• 
• 

They say the decision has set a new precedent for the ministry's handling of legal documents already signed with, or about to be signed with, foreign countries.

The communique was signed by Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama and Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An. It gives Thai support to Cambodia's application to list Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site. Although Thailand's support was withdrawn following the court's decision, the application has since been successful.

The court ruled that "any document signed with foreign countries or international organisations and deemed as a treaty or an agreement is required to pass the parliament's approval."

Prior to the court's decision, many senior officials at the ministry, notably at its Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, were confident that the communique could not be deemed a treaty or an agreement. Their normal practice was to regard a communique as a document that had not yet become a treaty.

Many legal experts are now saying that this practice was based on a misunderstanding, and that any document containing the word "agree", or requiring the signatories to do something, can be deemed, in essence, to be a treaty or an agreement.

Under the command of many previous ministers, the Foreign Ministry has seen many joint communiques, statements and declarations signed and sealed without the permission of Parliament. Moreover, the constitutional requirement is not new. Previous charters such as the 1997 Constitution required treaties or any other binding documents to pass through a parliamentary reading.

However, the 1997 Constitution did not require the submission of all binding documents to parliamentary consideration. Its Article 224 said His Majesty the King had authority to make agreements with foreign countries or international organisations.

The second paragraph of the article said that any treaty that could make changes to territory or sovereignty, or need internal laws for ratification, required the approval of Parliament.

The normal practices of the Foreign Ministry were established under the 1997 Constitution. Documents signed with foreign countries and organisations were regarded as treaties requiring the approval of Parliament if they involved any changes in territory or sovereignty.

The military-sponsored 2007 Constitution requires that agreements, treaties and other kinds of binding documents to be signed by the government either bilaterally or multilaterally with foreign countries or international organisations must first be passed by Parliament.

The 2007 Constitution's Article 190, to which the Constitution Court referred when granting an injunction to halt Noppadon's joint communique, is a modified version of Article 224 from the 1997 Constitution.

It says an agreement or a treaty requires parliamentary approval if it makes changes in territory, or sovereignty over territory within or outside the Kingdom in accordance with other treaties or international laws, requires domestic laws for ratification, affects the country's economic and social security, or has binding consequences for trade, investment or the national budget.

In fact, Article 224 of the 1997 Constitution and Article 190 of the current charter share a common spirit and intention: any agreement which makes significant changes in sovereignty or has implications for the country must get the people's mandate through the Parliament.