Thai Legal Studies https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls <p><em>Thai Legal Studies </em>(TLS) is an open-access online journal published in English by the Thammasat University Faculty of Law, Bangkok, Thailand. It seeks to publish original articles reflecting high quality research and analysis about the legal system in Thailand, including its laws, institutions, and jurisprudence, as well about legal issues more generally affecting Thailand. For scholarly articles, TLS uses the double-blind method of peer review whereby neither the author nor the reviewers know the identity of the others involved in the process.</p> en-US <p>Authors retain copyright and publishing rights without restrictions but grant <em>Thai Legal Studies</em> (TLS) the right of first publication in English. Authors also grant TLS a license to publish and distribute the work under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode">License</a> that allows others to share the work, including the making of further translations, provided that an acknowledgement is given of the work’s authorship and its initial publication in English by <em>Thai Legal Studies</em>.</p> <p>Submission of a manuscript to TLS constitutes acceptance by authors of the terms of the license as outlined in this section, and authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the TLS published version of the work (e.g., post it, including any earlier versions of the manuscript, to an institutional or other repository, or to publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in <em>Thai Legal Studies</em>.</p> williamr@tu.ac.th (William Roth (Managing Editor)) kanyarat_a@outlook.com (Kanyarat Muanthong) Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 OJS 3.3.0.8 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss 60 The Junction of Economic Ideologies https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/274260 <p>The Thai Constitution functions as a political instrument outlining state powers and relationships and as a meta-institution shaping societal norms, particularly in terms of economic frameworks and ideologies. Earlier Thai constitutions mainly endorsed market-oriented liberal economic systems. But the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2560 (2017) newly included the Sufficiency Economy Philosophy (SEP). However, the inherent ambiguity of SEP poses significant challenges for its translation into coherent economic policy. This development may have impacted the enforcement of law recently, especially in the context of regulating major corporate mergers. This inquiry studies mechanisms underpinning the ideological transformation in the legal framework and its implications for the theoretical foundations and practical application of the law. Legally analyzing the three most recent Constitutions and an institutional economic perspective, this study examines the Constitutions’ ideological and economic provisions. It aims to understand the emergence of ideological divergence, the institutional ascendancy of SEP, and preliminary implications arising from this ideological conflict.</p> <p> </p> Khemmapat Trisadikoon Copyright (c) 2024 Khemmapat Trisadikoon http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/274260 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 Protecting Forced Offenders https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/276200 <p>This article examines the application of the non-punishment principle to victims of trafficking into scam centres in Southeast Asia. Since 2020, trafficking into scam centres has emerged as a significant form of trafficking in persons for forced criminality, where victims are coerced into perpetrating cyberfraud for their traffickers’ economic gain. The non-punishment principle asserts that victims of trafficking should not be penalised for crimes committed as a direct consequence of their exploitation. However, its implementation in Southeast Asia faces significant challenges: victims are often misidentified as willing criminals, while the substantial financial losses from cyberfraud lead authorities to exclude such offenses from the principle’s scope. Consequently, victims frequently face prosecution for money laundering and fraud upon returning to their home countries. Drawing on theoretical foundations of human rights, criminal responsibility, and punishment, this article argues for a comprehensive application of the non-punishment principle, regardless of crime severity. It demonstrates why traditional criminal defences, like duress, are inadequate, and argues for specific non-punishment provisions to protect victims trafficked into scam centres. The article concludes that effective responses require stronger legal and institutional frameworks, ensuring victims receive protection while maintaining focus on prosecuting the true masterminds of these crimes.</p> Meg Fitzgerald Copyright (c) 2024 Meg Fitzgerald http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/276200 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 The Constitutionality of “Possession” and “Possession for Consumption” in the Thai Narcotics Code Regarding the Presumption of Innocence https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/276180 <p>The current Narcotics Code attempted to distinguish between drug abusers and drug dealers, with drug dealers getting noticeably higher penalties than drug abusers. Currently, the most obvious way to distinguish between dealers and abusers in the case of being found in possession of narcotics is the number of narcotics found in possession. Thailand utilizes presumptions to aid in their cases. However, issues arise when the defendant does not benefit from the presumption, which may cause the defendant to have the burden of proving that he is possessing narcotics for his consumption instead. This article discusses the constitutionality of the conflict between “possession” and “possession for consumption” in the Narcotics Code and whether it conforms with the principle of the Presumption of Innocence. In doing so, the author first describes Thai Narcotics Law and the Principle of Presumption of Innocence under Thai Law; this part is descriptive. Then, the author will perform a comparative analysis to see how other countries deal with this issue. Finally, the author will provide some commentary on the issue. The result of this research shows that the current narcotics law is unlikely to be against the presumption of innocence under Thai jurisprudence. Nevertheless, the author recommends amending the current law to further safeguard the defendant’s rights.</p> Peerawat Leekaosoong Copyright (c) 2024 Peerawat Leekaosoong http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/276180 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 Thai Ethical Standards https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277682 <div><span lang="EN-US">This commentary introduces and analyzes the core elements of Thai ethical standards to situate this new feature in recent comparative constitutional law literature. Part I traces the origin and intent of ethical standards, and Part II summarizes key features of the code of ethics created by the Constitutional Court and other independent organs.</span></div> Apinop Atipiboonsin Copyright (c) 2024 Apinop Atipiboonsin http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277682 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 The 2001 MoU Between Thailand and Cambodia https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277868 <p>The so-called “MoU 44”—an agreement regarding maritime claims that Thailand negotiated with Cambodia back in 2001—has incessantly been in the news of late, particularly November and December 2024. All sorts of allegations have been made, including that the agreement compromised Thai sovereignty and that the MoU needs to be revoked. Despite numerous efforts by the government to quell the uproar and assure the public that the MoU is fine and should now be actively implemented, the public is unsure and remains confused. This Commentary describes the entire state of affairs, explains the legal issues involved, reproduces for viewing the MoU itself along with relevant maps, and ultimately concludes that the various “attacks” on the MoU are without merit but being done for imagined political advantage.</p> William Roth Copyright (c) 2024 William Roth http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277868 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 Review of Alin Kadfak, Kate Barclay, and Andrew M. Song, EU Trade-Related Measures Against Illegal Fishing: Policy Diffusion and Effectiveness in Thailand and Australia https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/273559 Benjamin Ivry Copyright (c) 2024 Benjamin Ivry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/273559 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700 Review of Ronnakorn Bunmee, Thai Criminal Law https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277989 Lasse Schuldt Copyright (c) 2024 Lasse Schuldt http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 https://so01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/tls/article/view/277989 Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0700