The Interpretative Influence of International Human Rights Norms on Judicial Reasoning in Thailand: Lessons from the United Kingdom and the United States of America

Abstract

This research studies and compares the interpretive influence of international human rights norms in Thailand, the UK and the USA. It has found that successive Thai Constitutions have greatly been influenced by international human rights norms, but Thai courts have not made use of such norms in interpretation. This is in contrast to the practices in the UK and the USA where courts have developed advanced theories of interpretation in order to permit influence of international human rights norms in domestic spheres. In order to better understand the underlying reasons for the use of international human rights norms or the absence of such, the research compares not only the interpretive influence of international human rights norms, but also political and constitutional backgrounds, roles of the judiciary – including judicial review and interpretive approaches – and the perceived relationships between international and domestic laws in the three countries. Based on the results of the comparison, it argues that the interpretive influence of international human rights norms is desirable in Thailand and that the Thai legal system is actually more open to such norms than those of the UK and the USA. The research culminates in using experiences of courts in the UK and the USA to formulate a framework for Thai courts to consistently and legitimately use international human rights norms in their judicial reasoning.