On July 20, the Samut Prakan District Court will deliver its verdict in the case of Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal, Thailand’s first publicly declared conscientious objector to stand trial for refusing military conscription. If convicted under the 1954 Military Service Act, he will face up to three years in prison. Netiwit is a democracy and human rights activist, publisher, and organiser whose activism began in high school and who has publicly maintained this position for twelve years, culminating in this criminal trial.
On his eighteenth birthday, Netiwit declared he would not participate in military conscription. He did not disappear or seek quiet exemption. Every year, he reappeared before the authorities to say the same thing. On April 5, 2024, he went to the conscription centre in Samut Prakan’s Bang Pu district and read a manifesto of refusal, stating that all Thai citizens should have equal freedom to choose whether to serve, and that no one should be coerced into it, “as it is not beneficial to individuals or the nation.” He then declined to enter the lottery. He was charged under Section 45 of the Military Service Act.
During the trial, Netiwit’s lawyer asked the court to refer the question of whether the Military Service Act is constitutional or not to the Constitutional Court, marking the first time conscientious objection had been argued in this way. On May 12, 2026, the Constitutional Court ruled unanimously that the Act’s provisions do not violate constitutional protections of liberty and religious freedom. The criminal case resumed on that basis, and the verdict now falls on July 20.
Why reform is overdue
Thai law permits voluntary enlistment, and the state relies on it first, but volunteers have never filled the annual quota, so every April the shortfall is made up through a lottery: red card for two years’ service, black for exemption. The system is structurally compulsory even where it appears voluntary, and it offers no legal path for those who object on conscience, a gap Amnesty International, Thai Lawyers for Human Rights, and War Resisters’ International have all called on Thailand to close, in line with Article 18 of the ICCPR, which recognises conscientious objection as protected under freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
Why the case matters
Beyond the individual prosecution, the case could have broader legal and political consequences. It is widely regarded as the first Thai criminal case centred on conscientious objection, the refusal to perform military service based on deeply held moral, religious, or philosophical convictions. While many countries recognise conscientious objection and provide alternative civilian service, Thai law currently does neither. Human rights organisations argue that this places Thailand at odds with international standards under Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.
If convicted, Netiwit faces up to three years’ imprisonment. The hearing is also expected to test whether Thai courts are willing to engage with international human rights principles on freedom of conscience, despite the Constitutional Court’s earlier decision to uphold the existing conscription law.
Ahead of the July 20 verdict, we call on the Thai authorities to:
- Drop all charges against Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal.
- Legally recognise the right to conscientious objection, in line with Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Whatever the outcome, the verdict on July 20 will become a significant reference point in future debates over military reform, compulsory conscription and freedom of conscience in Thailand.
Signatory organisations:
International Fellowship of Reconciliation – Austrian Branch
International Peace Bureau
Milk Tea Alliance Thailand
Rommai Baisuan Network