PUBLISHED: 4 Sep 2024 at 17: 48
A petition asking for a decision on whether the Thai-Cambodian memorandum of understanding from 2001 regarding combined development in the Gulf of Thailand is in violation of the Thai Constitution was rejected on Wednesday.
Deputy Palang Pracharath Party head Paiboon Nititawan , lodged the complaint, which claimed the 2001 MoU had not been approved by parliament before it was signed.
It was used by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs to bargain coastal matters with Cambodia.
Mr. Paiboon claimed that the controversy violated his legal rights, and he requested that the Constitutional Court get both parties to end their discussions.
According to the judges ‘ decision, the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs ‘ documents and evidence to the court indicated that the issue involved the state’s obligations as outlined in Chapter 5 of the charter.
The judges argued that the actions taken by the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not support Mr. Paiboon’s state that they had violated his rights. Additionally, the judges made the case that Mr. Paiboon’s state was only his personal opinion of the MoU’s legality.
The judge ruled 6: 3 to reject the plea because it did not meet the requirements set forth in Section 46 of the laws governing court techniques. The lot courts were Nakharin Mektrairat, Panya Udchachon, Udom Sittiwirattham, Wiroon Saengthian, Banjong Wongprat and Udom Rathamarit.
After the Ombudsman failed to forward his request for courtroom action within the 60-day distribution date, Mr. Paiboon submitted the complaint to the judge in the middle of June.
He claimed when he submitted the complaint that the office and the government continued to use it as a guide to the 26 000 square kilometers of regional waters in the Gulf of Thailand, which Thailand has independence over, despite earlier acknowledging that the MoU had never won parliamentary acceptance.
But, Maris Sangiampongsa, the country’s foreign minister, has defended the MoU, claiming it was not a convention, had no binding provisions, and that there was no agreement between the two countries.
Mr. Maris argued that the MoU had no duty and did not deal Thailand’s sovereignty over an OCA on Koh Kood in the border state of Trat.