Globalization and Restorative Justice: in the Thai Criminal Justice System

Jutharat Ua-amnoey*

Research Design
The study is a descriptive, explanatory research that uses a realistic approach to explain the structure and cause-effect process of this social phenomenon. Data analyzed included various documents related to the decisions made in the Cabinet, criminal policy of the state, and the national criminal justice plan, as well as journal and newspaper articles, including the published statistics of cases lodged in courts and prisons from 1999 to 2002. Numerous personages involved in the transition period were also interviewed, including: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Attaniti Ditsataamnari; the change agents, those who adopted restorative justice from outside influences and introduced the concept to Thai society, Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak, Director General of the Department of Probation and Mr. Nathee Chitsawong, Director General of the Department of Correction; those like Mrs. Maytinee Bhongsvej who work for women's groups and non-government organizations like the Association for the Promotion of the Status of Women Under the Royal Patronage of H.R.H. Princess Soamsawali; and various other Thai academics, such as Assistant Professor Dr. Decha Sunkawan. Also interviewed were the global experts in restorative justice in the United States of America, Mr. Daniel Van Ness, Vice President of prison Fellowship International, and Mr.David Doubney, of the General Counsel Coordinator Sentencing Reform Team, Department of Justice, Canada. The present research explains the causes and effects of the process and the success of the paradigm shift in the Thai criminal justice system by building a model or theoretical framework to explain and answer these research questions.

2. The Journey of Restorative Justice from the International Community to the Thai State, Society, and Criminal Justice System: a Theoretical Framework

To investigate globalization in restorative justice and its adoption in the Thai criminal justice system, the researcher reviewed a lot of literatures and used interdisciplinary theories from sociology, political science, criminology, and criminal justice, together with social psychology theories, to explain this social phenomenon from "the outside-in" and "inside-out."

The Outside-in Factors
Outside-in factors can be explained through Burton's division of the relationship network in global society into two types; "the international system " or "the state system " and "the transitionalsystem. " (1972; Huntington, 1991; Wesson 1978: Limmanee, 1999, p.130-131) Each network has organizations or institutions that push government policies and determine the direction of society. The first type of network is composed of state and international organizations, that most of the nations attach to this institute as a membership. The second type of network is composed of a network of transitional corporations and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or private interest group, such as, Green Peace, victim supports groups, etc., and academic corporations. The major difference between the two networks, then, is the difference between "state" and "non-state" agencies. The former play their roles in the name of country to protect national interests through contracts with organizations located elsewhere. The latter have private interests with aims that may be different from those of state agencies. However, both of these systems influence the other. While Wight (1977; Limmanee, 1999, p. 130-131) claims that the state system predates the nation-state system and has existed for a long time. The nation-state system did not appear until in the middle of the 17"' century in Europe and, after World War II, it was developed as the foundation of United Nations system.

At the same time, the transnational system created from private networks in economics, society, and culture, uses friendships as their foundation. After World War Il, transnational or multinational corporations dominated the world economics that control high levels of funds, technology, markets and raw material, and expanded activities through out the various business branches. (Baran and Sweezy, 1972; Magdoff, 1982; Limmanee, 1999, p. 134) Even though these transnational corporations do not want direct political power, they cannot avoid having a political role in pushing state policy for their transnational corporations' investments.