Page 46 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

enforcement of foreign judgments. Considering the above influences on parties and
the unique characteristics of international jurisdiction, it is desirable to prescribe

international jurisdiction separately from domestic jurisdiction.

As indicated in the examination in Part II, international jurisdiction and

domestic jurisdiction are not clearly distinguished under Thai law. The special nature
of international jurisdiction has rarely been mentioned in Supreme Court decisions,

partly because of the insufficiency of studies on this issue and the lack of transnational
cases requiring the court to provide guidelines on how to establish international

jurisdiction . Furthermore, jurisdictional rules under the CPC, which are primarily
108
intended for application to purely domestic disputes, are not specific or precise enough

to assure legal certainty and predictability for the parties in international litigations.
For example, the CPC simply uses a “cause of action” as the jurisdictional basis

for asserting special jurisdiction, without further clarification as to what it means.
Such a legislative approach has often been viewed as offering little legal

predictability, making it open to interpretation. Some of the existing jurisdictional
principles, such as disregard for exclusive choice-of-court agreements, also appear to

be contradictory to international business practice and parties’ expectations. Therefore,
the law concerning the international jurisdiction of Thai courts needs to be reformed

in order to modernize jurisdictional rules and enhance legal certainty, as follows:

(1) Establishment of specific provisions for international jurisdiction

Title II Chapter 1 (court jurisdiction) of the CPC should be amended to
include specific rules for international jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters,

108. See Supreme Court Dika no. 3882/2549 (2006). In a case where the parties had a jurisdiction agreement
to submit their disputes to the court of Hong Kong, the Supreme Court ruled that the Thai court (the
Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court) still had jurisdiction over the dispute
because the cause of action arose out of a contract of carriage by sea concluded in Thailand, Thai
law was the governing law of the contract, and most evidence was located within Thailand. This decision
reveals that the Supreme Court more or less took elements such as the place of contract, governing
law and the location of evidence into consideration when it determined international jurisdiction.

กันยายน - ธันวาคม ๒๕๖๑ 35