Thailand and Cambodia back maritime settlement but differ over 2001 pact at Singapore talks

Thailand and Cambodia expressed support for a peaceful settlement of their overlapping maritime claims in opening statements in Singapore on September 15, 2026, but differed sharply over the collapse of their 2001 negotiating framework and the diplomatic conduct that brought them to conciliation.

The two countries presented their positions at the first meeting of the Conciliation Commission under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The meeting is scheduled for September 14–16, with consideration of rules of procedure and the framework for subsequent work alongside the opening statements. 

Thailand’s delegation was led by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow, accompanied by representatives from the Foreign Ministry, Royal Thai Navy and Energy Ministry. Cambodia’s delegation was headed by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Prak Sokhonn.

Shared aims centre on peaceful settlement and restored trust

Thailand and Cambodia shared common ground on three issues: international law, with both endorsing international law and UNCLOS as the framework for peacefully addressing their maritime differences; maritime rights, with both supporting a fair and lasting boundary settlement that protects their respective rights; and bilateral relations, with both recognising the proceedings’ importance for their future as neighbours and supporting efforts to rebuild trust and promote peace and prosperity.

The two countries nevertheless offered different explanations for the failure of earlier negotiations and their participation in the current proceedings. Cambodia explicitly proposed interim joint resource development as an alternative to a final boundary agreement. Thailand’s opening statement focused on maritime delimitation and did not expressly endorse that proposal.

Cambodia cites historical experience and termination of the pact

Prak invoked Cambodia’s history, from the Khmer Empire and French colonial rule to war and the Khmer Rouge regime, to explain what he described as the country’s profound appreciation of peace. Those experiences underpinned Cambodia’s commitment to resolving disputes peacefully and without force, he argued.

 

Prak said maritime boundary discussions with Thailand had begun in 1995 and led to the 2001 memorandum of understanding (MOU). He said Thailand publicly announced its unilateral termination of the agreement on May 5, 2026, despite Cambodia’s repeated calls for the pact to be honoured. 

Prak maintained that the termination left Cambodia no alternative but to initiate conciliation under UNCLOS. Cambodia wanted either an agreement establishing a single maritime boundary or an interim arrangement for joint development of resources pending a final boundary settlement.

Prak also cited Cambodia’s experience before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as evidence of its confidence in international institutions and peaceful dispute resolution. He expressed hope that Thailand would participate constructively and that the process would help restore bilateral relations.

Prak linked a peaceful outcome to benefits for both countries and greater stability across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Thailand disputes Cambodia’s account of failed negotiations

Sihasak rejected Cambodia’s portrayal of Thailand as disregarding international law and leaving Phnom Penh without an alternative. He described the assertion that Cambodia had no other option as “simply not true” and “an outright distortion of the facts”. 

Sihasak said the 2001 MOU had produced no concrete progress, with only two rounds of official talks over 25 years. In Thailand’s explanation for ending the framework, the decision was intended to give negotiations a fresh start.

Sihasak said he had proposed direct talks on maritime delimitation, followed by joint participation in conciliation if no agreement emerged within six months. Cambodia had not taken up that option, he said.

Sihasak also accused Cambodia of claiming the moral high ground and portraying itself as a victim internationally. He cited the release of a private telephone conversation involving the countries’ leaders and alleged that Cambodian rockets had struck Thai civilians and that mines laid by Cambodia had caused Thai soldiers to lose their legs.

Sihasak argued that those actions contradicted Cambodia’s stated respect for international law. He further accused Phnom Penh of using bilateral relations for short-term domestic political advantage, which he said had inflamed public sentiment and deepened tensions.

Thailand maintains that Koh Kood’s sovereignty is outside the proceedings

Sihasak said the proceedings concerned only maritime boundary delimitation between Thailand and Cambodia in the Gulf of Thailand. Thailand reaffirmed its maritime position under the 1973 Royal Proclamation, he said.

Sihasak stressed that the conciliation “does not concern sovereignty over land”, including Koh Kood. Thailand also continued to reject Cambodia’s 1972 continental shelf claim line, which Bangkok regarded as lacking a legal basis.

Sihasak said Thailand was participating in good faith and remained ready for realistic negotiations. Diplomacy should help rebuild confidence and find an acceptable settlement, he argued, rather than become a competition for unilateral advantage.

Sihasak called for political will from both sides and expressed hope that Cambodia would work with Thailand towards a lasting solution that would allow future generations to benefit from peace and prosperity.