THE POLITICAL ROLE OF THE JUDICIAL INSTITUTION IN THAILAND: A STUDY OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT FROM 1997 TO 2025
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research article aims to analyze the political role of the judicial institution in Thailand during the period from 1997 to 2025, using the Constitutional Court as a case study in order to explain the dynamics through which political conflicts have been transferred from the arenas of parliament, elections, and public space to the arena of the courts or the judicial process. The analysis is based on the conceptual frameworks of the judicialization of politics, the rule of law, judicial review, and institutionalism, in order to examine the relationship between constitutional law and state power, while also linking the analysis to debates concerning the “deep state” and “lawfare”. The research methodology is qualitative, relying on documentary research and interpretive content analysis of Constitutional Court decisions and important political documents. The findings indicate that, following the political crisis of 2006 and military coups in Thailand, the judicial institution particularly the Constitutional Court has developed a clearly pronounced political role through its decisions in the following respects: 1) Rendering the outcomes of coups d’état and the exercise of extra-constitutional power legally effective; 2) Removing prime ministers and accelerating the formation of governments or the reconfiguration of power; 3) dissolving political parties and imposing political disqualifications in a preventive manner; 4) Regulating the framework of constitutional amendment as well as political and legal policy; and 5) Intervening in the electoral process through decisions declaring elections void. The expansion of the role of the courts has both contributed to the balancing of power; however, at the same time, it has generated legal uncertainty, weakened democratic linkage, and posed the risk of transforming the legal order into rule by law rather than a normative rule of law. Therefore, this study proposes guidelines for reform, including the restructuring of the judicial appointment process, the enhancement of mechanisms for reviewing Constitutional Court decisions, and the development of the rule of law that is connected to the people.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
ธงชัย วินิจจะกูล. (2563). นิติรัฐอภิสิทธิ์ และ ราชนิติธรรม: ประวัติศาสตร์ภูมิปัญญาของ Rule by Law แบบไทย. กรุงเทพมหานคร: มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.
ปิยบุตร แสงกนกกุล. (2560). ศาลรัฐประหาร: ตุลาการ ระบอบเผด็จการ และนิติรัฐประหาร. นนทบุรี: ฟ้าเดียวกัน.
Baxter, H. (2011). Habermas: The discourse theory of law and democracy. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Dressel, B. (2012). The judicialization of politics in Asia. Oxon: Routledge.
Gibson, J. L. (2009). Judicial Institutions. In Sarah A. Binder, R. A. W. Rhodes, and Bert A. Rockman (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions (pp. 514-534). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ginsburg, T. & Moustafa, T. (2008). Rule by law: The politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Landfried, C. (2019). Judicial power: How constitutional courts affect political transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCargo, D. (2014). Competing notions of judicialization in Thailand. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 36(3), 417-441.
Mérieau, E. (2016). Thailand’s Deep State, Royal Power and the Constitutional Court (1997-2015). Journal of Contemporary Asia, 46(3), 445-466. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472336.2016.1151917
Tamanaha, B. Z. (2004). On the rule of law: History, politics, theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tushnet, M. (2009). Weak courts, strong rights: Judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Whittington, K. E. (2007). Political foundations of judicial supremacy: The presidency, the Supreme Court, and constitutional leadership in U.S. history. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
