the societal value system at the time of enactment. Furthermore, an examination of the Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence in Thailand reveals no precedents in which the Court has held that the value system underlying a legal provision contravenes the constitutional principle of gender equality. The Court has instead required a legal provision to prescribe differential treatment resulting in a concrete deprivation of rights on the basis of sex to be deemed unconstitutional.</p> <p>In light of these findings, the research posits that constitutional review of conflict of laws provisions should encompass an evaluation of the underlying values. It further recommends amending the connecting factors in Thailand’s conflict of laws to be gender-neutral, enabling them to accommodate family formation in the context of gender diversity.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Mookkrachang Charani, Awnrumpa Waiyamukhttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/268144A Combined Imposition of Administrative and Criminal Sanctions for Negligence of Corporate Post-Mining Obligations: A Comparative Study of Indonesian, Thailand, and South African Mining Regulations2023-06-27T23:01:37+07:00Fachrian Rizkifachrianrizki98@gmail.com<p>The legal formulation for a proper and sufficient provision in punishing corporate post-mining obligations is unfortunately not being noticed by the legislature of mineral producer countries around the globe. Whereas, negligence of corporate post-mining obligations has brought direct and indirect damages, not only against the environment and the local community but also against the corporation itself. It is argued that the imposition of administrative sanctions against the negligence of corporate post-mining obligations has considerably met the due deter. Nevertheless, by referring to the Indonesian, Thailand, and South African mining regulations, negligence of corporate post-mining obligations is punishable by a combined imposition of administrative and criminal sanctions both to the corporation and its responsible officers. Thus, it is questioned whether or not such combined imposition of administrative and criminal sanctions for the negligence of corporate post-mining obligations is disproportional and over-deterrent to the side of the corporation. Therefore, this article will elaborate and discuss the application of the combined imposition of administrative and criminal sanctions for the negligence of corporate post-mining obligations to acknowledge whether or not such combined imposition is disproportional and over-deterrent.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2023 Fachrian Rizkihttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/276033Issues with the Interpretation of Security Exceptions under Article XXI(b) of the World Trade Organization2024-08-28T16:18:32+07:00Nitinun Leethanakulupleethana@gmail.com<p>This research article examines the evolution of the interpretation of Article XXI(b) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) concerning security exceptions, from the GATT era to the present. It analyzes practices and rulings related to invoking these exceptions. The study finds that during the GATT and early WTO periods, the interpretation of Article XXI lacked clarity, with very few references to these exceptions. In cases where they were invoked, disputes were often resolved through negotiations without going through adjudication processes that would establish norms or practices. However, since the trade war era, invoking these exceptions, Article XXI(b), has become more widespread, and the WTO Dispute Settlement Body has shown clearer trends on several issues. These include allowing states discretion in the chapeau while reserving interpretative authority for the Dispute Settlement Body in specific provisions, dividing the elements of the provision, and interpreting “essential security interests.” Nevertheless, some issues remain unclear, particularly regarding the interpretation of “emergency in international relations” and how state discretion is reviewed by the Dispute Settlement Body.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Nitinun Leethanakulhttps://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/lawchulajournal/article/view/278665Data Abuse and Exploitation as Abuse of Dominance? The Driving Forces and the Position of FTC (Part I: Market Realities and European Influence as External Factor)2025-01-31T10:18:15+07:00Pulawit Wanichsetakulpulawit.w@gmail.com<p>The market realities of digital economy that is data-driven and prone to platform monopoly and the external influence of competition enforcement in the European Union are the first two factors that create the pressure on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to adopt the integrationist view regarding the interface between data protection and antitrust and adopt the exploitative abuse of dominance theory of harm associated with data privacy practices in its antitrust enforcement policy leading to the latest wave of monopolization claims against big tech companies in the United States since 2020 including <em>FTC v. Facebook, Inc</em>.</p>2025-09-29T00:00:00+07:00Copyright (c) 2025 Pulawit Wanichsetakul