12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
The course of the development and modification of exterritoriality in Siam is so little known that an account of it may not be without interest to students of international law.
1 A collection of State Papers of the Kingdom of Siam, 1664-1886, compiled by the Siamese Legation in Paris, was published in London in 1886. Since then no other official collection has appeared, though one is now in course of preparation. A collection, unofficial and incomplete,was published in Bangkok in 1915 by the Bangkok Times, an English newspaper. Wolcott H. Pitkin, Esq., of the New York bar, formerly Adviser in Foreign Affairs to the Siamese Government, has prepared and printed a very useful but unfortunately incomplete collection of treaties as a supplement to his brief, Siam's Case for the Revision of Obsolete Treaty Obligations.
2 Many of the references to jurisdiction in the early accounts of Siam have been collected by Duplatre, Louis M. Google Scholar, Assistant Legal Adviser in the Siamese Ministry of Justice, in his thesis for the University of Grenoble, Condition des Strangers au Siam. Anderson's English Intercourse with Siam in the Seventeenth Century is a very useful book. See, also, Records of the Relations between Siam and Foreign Countries in the 17th Century, published by the Bajirafiana National Library, Bangkok.
3 Siamese State Papers, p. 233; also, Records of Relations between Siam and Foreign Countries in the 17th Century, Vol. 2, p. 66.
4 Siamese State Papers, p. 239.
5 Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 14, part 2, pp. 23, 30.
6 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 23, p. 1153.
7 Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 590. There had been American ships engaged in trade with Siam since 1818.
8 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 138.
9 An account of his mission to Siam is given by Sir John Bowring in his The Kingdom and People of Siam.
10 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 146.
11 May 29,1856. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 383.
12 August 15,1856. Ibid., Vol. 47, p. 993.
13 May 21, 1858. Ibid., Vol. 50, p. 1073.
14 October 25, 1858. Unpublished but practically identical with the treaty with The Netherlands, infra, n. 16.
15 February 10,1859. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 72, p. 109.
16 December 17, 1860. Ibid., Vol. 58, p. 262.
17 February 7, 1862. Ibid., Vol. 53, p. 741.
18 May 18, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 69, p. 1135.
19 August 29, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 59, p. 405.
20 October 3, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 60, pp. 773, 783.
21 May 17, 1869. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 1308.
22 February 23, 1870. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 483.
23 The treaty between France and Siam, signed at Paris, July 15, 1867, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 47, p. 1340, in which Siam recognized the recently acquired French protectorate over Cambodia, contains, Article V, a provision that “if Cambodian subjects commit any crime or offence on Siamese territory, they shall . . . be tried and punished with justice by the Siamese Government according to the laws of Siam”. This, however, can hardly be taken as the beginning of the modification of exterritoriality, as Siam had not theretofore recognized the protectorate, and Cambodians in Siam had been always subject to the jurisdiction of the Siamese law and tribunals.
24 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 66, p. 537.
25 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 74, p. 78.
26 VIII. His Majesty the King of Siam will appoint a proper person or persons to be a commissioner and judge, and commissioners and judges, in Chiengmai for the purposes hereinafter mentioned. Such judge or judges shall, subjeet to the limitations and provisions contained in the present treaty, exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction in all cases arising in Chiengmai, Lakon and Lampoonchi, between British subjects, or in which British subjects may be parties as complainants, accused, plaintiffs or defendants, according to Siamese law; provided always, that in such cases the Consul or Vice-Consul shall be entitled to be present at the trial and to be furnished with copies of the proceedings, which, when the defendant or accused is a British subject, shall be supplied free of charge, and to make any suggestions to the judge or judges which he may think proper in the interests of justice; provided, also, that the Consul or Vice-Consul shall have power at any time before judgment, if he shall think proper in the interests of justice by a written requisition under his hand, directed to the judge or judges, to signify his desire that any case in which both parties are British subjects, or in which the accused or defendant is a British subject, be transferred for adjudication to the British Consular Court at Chiengmai arid the case shall thereupon be transferred to such last mentioned Court accordingly, and be disposed of by the Consul or Vice-Consul, as provided by Article II of the Supplementary Agreement of 13th May, 1856. . . . IX. In civil and criminal cases in which British subjects may be parties, and which shall be tried before the said judge or judges, either party shall be entitled to appeal to Bangkok; if a British subject, with the sanction and consent of the British Consul or Vice-Consul and in other cases by leave of the presiding judge or judges. In all such cases a transcript of the evidence, together with a report from the presiding judge or judges, shall be forwarded to Bangkok, and the appeal shall be disposed of there by the Siamese authorities and Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General in consultation. Provided always that in all cases where the defendants or accused are Siamese subjects the final decision on appeal shall rest with the Siamese authorities; and that in all other cases in which British subjects are parties the final decision on appeal shall rest with Her Britannic Majesty's Consul-General. . . . XIII. Except as and to the extent specially provided, nothing in this treaty shall be taken to affect the provisions of the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce between the King of Siam and Her Majesty of the 18th April, 1855, and the Agreement Supplementary thereto of the 13th May, 1856. . . .
27 “Extended to Muang Nan and Phre by exchange of notes dated December 31, 1884, and January 10, 1885, and to Muang Than, Raheng, Sawankalok, Sukothai, Utaradit and Pichai by notes dated September 28, 1896. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 88,pp. 33, 34.
28 Ibid., Vol. 90, pp. 66, 70.
29 The Siamese judicial reforms, though much in the way of modern legislation had been accomplished before, really began in earnest in 1892 with the reorganization of the Ministry of Justice. The Penal Code was put into force in 1908. The Civil and Commercial Code will be promulgated during 1922, and the work on the other codes is far advanced.
30 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 92, p. 109.
31 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 91, p. 101.
32 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 97, p. 961.
33 Pitkin, Siam's Case for Revision of Obsolete Treaty Obligations, Supp., p. 190.
34 Pitkin, op. cit., Supp., p. 195.
35 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 100, p. 1028.
36 Mr.Kirkpatrick, R. J. Google Scholar, docteur en droit, appears in the Bangkok Directory for 1895 as Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Justice, which had been reorganized in 1892. In the Directory for 1898, Mr. Kirkpatrick is listed as a judge of the Court of Appeal. The Directory for 1899 gives the names of five Europeans as Assistant Legal Advisers and Mr. Kirkpatrick is stated to be a member of the Supreme Court. In 1900 there were nine foreigners employed as Legal Advisers or Assistant Legal Advisers by the Ministry of Justice. It must not be forgotten that in 1892 and for ten years thereafter the Siamese Government had the services of M. Rolin Jaequemyns, a distinguished Belgian jurist, as General Adviser.He was succeeded in 1902 by Professor Edward H. Strobel, then Bemis Professor of International Law in the Harvard Law School, who died in Siam in 1908. Professor Strobel's successor was Professor Jens I. Westengard, also of the Harvard Law School. Professor Westengard served as General Adviser until his retirement in 1915. Mr. Wolcott H. Pitkin was then appointed Adviser in Foreign Affairs and served for two years. Mr. Pitkin was a graduate of the Harvard Law School and had been Attorney General of Porto Rico. At the present time, there is in the Ministry of Justice, a Judicial Adviser, who sits regularly as a judge of the Supreme Court. There are, also, five Legal Advisers, of whom one sits as a judge of the Supreme Court and three as judges of the Court of Appeal. In addition, there are fourteen Assistant Legal Advisers. These Legal Advisers and Assistant Legal Advisers are of British, French, and Belgian nationality.[The writer has failed to state that he is himself a judge of the Supreme Court of Siam.The Editors.]
37 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 102, p. 126.
38 This code had already come into force in 1908.
39 Pitkin, op. tit., Supp., p. 223.
40 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 107, p. 750.
41 16 American Journal International Law, No. 1, Jan., 1922, Official Documents, p. 25.
42 At the present time, there is, however, no Russian consular court in Siam.
43 As the courts are open in Siam, there is no significance to be attached to this privilege.
44 Cuba, which has no treaty relations with Siam, employs the good offices of the United States, under an arrangement between the United States and Siam made in 1902. At that time the United States had exterritorial jurisdiction, but Siam, while willing to accept the good offices of the United States with regard to the protection of Cuban interests, was not desirous to extend exterritoriality to Cuban nationals. Secretary Hay, in a dispatch to the American Minister in Bangkok, dated December 18, 1902, accepted this position and stated that the United States “does not regard the exercise of good offices by the United States representatives as involving a claim for Cuban citizens of the extraterritorial rights secured to United States citizens by treaty.” Prior to the War, Germany extended its good offices under similar arrangements to the citizens and subjects of Switzerland and Turkey. Swiss interests are now looked after by the United States. Subjects of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and citizens of Czecho-Slovakia are entitled to the good offices of France but are not privileged to claim exterritoriality.
