THE STUDY OF THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE PROCESS OF EVIDENCE DISCLOSURE OF CIVIL CASE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THAILAND LAW

Abstract

The objective of this research was to compare between the process of evidence disclosure of civil case under international law and under Thailand. It resulted in the fact that United States of America and Germany have process of judgment done before hearing of evidence. American process of judgment was as apparent as it was written in legislation whereas German process of judgment depended on the agreement among parties. In France, the process of judgment was defined by civil procedure of France that defined the role of one classification of judges, called “le juge de la mise en état” (JME) or Preparatory Judge. Preparatory Judge had authorities to accumulate legal information and cases so that the cases can be under adjudication by the judges. Therefore, the process of judgment of American, German and France had aims to eliminate hindrance in proceeding adjudication by narrowing the scope of the problem and disputing fewer contentious cases. As a result, the court's adjudication was completed promptly. Moreover, it reduced the backlog of cases pending in court.

Thus, taking an example from the process of adjudication and the process of evidence disclosure before civil trial from America, Germany and France was important for the agreement among parties in order to hasten the process because the opportunity of examining the other evidence could make the case that the trial would assess the situation-oriented to decide whether if it won or lost or caused the parties to compromise faster. Thus, the process of evidence disclosure would become quicker without pending.