In-court arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) tool provided in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) for cases that have already been submitted to the court. Historically, in-court arbitration has not been a popular method of resolving disputes. Instead, out-of-court arbitration, as prescribed by the Thai Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), is far more utilized in practice. The popularity of out-of-court arbitration is demonstrated by the fact that presentations on arbitration in Thailand almost exclusively focus on out-of-court arbitration; in-court arbitration is rarely even a topic of discussion. This situation is partly because in-court arbitration has not been encouraged by the courts in the past. Further, it is also not common for parties to agree on arbitration clauses after a dispute arises and also after it has been submitted to the court. Instead, arbitration clauses are generally discussed and crafted during the negotiation of the contract, which will most likely provide that any dispute arising out of the contract is to be resolved by out-of-court arbitration. Nonetheless, the Thai Courts of Justice have recently started to support this in-court ADR tool as a viable option and to encourage parties to agree in-court arbitration clauses before proceeding with a case through trial. This article is not meant to assess whether in-court arbitration is preferable to either out-of-court arbitration or to having the case heard by professional judges of the Courts of Justice. Instead, the purpose of this article is to discuss certain key provisions of the CPC that parties should carefully consider before agreeing to an in-court arbitration clause. On this point, the CPC specifically states that out-of-court arbitration is prescribed by arbitration law, the Arbitration Act, which is an entirely separate piece of legislation drafted specifically to apply to out-of-court arbitration. In contrast, in-court arbitration is completely regulated by the CPC,

Intellectual property rights holders pursuing legal actions in Vietnam have faced various challenges related to document formality in recent years. For example, in two different disputes at the Ho Chi Minh City Court, we have seen the judge request the claimants to re-prepare the civil dossier due to a lack of documentation proving the authorization of the signer—despite the fact that the cases had been ongoing for long time. Meanwhile, many domain names have been unable to be registered and transferred in recent months. Third-party representatives cannot handle the work as they normally would, as Vietnam’s domain name authority has required all documents to be signed by the domain name holders themselves, instead of the law firms representing them. Such demands have created unnecessary complexities and obstacles for IP holders seeking to protect their rights in Vietnam. Legal Formalities in the Court System Vietnam’s judicial landscape presents unique hurdles for IP holders to enforce their rights. One significant challenge is the requirement for the claimant’s legal representative (typically the CEO/president), as explicitly displayed on the company’s business license, to sign all documents related to a lawsuit. This requirement clashes with the operational practices of many foreign companies, where multiple individuals may have the authority to represent the company. It is extremely impractical, especially in a large multinational conglomerate, for the CEO/president to personally execute all documents and transactions. Instead, authorized staff within these organizations, such as department heads or general counsel, typically handle these tasks. In this situation, Vietnamese courts often demand additional documentation to prove the officers’ authority, necessitating specific authorization documents that may not always be readily available. The courts sometimes remain unconvinced by declarations from the CEO/president affirming the authorization of these officers, and despite such assurances, they may still demand tangible proof of authorization, adding layers of complexity for IP

On April 10, 2024, new minimum wage rates for workers in certain hotels in Thailand were published in the Government Gazette, taking effect on April 13, 2024. Under the Notification of the National Wage Committee on Minimum Wage Rate for the Hotel Industry, the new minimum wage rate is THB 400 per day, applicable to employees working in four-star (and above) hotels that have at least 50 employees and are located in the following specific areas: Bangkok: Pathumwan and Wattana districts Krabi: Ao Nang Subdistrict Administrative Organization areas Chon Buri: Pattaya city Chiang Mai: Chiang Mai municipality Prachuap Khiri Khan: Hua Hin municipality Phang-nga: Khukkhak sub-district municipality Phuket: Whole province Rayong: Phe subdistrict Songkhla: Hat Yai municipality Surat Thani: Koh Samui municipality Rationale The increase in the minimum wage is to drive and stimulate the economy in Thailand’s tourism industry, which is critical to the overall economy of the country. The ten areas identified above are those that earn a significant portion of their revenue from tourism. The decision underwent a public hearing process involving stakeholders. Although there were objections from some hotels claiming they were not yet ready to bear the increased costs, the law was enacted, taking effect on April 13, 2024. For more information on Thailand’s minimum wage regulations, or on any aspect of employment law in Thailand, please contact Pimvimol (June) Vipamaneerut at [email protected], Ketnut Pukahuta at [email protected], Dusita Khanijou at [email protected], or Chomanut Arif at [email protected].

Costly and time-consuming litigation can cause entrepreneurs to lose a lot of money, leading to cash flow problems and even threatening their ability to continue their business operations. One alternative to these financial challenges is litigation funding. This can be an option for people intending to file a lawsuit or those being sued to address potential financial liquidity problems caused by the financial demands of litigation. Litigation funding refers to financial support provided by an unrelated third party with no interest in the dispute who agrees to fund the costs a party incurs during the dispute resolution process in exchange for a portion of any money potentially awarded to the party being funded. If the funded party loses the case, the third party (i.e., the funder) is solely responsible for the costs. Although litigation funding is available in various countries, Thailand considers it to be contrary to public order and good morals, which renders litigation funding agreements void and unenforceable. Recognition and Enforcement in Thailand There are no laws or regulations in Thailand that specifically mention litigation funding. However, the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that litigation funding is not recognized and is not legally enforceable under Thai law. These Supreme Court precedents have established that agreements to receive benefits in return for pursuing litigation in which the funding party is not involved would be an act of seeking benefit from the litigation of others. As noted above, this purpose has been viewed as contrary to public order and good morals, which results in the agreement being void and unenforceable by other Thai courts (Supreme Court Judgment No. 7014/1999). Therefore, if a litigation funding agreement were in place in a Thai dispute and the funded party won, the funding party would most likely not be legally entitled to any portion of the award or

On March 15, 2024, Thailand’s Board of Investment (BOI) updated its investment incentives for software development and data centers by issuing a regulation replacing the previous categories of software or platforms for digital services or content (category 8.1) and data centers (category 8.2.1). The new and updated categories are detailed below. Software and Platform Development Under the new promotion policy, the BOI has made separate subcategories for “development” and “improvement” of software or platforms, each with its own set of incentives. The BOI is expected to clarify the characteristics of these two activities in a forthcoming announcement. Qualifying development activities are eligible for a corporate income tax (CIT) exemption for eight years (capped), while improvement activities are not eligible for any CIT exemption. A number of adjustments have been made to the eligibility criteria for development of software and platforms for digital services or content. These include the following: Salary expenditures for Thai information technology (IT) personnel hired temporarily after applying for investment promotion can now be included in the calculation of total salary expenditures for Thai IT personnel hired subsequent to applying for investment promotion. Previously, only salary expenditures for permanently employed personnel could be included in this figure. The minimum salary expenditures for each project remain unchanged at THB 1.5 million per year. Similarly, salary expenditures for temporary hiring of Thai IT personnel can be included in calculating the actual expenditures in the year that the project would like to benefit from the CIT exemption. Projects must commence operations within 12 months of the promotion certificate being issued. No extensions are allowed. Projects are no longer allowed to extend the machinery importation period. The other eligibility criteria for development of software and platforms for digital services or content remain unchanged. Projects in the new BOI subcategory for improvement of software and platforms for digital services or content

On March 18, 2024, the president of the Supreme Court of Thailand announced the establishment of a specialized Technology Crime Division within the Criminal Court of Thailand. This represents a significant commitment to cybercrime within the Thai judiciary and a step forward in Thailand’s ability to investigate cybercrime. The rise in cybercrime investigations in recent years has made it increasingly difficult for Thailand’s traditional criminal courts to consider and issue enforcement orders in support of ongoing investigations in a timely manner. The new Technology Crime Division addresses this challenge. This new division has jurisdiction over cybercrime and technology-related crime, fraud or extortion using computers, and criminal offenses relating to personal data protection laws. In addition, this new division has jurisdiction over all requests from competent law enforcement officers seeking court orders under the Computer Crimes Act B.E. 2550, the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562, and the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562. The Technology Crime Division will have trainees and judges with expertise in technology and cybercrime—not only to facilitate expert prosecution of cybercrime but also to offer critical and time-sensitive support to law enforcement investigations of alleged cybercrime. The Technology Crime Division is not yet operational. The president of the Supreme Court is expected to announce the division’s opening date in the coming months. For more details on Thailand’s measures for dealing with cybercrime, please contact Michael Ramirez at [email protected] or Piyawat Vitooraporn at [email protected].

Aircraft lease agreements are commonly governed by the law of England and Wales, New York, or another common-law jurisdiction. This article examines the challenges of applying these and other foreign laws to an aircraft lease dispute in Thailand. The applicability of foreign law in Thailand is subject to the Conflict of Laws Act B.E. 2481 (1938). Section 8 of the Conflict of Laws Act states, “Whenever the law of a foreign country which is to govern is not proved to the satisfaction of the court, the internal law of Thailand shall apply.” According to this section, the burden of proof is on the party that claims the foreign law. The claiming party must prove to the court the existence of the foreign law and how the law applies. However, in aircraft lease disputes, especially those that involve seizing or repossessing aircraft, generally only Thai law will apply. Seizing or repossessing an aircraft involves Thai government authorities such as the Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand (CAAT) and the Airports of Thailand (AOT), among others, and these authorities will only comply with Thai law. Moreover, foreign court judgments are not enforceable in Thailand. This means that any action to seize or repossess an aircraft in Thailand must be initiated in Thailand and using Thai law. Foreign court judgments, however, can be used as evidence and may be helpful in convincing the CAAT or court that the lessor is entitled to repossess an aircraft, and in proving damages. The Thai laws relevant in a hostile repossession or seizure action include the Air Navigation Act, the Civil and Commercial Code (CCC), and the Civil Proceedings Code (CPC). The CCC provides guidelines on contract termination and the rights of parties in lease agreements. Specifically, it outlines the conditions under which a lessor can terminate a lease agreement due

インドネシアは多様な民族、文化、宗教を持つ多文化国家であり、文化的創造物、知識、伝統が豊富に存在する。そのような創造物、知識、伝統が特定のコミュニティーによって所有され、そのコミュニティーのアイデンティティの一部となっている場合、インドネシアの法律によって共有知的財産（Communal Intellectual Property）として保護される。 共有知的財産の一種は、伝統的知識である。よく知られた例として、プンチャック・シラット（pencak silat）として知られる武術がある。この武術は通常、客を迎える際に、ゴンダン・ボロゴン（gondang borogong）の音楽とともに伝統的に演舞され、インドネシアのリアウ州（Riau）の伝統的知識として登録されている。 共有知的財産に関する新しい規則 従来、伝統的知識は、著作権、特許、文化振興に関する三つの別々の法律を含む多くの法律によって規制されていた。しかしながら、2022年12月、インドネシア政府は共有知的財産に関する2022年政府規則第56号 (GR 56/2022) を発行し、伝統的知識の定義および保護に関する一連の規則を制定した。この規則の目的の一つは、2023年の政府の優先プログラムの一部である共有知的財産の登録を奨励することである。 GR 56/2022では、伝統的知識は、環境との相互作用の実際の経験からもたらされた地域の価値を含み、継続的に発展し、次世代に受け継がれるアイデアおよび概念と定義されている。本規則では、伝統的知識を以下のカテゴリーに分類している。 伝統的な方法またはプロセス 技術的熟練 技能 学問 農業知識 技術知識 生態学知識 遺伝資源に関する知識 医学、伝統医学、治療法に関する知識 経済システム 社会組織システム 自然や宇宙の振る舞いに関する知識 その他の形態の知識 伝統的知識はコミュニティーに属する人格権であり、伝統的知識の利用者には、その起源を認識し、コミュニティーにとっての同一性および価値を維持する方法でそれを利用することが要求される。 伝統的知識の登録 政府は、伝統的知識の目録を作成し、管理し、維持する義務がある。現在、リストに載っていない伝統的知識は、法務人権省 (MOLHR: Ministry of Law and Human Rights) 、関係大臣、非省庁の政府機関、または地方政府に登録しなければならない。登録申請は、伝統的知識が属するコミュニティーまたは関係地方政府がオンラインで提出することができる。 申請の一部として、以下の書類を提出しなければならない。 所定の申請書 伝統的知識の説明 サポート・データ 地方政府が署名した、伝統的知識の保護、保存、開発および利用を支持する文書 伝統的知識の説明には、以下を含めるほうがよい。 伝統的知識の呼び名 起源を有するコミュニティー 伝統的知識のフォーム（例えば、書面または非書面） 起源を有するコミュニティーの地域／場所 伝統的知識の種類（例えば、ダンス、工芸、服飾） 伝統的知識の書証（ビデオ録画等含む） 登録申請書が提出されると、当局は必要書類がすべて提出されていることを確認するための形式的審査を行う。その後、当局はチームを編成し、その知識がGR 56/2022に規定されている伝統的知識の定義を満たしているかどうかを判断するための検証審査（verification review）を行う。当該知識が定義を満たしていると判断された場合、その知識は法務人権省知的財産総局（Directorate General of Intellectual Property）が開発した共有知的財産データベースに登録される。現在、データベースには約10,475件の共有知的財産が登録されており、そのうち500件以上が伝統的知識である。 伝統的知識の登録は、起源を有するコミュニティーによって与えられた価値および意味と異なる方法で知識が利用されることを防ぐのに役立つ。当該登録は、法的紛争の解決を促進するためにも利用できる。さらに、当局は、教育や普及などのために登録された伝統的知識を維持し、それがコミュニティーの利益のために利用されることを保証することが要求される。 伝統的知識の利用および保護 共有知的財産データベースに登録されている伝統的知識は、誰でも利用することができる。ただし、その起源を認め、コミュニティーにとっての同一性および価値を維持する方法で利用することを条件とする。しかしながら、神聖、秘密、または厳格に保持されているように登録されている伝統的知識（聖典など）を利用したい場合は、コミュニティーの許可を得なければならない。さらに、伝統的知識を商業目的で利用したい場合は、非金銭的利益／金銭的利益の一部または全部をコミュニティーと共有しなければならない。 インドネシアの伝統的知識を保護するメカニズムは、多様なコミュニティーの文化遺産および知的財産を保護するための一歩である。共同知的財産に関する2022年Government RegulationNo.56の発行により、インドネシアは伝統的知識の定義、登録および規制のための包括的な枠組みを確立した。当該規制は、伝統的知識の共有を認めるだけでなく、それぞれのコミュニティー内で伝統的知識の真正性および価値を維持することの重要性を強調している。伝統的知識のあらゆる利用に対して登録および期限の確認を義務付けることにより、インドネシアは、敬意を払い有益な利用を促進しながら、その搾取を防ぐことを目指している。これらの措置を通じて、インドネシアは豊かな文化遺産を保護しているだけでなく、多様なコミュニティーおよび伝統的知識を活用しようとする人々の間で、尊重と互恵の枠組みを育んでいる。   備考：本和文は英文記事を翻訳したものです。原文については、以下のリンクをご参照ください。 Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Indonesia