I did and I didn’t, respectively.

Not the first sentence, but:

> They have been charged under a law on the violation of sovereignty, which stipulates punishment of life in prison or death.

I saw that. My question is, which law specifically, what exactly is the crime, how do you break this law by building a house, and why does the death penalty provision apply in this case?

I see now why HN guidelines say you shouldn’t tell people to read the article. You ask a question which is vaguely addressed in the article, and people just assume you’re an idiot.

I did a little googling and found this story:

https://www.bangkokpost.com/news/general/1661300/seastead-co...

Which refers to Thailand’s criminal code section 119:

> Section 119. Intent to cause injury to the Nation

> Whoever, does any act with intent to cause the Country or any part thereof to descend under the sovereignty of any foreign State, or to deteriorate the independence of the State, shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life.

From http://library.siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-offense...

Thanks. I guess they really didn’t like the “we’re not part of any nation” thing. Seems like a rather vague law to have the death penalty attached to.

I wonder, in which borders does this apply? If they were in international waters, why is Thailand dragging them back, then accusing them of trying to secede? Or under which laws can Thailand claim somebody floating in international waters was seceding from Thailand?

I think so too, sounds like a big stick the govt can use with wide latitude, to make an example out of something they don’t like.

It's not uncommon, unfortunately (although the penalties are usually not so extreme). Usually it also happens to be the countries that have some large-scale territorial disputes with neighbors.

For example, in Russia, there's a law against "public calls to actions that would violate the territorial sovereignty". In practice, this means that saying something like "Crimea was illegally occupied" is technically illegal, and occasionally enforced.

I recall India mulled a similar law with Jammu and Kashmir in mind, although I don't think they ended up passing that.

It’s an interesting contrast with, say, sovereign citizens in the US. Law enforcement basically doesn’t care what they think about their sovereignty, they just treat them like any other person.