Conciliation Is Not Escalation: Cambodia’s Peaceful Choice Under UNCLOS

Thailand’s latest statement on Cambodia’s decision to initiate compulsory conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) seeks to portray Cambodia’s action as “rushed” and potentially damaging to trust. That characterisation is neither accurate nor constructive. Cambodia’s decision is not an act of escalation; rather, it embodies the principle that Conciliation Is Not Escalation, as it is an act of legal responsibility.

At a time when maritime issues between Cambodia and Thailand require clarity, discipline and restraint, Cambodia has chosen the most peaceful path available under international law. Compulsory conciliation under UNCLOS is not litigation. It is not arbitration. It is not a hostile proceeding. It is a structured, internationally recognised process designed to help states reach an amicable settlement when bilateral talks have failed to produce progress.

Thailand itself has acknowledged that compulsory conciliation is a mechanism provided for under UNCLOS and that the outcome takes the form of recommendations, not a legally binding judgment. This is precisely why Cambodia’s decision should be understood as a confidence-building step, not a confrontational one. Conciliation preserves space for negotiation while bringing impartial legal and factual clarity to a dispute that has remained unresolved for too long. The essence of this process is captured in the maxim: Conciliation Is Not Escalation.

Cambodia’s position is straightforward: when two neighbouring states cannot resolve a maritime disagreement through previous bilateral arrangements, they should not abandon law, increase pressure or politicise the issue. They should use the peaceful mechanisms that both states accepted when they became parties to UNCLOS. That is what Cambodia has done.

Thailand’s claim that Cambodia’s decision contradicts calls for restoring bilateral relations misunderstands the nature of conciliation. A legal process and bilateral engagement are not mutually exclusive. In fact, UNCLOS conciliation is designed to support negotiation. The commission hears both parties, examines their claims and objections, and makes proposals with a view to reaching an amicable settlement. The process does not replace diplomacy; it strengthens diplomacy by giving it a more credible foundation.

Nor should Cambodia’s use of UNCLOS be treated as a threat to trust. Trust is not built by leaving disputes unresolved indefinitely. Trust is built when both sides agree to manage differences peacefully, transparently and in accordance with accepted rules. If Thailand is confident in its legal position, it should welcome the opportunity to present that position before an impartial conciliation commission.

The real question is not why Cambodia chose conciliation. The real question is why a peaceful legal mechanism should be portrayed as provocative. Cambodia did not send warships. Cambodia did not issue threats. Cambodia did not seek a binding judgment against Thailand. Cambodia invoked a non-binding, conciliatory procedure expressly provided under UNCLOS, a convention to which both countries are parties.

Cambodia’s approach also protects regional peace. The Gulf of Thailand holds strategic importance for energy security, economic development and maritime cooperation. Prolonged uncertainty benefits no one. It creates legal ambiguity, delays development and risks turning a manageable maritime issue into a recurring source of political tension. Conciliation offers both countries a way to move from accusation to analysis, from political messaging to legal reasoning, and from deadlock to practical recommendations.

Thailand’s statement says it wishes to proceed on the basis of international law and UNCLOS. Cambodia welcomes that position. But commitment to UNCLOS must mean more than selective reference to its principles. It must include respect for its dispute-settlement procedures. A state cannot praise UNCLOS as the proper legal framework while criticising another state for using a peaceful mechanism that UNCLOS itself provides.

Cambodia remains committed to good-neighbourly relations, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation with Thailand. But friendship between states does not require silence in the face of unresolved disputes. On the contrary, mature diplomacy requires the courage to address difficult issues through lawful and peaceful means.

Compulsory conciliation is not escalation. It is de-escalation through law. It is not a rejection of dialogue. It is a pathway back to meaningful dialogue. It is not a threat to Thailand. It is an invitation for both countries to place facts, law and good faith above political pressure.

Cambodia has chosen peace, law and responsibility. Thailand should do the same.

Roth Santepheap is a geopolitical analyst based in Phnom Penh. The views and opinions expressed are his own.