Page 47 - ดุลพาห เล่ม3.indd

ดุลพาห

parallel to domestic jurisdictional rules. The objective of a new framework for
international jurisdiction should be to increase legal certainty and predictability,

especially in the area of international commercial transactions, as well as to avoid the
possibility of defendants being sued in the Thai courts where it could not reasonably

have been foreseen. A substantial connection between Thailand and the parties,
or the transaction or occurrence in the dispute, should be used as the basis for

exercising international jurisdiction to ensure legal certainty. Such substantial
connection can be considered to exist when a significant part of the transaction

or occurrence occurred in Thailand, when the defendant has a domicile in
Thailand, or when property to which the dispute relates is located in Thailand .
109
The determination of international jurisdiction should also be consistent with the
party interests such as fairness, convenience and foreseeability, as well as the interests

of the court, such as the proper allocation of judicial resources, effective and speedy
trial, and the enforceability of a judgment . Furthermore, the new rules should be in
110
accordance with public international law and foreign legal orders in international
society to avoid possible infringement of foreign sovereignty and decrease the risk of

conflicting judgments.

In this regard, the general framework of Japanese law could be a good

model for Thailand in reforming its jurisdictional rules. To increase legal certainty
and predictability, the Japanese legislature chose to codify its case law and insert

special provisions on international jurisdiction for each specific category of
international transactions into the existing Code of Civil Procedure, parallel to the

domestic jurisdictional rules.

109. This approach is consistent with Principle 2.1.2 of the ALI / UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational
Civil Procedure.
110. Yong Eui Kim, “Review of the Rules on Korean Courts’ International Jurisdiction over a Civil Case,”
Dong-A Law Review 65, (November 2014): 48, http://www.cisg.law.pace.edu/cisg/biblio/kim4.pdf.

36 เล่มที่ ๓ ปีที่ ๖๕