Mae Fah Luang University Law Journal

Reinterpreting the ASEAN’s Non-Interference Principle to Address Transboundary Haze Pollution Management Issues

2025-05-18T07:46:09+07:00

The transboundary haze pollution issue has long been a problem affecting ASEAN member states. Currently, ASEAN has joint international laws to manage this problem. However, the issue still persists. ASEAN member states have not been able to effectively address the problem, and other member states cannot intervene in any member state due to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states.
This article presents the possibility of reinterpreting the principle of non-interference in internal affairs to engage with other member states, such as raising issues for discussion, consultation, taking various actions, including providing assistance and helping manage problems in other member states in cases where the member state cannot address the issue alone. This should involve interpreting the ASEAN Charter using the principle of teleological interpretation according to the objectives and purposes of the ASEAN Charter under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, which must consider the environmental objectives of the ASEAN Charter that bind ASEAN member states. Furthermore, the interpretation must also consider the context of other international laws to which ASEAN member states have mutual obligations, including: the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP), the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER), Roadmap for ASEAN cooperation on transboundary haze pollution control issued under the AATHP Agreement and the international custom of ASEAN member states regarding No-Harm principle.

Considerations on the Compatibility of Thailand’s Legislation on the Right to Die with Dignity with Obligations under International Human Rights Law and European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence

2025-04-30T06:51:57+07:00

Currently, the right to refuse treatment at the end of life is the only form of right to die with dignity that Thailand recognizes, according to Section 12 of the National Health Act B.E. 2550 (2007). Thailand has not enacted legislation permitting voluntary active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. This raises legal considerations regarding the compatibility of Thailand’s right to die legislation with obligations under international human rights law, as well as the European Court of Human Rights’ approach to protecting the right to die, which is the sole international human rights tribunal that has ruled on the right to die with dignity.
When examining the provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, although there is no explicit provision recognizing “the right to die” in these international legal instruments, the recommendations and interpretations from the UN Human Rights Committee for the Covenant and the European Court of Human Rights reveal consistency in recognizing the right to die with dignity. They do not prohibit State Parties from permitting euthanasia and assisted suicide, provided that the state has clear and adequate legal measures to ensure protection against situations of bad faith that might interfere with the exercise of these end-of-life rights, in order to prevent violations of and respect for the right to life.
Therefore, when considering the opinions of the Human Rights Committee and the interpretative approach of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the compatibility of Thailand’s legal recognition of the right to die with dignity, whether Thai law only recognizes the refusal of treatment for terminally ill patients or if Thailand were to recognize active euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the future, if Thailand establishes clear and systematic legal measures and regulatory bodies to protect patients' rights to receive accurate and clear information, ensuring that patients' decisions are made independently and truly in accordance with legal measures, Thailand would not be considered in violation of its obligations under international law.

Developing the Concept of Community Pets to align with Animal Rights Theories That Correspond with the Contemporary Lifestyles between Community Member and Stray Dog

2025-10-09T15:11:03+07:00

The perception of animals has undergone a significant transformation—from being regarded merely as living beings cohabiting the planet with humans, yet occupying an unequal status, to becoming subjects of shared societal agreements. This shift has been catalyzed by emerging scientific evidence demonstrating that many animal species possess sentience—the capacity to experience both positive and negative emotions—akin to that of humans. In Thailand, this evolving awareness has led to a profound change in how animals are viewed and treated. Historically, animals were considered property, with owners having unrestricted authority over their treatment. Today, legal frameworks mandate the provision of appropriate welfare for animals, prohibit abandonment without just cause, and forbid acts of cruelty. Violations of these laws are subject to legal penalties.
This article analyzes the mentioned developments by examining the changing perception of animals, the emergence of animal rights and welfare theories, and the push for international agreements aimed at harmonizing animal protection standards. It also explores political theories on animal rights, which have evolved from foundational rights-based frameworks to incorporate the realities of human-animal coexistence. These theories emphasize the value of present-day relationships, including emotional interdependence, and align with the concept of well-being—an extension of the Five Freedoms principle. When applied to the management of stray dogs within communities, this framework supports the concept of the "community pet." It integrates humane population control measures such as capture, neutering, vaccination, and release, forming a new model known as CNVR-CP (Capture, Neuter, Vaccinate, Release – Community Pet). This model fosters sustained positive relationships between community members and stray dogs, facilitates ongoing vaccination efforts, and promotes a more compassionate public perception of stray animals.

The Absence of Provisions Regarding the General Jurisdiction of Thai Administrative Court

2025-09-01T08:54:04+07:00

This article aims to study the body of knowledge regarding the jurisdiction of administrative court over administrative disputes from multiple perspectives through a comparative legal approach. The objective is to analyze the issues arising from the limitations of the administrative court’s jurisdiction under the Thai legal system, as well as to explore potential legal reforms and interpretative approaches that the court may adopt in the future. The study reveals that Thailand’s administrative court emerged amid conflicting ideologies among legal scholars educated in countries with differing legal systems and judicial structures. This divergence has led some groups of legal professionals to attempt to limit the jurisdiction of administrative courts by tying it strictly to the “types of cases” and the phrase “as provided by law.” Additionally, flaws in the drafting process of the Administrative Procedure Law have inevitably contributed to this issue. A comparative analysis reveals that in countries operating under a dual court system, such restrictive interpretations of administrative court jurisdiction are uncommon. Accordingly, the author proposes that these problems be addressed through constitutional interpretation based on the systematic and structural framework of the Constitution. This should be pursued in tandem with legislative amendments relating to the jurisdiction of administrative courts, with the aim of establishing a general jurisdiction for Thailand’s administrative court.

Legal Criteria for the Exercise of Administrative Discretion

2025-09-10T09:24:57+07:00

A significant issue arose when administrative authorities were subject to lawsuits resulting from unlawful actions that infringed upon the rights of citizens. This was particularly evident in cases involving the improper exercise of discretionary power, as existing legal provisions lacked clear rules governing such discretion. Therefore, the development of legal criteria to serve as guiding principles for administrative discretion was of vital importance. This research employed a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methodologies. It involved documentary research and the collection of conceptual frameworks through in-depth interviews with both practitioners of administrative discretion and judicial authorities. The research is not merely a review of legal doctrines but an analytical examination of these principles through empirical perspectives drawn from actual practitioners and judicial authorities, providing insights into how theoretical legal principles are applied in actual administrative practices. The collected data were grouped, analysed, and validated for content accuracy across each interview question, and the results revealed a content validity index ranging from 0.67 to 1.00. The findings indicate that the exercise of administrative discretion must adhere to essential principles: discretion must not contravene the law; it may only be exercised when explicitly authorized by law; and its exercise must not exceed or deviate from the scope defined by the relevant legal provisions. Moreover, the application of discretion must ensure consistency between the facts and the applicable legal rules, and it must strike a balance between public interest and private interest. If these research findings are established as formal criteria for the exercise of administrative discretion, they may serve as a safeguard to ensure that administrative authorities exercise their discretionary power in accordance with the law.

Improving the Legal Provisions on Divorce according to the Civil and Commercial

2025-09-05T16:09:04+07:00

This research aims to examine the guidelines for amending and improving the legal provisions governing divorce proceedings under Section 1516 of the Civil and Commercial Code. The study adopts a qualitative methodology through documentary research by reviewing both Thai and international sources, including academic studies, books, journals, articles, statutory provisions, and other relevant materials. The collected data were analyzed, interpreted, and synthesized to formulate conclusions.
The findings indicate that, although Section 1516 of the Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand prescribes twelve grounds for divorce, the filing of a divorce action remains complex. Each subsection requires judicial interpretation; some are applied rigidly, while others lack consistent interpretative standards. Furthermore, the courts’ consideration of the subjective circumstances of the spouses, in conjunction with the statutory grounds for divorce, has led to a wide range of judicial discretion. This variation, reflected in several Supreme Court decisions, demonstrates inconsistency and confusion in the enforcement of family law concerning divorce.
Based on the analysis, the researcher proposes amendments to certain subsections of Section 1516 to increase flexibility and to enable the courts to exercise discretion more appropriately according to each case’s specific circumstances. These proposed reforms aim to align the law with contemporary social contexts and ensure fairness to the aggrieved spouse. The suggested amendments concern subsections (1), (5), (6), (7), and (10), while subsections (2), (4), (4/1), (4/2), (8), and (9) are considered appropriate and should remain unchanged. As for subsection (3), the researcher finds it comprehensive and suitable but recommends that clear judicial guidelines be established to assist the courts in assessing marital circumstances, thereby fostering consistency in the application of the law.

A Problem of the Buddhist Monk on Dispute Resolution under the Buddha’s Dhamma Vinaya (Doctrine and Discipline) and the Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study of Theravada Sangha between Thailand and Sri Lanka

2025-09-26T11:07:33+07:00

In cases where a Buddhist monk has committed a criminal offence, there are methods to handle such matters, namely, enforcing them according to the Buddhist monastic discipline (Vinaya) and enforcing them according to the laws of the land. Particularly in the criminal justice process for Buddhist monks in Thailand, when a monk becomes a suspect, they are compelled to disrobe and relinquish their monkhood before proceeding with the criminal justice process. This is done even if the monk does not consent to disrobe, which is highly detrimental to the monk as they lose the right to disrobe or the monastic title received while still a monk, even though they might be innocent.
In contrast, in Sri Lanka, which shares a long history of Buddhism with Thailand, it appears that monks in Sri Lanka are not required to disrobe before entering the criminal justice process. They can maintain their monkhood status until a final verdict is reached. This demonstrates that Sri Lanka grants significant rights in the criminal justice process to monks, and they can only disrobe with their consent. This practice, which respects the individual rights and dignity of the monks, is a testament to the principles of justice and fairness within the context of Theravada Buddhism.
Therefore, it is deemed necessary to study and compare the Criminal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Vinaya concerning monks in Thailand and Sri Lanka. This comparison aims to highlight similarities and differences to identify appropriate legal measures and models for monks in Theravada Buddhism, both in the present and future, ensuring accuracy, fairness, and clarity for monks.
After reviewing relevant literature and conducting interviews with academic scholars and Buddhist monks in both Thailand and Sri Lanka, the researchers concluded that the fundamental problem in Thailand lies in government officials using non-authoritative power to disrobe monks without their consent or the involvement of relevant Buddhist monastic organizations. The research suggests amending the law to address this issue. In essence, if a Buddhist monk in Thailand commits a wrongful act, authorities should be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings without disrobing the monk first. However, if authorities wish to disrobe the monk before any legal procedures, the process must be conducted with the consent and active participation of the Sangha (Buddhist monastic community). This suggestion is made to ensure that the rights and dignity of monks are protected, aligning with the principles of justice and fairness within the context of Theravada Buddhism. The active involvement of the Sangha in this process is crucial to maintaining the integrity and respect for the individual rights of the monks.

Exploitation in the Academic Publishing Industry: The Case of a Scholar Suing Major Publishers for Violating Antitrust Laws

2025-10-06T13:50:45+07:00

This article examines the problem of exploitation in the international academic publishing industry, focusing on the practices of major publishers who impose high publication fees and subscription charges, thereby restricting access to scholarly knowledge. A key case study in this paper is Uddin v. Elsevier, B.V. et al., in which a scholar from the University of California filed a lawsuit against six leading publishers for violating antitrust laws. The central allegations incorporate the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule,” whereby reviewers receive no compensation; the “Single Submission Rule,” allowing only one submission at a time; and the “Gag Rule,” which prevents academic authors from sharing or disseminating their work before publication. Those giant publishers have been criticized for disproportionately benefiting from these practices, which may restrict competition. When considering a comparative aspect under Thailand’s Trade Competition Act B.E. 2560 (2017), such conduct may constitute cartel agreements that restrain competition under Section 54, which are deemed illegal per se. The outcome of this case holds important implications for reforming the global academic publishing industry and may lead to reducing the financial burden of publication on scholars in the future.

Empowering Autonomy: Lessons from Japan’s Supported Decision-Making and Trust Law Frameworks for Thailand’s Aging Society

2025-07-23T09:31:25+07:00

Thailand has an aging population and a rise in dementia-related disabilities, exposing gaps in its legal system to protect autonomy and financial security. Thailand’s reliance only on court-appointed guardianship is the cause of elder abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation. Without comprehensive reviews mechanisms, trust law mechanisms, and Supported Decision-Making (SDM) alternatives, the ability of older adults to act autonomously is quashed, which undermines the person’s legal capacity.
Japan entered an aging society earlier and showed a way forward through legal reform. Japan has developed SDM principles alongside voluntary guardianship and review mechanism of guardianship arrangements which promote autonomy while providing necessary safeguards. Japan’s Trust Act (2006) also allows elderly individuals to establish trusts to manage assets without being dependent on guardianship for financial security.
This article uses comparative legal analysis regarding statutory frameworks, practical challenges, and potential reforms for Thailand. It also touches on matters of private international law on cross-border recognitions of guardianship, and trusts.
These findings suggest the key reforms for Thailand in relating to voluntary guardianship, periodic compulsory reviews, the introduction of a trust law system, and national SDM frameworks. These measures would bring Thailand’s legal architecture in line with international human rights standards to secure its aging population’s dignity, autonomy, and financial security.

Patriocratic Democracy: When Gender Equality Is Conditioned Upon Masculine and Cis-Heteronormative Conformity – Lessons from the UK Supreme Court (2025) and Thailand’s Constitutional Court (Decision No. 20/2564)

2025-08-13T13:49:20+07:00

This article introduces the concept of “patriocratic democracy” to explain how democratic legal systems, while promising equality, continue to reproduce gender hierarchies by conditioning full political personhood on conformity to cisnormative standards. Building on feminist jurisprudence, queer legal theory, and the critiques of Carole Pateman and bell hooks, the article argues that legal recognition often becomes recognition in name only—a formal gesture that masks exclusion in practice. Judicial reasoning, statutory interpretation, and administrative implementation together reinforce biological essentialism by dividing people into two rigid sex categories, while invoking administrative clarity as a rationale for restricting political rights and access to public services.

Through a comparative doctrinal analysis of recent jurisprudence in the United Kingdom and Thailand—including the UK Supreme Court decision in For Women Scotland (2025) and rulings of the Thai Constitutional Court—the article illustrates how democratic institutions embed patriarchal authority through legal form. The concept of patriocratic democracy provides a framework to understand how law and courts sustain masculine legitimacy by making equality conditional on sameness to cisgender norms. The article concludes by proposing legal and policy reforms that align recognition with substantive participation: statutory harmonisation, explicit legal gender-recognition and sex characteristics frameworks, and accountability mechanisms to prevent retrogression. Such retrogressive measures would contradict the principle of progressive realisation under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which obliges States to advance rights and prohibits regression unless justified by the most compelling reasons.