Cambodia Stands on the Law: Maritime Border Conciliation Is Not a Sign of Weakness

Cambodia Stands on the Law: Maritime Border Conciliation Is Not a Sign of Weakness

The Cambodia–Thailand maritime boundary issue is not a newly emerged problem. The two countries have been discussing it for decades, beginning with negotiations in 1995 and the signing of the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). These developments demonstrate that both sides have already made efforts to resolve the issue through negotiations.

However, despite the passage of time, negotiations have still failed to produce a final solution. This raises a fundamental question: Should we allow an issue involving national interests to remain deadlocked indefinitely?

Cambodia’s decision to continue pursuing the conciliation mechanism under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) provides an answer to that question.

This does not mean abandoning negotiations, nor does it mean choosing confrontation through force. On the contrary, it means making use of a path provided by international law so that a prolonged deadlock does not become a permanent situation.

To put it plainly, Cambodia has never closed the door to negotiations, but neither can it wait indefinitely without a solution.

The maritime boundary issue is not merely about a line drawn on a map. It concerns rights over maritime zones, natural resources, energy, investment, and Cambodia’s opportunities for economic development.

Therefore, establishing clarity over the maritime boundary is an issue concerning the country’s future. It is not merely a technical matter for cartographers or diplomats.

In this context, standing firmly on the law is of great importance.

In international disputes, what carries the greatest weight is documentation, law, conventions, treaties, agreements, historical records, evidence, and facts that can be examined and verified.

For this reason, Cambodia’s use of UNCLOS should not be interpreted as a sign of weakness. Cambodia is seeking to protect its national interests by using the law as an instrument, rather than using tension as an instrument.

Standing by principles does not mean closing the door to negotiations or rejecting every possible solution. If there is an appropriate framework acceptable to both sides, joint development and equitable sharing of benefits could also be among the possible options.

This is the difference between having principles and being inflexible.

Cambodia can uphold its principles while continuing to seek a way forward that does not require either side to lose face.

For Cambodia, which has experienced prolonged wars and suffered devastating destruction as a result of conflict, peace is not something that can simply be overlooked.

Cambodia knows all too well that conflicts may begin with words and weapons, but their consequences can be far more severe and far-reaching than many people imagine.

Therefore, resolving disputes through law and diplomacy is not a step backward. Rather, it is a choice and a means of protecting national interests while preserving lasting peace.

It is important to understand that patience is not surrender, and reliance on the law is not weakness.

Cambodia can continue negotiations, continue diplomacy, and continue using mechanisms permitted under international law. But the objective must remain clear: to resolve a problem that has persisted for many years, establish clarity and stability, and safeguard the national interest.

Therefore, the question today should not simply be, “What does Cambodia want?”

Rather, the question should be: Does Thailand have sufficient political will to break the deadlock and move toward a solution that both sides can accept?

For Cambodia, the legal path remains open.

Diplomacy continues, and negotiations have not been abandoned.

But principles are something that cannot be abandoned.

By: Pin Vichey