Thailand Must Not Use the Land Border Dispute to Obstruct a Maritime Solution
Thailand Must Not Use the Land Border Dispute to Obstruct a Maritime Solution
Thailand’s attempt to link the land border issue to the process of resolving the Cambodia–Thailand maritime dispute reveals a fundamental inconsistency in its position. If Thailand genuinely wishes to resolve disputes peacefully and in accordance with international law, why should it use one issue as an obstacle to resolving another? Given that the two disputes fall under separate legal frameworks and mechanisms for resolution, linking them does not help find a solution. Instead, it creates unnecessary obstacles and further undermines trust between the two countries.
At the second meeting of the Maritime Dispute Conciliation Commission in The Hague, the Netherlands, H.E. Prak Sokhonn, Deputy Prime Minister and Agent representing Cambodia, clearly stated that the land and maritime boundary issues are two separate matters, governed by different legal frameworks and technical mechanisms, and have been addressed independently for the past 25 years. This is not a new interpretation devised by Cambodia to serve its political interests. Rather, it is a reminder of how the two issues have been handled from the outset.
Therefore, if Thailand considers the land border issue difficult to resolve or believes that a particular mechanism is no longer functioning effectively, it should present its reasons within the relevant framework and continue seeking a separate solution to that issue. Bringing the land dispute into the maritime process in order to obstruct progress on one issue because of difficulties with another is an approach that cannot build mutual trust. If all disputes are linked according to the political will of one party, agreements and legal mechanisms will inevitably lose their value, and dispute resolution will become hostage to endless confrontation.
What makes Thailand’s position even more questionable is its unilateral decision to terminate the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the only existing bilateral framework specifically established to address the maritime boundary dispute, only to subsequently invoke unresolved issues along the land border as an obstacle to progress on the maritime front. At this point, Thailand must clearly answer a fundamental question: if it does not wish to continue using the existing mechanism and also does not want the international conciliation process to move forward, what avenue does it actually propose for resolving this dispute?
Cambodia has chosen to pursue conciliation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in order to continue seeking a peaceful solution after the existing bilateral mechanism was affected by Thailand’s unilateral decision to terminate the MoU. This demonstrates that Cambodia has neither closed the door to negotiations nor abandoned the search for a resolution. On the contrary, Cambodia is striving to keep the dispute within a legal framework, allowing both parties to present their arguments and seek a solution without resorting to force or exerting pressure on one another.
If Thailand claims to respect international law and seek peace, its respect for dispute settlement mechanisms and its willingness to refrain from linking one issue to another should serve as tangible evidence of that commitment. Speaking of peace while refusing to allow the mechanisms for resolving disputes to move forward is a clear contradiction that cannot be accepted.
It is true that land and maritime boundary disputes can influence the overall atmosphere of relations between the two countries. Tensions along the land border may make maritime negotiations more difficult. However, acknowledging this reality does not mean that the two disputes should be tied together. On the contrary, it gives Thailand an even stronger reason to reduce tensions and respect existing agreements, particularly the ceasefire and the Joint Declaration of 27 December 2025, in order to create favorable conditions for resolving the disputes as a whole.
The Conciliation Commission’s acceptance of Cambodia’s proposal to incorporate relevant points into a package of confidence-building measures is an important development that Cambodia can continue to use in defending its position on the international stage. However, the work does not end there. Cambodia will continue to maintain a clear and consistent position, strengthen its evidence, and help the international community better understand that Cambodia is seeking a solution through legal means, not confrontation.
Ultimately, Thailand must understand that a unilateral decision does not give it the right to determine whether a dispute should proceed or remain deadlocked according to its own wishes. Differences of opinion cannot be used as an excuse to close off avenues for resolution, nor should tensions along the land border be used as a tool to obstruct the maritime boundary process. If Thailand genuinely seeks lasting peace, it must begin by respecting agreements, honoring legal mechanisms, and refraining from using issues governed by separate frameworks as obstacles to resolving this dispute.
For Cambodia, national sovereignty and the country’s legitimate interests are non-negotiable. Cambodia will continue to defend its position firmly through strategic diplomacy and in accordance with international law. Pursuing peaceful solutions is not a sign of weakness; rather, it demonstrates that Cambodia is defending its national rights on the basis of legal principles and clear evidence. Each party’s respect for agreements and commitment to peaceful dispute resolution will ultimately show the international community how genuine its commitment to peace really is.
By: Pin Vichey
