Following a fatal border clash on 28 May at the Chong Bok, Thailand and Cambodia agreed to hold bilateral talks through the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Commission on Demarcation for the Land Boundary (JBC) on 14-15 June. Both sides remain at odds on certain matters, particularly Cambodia’s move to refer the case to the International Court of Justice.

The 6th JBC meeting, which focused on the recent border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia, took place on 14-15 June in Phnom Penh, Cambodia, following both sides' commitment to bilateral negotiations.

The JBC is one of the Thai-Cambodian bilateral mechanisms for territorial discussions and demarcation. The JBC was established as a result of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU 43) signed in 2000.

The meeting was co-chaired by Prasas Prasasvinitchai, Border Affairs Advisor to Thailand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and former Thai Ambassador to Phnom Penh, and Lam Chea, Minister in Charge of the State Secretariat of Border Affairs of Cambodia.

Thailand initially stated that progress has been made. However, shortly after the meeting concluded, tensions resurfaced in the form of information warfare. Both sides appeared unable to reach common ground, particularly with regard to Cambodia’s petition to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Cambodia insists on taking 4 disputed areas to the ICJ

Since the incident on 28 May, Cambodia has expressed its strong stance to take the cases of the Emerald Triangle, and of the Ta Muen Thom, Ta Muen Tot, and Ta Kwai temples before the ICJ, and not to include these four disputed areas in the JBC meeting.

On the same day that the JBC meeting concluded (15 June), Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet announced that Cambodia had submitted an official letter to the ICJ seeking resolution of the four border disputes, according to a report in the Khmer Times.

Coincidentally, on 15 June 1962, the ICJ, by a 9-3 vote, ruled in favour of Cambodia in the case of the Preah Vihear Temple, ruling that the temple and the surrounding area were part of Cambodian territory.

However, Thailand has repeatedly asserted that it has not accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction since 1960, a fact that Cambodia has been aware of.

According to The Reporters, Lam Chea reiterated that notwithstanding the four disputed areas, Cambodia maintains its position and goodwill in continuing cooperation with Thailand in promoting demarcation through the JBC mechanism. Cambodia also firmly rejected accepting a 1:50,000 scale map unilaterally drawn by Thailand, which has been the main cause of the prolonged border dispute.

Cambodia uses a 1:200,000 scale map based on the Franco-Siamese Treaties of 1904 and 1097 as a reference.

Shortly after the meeting concluded, Cambodia unilaterally issued its official statement regarding the JBC talks, claiming that both parties mutually agreed to use the 1:200,000 scale map based on the Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 and 1907. Cambodia also insisted on taking the four disputed areas to the ICJ.

Several hours after that, Thailand’s Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued a brief response to Cambodia’s statement, reiterating that the JBC did not include any discussion on Cambodia’s intention to take the four disputed areas before the ICJ. There was also no discussion regarding the 1:200,000 scale map as claimed by Cambodia.

Thailand’s official statement regarding the JBC meeting

“What we have done less than them is to communicate publicly because we respect international negotiations and we respect the bilateral framework. We honour both countries in that the discussions should be formal and within the bilateral framework,” said Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra.

In its statement, the MFA expressed its disappointment that Cambodia did not agree to cooperate with Thailand in resolving specific issues and easing tensions between the two countries. Instead, Cambodia continued to push forward with taking the four areas — the Chong Bok area, Ta Muen Thom Temple, Ta Muen Tot Temple, and Ta Kwai Temple — before the ICJ.

“This move reflects that the Cambodian side lacks genuine commitment to use the existing bilateral mechanisms based on the principle of good neighbour relations”, the MFA said in the statement.

In addition, Thailand countered all allegations as follows:

1. Thailand's actions were taken following the principle of self-defence in response to a prior attack by the Cambodian side. The actions were appropriate and proportionate under international law.

2. Thailand was disappointed that Cambodia chose to shut the door on peaceful negotiations regarding the four disputed areas. The Thai government has always emphasised bilateral mechanisms and the role of the JBC in establishing a clear border for the benefit of the peoples of both nations.

3. Thailand asserted that both sides must uphold the 2000 MoU, which Cambodia jointly agreed upon with Thailand. Both sides must refrain from any actions that alter the conditions along the border or encroach on each other’s territory.

4. Both sides must avoid disseminating information that could lead to misunderstanding and widespread conflict. Thailand emphasised the importance of using bilateral cooperation mechanisms to help address the issue. However, Cambodia refused to engage in discussion on this matter.

Thailand will host the next Special JBC meeting in September this year.

Thailand’s response to Cambodia’s petition to the ICJ

On Monday (16 June), the MFA also officially expressed its stance regarding Cambodia’s petition to the ICJ.

1. Thailand has not accepted the ICJ’s jurisdiction since 1960, along with 118 other UN member states.

2. Thailand affirms its commitment to resolving the dispute according to the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law. Thailand’s decision not to recognise the ICJ’s jurisdiction reflects its position that any approach to resolving the issue between states must take into account the specific context, circumstances, and the implications for national sovereignty.

3. Thailand views that involving a third party is not always the most effective way to maintain the relations between both states, particularly on sensitive issues involving complex historical, territorial, and political dimensions.

4. Thailand asserted that the recent border conflict should be resolved through the existing bilateral mechanisms between the two states.

5. It is regrettable that, despite the close ties between Thailand and Cambodia, Thailand has never been approached by Cambodia for any discussion regarding the possibility of taking the disputed areas before the ICJ as a means to resolve the differing views on both sides.