1. Introduction

Autonomous Dispute Resolution Governance in Thailand refers to the legal framework governing the use of artificial intelligence, automated decision-making systems, online dispute resolution (ODR), digital mediation, electronic arbitration and algorithmic procedures to resolve civil, commercial and contractual disputes.

It represents the integration of traditional civil justice with technology capable of independently performing certain dispute-resolution functions.

Examples include:

AI-powered mediation platforms.

Automated negotiation systems.

Online arbitration platforms.

Smart-contract dispute resolution.

Algorithmic assessment of contractual claims.

Automated consumer complaint systems.

Digital settlement agreements.

Blockchain-based dispute records.

AI-assisted judicial case management.

Automated cross-border commercial dispute resolution.

Thailand's legal framework does not yet recognise autonomous AI as an independent judge, arbitrator or mediator with general legal authority. However, electronic transactions, arbitration, mediation and ordinary civil-law principles provide a foundation for technology-assisted dispute resolution.

The central legal question is:

Who bears legal responsibility when an autonomous dispute-resolution system produces an incorrect decision, unfair settlement, unauthorised contract modification or legally defective arbitration outcome?

The answer depends on the nature of the dispute, the parties' agreement, the role of the technology provider and the applicable Thai legislation.

2. Legal framework governing autonomous dispute resolution

A. Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand

The Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) provides the foundation for civil disputes arising from contracts, wrongful acts, obligations and compensation.

Section 150 – Unlawful juristic acts

A juristic act whose object is expressly prohibited by law, impossible or contrary to public order or good morals is void.

Application:

Unlawful automated settlement agreements.

Agreements generated through prohibited contractual arrangements.

Digital settlements involving unlawful obligations.

Automated dispute-resolution clauses contrary to mandatory legal requirements.

Section 152 – Non-compliance with legally prescribed formalities

Where the law requires a particular form for a juristic act, failure to comply with that form may affect its validity.

This is important when automated platforms generate settlement agreements or arbitration documents.

Section 213 – Specific performance

Where a debtor fails to perform an obligation, a creditor may seek performance in accordance with the law, subject to the applicable requirements.

This may become relevant when a party refuses to comply with a valid digital settlement.

Section 215 – Damages for non-performance

A creditor may claim compensation for damage arising from non-performance of an obligation, subject to the applicable statutory conditions.

Section 222 – Scope of damages

The provision addresses recoverable damages arising from non-performance, including losses that ordinarily arise from the non-performance and qualifying special losses.

Section 420 – General tort liability

A person who wilfully or negligently unlawfully injures another person's life, body, health, liberty, property or rights may be liable to compensate the injured person.

This may apply to negligent operation of digital dispute-resolution platforms where the legal requirements are satisfied.

B. Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), as amended

The Arbitration Act is one of the most important laws governing autonomous dispute resolution in Thailand.

It provides the legal foundation for arbitration conducted through agreements between parties.

Important areas include:

Arbitration agreements.

Appointment of arbitrators.

Jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals.

Arbitration procedures.

Evidentiary matters.

Arbitral awards.

Recognition and enforcement.

Setting aside of arbitral awards.

Section 11 – Arbitration agreement

The Act recognises arbitration agreements between parties concerning disputes arising or potentially arising from a defined legal relationship.

An online agreement containing an arbitration clause may qualify if the statutory requirements are fulfilled.

Section 13 – Referral to arbitration

The provision addresses the court's treatment of proceedings brought in respect of matters covered by an arbitration agreement, subject to the statutory conditions and exceptions.

Section 23 – Interim measures

The Act provides for interim protective measures in arbitration-related disputes, including relevant court assistance.

Section 37 – Arbitral awards

The provision addresses the requirements concerning arbitral awards.

Section 40 – Setting aside an arbitral award

An award may be challenged on specified statutory grounds, including incapacity, invalid arbitration agreements, procedural irregularities, excess of authority and conflicts with public policy or good morals.

Section 41 – Recognition and enforcement

This provision concerns recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

Section 43 – Refusal of enforcement

The Act provides limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused.

These provisions are particularly important where arbitration proceedings use automated document management, AI-assisted evidence assessment or algorithmic procedural tools.

C. Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001)

This Act establishes legal recognition of electronic records and electronic transactions.

It supports autonomous dispute resolution through:

Electronic arbitration agreements.

Digital mediation records.

Electronic settlement agreements.

Online submission of claims.

Electronic signatures.

Digital delivery of procedural notices.

Electronic evidence.

An arbitration agreement does not necessarily become invalid merely because it is formed electronically.

Nevertheless, the parties' agreement, authentication, statutory formalities and applicable arbitration rules must be examined.

D. Mediation legislation

Thailand has a statutory framework for mediation, including the Civil Procedure Code provisions on court-annexed mediation and the Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019).

The Mediation Act provides a legal framework for mediation, including mediation conducted outside court proceedings.

Its relevance to autonomous systems includes:

Online mediation sessions.

Automated settlement proposals.

Digital submission of documents.

Electronic negotiation records.

AI-assisted identification of settlement options.

However, an algorithmic recommendation is not automatically a legally binding settlement.

The parties must satisfy the applicable requirements for a valid settlement agreement.

E. Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019)

ODR platforms frequently process confidential information, financial records, contractual documents and personal information.

Important provisions include:

An ODR operator may be a data controller or processor depending on its actual role.

The confidentiality of mediation and arbitration records must also be considered alongside applicable procedural rules and contractual obligations.

F. Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

This Act is relevant to automated dispute resolution involving online shopping, digital subscriptions, financial services and consumer contracts.

For example, a digital platform should not assume that an automated dispute-resolution clause eliminates consumer rights established by mandatory legislation.

Consumer claims may also be subject to the Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008).

3. Seven important Thai judicial decisions and their application

Important qualification: Thailand has not yet developed a substantial body of reported judgments specifically concerning AI-powered dispute resolution. The following decisions are established arbitration and dispute-enforcement authorities. They are relevant by analogy to autonomous dispute-resolution systems because they explain consent, jurisdiction, procedural fairness, public policy and judicial supervision.

Case 1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7277/2549 (2006)

Important public-policy precedent

Subject: Corruption, unlawful contracts and enforcement of arbitral awards

This case concerned an arbitration award arising from an agreement involving a state enterprise and a private contractor.

The underlying agreement was affected by corruption and conflicts of interest involving persons responsible for the transaction.

The Supreme Court concluded that the underlying agreement was contrary to public order and good morals. Consequently, enforcement of the arbitral award based on that agreement could not be permitted.

Legal principles:

Arbitration agreements and awards cannot override mandatory legal principles.

An unlawful underlying contract may affect enforcement of an arbitral award.

Public policy remains a ground for judicial intervention.

Arbitration does not legitimise transactions involving corruption.

Courts may consider relevant evidence concerning serious public-policy violations.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

Suppose an AI arbitration platform automatically resolves a commercial dispute arising from a contract obtained through bribery.

Even if the algorithm generates a technically correct award under the programmed rules, the award cannot automatically become enforceable if the underlying transaction violates Thai public policy.

The decision demonstrates that autonomous dispute-resolution systems must operate within mandatory legal limits.

CMS+1

Case 2. Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 4750–4751/2561 (2018)

Subject: Scope of arbitration agreements and limits of judicial review

These cases concerned disputes arising from construction contracts involving structural and architectural works.

The parties had submitted their disputes to arbitration under their contractual arbitration clause.

One party challenged the arbitral award, arguing that the tribunal had improperly assessed important contractual and evidentiary matters and that enforcement would violate public order and good morals.

The Supreme Court rejected the challenge.

It explained that disagreement with the tribunal's assessment of evidence does not, by itself, establish a public-policy violation.

Legal principles:

Arbitral tribunals must remain within the arbitration agreement.

Courts do not ordinarily rehear the merits of an arbitration dispute.

Disagreement over factual findings is not automatically a ground for setting aside an award.

Judicial intervention is restricted to statutory grounds.

The parties' agreed arbitration procedure must be respected.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

An AI-assisted arbitration platform may analyse construction documents, invoices, project delays and contractual obligations.

If a party disagrees with the AI-assisted analysis, that disagreement alone should not invalidate an otherwise lawful arbitral award.

However, the system must not exceed the tribunal's authority or deny the parties their procedural rights.

An AI system may assist the arbitrator, but the legally appointed tribunal remains responsible for the award.

4751/2561 · LawNode+1

Case 3. Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 5560–5563/2562 (2019)

Public-policy interpretation

Subject: Public policy and recognition of arbitral awards

These decisions concerned the interpretation of public policy and good morals in the context of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards.

The Supreme Court explained that public policy and good morals do not have an exact, universally applicable definition.

Their interpretation requires consideration of the circumstances of each dispute, contemporary social values and the protection of public interests.

The Court emphasised that public policy should not simply be used to protect the private interests of a losing party or to reopen the arbitration proceedings.

Legal principles:

Public policy is assessed contextually.

The nature of the underlying dispute is relevant.

Public interests must be protected.

Arbitration cannot defeat mandatory legal requirements.

Courts must distinguish genuine public-policy violations from ordinary disagreements between parties.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

An automated settlement system might recommend a compromise that appears commercially reasonable but violates mandatory Thai consumer-protection legislation.

The parties' acceptance of that recommendation would not necessarily make the arrangement legally enforceable.

The case supports the principle that digital dispute-resolution outcomes must be evaluated against the applicable legal order.

CMS

Case 4. Supreme Court Judgment No. 6292/2561 (2018)

Subject: Compound interest and the legality of arbitral awards

The dispute arose from a share-purchase agreement between Thai and Korean commercial entities.

The arbitral tribunal awarded compound interest by calculating interest on default interest.

The Supreme Court considered the relevant Thai legal restrictions concerning interest during default.

It concluded that the relevant part of the award was contrary to Thai law and that enforcement of that part in Thailand would violate public order.

Legal principles:

Contractual and arbitral outcomes must comply with mandatory Thai law.

An arbitral tribunal cannot create enforceable obligations contrary to statutory restrictions.

A legally defective monetary calculation may affect enforcement.

Public policy may restrict enforcement of an unlawful part of an award.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

Suppose an automated commercial dispute platform calculates compensation using an algorithm that applies prohibited compound interest.

Even if both parties' transaction records are processed correctly, the resulting financial calculation may violate Thai law.

The system must therefore incorporate legally compliant calculation methods, and the responsible tribunal must independently assess the result.

ibanet.org

Case 5. Supreme Court Judgment No. 7635/2562 (2019)

Subject: Limitation periods and incorrect application of Thai law

This case concerned the application of statutory limitation rules in arbitration.

The Supreme Court examined the tribunal's treatment of the commencement of the limitation period.

The Court found that the relevant legal rules had been incorrectly applied, resulting in an award that raised a public-policy issue.

Legal principles:

Statutory limitation periods must be correctly interpreted.

Arbitration does not displace mandatory legal rules.

Errors in applying Thai law can have consequences for enforcement.

A dispute-resolution outcome must remain consistent with applicable statutory requirements.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

An AI-based platform may automatically reject a claim because its internal software calculates that the limitation period has expired.

However, the platform may misunderstand when the relevant limitation period begins or whether a statutory exception applies.

The case demonstrates why limitation-period analysis should not be left entirely to an autonomous system.

ibanet.org+1

Case 6. Supreme Court Judgment No. 840/2561 (2018)

Subject: Invalid underlying contract and foreign ownership restrictions

This case concerned an agreement involving a foreign entity's attempted acquisition of condominium units in Thailand.

The Supreme Court considered the legal restrictions applicable to foreign ownership of condominium property.

The underlying agreement was prohibited by applicable Thai law and was therefore void.

The arbitral award requiring repayment of the amount paid under the agreement was not recognised and enforced because the Court considered enforcement contrary to public order.

Legal principles:

Digital or contractual consent cannot validate a transaction prohibited by law.

Mandatory property restrictions must be respected.

Arbitral awards remain subject to statutory public-policy controls.

Automated contract validation must consider the legal capacity and legal status of the parties and the subject matter.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

A digital property platform might automatically resolve a dispute concerning a property purchase by ordering a refund.

However, the platform cannot independently determine that the underlying property transaction is legally valid simply because the payment and contractual documents are authentic.

The legal status of the transaction must be examined under Thai property legislation.

ibanet.org

Case 7. Supreme Court Judgment No. 13535/2556 (2013)

Subject: Bankruptcy law and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards

This dispute involved an arbitration conducted in Singapore and an attempt to enforce the resulting award in Thailand.

The losing Thai party was subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

The Supreme Court considered the effect of Thai bankruptcy law on the requested enforcement.

It refused enforcement because the enforcement process would conflict with the applicable Thai bankruptcy requirements and public policy.

Legal principles:

Foreign arbitral awards remain subject to Thai enforcement rules.

Bankruptcy legislation may affect the enforcement of monetary claims.

An arbitral award does not automatically override statutory insolvency procedures.

Courts must consider mandatory domestic legislation when dealing with foreign awards.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

An AI-powered international debt-resolution platform might automatically direct a creditor to recover money from a debtor undergoing bankruptcy proceedings.

The system must recognise that ordinary contractual enforcement may be restricted by insolvency law.

This decision is particularly relevant to autonomous cross-border debt collection and digital insolvency dispute management.

ibanet.org

Additional relevant decision: Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. Aor. 25/2559 (2016)

Subject: Waiver of statutory rights to challenge an arbitral award

This decision considered whether parties could contractually waive their right to apply for setting aside an arbitral award.

The Court indicated that the statutory grounds for setting aside under Section 40 of the Arbitration Act serve a public-interest function and cannot simply be excluded through an agreement between the parties.

Application to autonomous dispute resolution:

An ODR platform should not impose a standard term stating that its automated outcome can never be challenged, regardless of whether a statutory ground for judicial intervention exists.

Global Arbitration Review

4. Practical development of online dispute resolution in Thailand

Thailand has already developed institutional experience with online dispute resolution.

One particularly relevant example is the Online Sale Transaction Case Division of the Civil Court.

This division addresses disputes arising from online purchases, including:

Failure to deliver purchased products.

Delivery of products different from their descriptions.

Misrepresentation of goods.

Online commercial fraud.

Problems identifying sellers.

Consumer compensation claims.

A published judicial study of this division identifies several benefits and difficulties of ODR.

Benefits:

Reduced travel expenses.

Improved access to justice.

Faster communication between parties.

Convenient handling of electronic documents.

Greater accessibility for geographically distant parties.

Challenges:

Internet stability and accessibility.

Identification of sellers and defendants.

Independence and impartiality of mediators.

Confidentiality of online mediation.

Effective management of electronic evidence.

Cross-border online commercial disputes.

The study also recommends improvements to the legal and procedural framework for online mediation.

dunlaphaha.coj.go.th

This is an important distinction: Thailand already has court-based online dispute-resolution experience, but that does not mean it has authorised autonomous AI systems to issue binding judicial or arbitral decisions.

5. Autonomous dispute-resolution models under Thai law

A. AI-powered mediation

AI-powered mediation involves the use of artificial intelligence to help disputing parties reach mutually acceptable settlements.

The system may:

Analyse contractual documents.

Identify areas of disagreement.

Generate possible settlement options.

Estimate financial exposure.

Organise supporting evidence.

Suggest negotiation strategies.

Example: A Thai online retailer refuses to refund a customer for a defective product. An AI mediation platform examines the purchase agreement, payment record and customer complaint and proposes a refund or replacement.

The recommendation is not automatically binding. A valid settlement requires the parties' agreement and compliance with applicable law.

B. Automated negotiation

Automated negotiation involves systems that communicate settlement offers and counteroffers according to predetermined instructions.

For example:

A buyer demands compensation of ฿50,000.

The seller offers ฿20,000.

The system evaluates the parties' authorised negotiation limits.

It generates a counteroffer of ฿35,000.

The parties may accept or reject the proposal.

The legal issue is whether the system has authority to communicate or accept offers on behalf of the parties.

The Electronic Transactions Act and ordinary contract principles are relevant to determining the legal effect of these communications.

C. Online arbitration

Online arbitration allows parties to resolve disputes through electronic platforms rather than traditional physical hearings.

It may involve:

Electronic submission of claims.

Online appointment or administration of arbitrators.

Video-conference hearings.

Digital examination of documents.

Electronic witness testimony.

Electronic delivery of arbitral awards.

The Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 provides the legal foundation.

However, an online arbitration platform must respect procedural fairness and the parties' arbitration agreement.

D. Smart-contract dispute resolution

Smart contracts execute transactions automatically when specified digital conditions are met.

Disputes may arise when:

Payment is transferred incorrectly.

A programmed condition is defective.

A transaction executes without proper authority.

A digital asset is transferred to the wrong recipient.

The programmed result differs from the parties' actual agreement.

Thai courts may need to examine the underlying contractual intention, electronic evidence, authority and applicable statutory requirements.

E. AI-assisted court dispute management

AI may support judicial administration through:

Case classification.

Document organisation.

Scheduling hearings.

Identifying relevant legal issues.

Summarising evidence.

Managing case backlogs.

Translating documents.

These activities can improve efficiency, but the judicial authority and responsibility for deciding cases must remain with legally authorised human decision-makers under the existing framework.

6. Civil liability for autonomous dispute-resolution systems

A. Liability for incorrect automated decisions

Suppose an AI dispute-resolution platform incorrectly determines that a seller has no obligation to refund a consumer.

If the platform is merely providing a non-binding recommendation, its legal consequences will differ from those of an authorised arbitrator issuing a binding award.

Potential liability may arise where the operator or another responsible party has breached a contractual or statutory obligation or committed a tort under Section 420 of the CCC.

B. Liability for procedural unfairness

An ODR system may create procedural problems when:

One party cannot access the hearing.

Evidence is automatically rejected.

A party receives inadequate notice.

The system favours one participant.

Translation software distorts witness testimony.

An automated system prevents a party from presenting its case.

In arbitration, Section 40 of the Arbitration Act is especially important because it permits challenges on specified grounds, including lack of proper notice, inability to present a case and procedural non-compliance.

C. Liability for data breaches

Dispute-resolution systems contain highly confidential information.

An unlawful disclosure may involve:

Financial information.

Commercial secrets.

Personal correspondence.

Identity documents.

Medical evidence.

Contractual records.

The PDPA provides civil remedies where its requirements are violated.

The confidentiality obligations applicable to mediation and arbitration must also be considered.

D. Liability for defective algorithmic settlement

An autonomous system may generate a settlement agreement containing inaccurate amounts, incorrect payment schedules or unlawful conditions.

Relevant legal questions include:

Did the parties actually agree to the terms?

Was the system authorised to communicate acceptance?

Were the contractual terms lawful?

Was there fraud, mistake or misrepresentation?

Did the technology operator breach its contractual duties?

Did the defective system cause legally recognisable damage?

The CCC and Electronic Transactions Act provide important principles for answering these questions.

E. Liability for cybersecurity failures

Cyberattacks can compromise ODR platforms and manipulate dispute records.

Potential consequences include:

False settlement acceptance.

Altered arbitral documents.

Unauthorised access to case files.

Manipulation of electronic signatures.

Fraudulent payment instructions.

Depending on the facts, civil liability, data-protection obligations and computer-related offences may arise.

7. Rights of parties participating in autonomous dispute resolution

An important distinction is that mediation and arbitration are legally different.

Mediation: The mediator facilitates an agreement; the mediator does not ordinarily impose a binding outcome.

Arbitration: The arbitrator determines the dispute and issues an award.

Automated negotiation: Software facilitates offers and counteroffers.

Online adjudication: A court or other legally authorised adjudicator decides the matter through digital procedures.

An AI-generated recommendation is not equivalent to a judicial judgment or arbitral award.

8. Enforcement of digital settlements and arbitral awards

A. Enforcement of mediation settlements

Under Thailand's Mediation Act B.E. 2562, qualifying civil mediation agreements can be enforced through the statutory court procedure.

The Act provides for mediation of specified civil disputes, including certain land-related disputes, inheritance disputes and qualifying monetary disputes.

The general monetary threshold is ฿5 million, or another amount prescribed by royal decree.

Certain matters, including disputes concerning personal status, family rights and ownership of immovable property, are excluded from the civil mediation procedure under this Act.

Where the parties reach a settlement and one party fails to comply, the other party may apply to the competent court for enforcement, subject to the statutory requirements.

B. Enforcement of electronic settlements

An electronic settlement may be legally effective if it satisfies the requirements for a valid agreement and any applicable formalities.

Relevant evidence includes:

Electronic signatures.

Email correspondence.

Digital acceptance records.

Payment confirmations.

Platform-generated settlement documents.

Authentication records.

The Electronic Transactions Act is important in establishing the legal status of electronic records and signatures.

C. Enforcement of arbitral awards

The Arbitration Act provides a structured system for recognition, enforcement and challenges to arbitral awards.

Important safeguards include:

An application to set aside an award generally must be filed within 90 days from receipt of the award, subject to the statutory rules concerning correction, interpretation or additional awards.

The court does not ordinarily conduct a complete rehearing of the underlying arbitration dispute.

Global Arbitration Review+2

9. Civil remedies available under Thai law

The following remedies may be available depending on the dispute and applicable legislation.

Example

A Thai company uses an AI-powered arbitration platform to settle a dispute with an international supplier.

The platform mistakenly calculates the contractual amount and issues an award exceeding the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The affected party may consider challenging the award under Section 40 of the Arbitration Act, if the relevant statutory grounds are established.

The company may also have separate contractual claims against the platform operator if the operator breached its obligations.

10. Institutional governance of autonomous dispute resolution in Thailand

Several institutions have important roles in the development of dispute-resolution governance.

1. Thai Arbitration Institute (TAI)

Provides institutional arbitration services and supports domestic and international commercial dispute resolution.

2. Thailand Arbitration Center (THAC)

Supports arbitration and mediation, including international commercial dispute resolution.

3. Office of the Judiciary

Supports judicial administration and the development of digital court services.

4. Civil Court of Thailand

Its online sale transaction case division provides an important example of court-based online dispute resolution.

5. Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee

Oversees the implementation of personal-data protection requirements relevant to digital dispute-resolution platforms.

6. Ministry of Justice Thailand

Plays an important role in mediation policy and access-to-justice initiatives.

11. Major legal challenges and proposed reforms

Proposed reform 1: Autonomous dispute-resolution accountability legislation

Thailand could introduce legislation defining the legal status and permitted functions of AI-based dispute-resolution tools.

It should distinguish between:

AI as a document-analysis assistant.

AI as a negotiation facilitator.

AI as a mediation assistant.

AI as an arbitration-support tool.

AI as an automated settlement administrator.

Proposed reform 2: Human supervision of binding decisions

AI should not independently replace legally appointed arbitrators or judges under the existing framework.

A human arbitrator should retain responsibility for evaluating evidence, hearing the parties and issuing the award.

Proposed reform 3: Digital procedural fairness

ODR platforms should guarantee:

Proper notice.

Equal access to documents.

Sufficient time to respond.

Opportunities to present evidence.

Protection against algorithmic discrimination.

Appropriate human intervention.

Proposed reform 4: Digital settlement protection

Electronic settlements should contain clear information concerning:

Identity of the parties.

Nature of the dispute.

Settlement obligations.

Payment arrangements.

Acceptance and authentication.

Consequences of non-performance.

Proposed reform 5: Cross-border dispute-resolution governance

Thailand should strengthen the legal and institutional mechanisms for resolving disputes involving foreign businesses, international digital platforms, overseas data processors and cross-border electronic contracts.

12. Comparative legal perspective

Thailand can draw useful lessons from other jurisdictions.

These are comparative references rather than laws automatically applicable in Thailand.

13. Overall conclusion

Civil Law and Autonomous Dispute Resolution Governance in Thailand represents an important development in the relationship between traditional civil justice and emerging digital technologies.

The Civil and Commercial Code establishes the foundation for contractual and tortious liability. The Arbitration Act provides the legal framework for arbitration. The Mediation Act establishes statutory mediation procedures, while the Electronic Transactions Act recognises electronic records and transactions.

The seven Supreme Court decisions discussed provide important legal principles concerning:

Public policy and unlawful contracts.

The jurisdiction of arbitral tribunals.

Limits on judicial intervention.

Mandatory statutory requirements.

Limitation periods.

Validity of underlying transactions.

Bankruptcy and enforcement of foreign awards.

These authorities demonstrate that technology-assisted dispute resolution cannot override the fundamental requirements of Thai law.

Central legal principle

Autonomous systems may facilitate negotiations, analyse evidence and support dispute resolution, but legal authority, procedural fairness and accountability must remain grounded in recognised legal institutions and applicable Thai legislation.

14. Important legal references for academic research

For a detailed research paper or legal chapter, the following materials are particularly relevant:

Civil and Commercial Code of Thailand.

Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 (2002), as amended.

Mediation Act B.E. 2562 (2019).

Electronic Transactions Act B.E. 2544 (2001), as amended.

Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019).

Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979).

Consumer Case Procedure Act B.E. 2551 (2008).

Civil Procedure Code of Thailand.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 7277/2549.

Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 4750–4751/2561.

Supreme Court Judgments Nos. 5560–5563/2562.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 6292/2561.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 7635/2562.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 840/2561.

Supreme Court Judgment No. 13535/2556.

Supreme Administrative Court Judgment No. Aor. 25/2559.

Final academic observation: The most significant future development for Thailand will be the transition from conventional online dispute resolution to accountable AI-assisted dispute resolution. This transition requires more than technological innovation: it requires legally valid consent, independent decision-making, procedural fairness, data protection, transparent evidence assessment and effective judicial supervision.