Compliance with Obligations Under International Agreements Affecting the Thai Fishing Crisis Case Study: Punishment Measures Under the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries Act B.E. 2558

Abstract

This research article aims to study the concept/theory/evolution, compare foreign and Thai laws and analyze problems and obstacles related to the fulfillment of obligations under the IUU Regulations of international agreements that affect the Thai fishing crisis. To find measures to impose appropriate and consistent sanctions to resolve the obligations under the IUU of international agreements affecting the Thai fishing crisis. The researchers used the qualitative research methodology by using 3 methods of data collection, namely documentary research, in-depth interviews and focus group discussion and analyzed the data by using content analysis techniques and comparison interpretation.

Findings are as follows: Under Thailand’s obligations to fishery law enforcement, sanctions were not in line with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea1982 (UNCLOS) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The penalties of the internal laws of foreign countries with maritime activities and the enforcement of the fishing laws, as well as the fisheries laws of Thailand, were found to be inappropriate on a proportional basis, which is currently considered a legal principle at the constitutional level to monitor and control all acts of the State that violate the rights and liberties of the people in a reasonable and proportionate way to achieve the objectives of the State’s policy on the enactment of internal laws on sanctions under the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries Act B.E. 2558. Therefore, the issuance of the Royal Ordinance on Fisheries Act B.E. 2558 in the implementation of domestic law that must be fair and equal to that of civilized nations.