1. A Ceasefire Is Not a Settlement
One year after the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration, the central question is no longer simply whether Cambodia and Thailand have agreed to peace, but whether their commitments are being implemented on the ground. A ceasefire can stop gunfire without resolving a boundary dispute. Diplomatic statements can express good intentions without ensuring that displaced civilians can return home safely.
For Cambodia, the continuing reported displacement of border communities and allegations of military construction in disputed areas raise serious questions about the practical meaning of the peace process. These concerns deserve careful scrutiny — not because allegations should automatically be accepted as established facts, but because agreements between states must be assessed against their implementation.
The objective should not be to inflame nationalist sentiment or prejudge territorial claims. It should be to establish the facts, uphold the agreements, protect civilians and ensure that neither side treats temporary military advantage as a substitute for a lawful and negotiated settlement.
2. The Commitments and the Reality on the Ground
Signed on October 26, 2025, the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration reaffirmed both countries’ commitments to peaceful dispute settlement, respect for international law and boundaries, and implementation of agreed de-escalation measures. It also recognised the ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) and the existing bilateral mechanisms for addressing border-related issues.
The Joint Statement of the Third Special General Border Committee (GBC), signed on December 27, 2025, provided more specific commitments. These included maintaining existing troop deployments without further movement, resuming survey and demarcation through the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC), and enabling displaced civilians to return safely, without obstruction and with dignity. It also required restraint from provocative actions and called on both sides to refrain from constructing or enhancing military infrastructure or fortifications beyond their respective territories.
These provisions matter because peace is not merely the absence of active hostilities. It also requires restraint, predictability, respect for agreed procedures and practical measures that restore civilian life.
The legal question is therefore whether conduct reported after the ceasefire is consistent with the commitments both governments accepted. That question must be answered through evidence and the relevant agreements, not rhetoric alone.
3. Displacement and Continuing Allegations
The humanitarian consequences remain deeply concerning.
On September 17, 2026, Cambodia’s Ministry of National Defence reported that 3,318 families, comprising 13,259 people, in Banteay Meanchey province remained unable to return to their homes. The ministry attributed the situation to extensive damage caused by bombardment, airstrikes and artillery fire, as well as what it described as occupation by Thai military forces.
On October 7, 2026, Cambodian authorities reported that 1,114 civilians, belonging to 357 families, remained unable to return to their homes in the An Ses area of Preah Vihear province. The ministry alleged that Thai military personnel had deployed shipping containers, installed barbed wire, dug trenches and constructed fortifications, alongside damage to houses, infrastructure and civilian property.
These are serious allegations published by Cambodian authorities. Their attribution must remain clear: the reports do not, by themselves, constitute a final independent determination of every alleged incident, its precise location, or its legal character. Nevertheless, the reported scale of continuing displacement demands a substantive response and credible verification.
Behind every figure are families whose homes, livelihoods, education and sense of security have been disrupted. Their right to return cannot be reduced to a secondary matter to be addressed only after diplomatic relations improve. Safe and voluntary return is itself an essential measure of whether peace is taking hold.
Both governments should facilitate impartial verification, protect civilians and publish reliable information about affected areas. Where breaches are established, the responsible party should take appropriate corrective measures.
4. Military Infrastructure Cannot Replace Law
The reports of containers, trenches, barbed wire and fortifications raise a fundamental issue: physical control does not, by itself, establish lawful territorial title.
A military position may demonstrate effective presence on the ground. It does not automatically determine the international boundary or resolve competing legal claims. Territorial questions must be assessed under the applicable treaties, boundary instruments, maps, records, relevant historical evidence and principles of international law.
Cambodia and Thailand have an established framework for addressing these questions, including the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary. That framework provides for joint technical work and peaceful consultation. The December 2025 GBC Joint Statement further directs the two countries to resume survey and demarcation through the JBC at the earliest opportunity.
It is equally important to avoid assuming that every physical structure or change on the ground necessarily constitutes a legal violation. The location of the activity, the status of the area, the applicable agreement and the available evidence all matter.
However, where military infrastructure is established or strengthened in territory belonging to the other state, or in circumstances inconsistent with agreed restraint, the issue cannot be dismissed merely because the structures are now physically present. Nor should the passage of time or the construction of additional fortifications be treated as a substitute for lawful boundary settlement.
The governing principle must be that territorial claims are resolved through law and agreed procedures, not unilateral faits accomplis.
5. The JBC: A Practical Test of Genuine Progress
Resuming the JBC is one of the clearest practical steps available to both governments. It is not a symbolic concession to either side. It is a bilateral mechanism designed to address the technical work necessary to clarify and demarcate the boundary.
Thailand has raised concerns about the security conditions required for effective JBC work, including landmine risks and threats in border areas. Such concerns should be taken seriously. Survey teams must be able to work safely, and humanitarian demining and technical boundary work must be coordinated appropriately.
But security concerns should prompt practical arrangements, not indefinite delay. The two sides can identify priority areas, agree on safety protocols, coordinate demining where necessary and establish a transparent timetable for technical work.
The JBC will not, by itself, resolve every question concerning sovereignty, military conduct or civilian return. Its importance lies in reducing uncertainty and providing a structured process for addressing boundary questions. A clearer, jointly surveyed and demarcated boundary can help both countries prevent future disputes and assess subsequent allegations of incursions against a more reliable geographic reference.
An uncertain boundary invites recurring disputes; a jointly surveyed and demarcated boundary gives both countries a clearer basis for preventing and resolving them.
Progress should therefore be measured by concrete outcomes: meetings convened, technical work resumed, priority areas agreed and verifiable steps taken to reduce tension. Neither government should use the JBC as a public-relations instrument while allowing the practical process to remain stalled.
6. The AOT and the Right of Return
The ASEAN Observer Team has an important but defined role. Under the peace arrangements, it supports observation and verification of agreed measures. It can help establish a more reliable picture of developments, reduce the risk of miscalculation and build confidence between the parties.
The AOT is not a substitute for the JBC, nor is it a tribunal empowered to decide territorial sovereignty. Its effectiveness depends on access, cooperation, credible reporting and the willingness of both governments to respond to verified findings.
The reported field visits to displaced communities demonstrate why continued observation matters. Yet observation alone cannot restore homes, reopen livelihoods or make unsafe areas habitable. Where civilians cannot return, the authorities should identify the specific obstacles, assess safety conditions, and establish a practical process for return and recovery.
The right of return must be treated as a substantive peace commitment, not a diplomatic aspiration. Any return must be safe and voluntary, supported by adequate information and appropriate protection from mines, unexploded ordnance and other hazards. Where homes or essential infrastructure have been damaged, recovery measures are also necessary.
Both countries should cooperate with the AOT and relevant humanitarian bodies to establish facts, facilitate civilian protection and prevent further deterioration.
7. Accountability Without Escalation
A credible peace process requires accountability, but accountability must be evidence-based. If reliable evidence establishes that a party has breached an applicable obligation, the breach should be addressed through the agreed mechanisms and relevant rules of international law.
The legal consequences depend on the obligation involved, attribution, the facts established and the applicable legal framework; they should not be presumed in advance.
Public communication matters too. The Kuala Lumpur Declaration calls on both sides to refrain from disseminating false information, accusations and harmful rhetoric. This obligation should encourage greater accuracy and transparency, not silence legitimate concerns. Responsible reporting requires distinguishing confirmed facts from allegations, publishing supporting evidence where possible, and correcting inaccuracies when they arise.
Cambodia can firmly defend its territorial integrity and the interests of displaced citizens while maintaining a disciplined, legally grounded position. Thailand should be held to the same standard. Neither side benefits from inflammatory claims that make negotiation politically harder or encourage the public to regard every disputed incident as proof of hostile intent.
The strongest position is one supported by agreements, verifiable evidence, consistent legal reasoning and a clear willingness to use peaceful mechanisms.
Peace Must Be Implemented
The first anniversary of the Kuala Lumpur Joint Declaration should be a moment for honest assessment. The commitments made in October and December 2025 established a framework for de-escalation, boundary work, observation and civilian return. Their credibility now depends on implementation.
The continuing displacement reported by Cambodian authorities and allegations of military infrastructure in affected border areas warrant serious investigation and transparent verification. If violations are established, they require appropriate correction. If particular claims cannot be substantiated, they should be revised accordingly. Neither silence nor premature judgment serves the cause of peace.
Resuming the JBC, strengthening the AOT’s verification role, addressing legitimate security concerns and facilitating safe civilian return are practical steps available now. They would help replace uncertainty with evidence and confrontation with a process governed by agreed rules.
Peace cannot be measured by signatures alone, nor can territorial title be established by fortifications alone. A durable settlement requires both countries to respect their commitments, resolve boundary questions through lawful procedures and restore the conditions in which civilians can live without fear.
For Cambodia and Thailand, the real test of the Kuala Lumpur agreement is not whether peace has been declared, but whether it is being implemented — consistently, verifiably and in good faith.
Long Panhavuth is founder and attorney-at-law at Pan & Associates Lawfirm. The views and opinions expressed are his own.