Thailand
Treaties and Instruments
Ratified the Work in Fishing Convention (C188)
Meetings, Announcements, and Declarations
ASEAN Foreign Ministers Retreat in Chiang Mai
EU Lifts Thailand’s Yellow Card
Cases, Disputes, Incidents, and Events
Thailand Appeals WTO Compliance Report- Thai Measures on Imported Cigarettes
Rahaf Mohammed Al-Qunun- Saudi Runaway resettled in Canada
Hakeem Araibi, Bahraini Footballer- pending extradition
Highlights- Thailand
Thailand signaled a more tolerant refugee policy after Rahaf, the Saudi runaway case. Thailand Immigration Police Chief, Surachate Hakparn The immigration police chief stated on 16 January 2019 that “There will be no one involuntarily sent back to the country if they don’t want to go back”. “We will now follow international norms”.
This is inline with the principle of non-refoulement enshrined in Article 33(1) of the 1951 UN Refugee where a refugee shall not be expelled or forced to return to territories where the life or freedom of the refugee would be threatened. Although, Thailand is not a state party to the refugee convention, Thailand is a state party to the Convention Against Torture and Article 3 provides similar obligations. The UNHCR also advocated that the principle of non-refoulement forms part of customary international law. This month, the authorities of Thailand also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to release refugee children detained in immigration centers nationwide. Both are welcoming moves by Thailand in complying with international refugee law.
However, with recent developments of Hakeem Al-Arabi, we will still have to see if Thailand continues to follow with this policy and obligations under international law or does things according to international comity.
Please click the link above for more details.
International
Treaties and Instruments
Theresa May’s Brexit Withdrawal Agreement Rejected by Parliament, EU refuses to renegotiate
Indonesia to challenge EU Directive on Palm Oil Ban
Meetings,Announcements, and Declarations
75 Countries Launch WTO E-Commerce Negotiations
Cases, Disputes, Incidents, and Events
Countries in EU, U.S., South America recognizes opposition leader of Venezuela as interim president while Russia, China, Turkey backs President Maduro
Philippines holds referendum with a win for self-administered territory, ISIS Bombings.
Highlights- International
As a student of international law, a diplomatic exchange where both sides argue on the basis of law is always interesting. This month, we have a heated diplomatic exchange between President Trudeau of Canada and the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying.
In this exchange, Canada accused China of violating diplomatic immunity when China arrested a former diplomat of Canada who traveled with an ordinary passport and business visa. [The other citizen was a businessman] This is believed to be in response of Canada’s earlier arrest of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry legally rebutted Canada’s claim that the former diplomat does not have immunity, and therefore China did not violate any immunity. To quote:
President Trudeau said “It is unfortunate that China has arbitrarily and unfairly detained two Canadian citizens, and indeed, in one of the cases, is not respecting the principles of diplomatic immunity.” [emphasis added]. Citations in news source
“I would like to suggest that Canada’s relevant people should first study and seriously research the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the International Law before they express their views, instead of being plausible and exposing themselves to ridicule,” said Hua. [emphasis Added] Citation in news source
Is this a slap in the face or not?
From my understanding, heads of state with a high enough rank and heads of states have immunity by virtue of his office because they represent the state. This flows from the “a basic principle of international law that one sovereign state (the forum state) does
not adjudicate on the conduct of a foreign state.” [Lord Browne in Pinochet] When the diplomat is still in office, the diplomat “enjoys full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability”. [Arrest Warrant para.55-ICJ]
However, when the the diplomat leaves his post, the immunity ends when the diplomat leaves the country. Only acts that the diplomat has conducted while the diplomat was still a diplomat is covered by immunity so that the diplomat’s acts are not later called into question. (So many “diplomats”) [Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]
Therefore, if China arrested the ex-Canadian diplomat due to acts after the ex-diplomat left is office, China would not violate diplomatic immunity on the condition that the former diplomat is not charged or arrested for acts the former diplomat did while in office.
* The compiler wrote the highlights. Please notify the compiler of any inaccuracies, both legal and factual, so it can be remedied. If any important news is not included, please contact the compiler. Comments and constructive criticism are appreciated.
Thailand and INT' Law 