Disagreements over trade policies, tariffs, and quotas can lead to conflicts between trading partners. These conflicts may also arise from alleged violations of international agreements.
The WTO provides mechanisms to resolve trade disputes. These include negotiations, mediation, and arbitration. The choice of the Thailand dispute resolution procedure depends on the specific issue at stake.
Negotiation
In general, a trade dispute may be settled through negotiation. This can be done by the parties themselves or through mediation, conciliation, or arbitration. These methods of settling disputes are sometimes called Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). These methods may offer quicker and more cost-effective solutions to a dispute than traditional litigation.
The process of negotiating involves both parties agreeing on the terms of their settlement. The disputing parties may also agree to have an arbitrator or panel of arbitrators hear their case and make a decision, which is often binding on both sides. Moreover, if the dispute is resolved through an arbitration agreement, it can generally be enforced both domestically in Thailand and internationally.
While a trade dispute in Thailand can sometimes be resolved through negotiations, the process is not without its challenges. Negotiation requires both parties to have a clear understanding of the issues involved and to be willing to compromise. It also requires cultural sensitivity, particularly regarding Thai business customs and practices.
In addition, it is essential for trading partners to understand how a potential dispute could impact their businesses in the long term. This includes having a thorough knowledge of the effects of various negotiating proposals, as well as the pros and cons of each of them. For example, the EU proposal for a quota on boneless chicken is likely to have a profound impact on Thailand’s agricultural sector, which is heavily dependent on this market access.
Arbitration
Disputes can arise between businesses over terms and conditions of employment, labour laws, compliance issues and local cultural considerations. Such disputes tend to be complex and require a high degree of legal expertise in order to resolve in a cost-effective and timely manner.
Arbitration is a popular dispute resolution method in Thailand, particularly in trade matters. A number of trade contracts contain arbitration clauses, which prevent the parties from resorting to court action to remedy their disputes.
It is common practice for the disputing parties to appoint their own arbitrators, or to select a panel of arbitrators that will settle the dispute. The arbitrators are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the dispute. This method can help to speed up the process and reduce the risk of appeals, which can prolong the duration of a trade dispute.
The arbitration process is similar to that of a trial, with both disputing parties having the opportunity to present evidence and question witnesses. Unlike the judicial system, however, the outcome of an arbitration hearing is not a final and binding judgment.
In addition to arbitration, the dispute resolution procedure tan is a process of conciliation, which is an alternative to a hearing. It is generally quicker and less expensive than a trial. Moreover, the conciliation hearing can be conducted in-person or via video conference. It is important for businesses operating in Thailand to understand the different methods of dispute resolution and the best option for their specific business needs.
Class Action
Although Thailand has long been an active participant in international arbitration, its legal system has only recently permitted class action. This represents an important development and should not be ignored by traders operating in the country.
Under the amended Civil Procedure Code, a plaintiff can bring a class action where there are several claims against a single defendant, and all of the claimants have suffered similar losses in relation to a common cause. The class action law provides the court with full power to allow, define and terminate class proceedings, and to enforce a judgment against the defendant for all members of the class. The court may also permit certain claims to be brought by non-members of the class, so long as all the claimants can benefit from the judgment.
The class action legislation also enhances the discovery process. This includes giving the court power to interrogate the defendant and search for additional facts not disclosed by the parties. It also allows the court to question witnesses during trial hearings.
As with most jurisdictions, a successful claimant will be awarded costs by the court. It is up to the court’s discretion, however, to decide whether the winning party should be liable for all or part of the costs. Courts are also able to impose fines on the losing party to deter unscrupulous behaviour.
Interim Relief
During the course of a dispute, a trader may need to take steps to obtain interim relief. This is a temporary remedy that prevents a decision by a public body from taking effect until the dispute has been fully resolved. This can be particularly useful if a public authority’s decision is unlawful and you need to stop it from having a negative impact on your business until you have had a full hearing.
To obtain interim relief, you need to submit a request to the tribunal. The tribunal will then consider your request as soon as practicable. However, it cannot postpone the hearing of your application unless it is satisfied that there are special circumstances.
The requesting party must also provide a detailed description of the issues in their case and the reasons why they require interim relief. The court must then decide if and how interim measures should be taken.
For example, it could order the defendant to deposit disputed assets with the court or with a third party. It could also direct the defendant not to sell disputed goods or services and refrain from conducting any public auctions.
The Philippines alleged that the Thai government system under which government officials simultaneously served on the board of TTM, a state-owned domestic cigarette manufacturer, violated Article 21.5 of the DSU and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appeals Against Customs Determinations.