กฎหมายว่าด้วยความเสมอภาคและการไม่เลือกปฏิบัติ Regarding Equality Principle, the research found, by comparing foreign laws, that the constitutional structure relating to the protection of equality ere are 3 models; the first one classified equality as “general equality”, “specific equality” and “non-discrimination”. The second model divided only two principles, i.e. “equality” and “non-discrimination”. The third one only identified “non-discrimination”. According to Thai Constitution and related Act, “Unfair Discrimination” was stipulated leading to the question whether such term is consistent to international humanitarian laws. The results indicated that foreign laws shared similar principle in classifying between “distinction of treatment that is prohibited” and the “distinction of treatment that is not prohibited”, however, the pattern of using this term can be categorized in 4 models, (1) categorizing “Unfair Discrimination” and “Fair Discrimination”, (2) categorizing “Unlawful Discrimination” and “Lawful Discrimination”, (3) categorizing “Discriminatory Practice” and “Non-Discriminatory Practice”, (4) categorizing “Differential Treatment” or “Distinction of Treatment” and “Discrimination” without using the “Fair or Unfair” element. In this regards, Thailand can be classified in the first model. However, constitution provided no clear definition of “Unfair” Discrimination. Thus, Court interpretation played vital roles in providing scope and meaning of such term. In addition, this research found, by comparing to international laws, that there is no element of “Fair or Unfair” because the differential treatment that was not fall under the scope of “Discrimination” was termed merely “Differential Treatment or Distinction of Treatment”. As for the scope of discrimination in human right laws context, this research found that the “Discrimination” was used in several perspective in Thai legal system. The research then classified, by using human right laws framework, the use of such term in 3 cases; (1) differentiation of treatment falling within the scope of “Discrimination” and the one which is not “Discrimination” (2) the overlapping between the practices that falls in to the scope of “Discrimination” and the practices that violate other human rights such as personal right, freedom of religion, freedom of education and right in criminal justice system (3) “Unfair Discrimination” in the context of administrative laws which has different scope because it was based on different concept. According to such classification, the research would focus on the “Discrimination” falling within the scope of human right laws and explore whether such discriminatory practices could be sufficiently covered under existing laws of Thailand. However, the results showed that the existing laws were insufficient by classifying this part of results into ๓ findings; Firstly, the analysis of “ground of discrimination” classified the issue in 4 cases; (1) Grounds of discrimination covered in Thai laws which were broader than international human right laws (2) 19