本文比较了中国的指导性判例制度和泰国的判例制度。本研究的主要目的是通过对中国的指导性判例和泰国的判例在六个方面进行比较研究--即成为指导性案例和司法判例的标准、对法官自由裁量权的限制、不作为法律依据、事实约束力、外部案例发现、以及指导性案例和司法判例的修订—从而发现中国的指导性判例制度和泰国的判例制度之异同。通过比较研究，笔者发现中国有《案例指导规定》规定了指导性案例标准，而泰国则没有。此外，中国的指导性判例制度旨在限制法官的自由裁量权，而泰国法官的独立裁量权则受到强调。此外，还有一个相似之处，即指导性案例和司法判例都不能用作法律依据。此外，事实约束力原则在中国适用，而泰国没有这样的规定。此外，符合指导性案例条件的案例可以由社会各界人士直接推荐给中国最高人民法院，但这种做法在泰国是不切实际的。最后，中国的指导性案例可以为了明确性而进行修订，但泰国的司法判例是最终的，不能进一步修改。

This thesis compares China’s Guiding Case System and Thailand’s Judicial Precedents. This research is a documentary study that relied heavily on secondary materials. The primary aim of this research is to discover the differences and similarities between Guiding Cases in China and Judicial Precedents in Thailand by carrying out a comparative analysis in 6 points, namely Criteria to becoming Guiding Cases and Judicial Precedents, Restrictions on judges’ discretionary power, Not used as a legal basis, De facto binding effect, External discovery of cases, and Revisions of Guiding Cases and Judicial Precedents. From the comparative study, the author discovers that China has the Provisions on Case Guidance prescribing the guiding case criteria, while Thailand does not have. Also, China’s Guiding Case System was designed to limit the discretion of judges, whereas the independent discretion of Thai judges is stressed. Besides, there is a similarity in that guiding cases and judicial precedents are not used as a legal basis. Moreover, the de facto binding effect principle is applied in China, while Thailand has no such provision. In addition, cases qualified to be guiding cases could be recommended directly to the Supreme People’s Court of China by people from all circles of society, yet it is impractical in Thailand. Last but not least, China’s guiding cases can be revised for clarification, but Thailand’s judicial precedents are final and cannot be amended further.