Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP) Deputy Leader Paiboon Nititawan has taken his concerns about the 2001 Thai-Cambodian memorandum of understanding (MoU) on joint development in the Gulf of Thailand to the Constitutional Court, questioning its alignment with the Thai constitution.

 

Paiboon had initially requested the Ombudsman to petition the court on April 10 but, after the Ombudsman failed to act within the 60-day deadline, he decided to approach the court directly.

 

Paiboon contends that the 2001 MoU was never approved by the Thai parliament before it was signed, rendering it “having no legal effect from inception.” He has asked the court to determine whether the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be held accountable for what he perceives as a constitutional violation.

Despite acknowledging that the MoU lacked parliamentary approval, Paiboon noted that the department and the ministry continue to reference it in matters concerning the 26,000 square kilometres of territorial waters in the Gulf of Thailand, over which Thailand claims sovereignty.

Paiboon has also requested the court to instruct the department and the ministry to cease using the 2001 MoU in their work related to the demarcation of these territorial waters.

 

Paiboon previously stated that if the court ruled the 2001 MoU unconstitutional and without legal effect, based on the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Thailand would be in a stronger position during any future disputes over overlapping claims with Cambodia. He argued that Cambodia frequently cites the 2001 MoU to support its stance that Thailand formally recognised these territorial waters as shared overlapping claims.

 

Foreign Affairs Minister Maris Sangiampongsa earlier clarified that the 2001 Thai-Cambodian MoU is not a treaty and contains no binding clauses. According to Maris, the two governments have not reached any agreements regarding the MoU.

 

“The MoU does not compromise Thailand’s sovereignty over the overlapping claims area (OCA) in Koh Kood in the border province of Trat, as it imposes no obligations.”

 

Pending the court’s decision, several issues remain unresolved, reported Bangkok Post.

 

by Puntid Tantivangphaisal

Photo courtesy of Bangkok Post

 

Source: The Thaiger 2024-06-14

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Seems to be many people with too much time on their hands 

The OCA (overlapping claims area) is home to a lot of oil and gas reserves, which Thailand and Cambodia hope to jointly exploit in the near future. 

 

The sovereignty of the islands will have to be agreed upon by both parties if the development of these oil fields goes ahead.

 

 

Here are a couple of links giving the background and an update on this long disputed (earlier 70s) area. This is all about the potential oil and gas reserves, claimed by both countries.

 

https://www.clc-asia.com/thailand-cambodia-oca/
 

https://www.clc-asia.com/thailand-cambodia-overlapping-claims-area/

 

Area under dispute.

 

 

Simple solution -

it belongs to the country with the most submarines.

18 hours ago, webfact said:

Paiboon contends that the 2001 MoU was never approved by the Thai parliament before it was signed, rendering it “having no legal effect from inception.” He has asked the court to determine whether the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be held accountable for what he perceives as a constitutional violation.

Obviously the MoU is not working in Thailands favour and they now want to dissolve that as well.

Can't help noticing that the notion of long-term neighbourly relations and mutual interests (and shared goodies) seems to be missing.

So if 12 miles off land isn’t that international waters - or am I missing something here? 
that’s why Euro Tunnel took longer as only 23 miles 

if they (whoever) try to land via sea & not registered in the country they’re delivering to 

arrest or sink