Constitutional Struggles and Polarised Identities in Thailand: The Constitutional Court and the Gravitational Pull of Thai-Ness upon Liberal Constitutionalism

Q3 Social Sciences
Rawin Leelapatana, Suprawee Asanasak
{"title":"Constitutional Struggles and Polarised Identities in Thailand: The Constitutional Court and the Gravitational Pull of Thai-Ness upon Liberal Constitutionalism","authors":"Rawin Leelapatana, Suprawee Asanasak","doi":"10.1177/0067205X221087476","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article interrogates Thailand’s struggle between two conflicting constitutional identities, the identities of Thai-ness and liberal democracies, by examining how the Constitutional court implicitly and explicitly formulates and utilises both identities in its decisions from 2014 to 2020. Our analysis of these decisions shows that, instead of negotiating or synthesising the competing identities as the literature on constitutional identity envisages, the Thai court adapts the generic liberal democratic identity to defend and reassert the incumbent dominant identity of Thai-ness. The court drains liberal constitutionalism of its intrinsic substance while tactfully preserving and then lending its global legitimacy to bolster the local identity of Thai-ness. As a result, the liberal democratic identity is manipulated and pulled to gravitate towards the opposite value of Thai-ness. This unequal co-option between the polarised identities, we argue, depicts the current constitutional struggle in Thailand and marks the unique identity of Thai-style constitutionalism.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"50 1","pages":"156 - 173"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X221087476","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article interrogates Thailand’s struggle between two conflicting constitutional identities, the identities of Thai-ness and liberal democracies, by examining how the Constitutional court implicitly and explicitly formulates and utilises both identities in its decisions from 2014 to 2020. Our analysis of these decisions shows that, instead of negotiating or synthesising the competing identities as the literature on constitutional identity envisages, the Thai court adapts the generic liberal democratic identity to defend and reassert the incumbent dominant identity of Thai-ness. The court drains liberal constitutionalism of its intrinsic substance while tactfully preserving and then lending its global legitimacy to bolster the local identity of Thai-ness. As a result, the liberal democratic identity is manipulated and pulled to gravitate towards the opposite value of Thai-ness. This unequal co-option between the polarised identities, we argue, depicts the current constitutional struggle in Thailand and marks the unique identity of Thai-style constitutionalism.
泰国的宪法斗争和两极化的身份:宪法法院和泰国性对自由宪政的引力
本文通过考察泰国宪法法院如何在2014年至2020年的裁决中含蓄和明确地制定和利用这两种身份,探究泰国在两种相互冲突的宪法身份(泰国身份和自由民主身份)之间的斗争。我们对这些决定的分析表明,泰国法院并没有像宪法认同文献所设想的那样,对相互竞争的身份进行谈判或综合,而是采用了一般的自由民主身份来捍卫和重申泰国人的在位主导身份。法院榨干了自由宪政主义的内在实质,同时巧妙地保留了它的全球合法性,并借以支持泰国的地方认同。其结果是,自由民主身份被操纵和拉向与泰式价值观相反的方向。我们认为,这种两极分化身份之间的不平等选择,描绘了当前泰国的宪法斗争,标志着泰式宪政的独特身份。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信