Thaksin May Seek Justice From The World Court

[animatic]

Even if there was an international court of arbitration for individuals (which there will never be since it challenges the 'sovereignty' of countries and so many would never be a willing party to its jurisdiction), it would be good for Thaksin to take his case there, and when they failed to rule in his favour would he finally shut up and stop talking about 'injustice'.

Clearly we have a man here who believes a court can and should be 'favourable' to influential people, that he's special and deserves special attention. He probably also thinks that if Thailand's courts are no longer 'friendly to him', perhaps an international court will be.

The fact that he's pre-empting a guilty verdict before it's out shows that he has no respect for court rulings that might not favour him. Isn't this the crux of the matter here in Thailand?

Scary to think someone who thinks like this wants to return as PM.

Or as worse, controlling a figurehead leader from the shadows,

with no accountability or public scrutiny. If he comes back the

War on Drugs will seem a small foot note...

[David006]

Why on earth does the media still keep quoting this "has been"......time he disappeared into obscurity on his yacht ,island or whatever ..take up backgammon,roses or self abuse..... he is obviously bored and a brick or two short of a load....didn't that happen to Hitler in the end?

Maybe he will "top" himself too?

[animatic]

Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result?

The local media have done an effective smear campaign,as if it was needed. That may lead to accusations of bias in respect of his accusers.

Abhisit says he would have no grounds for appeal to the WCoJ, why would that be? I would think a good international lawyer could whip up a fairly reasonable embarrassing case.

Grateful if one of the many forum lawyers could answer my queries.

Does anyone know for sure if Thailand is a signatory to the World Court? Many countries are not. If thailand is a signatory then there might some basis for an appeal. If not then there is an untried premise of what jurisdction the World Court might or might not have. In other words the the World Court could offer an aopiion but it would be meaningless and non-binding.

regards,

Thaksin is not a sovereign nation state, except in his own head.

He can't apply there.

[Cayenne]

Typical of Thaksin to ramp up his PR activities before any major event- he's done it in the past during the ASEAN meetings, buying off Cambodia, etc all to draw the media attention to himself. Problem is, he's running out of tricks...

[astral]

He will never do that. He risks being tried for the extrajudicial murders if he does so.

My thought too.

[Ricardo]

Well the breaking news update on the other popular English language news source has a quote from him, saying something along the lines of him insisting he isn't wrong, and if the Thai court doesn't give him any justice he'll go to the "world forum", and that he's also been holiding meetings to make preparations for it pretty much every day.

Meetings with his "good friends" George Bush & Tony Blair, perhaps ?

Yesterday's men. But the other two know it.

[Wolfie]

Some posts have been removed from this thread. Please keep things civil and on topic - thanks!

[yoshiwara]

Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result?

The local media have done an effective smear campaign,as if it was needed. That may lead to accusations of bias in respect of his accusers.

Abhisit says he would have no grounds for appeal to the WCoJ, why would that be? I would think a good international lawyer could whip up a fairly reasonable embarrassing case.

Grateful if one of the many forum lawyers could answer my queries.

It is very unclear why Thaksin would want adjudication from a court whose members he could not buy. Or maybe his research indicates he thinks he can buy them. Anyway, Thaksin apologists are not looking for justice . They are looking for subsequent payoff as a result of Thaksin keeping a hold of his loot.

[Meridian007]

Does anyone know for sure if Thailand is a signatory to the World Court? Many countries are not. If thailand is a signatory then there might some basis for an appeal. If not then there is an untried premise of what jurisdction the World Court might or might not have. In other words the the World Court could offer an aopiion but it would be meaningless and non-binding.

regards,

It is more of a situational thing. Both states must agree to bring the case before the ICJ, (International Court of Justice), it cannot be done unilaterally. This was the case when Thailand and Cambodia went before the ICJ to solve their border problem, (look how well that went), both parties agreed to put the case up for judgment. I think Thailand may not consent to the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, but it can be a party to cases. The US opted for a similar position after the Contra case in the `80s. From this, Thailand could still come to the ICJ if it agrees to.

So, for those who didn't read the first page, we can sum up why Thaksin's threats are baseless:

- ICJ cases are ONLY state vs state. You can't have an individual like Thaksin vs a state like Thailand. (Unless there was some treaty that specified Thaksin's individual concerns as being within the ICJ's jurisdiction.)

-The case is not about war crimes or other humanitarian issues, so the ICC, (International Criminal Court), can't be used.

-Even if somehow Thaksin could make himself a state, (maybe if he buys that island?), no single state can bring a case to the ICJ, both sides must agree to jurisdiction.

--In addition to that, the ICJ would still refuse to take the case, as they would say that it happened internally to Thailand.

Unless he knows of some other forum? Any international forum is going to be VERY careful about touching anything that can be considered an internal issue. State sovereignty is still a major factor in any international interaction. The only internationally acceptable way to break the sovereignty barrier is to classify something as a human rights offense, and even then it is difficult to find acceptance internationally, as the largest states don't want any intervention in their own countries.

I like a previous poster's idea of Thaksin using Judge Wopner's "The People's Court"! Or maybe he plans to go on Maury Povich's show!

Edited February 23, 2010 by Meridian007

[scorecard]

Is there any reason Thaksin could not apply to the world court of justice if he does not get his desired result?

The local media have done an effective smear campaign,as if it was needed. That may lead to accusations of bias in respect of his accusers.

Abhisit says he would have no grounds for appeal to the WCoJ, why would that be? I would think a good international lawyer could whip up a fairly reasonable embarrassing case.

Grateful if one of the many forum lawyers could answer my queries.

It is very unclear why Thaksin would want adjudication from a court whose members he could not buy. Or maybe his research indicates he thinks he can buy them. Anyway, Thaksin apologists are not looking for justice . They are looking for subsequent payoff as a result of Thaksin keeping a hold of his loot.

Quote from above: "Abhisit says he would have no grounds for appeal to the WCoJ, why would that be? I would think a good international lawyer could whip up a fairly reasonable embarrassing case."

Firstly, it seems clear the the 'world court' does not hear such cases.

In any event, my Thai academic colleagues who have been scrutinizing the evidence from the trial which is just finishing (26th) say there is a mountain of absolute indisputable specific evidence, much of it in official state documentation proving guilt with no doubt whatever. They say the judges and prosecutors have been very careful, and have stayed well away from opinion and 'maybe' stuff which is of course what they should be doing.

I'm quite sure PM Abhisit has been receiving regular briefings and updates on this matters, like all matters. And my understanding is that at such briefings Abhisit is both a good listener and he formulates good drill down questions.

Sure, a world class barrister, perhaps along with a good PR/Spin firm could turn all of this into something which sounds like it's unfair / it's kangaroo court or whatever. These people can turn black into white if they are paid enough and they no hesitation to do so.

Edited February 23, 2010 by scorecard

[ballpoint]

This was the case when Thailand and Cambodia went before the ICJ to solve their border problem...

Maybe his great friend Hun Sen has given him a few pointers on how to win. More likely, he's in the advanced stages of dementia, can't understand why he is not getting his way despite all the money and power he used to have, and genuinely believes he can buy support from the international community. A seemingly common affliction amongst fallen tyrants.

[TAWP]

And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT.

1) No-one deserve to be gunned down in the street

2) It is the burden of the accuser to prove proof of guilt, not the other way around.

[webfact]

UPDATE

Thaksin has no justification to involve World Court

Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondet on Tuesday shrugged off remarks by ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra threatening to seek justice at the World Court.

"As I understand, the World Court has no mandate to step on the jurisdiction of Thai courts," he said.

Prasopsuk was reacting to Thaksin's threat to appeal his Bt76 billion asset seizure case to the World Court if he could not find justice in Thailand.

He said cases under the jurisdiction of the World Court were related to international disputes and not individual offence involving Thaksin.

-- The Nation 2010-02-23

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[animatic]

And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT.

1) No-one deserve to be gunned down in the street

2) It is the burden of the accuser to prove proof of guilt, not the other way around.

100% correct.

[ballpoint]

UPDATE

Thaksin has no justification to involve World Court

Senate Speaker Prasopsuk Boondet on Tuesday shrugged off remarks by ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra threatening to seek justice at the World Court.

"As I understand, the World Court has no mandate to step on the jurisdiction of Thai courts," he said.

Prasopsuk was reacting to Thaksin's threat to appeal his Bt76 billion asset seizure case to the World Court if he could not find justice in Thailand.

He said cases under the jurisdiction of the World Court were related to international disputes and not individual offence involving Thaksin.

-- The Nation 2010-02-23

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

This just in:

Red leaders announce "Million man march" for The Hague. "We don't see any difficulty in raising the numbers and getting them there" said a spokesman for the group, "I have been assured that you can drive to The Hague from Isaan without having to cross any sea. As soon as we find out exactly what country it's in we'll start bussing them over. These farangs have got to start showing Thaksin the respect his money warrants". He also denied reports that Thaksin was paying for the trip. "Our supporters may be poor, but they can afford to spend their very last satang on helping him get his 76 billion baht back".

[termad]

Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was...

He doesn't even know what the relationship between

The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is.

Clueless and grasping at straws....

It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed

as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something

well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this...

CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom,

but a government cabinet is another matter entirely.

Whereas the Foreign Minister of this country called the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country a gangster! Clueless?

[SomTumTiger]

Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was...

He doesn't even know what the relationship between

The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is.

Clueless and grasping at straws....

It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed

as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something

well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this...

CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom,

but a government cabinet is another matter entirely.

Whereas the Foreign Minister of this country called the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country a gangster! Clueless?

If the shoe fits...

[ratcatcher]

Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was...

He doesn't even know what the relationship between

The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is.

Clueless and grasping at straws....

It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed

as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something

well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this...

CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom,

but a government cabinet is another matter entirely.

Whereas the Foreign Minister of this country called the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country a gangster! Clueless?

I presume you are referring to Kasit Piromya (F.M. of Thailand) calling Hun Sen (P.M. of Cambodia) a gangster?

If so, I would say Kasit was 100% correct. ( Clueless? )

[animatic]

Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was...

He doesn't even know what the relationship between

The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is.

Clueless and grasping at straws....

It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed

as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something

well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this...

CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom,

but a government cabinet is another matter entirely.

Whereas the Foreign Minister of this country called the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country a gangster! Clueless?

Well it may not have been very diplomatic,

but it is likely quite true, and it IS legally within his job description.

Noppadom dum dum couldn't even claim that.

Interestingly this is the SAME neighbor.

One wants to suck up and do personal business with said gangster,

the other wants him to stop acting the gangster on their doorstep.

So is Thaksin/Noppadom thinking to keep friends close and enemies closer?

Or just get a slice of the oil field pie if it ever happens?

Edited February 23, 2010 by animatic

[geriatrickid]

And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT.

Yes I do know that some of the 2600+victims of Thaksin's extra-judicial reign of terror did NOT deserve it. I also know that claiming any democratic legitimacy after executing 2600+ people with no trial is laughable ... and truly dispicable.

If 2,600 died without trials,

then that puts him in the league of Latin American dictators like Pinochet,

and, maybe not Idi Amin, Pol Pot and General Suharto,

but Charles Taylor, Hugo Banzer, Vinicio Cerezo, Ian Smith,

assorted Argentines, Mobutu Sese Seko and a few others come to mind.

As a national leader this is unacceptable in this day and age.

And what of the President of the Privy Council of Thailand? It is alleged that thousands of Thais died as he fought the "rebels" and allegedly launched forays into neighboring countries. As well, there are the allegations of complicity in supporting the Burmese military junta. I do not know if the allegations are valid, but they have certainly dogged the gentleman for decades. Would you add retired General Prem to the list?

Personally, I think retired General Prem would have sympathized with the generals that ran the deposed PM Thaksin's anti drug campaign. However, I am not an expert and will defer to those of you that seem to have intimate knowledge of the alleged Thaksin crimes what with your extensive knowledge of international law, Thai law, forensics and of course Thailand's political process within the elites.

[webfact]

UPDATE

ASSETS-SEIZURE CASE

Thaksin unable to petition ICJ

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

Param

'Respect for Thai system only if he wins": govt spokesman

Unlike the case of prominent Malaysian attorney Param Cumaraswamy, ousted prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra is unable to plead his case before the International Court of Justice if the Thai Supreme Court decides to seize his assets on Friday.

Thaksin yesterday said on the social-networking site Twitter that if he lost the court battle for his Bt76 billion in frozen assets, he would file a complaint with the ICJ against the Thai government and juridical system.

An individual is qualified to file cases against the government of his or her nation, Thaksin said, comparing his case with that of Cumaraswamy.

However, government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn said the ICJ had no jurisdiction over cases involving individuals. He quoted Article 34 of the ICJ statute, which says: "Only states may be parties in cases before the court."

Thaksin was toppled by a military coup on September 19, 2006. The coup-appointed Assets Examination Committee accused him of abusing his power and conflicts of interest in creating government policies that favoured his companies.

The state prosecutor asked the court to seize all of his assets.

The ICJ has a dual jurisdiction: to decide, in accordance with international law, disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by states; and to give advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of the organs of the UN or specialised agencies authorised to make such requests.

Malaysian national Cumaraswamy, who was then the UN's special rapporteur for human rights, was sued by many Malaysian companies seeking compensation of US$112 million in damages for allegedly defamatory comments he made in an interview with the British magazine International Commercial Litigation.

The Nation has learned Cumaraswamy did not file the IJC case on his own behalf, nor did he have any conflict with the Malaysian government. It was then-UN secretary-general Kofi Annan who asked the IJC for an advisory opinion on immunity of a UN rapporteur from litigation.

By a vote of 14-1, the ICJ ruled on April 29, 1999 that "Param was entitled to immunity from legal processes of any kind for words spoken by him during an interview".

In the interview with the British magazine in November 1995, Cumaraswamy made comments about certain litigation in Malaysian courts. The Malaysian companies asserted that his words were defamatory.

In line with the ICJ's advice, the Malaysian High Court later decided to drop charges against Cumaraswamy.

Panitan said Thaksin sought to complain to other courts because he would be unable to accept a loss in the Thai courts.

"He would respect the Thai juridical system only if he won the case," Panitan said.

The government spokesman said Thaksin could not take his case to the International Criminal Court either, because Thailand had not yet ratified the Rome Statute, the treaty under which the ICC was established.

Can Thaksin appeal overseas?

THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Location: The Hague, the Netherlands

Establishment: June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations

Jurisdiction:

- To decide disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by states.

- To give advice on legal questions at the request of UN agencies or specialists authorised to make such requests.

Previous famous case:

A 1962 ruling that Preah Vihear Temple belongs to Cambodia.

International Criminal Court (ICC)

Location: The Hague, Netherlands

Establishment: July 1998 by the Rome Statute

Members: 110 countries as of October 2009.

38 states, including Thailand, have signed the treaty but not ratified it.

Jurisdiction:

- Prosecution of individuals accused of committing the most heinous crime against the international community as a whole;

- Genocide;

- Crimes against humanity;

- War crimes;

- Crimes of aggression.

Cases presently under investigation:

A number of individuals in Uganda, the Congo, Sudan and the Central African Republic for committing war crimes and crime against humanity.

[yoshiwara]

And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT.

Yes I do know that some of the 2600+victims of Thaksin's extra-judicial reign of terror did NOT deserve it. I also know that claiming any democratic legitimacy after executing 2600+ people with no trial is laughable ... and truly dispicable.

If 2,600 died without trials,

then that puts him in the league of Latin American dictators like Pinochet,

and, maybe not Idi Amin, Pol Pot and General Suharto,

but Charles Taylor, Hugo Banzer, Vinicio Cerezo, Ian Smith,

assorted Argentines, Mobutu Sese Seko and a few others come to mind.

As a national leader this is unacceptable in this day and age.

And what of the President of the Privy Council of Thailand? It is alleged that thousands of Thais died as he fought the "rebels" and allegedly launched forays into neighboring countries. As well, there are the allegations of complicity in supporting the Burmese military junta. I do not know if the allegations are valid, but they have certainly dogged the gentleman for decades. Would you add retired General Prem to the list?

Personally, I think retired General Prem would have sympathized with the generals that ran the deposed PM Thaksin's anti drug campaign. However, I am not an expert and will defer to those of you that seem to have intimate knowledge of the alleged Thaksin crimes what with your extensive knowledge of international law, Thai law, forensics and of course Thailand's political process within the elites.

Not alleged. Convicted and is a wanted criminal.

[somluck]

Not alleged. Convicted and is a wanted criminal.

Convicted by a Kagaroo court?

[Siripon]

Which shows you what kind of a Prime Minister he was...

He doesn't even know what the relationship between

The World Court and his own country, and himself as an individual, is.

Clueless and grasping at straws....

It is this same lack of international legal understanding that got Noppadon removed

as Foreign Minister, for doing Thaksins business. He was told to do something

well beyond his pay grade, and never even thought to check if he COULD do this...

CEO dictates and the board room listens... which is fine in a boardroom,

but a government cabinet is another matter entirely.

Whereas the Foreign Minister of this country called the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country a gangster! Clueless?

The Thai word nakleng has 2 connotations, it can mean a gangster but if you include the words' heart of a gangster' as Kasit claims he did, it can mean a brave, tough, fearless man.

Whatever, he has turned out to be correct , Hun Sen's public behaviour can only be described as disgraceful.

[321niti123]

Once again, this entire affair has never been about democracy. Such a shame there are those who still continue to believe this is the case. Let's see, he appeals to the World Court and loses. What next, the red shirts declare war against the World Court.

Exactly what I was thinking...If he appeals to the world court and he loses, he can't say "BIASED...THEY PAID THE JUDGES," I honestly think that Mr.T wouldn't/shouldn't risk it for his own sake

[jdinasia]

Not alleged. Convicted and is a wanted criminal.

Convicted by a Kagaroo court?

There you go yet again impugning the top judges in Thailand. Good thing you aren't in Thailand!

But the answer is ... No Thakson was convicted by a court that he said he trusted and respected. Then again his lawyers ,, pastry box .. 2 million baht that was nnot accepted by the courts .... then he runs away.

Then again your rants about the head of the Privy Council, besides being wrong, would likely land you in jail here too. I don't think you'd be missed.

[britmaveric]

JD - you know full well how corrupt the thai govt is from top to bottom. Def not a far fetched idea that the court is of kangaroo nature.

[jdinasia]

And somehow you know that 2500 odd people did not deserve it? I thought so.... NEXT.

Yes I do know that some of the 2600+victims of Thaksin's extra-judicial reign of terror did NOT deserve it. I also know that claiming any democratic legitimacy after executing 2600+ people with no trial is laughable ... and truly dispicable.

If 2,600 died without trials,

then that puts him in the league of Latin American dictators like Pinochet,

and, maybe not Idi Amin, Pol Pot and General Suharto,

but Charles Taylor, Hugo Banzer, Vinicio Cerezo, Ian Smith,

assorted Argentines, Mobutu Sese Seko and a few others come to mind.

As a national leader this is unacceptable in this day and age.

And what of the President of the Privy Council of Thailand? It is alleged that thousands of Thais died as he fought the "rebels" and allegedly launched forays into neighboring countries. As well, there are the allegations of complicity in supporting the Burmese military junta. I do not know if the allegations are valid, but they have certainly dogged the gentleman for decades. Would you add retired General Prem to the list?

Personally, I think retired General Prem would have sympathized with the generals that ran the deposed PM Thaksin's anti drug campaign. However, I am not an expert and will defer to those of you that seem to have intimate knowledge of the alleged Thaksin crimes what with your extensive knowledge of international law, Thai law, forensics and of course Thailand's political process within the elites.

Hmmmmm I think we have all seen this tactic before.... get beaten down on the topic at hand and try to bring in something totally unrelated. Usually it is bringing up the PAD and the airport fiasco when dealing with the reds. This topic being about Thaksin and the World Court it is impossible to use the typical diversionary tactic of attacking the PAD ... so instead bring up something totally unrelated against the head of the P.C.

"You must forgive my hero because someone else might have done something wrong" --- yeah that will stand up in a court!

Sorry GK --- There is a thread about Prem and this isn't it.

Allegations against someone from long ago are quite different than what Thaksin himself has said about the extra-judicial murders of Thais that were instigated from his office. Feel free to stir up whatever you can against the head of the Privy Council. Take it to the World Court even! Just don't try and hide Thaksin's sins behind it.

[jdinasia]

JD - you know full well how corrupt the thai govt is from top to bottom. Def not a far fetched idea that the court is of kangaroo nature.

Brit ---

no I don't

you know full well how corrupt the thai govt is from top to bottom

If you do you should certainly do something about it! I do know there is a lot of corruption in Thailand though! You however seem to be claiming that Abhisit and Korn (the "top" of the govt) is corrupt and I don't know that at all!

In fact I wouldn't even go so far as to say everyone in Thaksin's government was corrupt though it IS safe to say that the P.M. at the time was!

The fact that nobody on either side is saying that the ruling in the Rachada land case was wrong is quite telling. Thaksin's 'defense' is that the prosecution was 'politically motivated'. That is probably true. The fact that the law was broken is irrelevant to him, but it isn't irrelevant to the law itself.

[eljeque]

^not at all, good to get rid of drug scum.

No one arrested.

No one tried.

NO one of stature in the drug game shot or arrested.

The police had a freer hand than usual to shoot anyone they wanted, and they did.