DOI: 10.14457/tu.the.2017.241
title: The engagement of the parliament in Thailand’s foreign policy process: a new institutionalist perspective

description: According to Thai constitutions, parliament has legal duty and power to engage in foreign policy, but it was not until 2007 that Thai parliament could play much of an assertive role in the foreign policy process. Parliamentarians amended section 224 of the constitution of 1997 in order to control and check the cabinet and government in the matter of negotiations with other states and international organizations and to allow itself to engage in the process of foreign policy making. Through adding more stages in conduct of negotiation, parliament could be a part of consideration and approval of negotiation framework and final agreed text, not merely acknowledgment.Section 190 could be a case to show how Thai parliament could engage more in foreign policy directly and indirectly. Therefore, it seems fitting to study how, during the period of 2007-2014, parliament as an institution and foreign policy are related through the “New Institutionalist” perspective. The case of the Preah Vihear conflict indicates how parliament as an institution inserts itself into foreign affairs of Thailand through a parliamentary mechanism of constitutional court suing (section 190 (5), general debate, debate of no-confidence of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and an order to hold of the Joint Communiqué to the Cambodian government. The Joint Communiqué between Thailand and Cambodia, on 18 June 2008, which was signed by Noppadon Patama, Minister of Foreign Affairs, was the turning point of parliament to have a role and to be able to engage more in foreign policy.Considering the constitutional context of political and constitutional change in Thailand, section 190 of the constitution of 2007 was a result of the inability of parliament to engage in foreign policy, especially in the Free Trade Agreement and Preah Vihear matters. The FTA and Preah Vihear matters were a consequence of Thaksin’s regime and foreign policy domination. Historical context helps in explaining this phenomenon. The driving forces that led to amendment of the constitution of 2007 were the protest of People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) in 2006 and 2008, the election boycott by the Chart Thai and Democrat Parties in April 2006, the military coup in September 2006, the dissolution of Thai Rak Thai Party in 2007, and the drafting of the anti-Thaksin constitution.The amendment of the constitution of 1997 was intended to decrease the power of government and prime minister, increase democratization, and strengthen the parliamentary system and institution. There was also an amendment in a section on foreign policy making which allowed parliament to be in the loop of foreign policy making through a mechanism of framework and final agreed text approval, as the constitution of 1997 made potential behavior of government (i.e., ignore and block parliament from being assertive in foreign policy making process) unnoticed. Parliament tends to be an institution that belongs to one of the mechanisms of foreign policy making, even though it is not a main institution in engaging in foreign policy.