Hague Conference On Private International Law

[JohnnyGray]

Thailand is not a signatory, how can it defend its position in the 21st century?

The whole of the civilized world has signed the treaties but Thailand aligns itself with countries like:

Armenia, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Cambodia, Cuba, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Pakistan, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe

Where's their justification? What are they afraid of?

[jcw]

What does that law or treaty cover?

[VisasPlus]

I think JohnnyGray may turn out to be one of the recent spate of spammers in the forum. This has nothing to do with Visas and Migration to Other Countres.

[Mario2008]

Not sure what this thread is abou and what the meaning of it is. There are many treaties and the in relation to the protection of children does make me wonder which treaty the OP is talking about.

Thailand is for instance a member to the convention of the rights of the child and aginst parental abduction.

Moved to general

[jcw]

VisasPlus: I am not judging at all, but in answering my question I did just get this in my PM from him. It had a link in it to the Hague Convention Home page that also links to all the countries that seem normal. Maybe he could not post it with a live link?

Just passing on the information I just read below..

Maybe there is some other agenda, I don't know, but I just learnt something anyway

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't seem to reply on the forum at the moment, hence this private message:

Since 1893, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, a melting pot of different legal traditions, has developed and serviced Conventions which respond to global needs in the following areas:

International protection of children, family and property relations. International legal co-operation and litigation. International commercial and finance law. Source: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php

What I'd like to get is people's opinions about why Thailand is so different to the signatory countries below - what on earth is Thailand trying to hide or protect?

Hague Conference Signatories (same Source shown above):

[JohnnyGray]

Not sure what this thread is abou and what the meaning of it is. There are many treaties and the in relation to the protection of children does make me wonder which treaty the OP is talking about.

Thailand is for instance a member to the convention of the rights of the child and aginst parental abduction.

Moved to general

Mario2008, Thanks for re-posting my comment, sorry, I'd put it in the wrong place.

But you're wrong about Thailand having signed the Hague Convention contract. It hasn't. And I'd like people's opinion about why it hasn't.

It has ratified / acceded to some elements of the Hague Convention, under pressure from the 73 signatories, namely: the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction [28] and the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoption [33].

But Thailand is not legally bound by any Hague Conference contracts.

The signatory members are trying to encourage Thailand to do so by allowing it to agree in writing to certain principles, but it is not legally bound by them.

[JohnnyGray]

Not sure what this thread is abou and what the meaning of it is. There are many treaties and the in relation to the protection of children does make me wonder which treaty the OP is talking about.

Thailand is for instance a member to the convention of the rights of the child and aginst parental abduction.

Moved to general

And let's widen the discussion further. The Hague Convention and associated international law relate also to:

• Family and property relations.
  
• International legal co-operation and litigation.
  
• International commercial and finance law
  

All agreed to and implemented by the countries listed below, but not by Thailand and Zimbabwe, for example. I wonder why not?

Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law:

• 
  Albania
  
• 
  Argentina
  
• 
  Australia
  
• 
  Austria
  
• 
  Belarus
  
• 
  Belgium
  
• 
  Bosnia and Herzegovina
  
• 
  Brazil
  
• 
  Bulgaria
  
• 
  Canada
  
• 
  Chile
  
• 
  China, People's Republic of
  
• 
  Costa Rica
  
• 
  Croatia
  
• 
  Cyprus
  
• 
  Czech Republic
  
• 
  Denmark
  
• 
  Ecuador
  
• 
  Egypt
  
• 
  Estonia
  
• 
  European Union
  
• 
  Finland
  
• 
  France
  
• 
  Georgia
  
• 
  Germany
  
• 
  Greece
  
• 
  Hungary
  
• 
  Iceland
  
• 
  India
  
• 
  Ireland
  
• 
  Israel
  
• 
  Italy
  
• 
  Japan
  
• 
  Jordan
  
• 
  Korea, Republic of
  
• 
  Latvia
  
• 
  Lithuania
  
• 
  Luxembourg
  
• 
  Malaysia
  
• 
  Malta
  
• 
  Mauritius
  
• 
  Mexico
  
• 
  Monaco
  
• 
  Montenegro
  
• 
  Morocco
  

[JohnnyGray]

Not sure what this thread is abou and what the meaning of it is. There are many treaties and the in relation to the protection of children does make me wonder which treaty the OP is talking about.

Thailand is for instance a member to the convention of the rights of the child and aginst parental abduction.

Moved to general

And let's widen the discussion further. The Hague Convention and associated international law relate also to:

• Family and property relations.
  
• International legal co-operation and litigation.
  
• International commercial and finance law
  

All agreed to and implemented by the countries listed below, but not by Thailand and Zimbabwe, for example. I wonder why not?

Members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law:

• Albania
  
• Argentina
  
• Australia
  
• Austria
  
• Belarus
  
• Belgium
  
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
  
• Brazil
  
• Bulgaria
  
• Canada
  
• Chile
  
• China, People's Republic of
  
• Costa Rica
  
• Croatia
  
• Cyprus
  
• Czech Republic
  
• Denmark
  
• Ecuador
  
• Egypt
  
• Estonia
  
• European Union
  
• Finland
  
• France
  
• Georgia
  
• Germany
  
• Greece
  
• Hungary
  
• Iceland
  
• India
  
• Ireland
  
• Israel
  
• Italy
  
• Japan
  
• Jordan
  
• Korea, Republic of
  
• Latvia
  
• Lithuania
  
• Luxembourg
  
• Malaysia
  
• Malta
  
• Mauritius
  
• Mexico
  
• Monaco
  
• Montenegro
  
• Morocco
  

and...

• 
  Netherlands
  
• 
  New Zealand
  
• 
  Norway
  
• 
  Panama
  
• 
  Paraguay
  
• 
  Peru
  
• 
  Philippines
  
• 
  Poland
  
• 
  Portugal
  
• 
  Romania
  
• 
  Russian Federation
  
• 
  Serbia
  
• 
  Slovakia
  
• 
  Slovenia
  
• 
  South Africa
  
• 
  Spain
  
• 
  Sri Lanka
  
• 
  Suriname
  
• 
  Sweden
  
• 
  Switzerland
  
• 
  The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
  
• 
  Turkey
  
• 
  Ukraine
  
• 
  United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
  
• 
  United States of America
  
• 
  Uruguay
  
• 
  Venezuela
  

[DP25]

Ok, so they haven't signed this

http://en.wikipedia....ternational_Law

Private international law refers to

http://en.wikipedia....ternational_law

So what exactly is your point?

[JohnnyGray]

Ok, so they haven't signed this

Private international law refers to

So what exactly is your point?

I wish that Thai citizens were allowed to stay in the UK for 30 days without having to apply for a visa beforehand, just as UK citizens are allowed to in Thailand, i.e. visa on arrival. Of course there's a risk that some will overstay, just as some UK citizens overstay in Thailand.

The risks are negligible and can be managed and are not at all comparable with, for example, Bangladeshis, Pakistanis or Indians who already have established communities and support networks in the UK into which they can "disappear" - as some do, even though they've been granted short-stay visas.

To put this into perspective, The Office for National Statistics estimates that, in 2009, only 35,000 Thai-born people were living in the UK, less than 0.06% of the UK population. Whereas the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities make up almost 4% of the UK population, or 2.3 million.

But until Thailand joins in with the first world and accepts internationally accepted legal standards, then unfortunately I think I won't get my wish and Thailand will continue to be bracketed with countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Cambodia, Cuba, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Pakistan, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe in terms of visa restrictions.

I simply want to start a discussion and get other people's opinions.

[7by7]

Visitors from all countries outside the EEA are restricted to a maximum of 6 months in the UK. Nationals of some countries who visit the UK require visas obtained in advance, these are known as visa nationals. Non visa nationals don't need a visit visa but still have to satisfy the UK immigration rules and can be refused entry to the UK by an Immigration Officer at their port of entry if they fail to do so.

All nationals, except those from other EEA countries, need visas if they wish to enter the UK for any purpose other than a visit.

Hague conventions, protocols or whatever have nothing to do with this; some of the countries listed by the OP as members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law are non visa nationals, but most of them are visa nationals; just like Thailand.

So I, too, fail to see the point of the OP.

Particularly as he seems to wish to make it harder for, among others, Indians to obtain a UK visa, yet they are members!

[7by7]

One flippant reply deleted; on topic replies only please.

[necronx99]

But until Thailand joins in with the first world and accepts internationally accepted legal standards, then unfortunately I think I won't get my wish and Thailand will continue to be bracketed with countries like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Botswana, Cambodia, Cuba, Guinea, Haiti, Kazakhstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Pakistan, Rwanda, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe in terms of visa restrictions.

I simply want to start a discussion and get other people's opinions.

Visas ae nothing to do with the Hague convention. They are bilateral agreements at best or usually unilateral in the case of first world nations..