Cambodia's decision to seek compulsory conciliation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) has fundamentally changed the way the two neighbors will handle their maritime dispute.
From now on, Thailand and Cambodia must pursue their claims through an international legal process rather than through direct negotiations.
Thailand has made clear that it preferred a bilateral approach. At the press conference on Friday, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow reiterated that the two countries should have exhausted negotiations before moving to compulsory conciliation.
He said direct talks offer greater flexibility and allow both sides to seek practical compromises and solutions.
But Phnom Penh decided to take a different approach, and with a rather unusual demeanor. Cambodia formally notified Thailand and the UN on June 2 of its decision, but only after it had already announced the move publicly.
It was a breach of diplomatic courtesy. Sihasak, who will head the UNCLOS team, also rejects suggestions that Thailand was forced into the process.
He stressed that Thailand entered the proceedings fully aware of its implications and confident in its legal position. In addition, Bangkok has already appointed two international legal experts to represent the country.
Their names will be announced after Cabinet approval. Cambodia, he pointed out, bypassed voluntary conciliation and proceeded directly to the compulsory process, claiming no avenue for negotiations remained.
Thailand also rejected Phnom Penh's proposal to extend the process to joint development arrangements if maritime boundary talks failed.
The current framework is focused solely on maritime boundary delimitation. As such, the joint development issue will require a separate process.
At this juncture, both countries must face the reality that the dispute has entered a new phase. Cambodia chose to bypass bilateral negotiations and invoke UNCLOS procedures.
Therefore, the issue has shifted to a legal contest on maritime boundary delimitation. It is no longer about broader political considerations.
This trajectory is bad news on both sides of the border, as it risks freezing progress in the relations across all fronts. It also does not bode well with the pledges made by Anutin and Prime Minister Hun Manet at the 48th ASEAN Summit in Cebu early last month.
They agreed to rebuild trust and resolve differences through dialogue and improve ties step by step.
In a related development, Anutin said Thailand's priority was protecting its sovereignty and national interests, adding that the country did not need to seek international legitimacy because it had acted within its rights.
He stressed that Thailand would continue work under the 2000 MOU on land border demarcation, which is more than 60 percent complete.
He said that future discussions with Cambodia will be confined to the UNCLOS process without any parallel talks while border checkpoints remaining closed. Attention will now likely turn to preparations for a lengthy conciliation process.
Sihasak said he does not know how long it will take. Obviously, the longer it takes, the more damage incurred for both countries, which share deep economic and social ties.
Over the past one year, border trade, tourism, investment, and cross-border activities have all been disrupted. They have to bear high economic cost.
The truth is that the arbitration itself offers no guarantee of a final settlement. UN arbitration can take years. Its recommendations ultimately depend on political acceptance.
If either side rejects the outcome or disputes its implementation, the two countries could find themselves back at square one, once again searching for a negotiated solution.
Ironically, this is the situation both countries are now facing. Thailand wanted bilateral negotiations first, while Cambodia chose an international pathway.
Now both sides must work within the UNCLOS framework, even though the process may eventually lead them back to the negotiating table.
One caveat is in order. The two countries must not allow a single dispute to dominate the entire spectrum of their relationship.
They still have time to find common ground and ameliorate ties. After all, they cannot run from one another while defending national interests.
