Thailand has a chance if Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva can stop the killings
Former foreign minister of Thailand weighs in on Thailand's crisis.
I have watched Thailand’s free fall into the abyss with deep sadness. At this very moment, Thais are killing Thais and the situation is getting worse by the minute with no end in sight. The violence clearly has a momentum of its own after Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva’s latest decision to use force against the protesters on March 14. This destructive momentum must be stopped now.Skip to next paragraph
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
We have seen through the eyes of the international press that the use of force against civilians has been excessive, in clear violation of the principle of proportionality. We have seen targeted assassinations, as well as random killings on the streets of Bangkok.
Prime Minister Abhisit told the international press that there are no other options available except for the use of military force. I cannot disagree more.
Abhisit must be mindful that in addition to the domestic criminal liability he may face for ordering or allowing the use of force against civilian protesters, he may face international criminal prosecution as well. Under international law, the widespread or systematic attacks directed against any civilian population can be considered crimes against humanity.
An International Criminal Court inquiry has recently found that crimes against humanity may have been committed during a bloody crackdown on protesters in Guinea back in 2009. The ICC is investigating human rights situation in Kenya, Uganda, the Congo, and the Central African Republic.
Even though Thailand is not presently a party to the statute of the ICC, Thailand may become a party in the future and the ICC would certainly have jurisdiction over Thai nationals then. Crimes against humanity have no statute of limitations. It is also important to note that the ICC can also exercise jurisdiction over nationals of a nonstate party to its statute once the United Nations Security Council has referred the case to it. The case in point is the situation in Darfur, Sudan.
Leaving the ICC aside, Abhisit will also have to be mindful of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction. This is a doctrine under international law that enables any national court, in any country in the world, to claim criminal jurisdiction to prosecute a person whose alleged crimes, such as crimes against humanity, were committed outside the territory of the prosecuting country, regardless of the person’s nationality or country of residence.