“Respect for International Law”: Do Thailand’s Words Match Its Actions?

“Respect for International Law”: Do Thailand’s Words Match Its Actions?

The statement delivered by Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow at the meeting of the Conciliation Commission concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Cambodia and Thailand appeared little different from a prepared script being read out once again. Its key messages were repeatedly reiterated, almost as though they had been memorized by heart — “peace,” “dialogue,” “confidence-building,” and, above all, “respect for international law.”

The phrase “respect for international law” certainly sounds appealing, almost persuasive enough to make listeners immediately want to believe it. But the problem is that words can be carefully prepared and delivered convincingly, whereas positions and concrete actions cannot so easily be concealed.

Thailand claims that it respects international law and protects its sovereign rights. But respecting international law does not mean that one can selectively embrace only those parts that are consistent with one’s own position while rejecting those that do not serve one’s interests.

One important issue concerns the 2001 MoU. The Thai side has attempted to explain that the agreement failed to produce results over many years and that the mechanism established under it met only twice. Such a superficial justification has nevertheless been presented as a basis for cancelling the 2001 MoU, a historic agreement between the two countries.

At this point, the Thai side should provide a clear answer: if a mechanism has not yet produced a solution, why should that mechanism be abolished?

Does the fact that a solution has not yet been found necessarily mean that the mechanism has failed to such an extent that it must simply be discarded? Or, on the contrary, should that be a reason for both sides to engage in further negotiations, strengthen the mechanism, and improve the methods of implementation so that it can become more effective?

If the genuine objective is to find a solution through negotiation, then why close the door to a negotiating mechanism before that mechanism has completed its mission?

If Thailand truly has confidence in the legal basis of its position, it should not merely reject Cambodia’s 1972 maritime boundary map as having no legal basis, nor simply put forward its own 1973 maritime boundary line as an assertion.

The question is this: if Thailand’s position is genuinely supported by strong evidence, why not place the maps, documents, and historical evidence on the table so that they can be examined under the law and mutually verified in a clear and transparent manner?

Saying that “Cambodia’s claim has no legal basis” is not evidence. It is merely an assertion made by the Thai side itself.

In an international dispute, what is required is evidence and legal reasoning — not accusations or attempts to shift the burden of justification onto Cambodia.

What is even more noteworthy is that Thailand says it respects UNCLOS and supports the conciliation process, while at the same time attempting to predetermine that the process should concern only the maritime boundary, arguing that Koh Kood is not a maritime boundary issue and should not be connected to other matters.

Conciliation should not become a forum in which one party sets the conditions in advance while the other is expected simply to follow them.

If Thailand genuinely respects international law, both parties should have equal rights to present their views, submit evidence, and defend their respective positions.

Thailand may repeat the phrase “respect for international law” from its official statements as often as it wishes. But the judgment should not rest on words alone. It must also be based on concrete actions.

Another question therefore arises:
Does Thailand truly agree to respect international law in its entirety, accepting both the rights it is entitled to and the obligations it is required to fulfill?

Or does it choose only those aspects that serve its own interests?

Because genuine respect for the law does not mean selecting only what benefits oneself. Respect for the law means accepting both the rights that one is entitled to and the obligations that one is required to fulfill.

The current conciliation process will serve as a mirror, revealing whether Thailand’s repeated invocation of “respect for international law” is a genuine principle that it intends to put into practice, or merely polished diplomatic rhetoric used to conceal a strategy of prolonging the process and seeking domestic political popularity.

If it is truly a principle, then evidence and concrete actions should be the ones to answer in place of these words.

By: Pin Vichey