Security Cannot Become a Precondition for Law

Thailand's argument that the 'proper foundations' must first be established before meaningful border work can proceed may sound reasonable at first glance. But it raises a fundamental question: who decides when those conditions have been met, and can one party use them to delay the very mechanisms designed to resolve the dispute? Cambodia's position is straightforward. Security, demining, the fight against transnational crime, ceasefire implementation and boundary work are all important. But these obligations must be implemented in their entirety, in good faith and within their respective legal and institutional frameworks. No single issue should be selectively elevated into a precondition for another. The ceasefire must be implemented as a whole The December 27, 2025 Joint Statement should not be read selectively. Its purpose is de-escalation, the prevention of further confrontation and the creation of conditions for a peaceful resolution. Its commitments must therefore be implemented together-not extracted individually to justify unilateral actions or delay existing bilateral mechanisms. Most importantly, a ceasefire arrangement is not a boundary treaty. It does not determine sovereignty. It does not redraw an international boundary. And it cannot convert a military position established on the ground into a new territorial status. The border must be determined through the applicable treaties, maps, agreements, established boundary mechanisms and international law-not through military presence, barbed wire, containers, roads, fortifications or flags. Demining cannot become unilateral boundary-making Cambodia fully recognises the humanitarian imperative of mine clearance. Few countries understand the consequences of landmines more profoundly than Cambodia. But there is an essential distinction between humanitarian demining conducted through agreed mechanisms and unilateral activity undertaken in areas where sovereignty or the precise boundary location is contested or in Cambodian territory. Joint demining requires coordination. It cannot mean that one side enters an area unilaterally, determines where it believes the boundary lies, clears mines there, establishes a physical presence and then invokes that presence as the new reality on the ground. That would reverse the proper legal sequence. The law determines where the border is; unilateral actions on the ground do not determine the law. Transnational crime must not be conflated with territorial questions Cambodia also rejects any attempt to merge transnational crime with questions of territorial sovereignty. Online scams, human trafficking and organised crime are serious transnational challenges requiring law-enforcement cooperation among Cambodia, Thailand and other countries in the region. But fighting crime does not confer territorial rights. If criminal activity exists, governments should exchange intelligence, investigate suspects, prosecute offenders and cooperate through competent law-enforcement mechanisms. Military occupation, territorial consolidation or the erection of physical barriers cannot be justified as instruments of anti-scam policy. The legal question is simple: What provision of international law allows the fight against online scams to alter an international boundary? There is none. The JBC is part of the solution, not a reward for solving everything else first Thailand argues that technical border work requires sufficiently safe conditions. Safety is obviously important. But this reasoning should not be transformed into an indefinite sequencing doctrine: first eliminate every security problem, then conduct boundary work. In many border disputes, uncertainty over the boundary itself contributes to insecurity. Boundary mechanisms therefore form part of the solution. The Joint Boundary Commission exists precisely so that disagreements over the land boundary can be addressed through technical work, agreed documents and peaceful negotiations rather than unilateral interpretations on the ground. Security arrangements and boundary work should therefore proceed in parallel and reinforce one another. Otherwise, any unresolved security issue could become a perpetual reason to postpone demarcation. International law cannot be selective but neither can implementation Thailand is correct on one important principle: international law is not an 'à la carte menu'. Cambodia agrees. That principle, however, must apply equally to the prohibition on the use of force, respect for territorial sovereignty, existing treaty obligations, peaceful settlement of disputes and the principle that territorial title cannot be acquired through military force. It must also apply to UNCLOS. Cambodia initiated compulsory conciliation precisely because UNCLOS provides a lawful mechanism for addressing the maritime dispute when bilateral efforts have failed to produce a settlement. Participation in that process should therefore be treated not as an inconvenience imposed by Cambodia, but as an application of the rules that both countries accepted as States Parties to the Convention. Cambodia does not ask Thailand to choose between security and law The real choice is not between security first and law later. Security must operate under law. Cambodia supports ceasefire implementation. Cambodia supports coordinated humanitarian demining. Cambodia supports stronger cooperation against transnational crime. Cambodia supports the JBC. And Cambodia has chosen an UNCLOS mechanism for the peaceful resolution of the maritime dispute. These processes need not obstruct one another. What must be rejected is any proposition that security concerns permit one side to freeze technical negotiations while simultaneously creating new facts on the ground. A durable settlement will indeed require secure ground. But secure ground cannot mean territory secured by one side first and negotiated later. The more sustainable principle is simpler: Stop unilateral actions. Preserve the legal status quo. Implement the ceasefire in full. Allow displaced civilians to return safely. Resume technical boundary work. Conduct agreed demining. Cooperate against transnational crime. And let treaties, established mechanisms and international law – not military facts on the ground – determine the boundary. That is not an obstacle to peace. That is the foundation of peace. Roth Santepheap is described as a geopolitical analyst based in Phnom Penh. The views and opinions expressed are his own.