Information minister challenges Thais to show legal basis for An Seh claim

PHOTO: -Cambodian authorities maintain that Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul’s August 23 visit to An Seh, in Preah Vihear province’s Choam Ksan district, was illegal. Supplied

Minister of Information Neth Pheaktra has challenged Thailand to produce a treaty, map or other legal basis to support any claim that the An Seh area visited by Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul belongs to Thailand, arguing that even a map used unilaterally by the Thai side places the location inside Cambodian territory.

Pheaktra made the argument following Anutin’s August 23 visit to the disputed border area, which Cambodia identifies as An Seh in Choam Ksan district, Preah Vihear province.

He stressed that the physical presence of a Thai prime minister, troops, national flags, containers or other structures could not by itself establish sovereignty over territory.

“The location where Mr Anutin stood must be assessed by reference to maps and boundary documents, not by flags or military presence,” Pheaktra said.

He argued that the central question was therefore not how the Thai prime minister was able to reach the location, but what legal evidence Thailand could produce to demonstrate that it fell under Thai sovereignty.

“If Thailand claims that the location is Thai territory, it must present the legal basis supporting that claim,” he said.

“A bare assertion without legal foundation cannot create sovereignty, nor can an unlawful occupation of Cambodian territory become lawful simply because the same claim is repeated again and again,” he added.

According to Pheaktra, Cambodia bases its position on a body of boundary instruments and documents, including the Franco-Siamese Convention of 1904, the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1907, the work of the Franco-Siamese boundary commissions and the 1:200,000-scale maps associated with the historical delimitation process.

He highlighted what he described as a particularly significant point: Thailand’s Series L7017 map at a scale of 1:50,000 also allegedly places the site of Anutin’s visit on the Cambodian side of the line depicted on that map.

Cambodia does not recognise the L7017 map as the legal basis for determining the international boundary, with Pheaktra describing it as produced unilaterally by Thailand.

However, he argued that its depiction of the site was nevertheless relevant to Thailand’s territorial claim.

Pheaktra said that when the boundary line Cambodia relies upon from the 1:200,000-scale map was compared with the L7017 map and the location identified through satellite imagery, the site of Anutin’s visit appeared on the Cambodian side of both lines.

“The question Thailand must therefore answer is not how the Thai prime minister managed to reach that location, but whether there exists any map, treaty or legal basis demonstrating that the site lies under Thai sovereignty,” he said.

Pheaktra cautioned against equating control on the ground with sovereign title, arguing that the ability of a state official or military force to physically enter or occupy a location did not determine ownership of that territory under international law.

“The fact that a senior official of one country can physically stand at a particular location does not mean that the location belongs to that country,” he said.

“A clear distinction must be drawn between unlawful occupation and lawful sovereign title,” he added.

The Cambodian government has strongly protested Anutin’s August 23 visit.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation said earlier this week that the visit was conducted without Cambodia’s authorisation and described it as an attempt to assert an illegitimate territorial claim.

Cambodia maintains that An Seh lies in Choam Ksan district and that Thai forces have been occupying the area illegally.

Pheaktra said Cambodia’s formal protests were also important from a legal perspective because they placed on record that Phnom Penh neither consented to nor recognised Thailand’s presence in the area.

Such protests, he argued, prevented Thailand’s presence from later being interpreted as evidence that Cambodia had acquiesced to a changed situation on the ground.

Cambodia, he said, would not recognise changes to the border created through the use of force.

“The Cambodia-Thailand boundary was not established on August 23, 2026, by the mere presence of the Thai prime minister at that location, as though his presence could stamp the area as Thai territory,” Pheaktra said.

“Nor can the presence of Thai military forces stationed there determine sovereignty,” he added.

He also linked the An Seh dispute to broader tensions over military deployments and physical structures erected along contested sections of the Cambodia-Thailand border.

According to Pheaktra, Thailand has itself repeatedly maintained that containers and barbed wire do not constitute an international boundary and has said that unresolved land-border questions should be dealt with through the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC).

He argued that the same principle should apply to Anutin’s presence at An Seh.

“If there is a disagreement, it should be addressed through the JBC, not by using military presence to determine the boundary or alter the status quo,” he said.

Cambodia and Thailand established the JBC framework under the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding on the Survey and Demarcation of the Land Boundary, which provides a bilateral mechanism for addressing unresolved land-border questions.

Pheaktra called on Thailand to demonstrate its stated commitment to the mechanism by agreeing to Cambodia’s proposals to convene JBC meetings.

He claimed that the Cambodian side had proposed meetings no fewer than nine times in accordance with Point 3 of the December 27, 2025 Joint Statement, but alleged that Thailand had repeatedly found reasons to delay them.

“If Thailand is genuinely committed to resolving these issues through the JBC, as it has repeatedly stated, that commitment should be demonstrated through concrete action,” he said.

The December 27 Joint Statement, which established arrangements following fighting along the border, also stipulated that those arrangements were without prejudice to the demarcation and international boundary between Cambodia and Thailand and tasked the JBC with continuing survey and demarcation work.

Pheaktra said this meant that neither military deployments nor other arrangements made on the ground could substitute for the agreed border process.

His remarks come amid continuing disagreement between Phnom Penh and Bangkok over several locations along their shared border, with Cambodia accusing Thai forces of maintaining an illegal presence in Cambodian territory and attempting to create new facts on the ground.

Cambodian authorities have also accused Thai troops of placing containers, barbed wire and other structures at several locations, while insisting that such measures cannot alter the international boundary.

Pheaktra said the same principle applied to the planting of national flags, the deployment of troops and construction activities.

“Effective control on the ground is not the same as legal sovereignty, and a situation created unilaterally cannot replace an agreed boundary-demarcation process,” he said.

He concluded that if Bangkok regarded the site visited by Anutin as Thai territory, its case would have to rest on verifiable boundary instruments rather than the visible manifestations of control on the ground.

“If Thailand claims that the location where Mr Anutin stood is Thai territory, the answer cannot be found in photographs of the prime minister, national flags, containers or troops,” he said.

“The answer must rest on a verifiable legal basis, maps and boundary documents,” he repeated.

-Phnom Penh Post-