Introduction
Over the past decade, Thailand has undertaken a sustained and deliberate effort to modernise its dispute-resolution landscape and position itself as a credible hub for arbitration and mediation within Southeast Asia. The country’s legal, institutional, and judicial reforms—combined with broader regional economic integration—have driven the evolution of a system that is increasingly aligned with global standards. Thai courts are now adopting a pro-arbitration stance, enforcing arbitration agreements and foreign arbitral awards with far greater consistency than in the past. Meanwhile, the legislative and institutional environment, including the growth of both the Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) and the Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC), has matured in ways that have broadened the choices available to domestic and international parties alike.
Alongside these developments, mediation has grown in prominence, both as a court-facilitated process and as a stand‑alone mechanism supported by statute. The enactment of the Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019), the expansion of court-annexed mediation, and the rapid adoption of private mediation have strengthened Thailand’s mediation framework and signaled a clear policy interest in negotiated settlement processes.
Despite this progress, however, practical and structural challenges persist. This article provides a detailed overview of the key features, challenges, and emerging opportunities within Thailand’s arbitration and mediation ecosystems, highlighting how the country can continue its trajectory toward becoming a regional dispute‑resolution center.
Part I: Arbitration in Thailand
1. Unique Features of Arbitration in Thailand
While Thailand’s Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002) is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law, its application has been influenced by local procedural rules, civil law traditions, and Thai court oversight.
Distinctive features include:
– Dual Institutional Framework: Thailand’s two main arbitral institutions that administer international cases — Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI) (of the Office of the Judiciary) and Thailand Arbitration Centre (THAC) — provide parties with a choice and both operate under rules adapted for international disputes.
– Court Supervision: The Thai courts play a significant role in enforcement, interim measures, and certain procedural matters. Court familiarity with arbitration has improved significantly over the last decade.
– Language and Translation Requirements: Documents submitted to Thai courts in support of arbitration (e.g., enforcement applications) must be in Thai, certified by accredited translators.
– Cost Advantages: Relative to major arbitral seats in Asia, hearing, logistical and professional costs in Thailand remain comparatively low.
– Growing Cross-Border Relevance: Increasing foreign investment and cross-border trade are driving more disputes into arbitration.
2. Challenges in Thai arbitrations
(1) Nominating an Arbitrator
While parties are generally free to nominate arbitrators under the Arbitration Act, practical issues arise:
– Limited Local Pool in Specialist Sectors: In technical sectors (such as energy and cryptocurrency), the number of experienced Thai arbitrators is small, leading to reliance on foreign arbitrators.
– Practical difficulties for foreign arbitrators (and counsel): whilst the amendments to the Arbitration Act in 2019 and introduction of the “Certificate” for foreign arbitrator/counsel was intended to make it easier for foreigners to come to Thailand to arbitrator a dispute, in practice, they will still a require the necessary visa and work permit, which can be time consuming and expensive.
– Appointment Delays: Where the institution appoints an arbitrator due to party failure or disagreement, delays of several months are not uncommon. If the arbitration agreement is silent as to the nomination process and more than one arbitrator needs to be appointed, there may be delays in the appointment of the chairperson if the party nominated arbitrators cannot agree.
Practical Tips:Parties should be very clear regarding the nomination process in the arbitration agreement and ensure the institution is clearly stated to avoid challenges and disputes in the future. Visa applications for foreign arbitrators and counsel should be done at an early stage to avoid delays.
(2) Powers of Attorney and Deeds of Lawyer Appointment
Thai procedural practice requires:
– Powers of Attorney (POAs) which must be executed by the client to appoint legal counsel.
– Deed of Lawyer Appointment for Thai court-related applications (e.g., enforcement or arbitral awards, application for interim measures).
– Required Attachments to POAs and Deed of Lawyer Appointment
There are a number of documents that will need to be attached to the POA and Deed of Lawyer Appointment which could be cumbersome and time consuming. Also, although uncommon in many other jurisdictions, Thai procedure requires the signatory of the POAs or Deed of Lawyer Appointments to personally sign and certify the documents.
Further, if the POAs, the Deed of Lawyer Appointment, and their attachments are executed and certify outside Thailand, they must be notarised and legalisation.
These formalities are placed importance by Thai courts, institutions and tribunals that consist of Thai arbitrators. It can cause significant procedural delays, particularly when foreign parties need to have documents notarised and legalised at the Thai embassy of their countries, and translated into Thai.
Practical Tips:Check that proper internal approvals are in place to ensure the authority of the individual(s) executing the POAs and build sufficient time for document compilation, execution and legalisation/notarisation into case strategy, especially if urgent court applications may be required.
(3) Timing
While institutional rules set out procedural timetables, delays can arise from:
– repeated requests for extensions of time to file submissions;
– Arbitrator availability;
– translation of large volumes of documents into Thai for court-related steps;
– post-award enforcement or challenge proceedings, which may take 12–18 months in the Thai courts.
Practical Tips:Parties should appoint arbitrators who are experienced with case management and budget additional time for post-award processes.
(4) Ambiguous Arbitration Clauses
Many contracts — especially those adapted from domestic templates — contain hybrid or unclear dispute resolution clauses such as:
“Disputes shall be referred to arbitration, but the parties may also submit to the Thai courts.”
Another common ambiguous arbitration clause relates to the lack of clarify in terms of which Thai arbitral institution will administer the arbitration. As mentioned, there are two main arbitral institutions in Thailand that handle international cases: (1) Thai Arbitration Institute, Office of the Judiciary; and (2) Thailand Arbitration Center. It is important to ensure the correct institution’s names are used in the arbitration clause to avoid confusion and future dispute.
Failure to have a clear and unambiguous arbitration clause and can lead to:
– preliminary jurisdictional disputes before the tribunal and the courts;
– parallel proceedings in the Thai courts;
– potential issues in the enforcement stage on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Practical Tips:Dispute Resolution clauses should always be reviewed to ensure they grant exclusive jurisdiction to arbitration, with a clear statement of which arbitral institution will administer the arbitration, the rules of that arbitration, seat, language, number of arbitrators and the nomination process.
(5) Lack of Availability of Anti-Suit Injunctions
Thai law does not provide for anti-suit injunctions to restrain a party from litigating in breach of an arbitration agreement.
– If a party commences Thai court litigation, the opposing party must apply under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act for the court to dismiss the claim in favour of arbitration.
– This mechanism can be effective, particularly with recent court decisions which have stayed Court proceedings in favour of arbitration. For example, Supreme Court Decision No. 11235/2556 held that since there was no evidence showing that the arbitration agreement was void, unenforceable, or incapable of being performed, the parties remained bound by its terms. Therefore, when a dispute arose, the Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court correctly dismissed the court case and directed the parties to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the agreement. The plaintiff’s appeal was rejected.
Practical Tips:As parallel proceedings are not uncommon in Thailand (particularly if the counterparty wishes to delay the arbitration proceedings), the affected party should be ready to make a Section 14 application if court proceedings are filed by the counterparty.
3. Opportunities in Thai Arbitration
Despite ongoing procedural challenges, Thailand’s arbitration landscape presents clear opportunities. The growth in cross-border transactions between foreign and Thai companies — particularly in energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, healthcare and IT — is increasing demand for reliable dispute resolution mechanisms, while the availability of assets in Thailand enhances the practical value of enforcement.
Parties benefit from two active arbitral institutions, the TAI and THAC, offering greater flexibility and competition, alongside cost advantages compared to more established regional seats. At the same time, Thai courts are showing increasing familiarity with arbitration and a more consistent willingness to support arbitral procedures, creating a more predictable and attractive environment for parties considering Thailand as a seat of arbitration.
(1) Growth in Cross-Border Transactions
Thailand’s role as a regional hub for energy, manufacturing, infrastructure, healthcare and IT projects is expanding:
– Energy: Major LNG terminal developments in Rayong, cross-border power-purchase projects with Laos and Cambodia, and renewed investment in solar and wind farms under Thailand’s PDP 2024.
– Manufacturing: Significant relocation of Japanese, Korean, and Chinese automotive and electronics supply chains to Thailand, including EV battery plants, semiconductor component assembly, and robotics manufacturing in the Eastern Economic Corridor.
– Infrastructure: Mega-projects such as the High-Speed Rail Linking Three Airports, expansion of Laem Chabang Port Phase 3, motorway networks, and airport terminal upgrades.
– Healthcare: Growth of private hospital groups, medical tourism facilities, and foreign-backed life sciences investments, including biotech R&D and pharmaceutical manufacturing.
– IT & Digital: Expansion of hyperscale data centres; fintech and digital-banking sandboxes; and ASEAN-wide digital-services companies using Thailand as an operational base.
These cross-border joint ventures and construction projects may generate complex disputes in the future and arbitration would be an ideal forum for resolving those disputes.
(2) Availability of Assets in Thailand for Enforcement
In many cross-border disputes, parties ultimately have assets located in Thailand — whether in the form of bank accounts, real estate, equipment, shares in Thai subsidiaries, or receivables owed by Thai companies. This makes Thailand a strategically important jurisdiction for post-award enforcement, even when the arbitration is seated elsewhere. As a signatory to the New York Convention 1958, Thailand allows successful parties to enforce foreign arbitral awards against assets situated within its territory, giving claimants a meaningful opportunity to recover value.
Importantly, there has been a steady increase in cases where the Thai courts have enforced foreign awards, adopting an approach that aligns more closely with international standards and pro-enforcement principles. For example, Supreme Court Decision No. 4627/2565 upheld the lower court’s judgment enforcing the foreign arbitral award by dismissing the respondent’s petition seeking to set aside the application for enforcement of that award.
Unlike in some neighbouring jurisdictions, Thai courts generally do not discriminate between domestic and foreign-seated awards, focusing instead on whether the grounds for refusal under the Arbitration Act and the New York Convention are met.
That said, enforcement of foreign-seated awards does involve additional procedural requirements – including authenticated translations and certification of documents – which parties should factor into their enforcement strategy.
Overall, Thailand’s improving judicial practice and the availability of substantial assets within its borders make it an increasingly attractive enforcement destination in cross-border arbitration.
(3) Two Arbitral Institutions Handling International Disputes
Both TAI and THAC play meaningful roles in administering international arbitration cases, giving parties a level of institutional choice that did not exist previously.
TAI benefits from its long-standing institutional history. TAI has also modernised its rules in recent years, introducing procedural efficiencies and updates aimed at aligning more closely with international practice. Its costs are also very competitive compared to its regional counterparts, and more budget friendly for Thai parties.
THAC positions itself as an internationally oriented institution. It offers purpose-built modern hearing facilities, bilingual staff, online capabilities, and greater flexibility in procedures — features designed to appeal to foreign parties. THAC has also been active in regional cooperation, promotional initiatives, and modernising its rules, signaling its ambition to serve as a regional hub for cross-border disputes.
The clear advantage for users is that parties have genuine options within Thailand. Depending on the nature of the dispute and preferences, parties can select the institution whose strengths best align with the case. This institutional diversity enhances Thailand’s attractiveness as a seat and strengthens its overall arbitration ecosystem.
(4) Cost Advantages
Compared with established arbitration centres such as Singapore, Hong Kong, or leading European seats, Thailand offers a materially more cost-efficient environment for conducting hearings. Hearing room rentals, transcription services, interpreters, and administrative support are generally available at a fraction of the cost charged in major regional hubs. This may make a significant difference in multi-day hearings, where logistical expenses can accumulate quickly.
Similarly, travel and accommodation for witnesses, experts, and foreign counsel/arbitrators are considerably more affordable in Bangkok. This can reduce overall hearing costs, especially in cross-border disputes where parties may need to bring multiple teams or specialist experts to the seat.
In addition, arbitrator fees under Thai institutions tend to be lower than those of major international institutions. Their fee schedules often reflect local cost structures and can result in meaningful savings for parties, particularly in medium-value disputes or matters requiring extended procedural management.
(5) Increasing Judicial Familiarity with Arbitration
Thai courts have become increasingly sophisticated in dealing with arbitration-related matters, reflecting a gradual but discernible shift toward a more arbitration-supportive judicial environment.
As mentioned above, under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, Thai courts regularly decline jurisdiction over claims brought in breach of an arbitration agreement, provided the defendant raises the objection in a timely manner. This approach has been affirmed in several decisions, where the Court upheld the primacy of the arbitration clause and dismissed the proceedings.
Taken together, these developments demonstrate a maturing judicial attitude toward arbitration in Thailand. The increasing consistency of the courts in upholding arbitration agreements, enforcing foreign awards, and deferring to arbitral tribunals on matters of jurisdiction and merits helps reduce uncertainty for users. This growing judicial familiarity contributes meaningfully to Thailand’s positioning as a more credible and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction within the region.
Part II: Mediation in Thailand: Current Mediation Ecosystem and Opportunities
1. Overview of the Mediation Landscape
Mediation has long been embedded in Thailand’s civil‑justice system, particularly in the form of court-annexed mediation. Judges in civil proceedings frequently encourage parties to pursue settlement, and specialised courts such as the Family Court, Labour Court, and the Intellectual Property and International Trade Court (IP&IT Court) have developed strong mediation cultures supported by trained mediators.
The emphasis on mediation reflects not only judicial policy but also broader social norms. Thai culture places significant value on harmony, compromise, and face-saving solutions, making mediation a particularly resonant tool in resolving disputes.
(a) Court-Annexed Mediation: Pre-Litigation and Post-Litigation Models
Court-annexed mediation operates in two principal forms. Pre-litigation mediation offers a mechanism for early intervention before disputes escalate into formal proceedings. When parties settle, the resulting agreement can be submitted for court approval, giving it the same enforceability as a judgment.
Post-litigation mediation may occur at any point before a final judgment is issued. Judges routinely ask parties whether they are willing to mediate during preliminary case-management hearings, and mediation is often scheduled in parallel with or as an alternative to continued litigation. These procedures significantly reduce court congestion and frequently lead to efficient resolutions in family, labour, and small‑claim disputes. Both forms of court-annexed mediation follows the procedure provided for under the Supreme Court President’s Regulations on Mediation 2011 (as amended) (SC Regulations).
(b) Out-of-Court Mediation Under the Mediation Act
The Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019) enables conduct of private mediation by specialised public agencies or institutions. The Act recognises the validity of settlement agreements reached through mediation, ensures confidentiality of the process, and sets out qualification standards for mediators and mediation service providers. One of the advantages of mediation conducted under the Mediation Act is that it allows parties to register mediated settlement agreements with the courts to facilitate enforcement, giving private mediation outcomes a clearer legal status.
(c) Alternative Dispute Resolution Centers
There are alternative dispute resolution centers, such as the THAC, that also provide parties with the option to mediate outside of the court or public organization. Section 7 of the Arbitration Center Act 2007 requires THAC to develop procedures for and administer cases referred to mediation, and THAC introduced its Mediation Rules 2014 which offers parties flexibility in mediating disputes in a private setting following internationally accepted procedures.
2. Barriers to Commercial Adoption
Despite these strengths, mediation remains underutilized in commercial contexts. Many businesses still view mediation as an extension of litigation rather than a standalone dispute-resolution method. Contracting practices rarely include mandatory mediation clauses, and the pool of mediators with significant international-commercial expertise remains limited. Additionally, uncertainty regarding the cross-border enforceability of mediated settlement agreements remains a major obstacle, as such agreements traditionally require new legal proceedings to enforce.
3. The Potential Opportunity of Singapore Convention on Mediation
The Singapore Convention on Mediation (SCM) offers a potential solution to these enforceability concerns. If Thailand signs and ratifies the SCM, mediated settlement agreements could be directly enforced in other contracting states without the need for fresh litigation. Ratification may also encourage businesses to incorporate mediation clauses into cross-border contracts and support the development of a stronger mediation culture within the commercial sector.
Conclusion
Thailand is at an important juncture in the development of its dispute-resolution framework. Arbitration continues to mature, supported by increasingly sophisticated courts, competitive arbitral institutions, and growing regional economic integration. Mediation, bolstered by statutory reforms, is poised for broader commercial use, especially if Thailand adopts the Singapore Convention on Mediation.
With continued institutional strengthening, improved arbitrator and mediator capacity, and clearer contractual practices, Thailand has the potential to position itself as a leading dispute-resolution hub within ASEAN, offering credible, efficient, and culturally consonant mechanisms for resolving both domestic and international disputes.
For more information about the legal alert, please contact the authors or our team at Kudun and Partners.