Thai Legal Studies

Translated Judgment: Drafting a Law Is Not Overthrow: Constitutional Court Ruling No. 3/2567

Tyrell Haberkorn — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

Translation of Constitutional Court Ruling No. 3/2567

Translated Memorandum: Expert Witness Statement on the Law of Defamation Against the Monarchy in Foreign Countries

Ronnakorn Bunmee — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

The expert witness statement was requested by the Constitutional Court in the proceedings between Mr. Teerayut Suwankesorn (Petitioner) and Mr. Pita Limjaroenrat, leader of the Move Forward Party (First Respondent) and the Move Forward Party (Second Respondent). The proceedings concluded with Constitutional Court Judgment No. 3/2567. The statement is dated 8 December 2022. Translation by Ronnakorn Bunmee.

Review of Duncan McCargo, Fighting for Virtue: Justice and Politics in Thailand

Andrew Harding — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

Review of Owart Suthiwartnarueput, From Extraterritoriality to Equality: Thailand’s Foreign Relations 1855–1939

Papawadee Tanodomdej — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

Redefining Ownership Under Thai Law: Is It a Right or Title?

Norravich Limpanukorn — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

In current Thai law, ownership is traditionally regarded as a real right applicable only to corporeal objects. An analysis of Supreme Court precedents suggests that certain intangible properties, like shares, are subject to usucapion (adverse possession), while some rights, such as copyrights and trademarks, are not. This leads to the question of which intangible objects may qualify as objects of ownership and could be acquired through usucapion. Furthermore, the paper conducts a comparative survey of ownership concepts in German and French legal systems alongside insights from Roman law articulated by the Gaius Institute. From all the connections, the author argues that ownership should be regarded not as a right but as a title and that its object can be extended to incorporeal objects that satisfy certain conditions, and this will have important implications for explaining why some types of incorporeal property, such as shares, may be acquired through usucapion but that others, such as intellectual property rights, cannot.

Almost Happiness, But Not Quite: Reluctant Rule by Law and Thai Legal History in Seni Pramoj’s Legal Autobiography

Paweenwat Thongprasop — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

This article engages with Thongchai Winichakul’s intellectual history of “Rule by Law” by using Greta Olson’s law and affect approach as a departure from the traditional field of law and literature, which focuses solely on discursive practices. It foregrounds the non-cathartic affect of reluctance, a less canonized emotion in Seni Pramoj’s autobiography as a meta-feeling that underpins all emotions such as pride, happiness, and shame in the meta-narrative of conservative Thai legal history. Introducing the concept of “Reluctant Rule by Law” and applying Sianne Ngai’s concept of ugly feelings, Lorianne York’s notion of reluctant celebrity, and postcolonial studies as a main framework, this article argues that Seni’s Janus-faced characteristic, navigating between Western legal modernity and Thai tradition, infused a reluctant tone into his historical works. This autobiographical reluctance reveals how the conservative Thai jurist upheld royalist nationalism while addressing semi-colonial ambiguities, perpetuating a semi-colonial reluctance that shapes the meta-narrative of conservative Thai legal history and constitutionalism based on royalist nationalism.

Analyzing Thailand’s Amendments to the Civil and Commercial Code on Marriage Equality: Progress, Shortcomings, and the Struggle for LGBTIQAN+ Rights to Family Establishment

Nada Chaiyajit — Wed, 31 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0700

Thailand’s proposed amendment of the Civil and Commercial Code (“CCC”) on marriage equality, recently passed by the lower house of Parliament on 27 March 2024, marks a historic milestone and represents a significant step towards recognizing the rights of Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Intersex Queer Asexual and Non-Binary+ (LGBTIQAN+) individuals to establish families. This commentary article critically examines the draft legislation through the lens of international human rights law and domestic constitutional principles of equality and human dignity. Situating the Act within Thailand’s international obligations, the article traces the legislative history and highlights the progressive vision of the Civil Society Draft, which developed from the thesis-based research of Chawinroj Teerapatcharaporn, School of Law, Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU). It commends the shift towards gender-neutral language in marriage eligibility while critiquing the retention of binary “father/mother” terminology as falling short of genuine inclusivity. Drawing from parliamentary debates, the commentary engages with objections raised by religious party MPs, countering them by reasserting the primacy of constitutional equality and secular human rights principles over religious precepts in civil law matters. The article concludes by assessing the Act’s potential impact and the ongoing struggle for fully realizing LGBTIQAN+ family rights, calling for further reform that embraces gender neutrality and equality regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and sex characteristics (SOGIESC).