Thailand outlines six positions in UNCLOS conciliation with Cambodia

The Thai government said on Wednesday (September 16, 2026) that Deputy Prime Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow had confirmed Thailand’s readiness to negotiate before the Conciliation Commission under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in Singapore.

The government set out six positions to protect Thailand’s sovereign rights, saying the discussions concerned only the maritime boundary between Thailand and Cambodia in the Gulf of Thailand.

Thailand rejected Cambodia’s 1972 claim line and said the process would not affect Koh Kood or any land territory, while stressing the need to safeguard national interests.

Government spokesman Ekkapob Pianpises referred to the first meeting of the Conciliation Commission between Thailand and Cambodia under UNCLOS in Singapore.

Summarising the statement delivered by Sihasak, who represented Thailand as deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, Ekkapob said Thailand wanted peace and was ready for dialogue with Cambodia as a neighbouring country.

He added that being a good neighbour did not mean giving up Thailand’s rights or sovereignty, or leaving unanswered allegations that the Thai side considered inconsistent with the facts.

The government set out the following six positions:

1. Peace must not come at the cost of sovereignty

Thailand has consistently pursued peaceful means and dialogue through existing bilateral frameworks because Thailand and Cambodia are neighbours that must continue to coexist.

At the same time, the government stressed its duty to protect Thailand’s sovereignty, sovereign rights and national interests fully in accordance with international law.

“Thailand is ready to negotiate, seek solutions and be a good neighbour, but we must fully protect Thailand’s sovereignty and rights.”

2. Conciliation covers maritime boundaries, not land or Koh Kood

The Thai side told the Commission that the conciliation was limited solely to delimiting the maritime boundary between Thailand and Cambodia in the Gulf of Thailand.

The proceedings did not concern sovereignty over land territory, including Koh Kood.

Thailand reaffirmed its maritime boundary position as set out in the Royal Proclamation dated Friday (May 18, 1973). The country also rejected the continental shelf claim line unilaterally asserted by Cambodia in 1972, which Thailand said had no legal basis.

3. International law must rest on facts

Thailand said it remained committed to UNCLOS and international law and was taking part in the conciliation in good faith.

The Thai side nevertheless maintained that international law must be applied on the basis of facts, rather than unilateral assertions or attempts by one side to use international forums to legitimise its own position.

The government added that if Thailand were accused on the basis of information the Thai side considered inaccurate, distorted or unfounded, the country had a duty to clarify the facts and protect its reputation.

4. Ending the 2001 MOU did not close the door to talks

The Thai side rejected the argument that Cambodia had no alternative but to enter conciliation after Thailand terminated the 2001 memorandum of understanding (MOU), saying this did not reflect the facts as Thailand saw them.

Only two formal meetings were held under the mechanism over 25 years, and neither produced tangible progress.

Thailand had meanwhile proposed that the two countries resume direct negotiations on the maritime boundary.

The government therefore maintained that Thailand had not closed the door, but had consistently offered solutions and kept dialogue open.

5. Thailand favours diplomacy and law over accusations

Thailand’s approach is to use international law to protect the country’s rights and diplomacy to find a solution between neighbouring countries.

According to the Thai position, disputes should not become a contest over which side could make more accusations or better portray itself as the victim.

Thailand said it was ready to engage on the basis of sincerity, but that sincerity had to come from both sides.

Relations could be restored only when there was mutual trust and respect, the government added.

6. The process should have no winner or loser

Thailand’s goal is to reach a fair, workable and lasting settlement of the maritime boundary issue because, however the process concludes, Thailand and Cambodia will remain neighbours.

The government said the dispute should be resolved properly rather than leaving the conflict to future generations.

Thailand’s national interests, sovereignty and legitimate rights nevertheless had to be fully protected throughout the process.

Ekkapob concluded that Sihasak’s position before the Commission reflected the government’s core principles.

According to those principles, Thailand did not seek to invade any country, obtain another country’s territory or create conflict with a neighbour.

The government sought only to safeguard Thailand’s lawful rights under international law.

He said Thailand chooses peace, but not at the cost of sovereignty.

Thailand also chooses dialogue, but dialogue must be based on facts.

The country is ready to be a good neighbour, but when allegations do not accord with the facts, Thailand has a duty to provide clarification and fully protect the country.

This, Ekkapob said, is the Thai government’s position.