Cambodia rejects JIC interpretation: Ceasefire troop positions do not determine sovereignty

A statue of Vishnu in the occupied An Seh area of Preah Vihear province was demolished by the Thais and replaced with a statue of Buddha. Supplied

Cambodia has rejected the Thai Joint Information Centre’s (JIC) interpretation of the December 27, 2025 ceasefire statement, stressing that temporarily maintaining troop positions to halt fighting cannot determine sovereignty, transfer territorial title or redraw the border.

The rejection was issued by Minister of Information Neth Pheaktra on August 31, following remarks by Lieutenant General Prapas Sonjaidee, director of Thailand’s JIC, as reported by The Nation Thailand on the same day.

Prapas asserted that troops should remain in the positions agreed upon and that Thailand had never altered conditions on the ground, citing the December 27 Joint Statement.

Pheaktra described the assertion as fundamentally inconsistent with the substance and purpose of the statement, international law and the facts and evidence on the ground.

“A ceasefire stops the shooting. It does not draw a new map,” he said.

The minister warned that Thailand’s interpretation risked misleading domestic and international audiences by creating the false impression that Cambodia had consented to Thai troops remaining on territory falling within Cambodia’s lawful sovereignty and territorial integrity.

He explained that the December 27 Joint Statement, particularly Paragraph 2, established a temporary security arrangement intended to stop hostilities and ease tensions. It was not a boundary treaty and could not supersede the 1:200,000 map series associated with the Franco-Siamese boundary settlement.

Maintaining military positions for the purpose of stopping hostilities does not amount to recognition of sovereignty, acceptance of a boundary or the transfer of territorial title, he added.

“Borders are neither frozen nor redrawn according to where troops happen to stand,” Pheaktra said.

He argued that Thailand could not invoke the Joint Statement as a legal basis for maintaining control over Cambodian territory or for creating a fait accompli through unilateral activities on the ground.

The activities he cited included the installation of razor wire and shipping containers, the construction of bunkers and trenches, road building and land clearance, the demolition of civilian homes and religious structures, the erection of statues, the raising of national flags and other activities in areas Cambodia claims as its territory.

According to the minister, these actions are inconsistent with the applicable international legal framework, the relevant 1:200,000 maps, the Franco-Siamese treaties and conventions, the record of the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) meeting in Chanthaburi on October 22, 2025, relevant bilateral arrangements and the December 27 Joint Statement itself.

Pheaktra said the maps originating from the Franco-Siamese boundary process formed part of the historical and legal framework governing the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand.

In this context, he said maps prepared unilaterally by either side — including Thai military map series’ L7017 and L7018 — could not by themselves modify or replace a boundary arising from legal instruments and arrangements binding on both countries.

The minister also recalled the significance of the maps produced through the Franco-Siamese boundary process in proceedings concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

The ICJ’s 1962 judgment and its 2013 judgment on interpretation addressed the legal consequences relating to the temple and the surrounding area falling within the scope of the rulings. These included Thailand’s obligation to withdraw military, police or other guards or keepers from Cambodian territory as determined by the court.

Pheaktra noted, however, that the two judgments concerned the Temple of Preah Vihear and the area falling within their scope. They should not be interpreted as having delimited the entire Cambodia-Thailand border.

He maintained that it was precisely because the December 27 Joint Statement was not a boundary treaty that both sides had accorded high priority to the JBC and the technical mechanisms operating under it.

The preamble of the Joint Statement underscored the importance of achieving a definitive resolution of boundary issues, while Paragraphs 3 and 4 reflected the two countries’ agreement to advance JBC meetings, technical discussions and the deployment of joint survey teams to relevant areas on the ground.

The safety of the teams was to be facilitated through mine-clearance activities conducted within the relevant JBC framework.

Pheaktra said accelerating the JBC’s work was intended to address outstanding boundary-demarcation issues, facilitate the safe return of displaced Cambodian civilians to their homes and contribute to lasting peace and stability along the shared border.

He argued that isolating Paragraph 2 from the rest of the Joint Statement and interpreting troop positions as conferring territorial rights fundamentally distorted the agreement’s object and purpose.

“The Joint Statement is, in essence, a ceasefire and de-escalation arrangement. It is not a boundary treaty, nor does it authorise Thai forces to establish sovereignty, acquire territorial rights or undertake activities infringing upon Cambodia’s sovereignty merely by remaining in particular military positions,” he said.

Any interpretation involving the border must be considered within the broader legal framework, including the Franco-Siamese treaties and conventions, the relevant 1:200,000 maps and subsequent bilateral instruments and mechanisms, such as the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding and the 2003 Terms of Reference, according to Pheaktra.

The minister stressed that Cambodia had never agreed to allow Thai forces to use the ceasefire as authorisation to deploy troops, consolidate their presence or carry out unlawful activities on Cambodian territory.

“A temporary cessation of hostilities cannot be transformed into a source of territorial title,” he said.

Pheaktra called on Thailand to demonstrate genuine commitment and good faith by fully implementing the Joint Statement and translating its commitments into concrete conduct on the ground.

He urged Thailand to refrain from relying on selective interpretations that might serve a public narrative but were inconsistent with the purpose of the ceasefire arrangement.

-Phnom Penh Post-