Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 AUGUST 2026

Thai Supreme Court On Arbitration Clauses: When “May” Means “Must”

Tilleke & Gibbins
Tilleke & Gibbins
Contributor
Tilleke & Gibbins

Tilleke & Gibbins

Tilleke & Gibbins has been present in Vietnam since 1992, when it became the first foreign law firm...

View firm profile
Explore more from Tilleke & Gibbins

Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses.

ThailandLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from