Thai Legal Studies

Constituent Power in the Binary-Star Scenario

2025-12-29T22:56:12+07:00

As an instrument that determines the trajectory for a nation’s life and the distribution of political power, a constitution produced through an unpopular design can become a persistent source of political controversy and conflict. This dynamic is evident in Thailand’s contemporary experience. Initiated by the military junta that seized power in May 2014 and ratified via a controversial referendum two years later, the 2017 Constitution has prompted widespread calls for replacement among segments of pro-democracy civil society. Yet, given the charter’s design to institutionalise royal hegemony and entrench elite tutelage over electoral politics, many royalist-conservative supporters have undoubtedly adopted an intransigent stance against its amendment, let alone its replacement. In pursuing their agenda, each faction struggles to define the nature and scope of the power to make the constitution—constituent power. This Commentary analyses the Thai Constitutional Court (TCC)’s Decision no.18/2568 (2025) of 10 September 2025, regarding the latest attempt to overhaul the 2017 Constitution, focusing on its effects on the contours of Thailand’s constituent power. Before examining and analysing the details of this ruling, however, it is essential to outline the surrounding political landscape—including the Court’s prior verdict in 2021—that shaped the trajectory leading to the September 2025 decision. The analysis will be grounded in my theoretical framework—the "binary-star" scenario.

Thailand’s MOUs

2025-12-29T22:56:08+07:00

The current Thai government has stated its intention to have the public vote on whether two Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) between Thailand and Cambodia should be unilaterally revoked. The MOUs merely set forth an agreed upon “process” by which boundary discussions should be conducted concerning their land border (MoU 43) and their maritime border in the Gulf of Thailand (MoU 44). However, the plan to hold a referendum about them also appears to be an effort to stir nationalistic sentiment in favor of the government at a time of recent military and civilian clashes along the land border. This Commentary reviews the current border conflict that began on 13 February 2025 with an incident at the Ta Muen Thom temple. It then details the provisions of the MOUs, particularly MoU 43 regarding the land boundary, and highlights the benefits of keeping it. Along with others, the author concludes that the public not only is ill prepared to vote wisely on such a highly technical matter involving foreign relations, but that such a significant decision should only be taken by the government or parliament.

Addendum to Exhibit C in William Roth, "The 2001 MoU Between Thailand and Cambodia: Demystifying the Koh Kut Kerfuffle"

2025-11-21T14:26:51+07:00

Map by the Geographic Service of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs that vividly depicts a dotted line running east from the top of a mountain on Koh Kut to the mainland. It is thus consistent with Clause I in the Protocol of the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 23 March 1907 that provides "The border between French Indo-China and Siam starts from the sea at a point located opposite the highest peak of the island of Koh-Kut."

Review of Mespiti Poolsavasdi, Postcolonial Copyright Law: Lessons on Community and Coloniality from Thailand

2025-12-29T22:56:04+07:00

Review of Mespiti Poolsavasdi, Postcolonial Copyright Law: Lessons on Community and Coloniality from Thailand, Routledge (2025), 248 pp., ISBN: 9781032961118.

Review of Andrew Harding, Territorial Governance in Southeast Asia

2025-12-29T22:56:06+07:00

Review of Andrew Harding, Territorial Governance in Southeast Asia, Hart Publishing (2025), 256 pp., ISBN: 978-1-50996-184-9.

The Legal Uncertainties Surrounding the Property of Thai Cohabitants

2025-12-29T22:56:13+07:00

This article examines the legal uncertainties surrounding the property of cohabiting couples in Thailand. While the Civil and Commercial Code recognizes only registered marriages under Sections 1457 and 1458, the Thai Supreme Court has nevertheless extended proprietary remedies to unregistered cohabitants through its interpretation of general law. Such rulings, grounded on analogies of ordinary partnerships and co-ownership, have sought to address inequities but have simultaneously produced doctrinal uncertainties. The article critically analyzes this jurisprudence, highlighting its rigid reliance on presumptions of equal contribution and its lack of clarity on exceptions. It further explores the growing social reality of unregistered cohabitation in Thailand and the potential surge in litigation arising from the Court’s current approach. Through a comparative analysis of English law—particularly the doctrines of resulting trust, constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel—the article proposes alternative remedial frameworks that could provide more flexible and principled solutions. The author ultimately advocates for legislative reform to establish coherent statutory rules to govern property disputes between cohabitants, thereby enhancing fairness, predictability, and public awareness of the legal consequences of such relationships.