First published in Somyot Chuathai (ed.), Essays in Honour of Preedee Kasemsup, Faculty of Law, Thammasat University, 1988. Translated by Adam Reekie Translator’s Introduction The late Dr Preedee Kasemsup ranks among the most distinguished Thai legal scholars of the 20th century. Although his work covers many fields of law, including legal philosophy and jurisprudence, legal methods and legal history, perhaps his greatest contribution to Thai legal thought is his “three-layer theory of law.” Professor Preedee spent decades, roughly in the 1970s-80s, developing this theory which became a hallmark of the ‘Thammasat School’ of legal scholarship. The three-layer theory of law represents a firmly socio-cultural approach to law and legal history, which recognises a multiplicity of sources of law and the dynamic and complex nature of legal development. Furthermore, it serves as a principled basis to challenge assumptions about superiority of ‘modern law’ and to expose fallacies concerning legal positivism and constructivism, while also drawing attention to the challenges for legal scholars in legal interpretation, given the law’s plurality of sources. Some discussion of the three-layer theory of law has already been published in English. Professor Preedee’s book chapter “Reception of Law in Thailand – a Buddhist Society”[1] is an application of this theory to the process of reception of legal ideas in Thailand in the 19th-20th centuries, and a frequently referenced source for English-language research into Thai legal history. However, this article, written by the eminent scholar Somyot Chuathai and published in 1988, represents a succinct but detailed account of the conceptual underpinnings of the theory as well as an overview of some of its implications. It is hoped that this translation will be of interest to students and scholars as an important and widely influential work of Thai legal thought. [1] Preedee Kasemsup, "Reception of Law in Thailand – a Buddhist Society" in Masaji Chiba (ed), Asian Indigenous Law: In Interaction with Received Law (London: KIP Limited, 1986) 267-300