File photo for reference only

 

Thailand's Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul confirmed on December 30, 2025, that the country is adhering to a 72-hour ceasefire agreement with Cambodia, though results from an official assessment are still awaited. The ceasefire, aimed at easing tensions along the border, was agreed to under a joint statement between the two nations. Anutin, also serving as Interior Minister, emphasized Thailand's commitment to the agreement, pending a formal evaluation of its outcomes.

 

The Prime Minister addressed criticism from Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen, who opposed Thailand's action of planting a flag in contested territory. Anutin stated that the decision was made with confidence that the area belongs to Thailand, and dismissed external comments as inconsequential to Thailand's stance. While questions about the release of prisoners of war remained unanswered, Anutin noted that the matter is under official review.

 

Foreign Minister Sihasak Phuangketkeow reported improvements along the Thai-Cambodian border following the ceasefire during a briefing at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He detailed plans to discuss developments with foreign diplomats, focusing on the General Border Committee (GBC) process and recent discussions with Chinese and Cambodian foreign ministers. Sihasak mentioned China's supportive stance for peace and resumption of normal relations between Thailand and Cambodia.

 

Additionally, Minister Sihasak addressed an incident involving a Thai soldier injured by a landmine, which was reported to China's foreign minister. He reiterated Thailand's commitment to the ceasefire and emphasized the importance of mutual adherence to the agreement by all parties involved. The incident's details, including the mine's origin, are under investigation, and dialogues continue to ensure it does not influence ongoing peace efforts, reported The Nation.

 

Key Takeaways

• Thailand confirms compliance with a ceasefire with Cambodia despite pending assessment results.
• Cambodia criticizes Thailand's flag-planting in disputed territory; Thailand stands firm on its territorial claim.
• Foreign Minister highlights improved border situation and ongoing diplomatic discussions.

 

Related Stories

Thailand Slams Hun Sen for 'Scammer-Style' Tactics

Hun Sen slams Thai goods burning as ‘extremist’ stunt

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Nation 2025-12-30

 

 

 

It is not Thai land... and it is rejected already many times that the border is as it is now and not as Thailand like it to be

14 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

it is rejected

By whom, and why?

How far back does Anutin want to go? Last week? To early last century when Thailand controlled land that is now part of Cambodia? To the time when Pattani and Lanna were independent lands ruled by non-Thai royal families? To the time when lands between about Lopburi and eastern Thailand were all under the control of the Angkor Empire? Of course, this regional history is not taught in Thai schools is it? Of course the 800-900 year old Preah Vihear Temple was deemed in 1962 by the independent International Court of Justice to be Khmer, not Thai, as the Court examined all the historical evidence, not just the official Thai version of its history.

16 minutes ago, JimHuaHin said:

How far back does Anutin want to go? Last week? To early last century when Thailand controlled land that is now part of Cambodia? To the time when Pattani and Lanna were independent lands ruled by non-Thai royal families? To the time when lands between about Lopburi and eastern Thailand were all under the control of the Angkor Empire? Of course, this regional history is not taught in Thai schools is it? Of course the 800-900 year old Preah Vihear Temple was deemed in 1962 by the independent International Court of Justice to be Khmer, not Thai, as the Court examined all the historical evidence, not just the official Thai version of its history.

Well, this is Thailand.

We can't let the truth and facts get in the way of a good saga!

1 hour ago, JimHuaHin said:

How far back does Anutin want to go? Last week? To early last century when Thailand controlled land that is now part of Cambodia? To the time when Pattani and Lanna were independent lands ruled by non-Thai royal families? To the time when lands between about Lopburi and eastern Thailand were all under the control of the Angkor Empire?

Alternatively you could go back, say, 225 years to 1800, before British & French imperialism appeared in the region. At that stage the Thai empire included the WHOLE of what is now Cambodia, the WHOLE of what is now Laos, some bits of what is now Vietnam & a biggish slice in the north-west of what is now Myanmar ...

My point is that ALL of these 'looking backs' are irrelevant. Depending how far back you go, you get a different answer.

So in the real world of international relations - just ask the Chinese or the Russians - you start with where we're at now & you try to move things forward in your favour. And you can't please all the people all the time.

I've never liked and I've never believed anything Anutin has said. I've always believed that he's nothing but toxic and never has had the interests of the Thai people at heart, however I will always side with him over Hun Sen (or his horrific son) who a genocidal, serial killing, thieving, drug dealing, land grabbing super freak, who is pathologically insane.

2 hours ago, Unamerican said:

By whom, and why?

If you would know a little bit of the situation you should know that the latest claim this year and as in 1961 was rejected by the International Court of Justice, but Thailand does not recognize this institution.. So if you don't accept any ruling in your disadvantage you can do as you want, as they will only accept that Thailand will get the land.. but it is stated that in 1907 Thailand did not claim another border..

2 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

How far back does Anutin want to go? Last week? To early last century when Thailand controlled land that is now part of Cambodia? To the time when Pattani and Lanna were independent lands ruled by non-Thai royal families? To the time when lands between about Lopburi and eastern Thailand were all under the control of the Angkor Empire? Of course, this regional history is not taught in Thai schools is it? Of course the 800-900 year old Preah Vihear Temple was deemed in 1962 by the independent International Court of Justice to be Khmer, not Thai, as the Court examined all the historical evidence, not just the official Thai version of its history.

16 hours ago, ikke1959 said:

It is not Thai land... and it is rejected already many times that the border is as it is now and not as Thailand like it to be

All the dislike have no clue what is going on.. Maybe they should inform themselves and see that Thailand does not accept any ruling against the change of the border as it was made in 1907.. It will only accept if they get the land, but there for maybe Thailand should first recognize the International Court of Justice as who else can decide to change the border??

AI Overview

While many nations accept the

International Court of Justice's (ICJ) authority, several prominent countries, including China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, and Thailand, have not fully accepted its compulsory jurisdiction or have significant reservations, often preferring bilateral talks or avoiding cases where rulings might challenge their sovereignty or security interests, meaning they don't always comply with ICJ judgments, as seen with the U.S. and Nicaragua or Thailand and Cambodia. 

Countries That Don't Fully Accept Compulsory Jurisdiction

• United States (U.S.): Withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after a ruling against it in the Nicaragua v. United States case, though it remains a UN member.

• China, Russia: Major powers that have not filed declarations accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction, preferring to handle disputes through other channels.

• India & Pakistan: Both have made declarations but with reservations, particularly concerning national security or disputes with Commonwealth members, limiting the Court's reach.

• Thailand: Actively rejects ICJ jurisdiction in favor of bilateral mechanisms, as seen in border disputes with Cambodia, choosing not to comply with rulings it disagrees with.

• Israel, Iraq, Qatar, Libya: These nations have not signed declarations recognizing the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction, opting out of automatic acceptance.

• Mexico & Saudi Arabia: Also listed among major states that have not filed declarations for compulsory jurisdiction. 

Why Countries Avoid or Reject Jurisdiction

• Sovereignty Concerns: Many nations, like Thailand, fear losing control over their own legal processes and national interests.

• Political & Security Interests: Powerful states often avoid ICJ scrutiny on matters of national security or critical geopolitical issues.

• Preference for Other Methods: Some countries, such as Thailand, prefer resolving issues through established bilateral committees or treaties rather than international courts. 

Key Point: A country's status as a UN member doesn't automatically mean it accepts the ICJ's jurisdiction; jurisdiction is often based on specific declarations, treaties, or if a state consents to a particular case, making compliance inconsistent. 

43 minutes ago, Scouse123 said:

AI Overview

While many nations accept the

International Court of Justice's (ICJ) authority, several prominent countries, including China, Russia, the United States, India, Israel, and Thailand, have not fully accepted its compulsory jurisdiction or have significant reservations, often preferring bilateral talks or avoiding cases where rulings might challenge their sovereignty or security interests, meaning they don't always comply with ICJ judgments, as seen with the U.S. and Nicaragua or Thailand and Cambodia. 

Countries That Don't Fully Accept Compulsory Jurisdiction

• United States (U.S.): Withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after a ruling against it in the Nicaragua v. United States case, though it remains a UN member.

• China, Russia: Major powers that have not filed declarations accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction, preferring to handle disputes through other channels.

• India & Pakistan: Both have made declarations but with reservations, particularly concerning national security or disputes with Commonwealth members, limiting the Court's reach.

• Thailand: Actively rejects ICJ jurisdiction in favor of bilateral mechanisms, as seen in border disputes with Cambodia, choosing not to comply with rulings it disagrees with.

• Israel, Iraq, Qatar, Libya: These nations have not signed declarations recognizing the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction, opting out of automatic acceptance.

• Mexico & Saudi Arabia: Also listed among major states that have not filed declarations for compulsory jurisdiction. 

Why Countries Avoid or Reject Jurisdiction

• Sovereignty Concerns: Many nations, like Thailand, fear losing control over their own legal processes and national interests.

• Political & Security Interests: Powerful states often avoid ICJ scrutiny on matters of national security or critical geopolitical issues.

• Preference for Other Methods: Some countries, such as Thailand, prefer resolving issues through established bilateral committees or treaties rather than international courts. 

Key Point: A country's status as a UN member doesn't automatically mean it accepts the ICJ's jurisdiction; jurisdiction is often based on specific declarations, treaties, or if a state consents to a particular case, making compliance inconsistent. 

As is often the case with "AI", this is wrong. Thailand has refused to attend the ICJ after its rulings on Preah Vihear, saying they don't recognize its authority in further border disputes. Thailand has, however, not violated the existing rulings awarding the Preah Vihear temple and its immediate surrounding area to Cambodia. Hence, why Thailand is no longer present in said area.

Cambodia is now claiming a much larger area around the temple, and Thailand has refused attending the ICJ again to settle this claim. But that does not mean that Thailand has "chosen not to comply with" earlier rulings.

14 hours ago, JimHuaHin said:

How far back does Anutin want to go? Last week? To early last century when Thailand controlled land that is now part of Cambodia? To the time when Pattani and Lanna were independent lands ruled by non-Thai royal families? To the time when lands between about Lopburi and eastern Thailand were all under the control of the Angkor Empire? Of course, this regional history is not taught in Thai schools is it? Of course the 800-900 year old Preah Vihear Temple was deemed in 1962 by the independent International Court of Justice to be Khmer, not Thai, as the Court examined all the historical evidence, not just the official Thai version of its history.

17 wars with Burma. Thailand won one. 16 not in Thai history books

15 minutes ago, chondan said:

17 wars with Burma. Thailand won one. 16 not in Thai history books

Do you have a source for that information?