Hours after Cambodia delivered formal notice to Thailand and to the United Nations secretary-general on 2 June to open compulsory conciliation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul said he had not been informed of it. Asked about Cambodia’s filing to the UN over Thailand’s unilateral cancellation of the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding, he said he had “ยังไม่ได้รับทราบ” [not yet been informed], and that he did not know what the problem was.
Anutin reaffirmed that Thailand would proceed on the basis of UNCLOS and said no date had been set for how it would do so. Asked how Thailand would counter Cambodia’s moves on the international stage, he replied, “ทำไมต้องไปแก้เกม” [why would we need to counter-game]. He said Thailand had surrendered no advantage and held a settled position, and that he would not spend time on those circulating false reports about border crossings.
Prime Minister Hun Manet announced the filing in a video address to the nation that morning. “We have delivered a formal notice to Thailand and to the secretary-general of the UN to begin compulsory conciliation proceedings under UNCLOS. We have taken this step to protect Cambodia’s sovereignty and maritime rights in accordance with international law,” he said.
Cambodia’s request invokes Annex V, Section 2 of the convention, which convenes an independent commission of five conciliators to examine the competing claims and recommend terms. The commission’s findings bind neither party. The process is compulsory in one specific sense, that Cambodia could begin it without Thailand’s agreement, which is the sense Anutin’s posture leaves untouched.
Thailand’s cabinet terminated the 2001 agreement on 5 May, the bilateral framework that had governed negotiation of the overlapping maritime claims. The withdrawal carried the rationale that the agreement had produced no results in twenty-five years, and formed part of a campaign pledge by Anutin. Reuters reported he won re-election in February on a wave of nationalist sentiment, after two rounds of deadly military clashes along the disputed border last year. On 6 May he framed the cancellation as a move toward a common framework. “At least both countries will now be operating under the same set of rules,” he said.
Anutin’s account on 2 June that he did not know what the problem was followed talks that had already failed. Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow met his Cambodian counterpart Prak Sokhonn on 26 May on the sidelines of a UN Security Council debate, and the two reached no agreement on a future framework. Sihasak said Thailand’s position was that bilateral talks should continue before either side moved to an outside panel. “Both sides may still reach a mutual understanding through direct talks under UNCLOS without needing a conciliation mechanism,” he said. He held that technical-level talks were needed first to build an updated framework, and tied Thailand’s revised stance partly to Cambodia’s recent accession to UNCLOS.
Hun Manet placed the filing inside continued negotiation rather than escalation. “This is not escalation; it is a facilitated negotiation between the two nations overseen by international expert conciliators. This is not unilateral action; it is an effort to resolve the dispute peacefully through international law and in good faith,” he said. He described the 2001 agreement as the only agreed bilateral framework for the overlapping maritime claims over the past twenty-five years and said Thailand’s withdrawal had exhausted the path to a bilateral solution. He framed the step as relocating dialogue. “Let me be clear: initiating the compulsory conciliation under UNCLOS does not mean that Cambodia is turning away from dialogue. Cambodia is bringing dialogue into a structured international framework recognised by both countries,” he said. He said the process would protect sovereignty and unlock energy resources in the overlapping claims area.
Hun Manet pointed to the 2018 conciliation between Timor-Leste and Australia, in which the two states used the same Annex V process to settle a boundary that bilateral talks had not resolved, and said he expected a comparable result. The limit is one Cambodia carries openly. A commission can propose terms but cannot impose them, and any settlement would still require both governments to accept what it puts forward.
What Cambodia has set in motion proceeds without Thailand’s acknowledgment. What it can resolve depends on Thailand’s participation, and Anutin’s answer on the day the notice landed was that he had not received it and saw no reason to respond. The commission will report regardless; whether its recommendations become a settlement is the question his posture leaves open.