4.1 ExtraterritorialityIn 1855, Tha

4.1 Extraterritoriality

In 1855, Thailand signed the Bowring Treaty with Great Britain. One of the most important points was that this treaty marked the beginning of the system of extraterritoriality in Thailand. The treaty provided a condition for the Thai government in Article II that:

Any disputes arising between Siamese and British subjects shall be heard and determined by the [British] Consul in conjunction with the proper Siamese officers; and criminal offences will be punished, in the case of English offenders by their own laws, and in the case of Siamese offenders by their own laws, through the Siamese authorities. But the Consul shall not interfere in any matters referring solely to the Siamese, neither will the Siamese authorities interfere in questions which only the concern the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty(9).
It was natural that other western countries should demand similar privileges. Thus, after the Bowring Treaty was signed, other western countries(10) also made 13 other treaties. Each of these treaties imposed extraterritoriality upon Thailand similar to that outlined in the Bowring Treaty. For example, the Portuguese treaty of 1859 provided that:

Any question which may arise between Portuguese and Siamese subjects must be laid before the Portuguese Consul, who, in concert and agreement with the Siamese authorities, will endeavor to settle it amicably; and in case of not being able to do so, civil questions will be decided by the Consul or the Siamese authority, according to the nationality of the delinquent or accused person, and in conformity with the respective laws. The Consul will never interfere in questions which solely concern Siamese subjects, nor the Siamese authorities in questions solely relating to Portuguese subjects, except in the case of crimes in which the delinquents will be taken into custody by the local authority and handed over to the Portuguese Consul to be punished according to the Portuguese laws, or sent to Macao to be tried there.
The Italian treaty of 1868 provided that:

Any dispute or controversy between Italian and Siamese subjects, shall be settled by the Diplomatic Representative or jointly by the Consul and the functionaries of Siam. Criminal cases shall be adjudged by the Legation or the Consulates, if the delinquent be an Italian and by the local authorities if he be a Siamese subject. But neither the Legation nor the Consulates shall interfere in the matters affecting Siamese subjects only, nor shall the local authorities interfere in questions relating purely to Italian subjects(11).
Besides applying to Siam, these treaties also covered countries that were western colonies at the time as well.

The Bowring Treaty, however, had a provision stipulating that “on all articles of import the duties shall be 3%”, in order to prevent the reduction of British trade through increased Thai duties. It was further stipulated that “the tax or duty to be paid on each article of Siamese produce previous to or upon exportation” should be that specified in a lengthy and minute schedule of export and in-country duties attached as an appendix to the treaty(12). Both of these provisions were explained and amplified in an explanatory agreement signed the following year(13).

After the following modernization and reform of the legal system of Thailand, the passage of extraterritoriality in Thailand was increasingly successful until Thailand regained complete judicial sovereignty from each European country with the amicable help of Dr. Francis Bowes Sayre, an American consultant hired by the government of King Rama VI in 1923-1925. King Rama VI was renowned for his skill in diplomatic and political negotiations(14).

As a historical record, it should be noted here that H.M. Princess Suvadana, a princess consort of King Rama VI, praised Dr. Francis Bowes Sayre when he went to Thailand for paying a visit to H.R.H. Princess Bejaratana, the only child of King Rama VI, in Thailand in 1962 that: “Chao Khun(15), you are the great friend of my husband and our country. We are glad to welcome you(16).”

4.2 The Obsolescence of the Old Thai Judicial System

There are some who consistently blame western selfishness in the demand for total extraterritorial rights as the sole reason for legal reformation in Thailand. Thai students are often taught that Thailand was forced to change her old laws and traditions only because of the cruelty of the west. But when we consider reform from another perspective, apart from the concept of extraterritoriality, it is possible to realize that another reason of using western legal principles to guide modern Thai law was due to special characteristics of the western legal systems. Since western legal systems had developed over time, they were proven and tested by the principles of modern society through systematic reasoning and logic(17).

About non-western legal systems, a western scholar recently noted that:

To the degree that non-western cultures were mired in what Max Gluckman was fond of calling “the kingdom of custom”, they obviously lacked a corpus juris, a modern sense of right-bearing selfhood, and most seriously of all, anything approaching “civilized” judicial procedures. It was appropriate, therefore, that in the name of universal “progress”, they be subordinated to a superior European legal order(18).
European countries always stated that the only reason for demanding the extraterritorial provisions was that Thai laws, particularly criminal law and criminal procedure, were obsolete and barbaric. Indeed, it is hard to judge whether the Thai judicial system at that time was truly barbaric since western views and eastern views were quite different. We may not say that old Thai laws were all wrong and null because the mother of Thai laws – Dharmasatra, a natural jurisprudence of the East, was still valid eternally; whereas, most technical laws or some specific provisions of laws were not suitable to a society stepping into the modern age anymore.

Principle of the old Thai law and the western law were quite different from each other in many aspects, namely(19):

(1) The modern law believes that persons are “equal before the law”, and enjoy equal protection under the law. Also, people are “subjects of the law”. Yet, Thailand at that time had the slavery system and people were labeled in different classes. Although slaves in Thailand were not treated like property as they were in western countries, and could enjoy some rights, Thai slaves were still their owners’ property in other manners, and their human dignity was not guaranteed.

(2) The modern law very much guarantees that property rights and the sanctity of a person’s dwelling are protected. There are clear rules about obligations, contracts, rights of ownership upon property, etc., in the modern law, while old Thai law had only some basic rules about property such as loan and deposit. In short, old Thai law did not govern the all-inclusive area of human relations.

(3) Modern criminal justice has a principle that government officials can arrest and punish a person where there is a law clearly indicating that an action is unlawful. The doctrine where there is no guilt if there is no law, Nulla Poena, Sine Lege, was not known in Thailand at that time. Further, as a modern idea, the arrest as well as the punishment of an accused must follow considerations of fundamental human rights. Interrogation through torture and punishment were totally unacceptable in the western view.

These modern principles had gradually developed in western countries over a long period. Arising under the fear or torture as existed in the Middle Ages, modern principles of criminal law and criminal procedure that respected human dignity were heavily emphasized. Even so, before the 20th century Thailand still interrogated suspects and proved the guilt of the accused by methods of torture dating back to ancient civilization.

Comparing old criminal law and criminal procedure in Thailand to modern principles of criminal law and procedure in the west, there are four dominant differences as follows:

(i) Substantive criminal law

Some consequences of criminal offences under old Thai laws go against modern law. Sometimes, members of the criminal’s family or neighbors were punished along with the criminal himself. For instance, neighbors of the place that was robbed were guilty if they themselves could not arrest robbers. Since this offence prevented neighbors from providing refuge to criminals from officials, it was appropriate for the community’s peace and security. However, under a modern view of law, the responsibility for a criminal offence must be particular to the one who committed the crime, not an innocent person. Also, the application of punishment throughout the family line prevented revenge from the executed criminal’s relatives, and frightened others who were thinking about committing a rebellion. However, it conflicted with the principle that a criminal offence must be particular to the criminal. Old Thai criminal law still made a criminal offence for a person who merely behaved suspiciously, called Nilumparajon. The offence of Nilumparajon is totally contrary to the modern principle of presumption of innocence that requires unambiguous facts and evidence before punishing an accused. As a western principle, in dubio pro reo, in case of doubt, the court shall decide in favor of the accused.

(ii) Criminal Procedure

Old Thai laws used the method of bodily infliction and torture, called Jareet Nakornbarn, to prove guilt. An accused might be nailed through his nails, or have the temple of his head compressed for confession. To prove guilt, an accused might be forced to walk through fire, or to submerge himself in water. These methods were based on the principle that an accused was already a criminal. This way of proof brought an accused excessive suffering as Prince Rabi noted:

At that t

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 1:

4.1 สิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตโทรทัศน์(เคเบิล) ไทยได้ลงนามสนธิสัญญาเบาว์ริงกับสหราชอาณาจักร จุดสำคัญที่สุดอย่างใดอย่างหนึ่งได้ว่า สนธิสัญญานี้ถูกทำเครื่องหมายจุดเริ่มต้นของระบบของสิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตในประเทศไทย สนธิสัญญาที่มีเงื่อนไขให้รัฐบาลไทยในสองบทความที่:ข้อพิพาทใด ๆ เกิดขึ้นระหว่างสยาม และอังกฤษเรื่องจะได้ยิน และตามกงสุล [อังกฤษ] ร่วมกับเจ้าหน้าที่สยามเหมาะสม และการกระทำความผิดทางอาญาจะถูกลง โทษ ในกรณี ของอังกฤษผู้กระทำผิดตามกฎหมายของตนเอง และในกรณี ของสยามผู้กระทำผิดตามกฎหมายของตนเอง ผ่านเจ้าหน้าที่สยาม แต่กงสุลจะไม่ยุ่งเรื่องการอ้างอิงเพียงสยาม ไม่จะเจ้าหน้าที่สยามแทรกแซงคำถามซึ่งจะกังวลเรื่องของเธอ Majesty(9) Britannicมันเป็นธรรมชาติที่ประเทศตะวันตกอื่น ๆ ควรต้องคล้ายสิทธิ์ ดังนั้น หลังจากสนธิสัญญาเบาว์ริง countries(10) ตะวันตกลงนาม อื่น ๆ ยังทำสนธิสัญญาอื่น ๆ 13 แต่ละเหล่านี้สนธิสัญญากำหนดสิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตตามระบุไว้ในสนธิสัญญาเบาว์ริงประเทศไทย ตัวอย่าง สนธิปี 1859 โปรตุเกสมาที่:Any question which may arise between Portuguese and Siamese subjects must be laid before the Portuguese Consul, who, in concert and agreement with the Siamese authorities, will endeavor to settle it amicably; and in case of not being able to do so, civil questions will be decided by the Consul or the Siamese authority, according to the nationality of the delinquent or accused person, and in conformity with the respective laws. The Consul will never interfere in questions which solely concern Siamese subjects, nor the Siamese authorities in questions solely relating to Portuguese subjects, except in the case of crimes in which the delinquents will be taken into custody by the local authority and handed over to the Portuguese Consul to be punished according to the Portuguese laws, or sent to Macao to be tried there.The Italian treaty of 1868 provided that:Any dispute or controversy between Italian and Siamese subjects, shall be settled by the Diplomatic Representative or jointly by the Consul and the functionaries of Siam. Criminal cases shall be adjudged by the Legation or the Consulates, if the delinquent be an Italian and by the local authorities if he be a Siamese subject. But neither the Legation nor the Consulates shall interfere in the matters affecting Siamese subjects only, nor shall the local authorities interfere in questions relating purely to Italian subjects(11).Besides applying to Siam, these treaties also covered countries that were western colonies at the time as well.สนธิสัญญาเบาว์ริง อย่างไรก็ตาม มีส่วนสำรอง stipulating ว่า "ในบทความทั้งหมดของการนำเข้า หน้าที่จะ 3%" เพื่อป้องกันการค้าอังกฤษผ่านหน้าที่ไทยเพิ่มขึ้น ต่อไปจะถูกกำหนดว่า "ภาษีหรือภาษีที่ต้องจ่ายในแต่ละบทความของสยามผลิตก่อนหน้า หรือ เมื่อมีการส่งออก" ควรที่ระบุไว้ในหน้าที่ส่งออกและในประเทศที่เป็นภาคผนวกกับ treaty(12) กำหนดความยาว และเวลา ทั้งสองบทบัญญัติเหล่านี้ถูกอธิบาย และขยายในการอธิบายข้อตกลงลงนาม year(13) ต่อไปนี้หลังจากความทันสมัยและการปฏิรูประบบกฎหมายของประเทศไทยต่อไปนี้ กาลสิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตในประเทศไทยก็ประสบความสำเร็จมากขึ้นจนกว่าไทยจากอธิปไตยสมบูรณ์ยุติธรรมจากแต่ละประเทศยุโรปด้วยความช่วยเหลือมิตรของ Dr. Francis พระยา Sayre ปรึกษาอเมริกันที่ว่าจ้าง โดยรัฐบาลของรัชกาลใน 1923-1925 รัชกาลเป็นแหล่งสำหรับทักษะของเขาใน negotiations(14) ทางการทูต และการเมืองเป็นบันทึกทางประวัติศาสตร์ ก็ควรจดบันทึกที่นี่ว่า เจ้าหญิงสัญญา Suvadana มเหสีเป็นเจ้าหญิงของรัชกาล ยกย่องดร. Francis พระยา Sayre เมื่อเขาไปประเทศไทยสำหรับการชำระเงินไปหอหญิงสมเด็จพระเจ้า เด็กเฉพาะของรัชกาล ในประเทศไทยในปี 1962 ที่: "เจ้า Khun(15) คุณเป็นเพื่อนที่ดีของสามีและประเทศของเรา เราจะยินดีต้อนรับ you(16)"4.2 The Obsolescence of the Old Thai Judicial SystemThere are some who consistently blame western selfishness in the demand for total extraterritorial rights as the sole reason for legal reformation in Thailand. Thai students are often taught that Thailand was forced to change her old laws and traditions only because of the cruelty of the west. But when we consider reform from another perspective, apart from the concept of extraterritoriality, it is possible to realize that another reason of using western legal principles to guide modern Thai law was due to special characteristics of the western legal systems. Since western legal systems had developed over time, they were proven and tested by the principles of modern society through systematic reasoning and logic(17).About non-western legal systems, a western scholar recently noted that:To the degree that non-western cultures were mired in what Max Gluckman was fond of calling “the kingdom of custom”, they obviously lacked a corpus juris, a modern sense of right-bearing selfhood, and most seriously of all, anything approaching “civilized” judicial procedures. It was appropriate, therefore, that in the name of universal “progress”, they be subordinated to a superior European legal order(18).European countries always stated that the only reason for demanding the extraterritorial provisions was that Thai laws, particularly criminal law and criminal procedure, were obsolete and barbaric. Indeed, it is hard to judge whether the Thai judicial system at that time was truly barbaric since western views and eastern views were quite different. We may not say that old Thai laws were all wrong and null because the mother of Thai laws – Dharmasatra, a natural jurisprudence of the East, was still valid eternally; whereas, most technical laws or some specific provisions of laws were not suitable to a society stepping into the modern age anymore.Principle of the old Thai law and the western law were quite different from each other in many aspects, namely(19):(1) The modern law believes that persons are “equal before the law”, and enjoy equal protection under the law. Also, people are “subjects of the law”. Yet, Thailand at that time had the slavery system and people were labeled in different classes. Although slaves in Thailand were not treated like property as they were in western countries, and could enjoy some rights, Thai slaves were still their owners’ property in other manners, and their human dignity was not guaranteed.(2) The modern law very much guarantees that property rights and the sanctity of a person’s dwelling are protected. There are clear rules about obligations, contracts, rights of ownership upon property, etc., in the modern law, while old Thai law had only some basic rules about property such as loan and deposit. In short, old Thai law did not govern the all-inclusive area of human relations.(3) Modern criminal justice has a principle that government officials can arrest and punish a person where there is a law clearly indicating that an action is unlawful. The doctrine where there is no guilt if there is no law, Nulla Poena, Sine Lege, was not known in Thailand at that time. Further, as a modern idea, the arrest as well as the punishment of an accused must follow considerations of fundamental human rights. Interrogation through torture and punishment were totally unacceptable in the western view.These modern principles had gradually developed in western countries over a long period. Arising under the fear or torture as existed in the Middle Ages, modern principles of criminal law and criminal procedure that respected human dignity were heavily emphasized. Even so, before the 20th century Thailand still interrogated suspects and proved the guilt of the accused by methods of torture dating back to ancient civilization.Comparing old criminal law and criminal procedure in Thailand to modern principles of criminal law and procedure in the west, there are four dominant differences as follows:
(i) Substantive criminal law

Some consequences of criminal offences under old Thai laws go against modern law. Sometimes, members of the criminal’s family or neighbors were punished along with the criminal himself. For instance, neighbors of the place that was robbed were guilty if they themselves could not arrest robbers. Since this offence prevented neighbors from providing refuge to criminals from officials, it was appropriate for the community’s peace and security. However, under a modern view of law, the responsibility for a criminal offence must be particular to the one who committed the crime, not an innocent person. Also, the application of punishment throughout the family line prevented revenge from the executed criminal’s relatives, and frightened others who were thinking about committing a rebellion. However, it conflicted with the principle that a criminal offence must be particular to the criminal. Old Thai criminal law still made a criminal offence for a person who merely behaved suspiciously, called Nilumparajon. The offence of Nilumparajon is totally contrary to the modern principle of presumption of innocence that requires unambiguous facts and evidence before punishing an accused. As a western principle, in dubio pro reo, in case of doubt, the court shall decide in favor of the accused.

(ii) Criminal Procedure

Old Thai laws used the method of bodily infliction and torture, called Jareet Nakornbarn, to prove guilt. An accused might be nailed through his nails, or have the temple of his head compressed for confession. To prove guilt, an accused might be forced to walk through fire, or to submerge himself in water. These methods were based on the principle that an accused was already a criminal. This way of proof brought an accused excessive suffering as Prince Rabi noted:

At that t

ผลลัพธ์ (ไทย) 3:

4.1 ถนนลาดยาง

ใน 1855 , ไทยเซ็นสนธิสัญญาเบาว์ริงกับอังกฤษ หนึ่งในจุดที่สำคัญที่สุด คือ สนธิสัญญาฉบับนี้เป็นจุดเริ่มต้นของระบบสิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตในประเทศไทย สนธิสัญญามีเงื่อนไขสำหรับรัฐบาลไทยในบทความที่ 2 :

ข้อพิพาทใด ๆที่เกิดขึ้นระหว่างสยามและวิชาอังกฤษจะได้ยินและกำหนดโดย [ กงสุลอังกฤษ ] ร่วมกับข้าราชการสยามที่เหมาะสม และความผิดทางอาญาจะถูกลงโทษในคดีของผู้ต้องขังภาษาอังกฤษโดยกฎหมายของตนเอง และในกรณีของผู้กระทำผิดกฎหมายสยามของตนเองผ่านทางการสยาม .แต่กงสุลจะไม่ยุ่งเกี่ยวในเรื่องใด ๆหมายถึง แต่เพียงผู้เดียวเพื่อชาวสยาม และเจ้าหน้าที่จะรบกวนถามสยามซึ่งมีเพียงเกี่ยวกับวิชาของฝ่าบาทบริแทนนิก ( 9 ) .
มันคือธรรมชาติที่ประเทศตะวันตกอื่น ๆ ควรเรียกร้องสิทธิ์ที่คล้ายคลึงกัน ดังนั้นหลังจากสนธิสัญญาบาวริ่ง ได้ลงนาม ในประเทศตะวันตกอื่น ๆ ( 10 ) ได้ 13 สนธิสัญญาอื่น ๆแต่ละเหล่านี้กำหนดสนธิสัญญาสิทธิสภาพนอกอาณาเขตเหนือประเทศไทยคล้ายกับที่ระบุไว้ในสนธิสัญญาบาวริ่ง . ตัวอย่างเช่นโปรตุเกสสนธิสัญญา 1859 โดย :

ถามใด ๆที่อาจเกิดขึ้นระหว่างโปรตุเกสและสยามวิชาที่ต้องวางก่อนกงสุลโปรตุเกส ที่คอนเสิร์ต และข้อตกลงกับทางการสยาม , จะพยายามที่จะจัดการกันเอง ;และในกรณีที่ไม่สามารถทำเช่นนั้น คำถาม พลเรือนจะถูกตัดสินโดยกงสุล หรือ สยามอำนาจ ตามสัญชาติของเด็ก หรือ ผู้ต้องหา และสอดคล้องกับกฎหมายที่เกี่ยวข้อง กงสุลจะไม่ก้าวก่าย แต่คำถามที่เกี่ยวกับวิชาที่สยาม หรือ สยามเจ้าหน้าที่ในคำถามแต่เพียงผู้เดียวเกี่ยวกับคนโปรตุเกส