The Application of Human Dignity to Tort Liability Disputes in the Thai Legal System

Abstract

This research consists purposes were 1. to study legal concepts, theories, fundamental principles and historical developments related to human dignity, both internationally and within the Thai legal context 2. to comparatively analyze legal principles and practices concerning violations of human dignity, including remedial mechanisms in Thailand and other countries, particularly in the legal systems of the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic and the United States 3. to analyze the challenges and obstacles faced by the Thai Administrative Court in considering the legal status of human dignity as recognized by the Constitution and its application in determining liability and 4. to propose recommendations for amending laws and regulations related to the determination of compensation, enabling Thai courts to appropriately and fairly recognize and remedy damages arising from violations of human dignity. This study employed a qualitative research design. Data were collected through a documentary research approach, drawing upon various relevant sources, including legal textbooks, books, academic articles, research reports, theses, seminar papers, statutory laws, and judicial decisions from courts in both Thailand and other countries. The collected data were subsequently analyzed using content analysis. The findings reveal that 1) the concept of human dignity is widely recognized in many developed countries as a supreme constitutional human right and an inviolable value. States have a direct duty to respect and protect human dignity. However, in practice, violations of human dignity often arise from the exercise of state authority 2) When comparing remedial measures, it was found that Thai courts still adhere to the principle of compensating actual damages, which is often limited to tangible damages to property or physical harm that can be clearly quantified. In contrast, other countries have more advanced mechanisms, such as punitive damages in the United States, which serve as a deterrent against repeated violations by state officials. While Germany and France do not explicitly provide for punitive damages, they have established strict interpretative principles to protect individuals from being devalued 3) At present, it was observed that the Thai Administrative Court has shown a positive trend in recognizing the principle of human dignity as a constitutional right. The court interprets violations of human dignity to include treating individuals as mere objects or actions that diminish human value, aligning with international standards. Nevertheless, a significant issue remains the lack of clear guidelines for determining compensation for intangible damages, resulting in inadequate remedies for emotional distress and the devaluation of dignity and 4) Based on these findings, the research recommends amending the Liability for Wrongful Acts of Officials Act B.E. 2539 to allow courts to award punitive or special damages in cases of severe violations of human dignity. It also suggests that courts expand their interpretation of laws to provide broader protection for this fundamental right. Furthermore, the General Assembly of Judges of the Supreme Administrative Court should establish clear guidelines or regulations to set standards for determining compensation in such cases. These measures aim to reduce inconsistencies in judicial discretion, ensure fairness, and enhance the protection of human dignity in the Thai legal system, making it more concrete and effective in line with international standards.