In view of the recent debate between Thailand and the United Nations regarding the conclusions drawn by UN Special Rapporteur Tom Andrews after the Cambodia–Thailand border crisis, it becomes clear that the current situation presents much more than just another instance of international diplomacy at play. Rather, the ongoing problem of balancing state sovereignty and international responsibility in the face of growing interstate conflicts is coming to light.
Following his visit to Cambodia, Andrews raised humanitarian concerns regarding the consequences of the crisis, including ongoing displacement and the need to facilitate the safe and voluntary return of the affected civilians. As reported, there were 65,000 Cambodian people displaced, and at least 20,000 were still displaced even months after the end of the ceasefire, thus proving that humanitarian repercussions could follow the cessation of hostilities. The visit itself was made within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Procedures – an independent mechanism aimed at collecting evidence, engaging with the government and providing recommendations.
Some parts of the assessment, however, were disputed by the Thai government on account of the report being inexact, biased and not adequately representing the views of Bangkok. In its official response, Thailand questioned the assessment of the number and status of displaced Cambodians and argued that UN Special Procedures should uphold independence, impartiality and objectivity while considering credible and verifiable information and the perspectives of all sides.
Andrews was quick to point out that the Thai authorities were given the chance to review a draft of the relevant section before the statement was issued. According to Cambodianess, Andrews said that he sent the Thai government an advance draft two days before the statement was issued but received no response. He nevertheless said that he remained open to engaging with the Thai government’s perspective.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
Sovereignty and International Responsibility
It is not uncommon for differences to arise between the government and the United Nations experts. Governments have every right to refute the factual errors, provide supporting documents and present their views. The international mechanisms, on the other hand, need to prove their credibility through professionalism and political neutrality.
The problem here is not about whether the governments will agree with all of the United Nations assessments. It is about whether the governments are still ready to engage in constructive dialogue with the international mechanisms.
This is important because international accountability involves cooperation rather than coercion. UN special rapporteurs do not have the capacity to force governments into action. Their power lies in their access and dialogue and willingness of states to engage in these processes in good faith. International bodies are strengthened when there is engagement with governments on the evidence presented. If independent analysis is rejected in the absence of any form of dialogue, trust in the larger international system will begin to erode.
This is not unique to the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute. The world over, the increasing trend is that of governments using issues of sovereignty, national security or questions of objectivity in response to international scrutiny. Sovereignty is an important principle of international law and continues to play an important role in it. However, it needs to be recognized that since the signing of the UN Charter, sovereignty has been accompanied by the acceptance of international obligations through treaties, multilateral institutions and international law.
A New Test: From Bilateral Disagreement to International Conciliation
A more recent development in the Cambodia–Thailand relationship provides another perspective on this question. In May 2026, Thailand’s Cabinet approved the termination of the 2001 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU 44), which had provided a bilateral framework for addressing the two countries’ overlapping maritime claims in the Gulf of Thailand. Thailand said the move was intended to shift the process toward the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), rather than to end negotiations.
For Cambodia, however, the termination removed the long-standing bilateral framework for addressing the overlapping maritime claims. Cambodia subsequently announced that it would pursue compulsory conciliation under UNCLOS as a peaceful, rules-based mechanism for resolving the dispute.
The subsequent constitution of a Conciliation Commission by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) provides an important and timely example of how sovereignty and international accountability can coexist. Rather than abandoning its national interests, Cambodia has sought to use an established international mechanism after the bilateral framework was terminated. The PCA itself provides services for international dispute resolution, including mediation and conciliation.
This development is significant because international accountability does not necessarily require states to surrender sovereignty. States can defend their national interests while using international institutions to manage disagreements, clarify legal positions and pursue peaceful settlement.
What This Means for ASEAN
This presents an interesting dilemma for ASEAN.
The organization has always relied on the concepts of sovereignty, consensus and non-intervention, which were set out in the ASEAN Charter, to maintain regional stability among diverse members states politically. The concepts have worked well in the region. Nevertheless, the region today finds itself in a much more complex strategic environment defined by interstate disputes, geopolitical rivalry and demands concerning humanitarian protection and adherence to international law.
The dispatch of the ASEAN Observer Team to monitor the ceasefire between Cambodia and Thailand illustrates how ASEAN’s role in confidence building and preventive diplomacy has been increasing. According to the news posted at Cambodianess, ASEAN observers have already visited the affected regions and examined the damage done to civilians’ property. In addition, the Secretary-General of ASEAN, Kao Kim Hourn, has stressed that this is a critical moment to intensify peace efforts to bring peace to Cambodia and Thailand.
The Importance of Independent Verification
However, the observer mission also underscores the shortcomings in the institutional capacity of ASEAN. Due to lack of technical ability and independent verification process, along with adequate political backing, regional monitoring alone will be insufficient for tackling humanitarian and accountability problems associated with modern interstate warfare. ASEAN must continue to lead in regional diplomacy, but this does not imply that ASEAN has to do this alone. Cooperation with the UN and other international players could aid ASEAN efforts through technical assistance, humanitarian observation, satellite photography, post-conflict assessment and independent verification without undermining ASEAN centrality.
Independent verification of information has assumed increasing importance in recent times. Apart from official statements and witness reports, satellite imagery and open source analysis have become indispensable in creating reliable facts amidst conflicting accounts. Recently, the report of Cambodianess brought back attention to the destruction of border areas in Cambodia by analyzing publicly available satellite imagery. This is not meant to replace investigation procedures, but to increase transparency, minimize misinformation and help evidence-based responses to humanitarian and diplomatic problems.
Ceasefires Are Only the Beginning
The Cambodia-Thailand border conflict further illustrates that putting an end to the fighting is just a start to the peace process. As I have already explained in the article published in The Diplomat and Lowy Institute’s The Interpreter, ceasefires open up possibilities for peace but by themselves they do not ensure the sustainability of the peace process. Sustainable peace is achieved through building confidence, transparency, accountability and effective institutions that can handle disputes without resorting to use of force.
The recent PCA development reinforces this point. The use of an international conciliation mechanism demonstrates that international institutions can provide an additional channel for states to pursue their interests peacefully when bilateral mechanisms become difficult to sustain. It does not replace diplomacy; rather, it can provide another institutional pathway for diplomacy and dispute settlement.
Beyond the Sovereignty–Accountability Divide
Southeast Asia thus confronts a decision that goes far beyond a single dispute of the border kind.
Southeast Asia need not have to choose between national sovereignty and international accountability. Responsible and self-confident states are supposed to be capable of defending their national interests and working constructively with independent international mechanisms.
The recent debate surrounding the UN Special Rapporteur demonstrates that international accountability will always involve disagreement over facts, methodology and interpretation. The Cambodia–Thailand maritime dispute, meanwhile, shows that states can turn to international mechanisms when bilateral arrangements no longer provide an adequate framework. These are not contradictory developments. Together, they demonstrate why credible international institutions and constructive state engagement are both necessary.
As interstate rivalries become more complicated and humanitarian costs begin to receive international interest, maintaining faith in international accountability may prove just as crucial as maintaining cease-fires. The future credibility of ASEAN will not only be determined by the organization’s success at preventing conflicts but also by its readiness to cooperate with international institutions in creating a more accountable regional order.
The choice for Southeast Asia should therefore not be between sovereignty and accountability. The greater challenge is to ensure that sovereignty becomes a means of responsible international engagement rather than a barrier to it.
