(Phnom Penh): A Comprehensive International Law Review of Casey Barnett’s Allegations:
Recent allegations raised by Casey Barnett, President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Cambodia, have sparked significant debate at the international level.
Barnett asserts that Thailand is violating the Third Geneva Convention by continuing to detain 18 Cambodian combatants for more than a month after the cessation of hostilities.
He further claims that Thailand deceived the United States regarding its commitments under the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement, signed on 26 October 2025.
This article examines whether these allegations have legal merit under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and international treaty law.
I. Legal Framework Under International Law
1. Geneva Convention III (1950) – Article 118
Article 118 states:
“Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.”
Key implications include:
• “Without delay” means no political conditions may be imposed
• POWs cannot be used as tools of political pressure
• Any extended detention after hostilities cease is strictly prohibited
Therefore, if hostilities between Cambodia and Thailand have ceased but the detention of the 18 Cambodian POWs continues beyond one month, this constitutes a violation.
2. Hague Regulations (1907) – Protection Against Coercion
The Hague Convention IV provides that:
POWs must not be used as instruments of pressure, coercion, or bargaining.
Accordingly, Thailand’s conditions placed on Cambodia—such as requiring Cambodia to:
• withdraw troops,
• conduct landmine clearance,
• reform border management,
• suppress online fraud, or
• reorganize civilian settlements,
cannot legally serve as conditions for POW release.
3. Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement (26 October 2025) – Article 5
Article 5 of the peace agreement states:
“Thailand commits to the expeditious release of Cambodian combatants.”
The term expeditious means:
• immediate,
• unconditional,
• without political bargaining,
• without unnecessary delay.
Under this treaty obligation, Thailand appears not to have fulfilled its commitment.
4. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – Article 26 (Pacta Sunt Servanda)
All international agreements must be carried out in good faith.
If a State:
• delays implementation,
• breaches its commitments, or
• engages in deception,
this constitutes a violation of Article 26.
Thus, if Thailand intentionally delays the release of the POWs, it represents:
• a breach of treaty obligations, and
• a violation of diplomatic good faith.
II. Legal Analysis: Are Barnett’s Allegations Valid?
1. Is Thailand violating the Geneva Conventions? → YES
Based on the established principles of international law:
• Hostilities have ceased;
• Detention has continued beyond a reasonable timeframe;
• Thailand imposed political conditions on Cambodia;
These acts directly contradict Article 118 and may constitute a “grave breach” under Article 130 of the Geneva Conventions.
2. Can Thailand link POW release to political demands? → NO
Thailand reportedly demanded:
• troop withdrawals,
• landmine clearance,
• crackdowns on cyber fraud,
• new resettlement of civilians.
None of these can legally be used as grounds to delay the repatriation of POWs.
POW release is never conditional.
Using POWs as bargaining chips:
• violates International Humanitarian Law (IHL),
• constitutes unlawful coercion,
• may amount to a war crime under grave-breach provisions.
3. Did Thailand breach the Peace Agreement? → YES
Article 5 requires immediate release.
Over one month has passed, yet the 18 Cambodian detainees remain in custody.
This indicates:
• a breach of the peace agreement,
• negotiation in bad faith,
• and valid grounds for UN Security Council involvement under Article 39 (“Threat to Peace”).
4. Did Thailand “deceive the United States”? → LEGALLY, YES
If Thailand:
• signed the peace agreement under U.S. witness,
• committed to immediate release,
• then intentionally delayed release,
this constitutes:
• treaty bad faith,
• misrepresentation, and
• diplomatic deception.
Therefore, Barnett’s claim that Thailand “deceived the United States” is fully supported by international treaty law and norms of diplomatic integrity.
III. International Implications
1. Cambodia gains strong legal grounds
Cambodia may pursue recourse through:
• ASEAN Troika, which plays a crucial role in rapid crisis response
• ASEAN Observer Team (AOT) verification reports
• UN Security Council (Article 39)
• International Court of Justice (ICJ)
• UN Human Rights Council, regarding POW rights and IHL violations
2. Thailand faces legal and diplomatic risks
Thailand may face:
• violations of IHL,
• breach of the peace agreement,
• loss of credibility with the United States,
• heightened diplomatic pressure,
• diminished trust within ASEAN,
• and potential international isolation.
Conclusion
Casey Barnett’s allegations are not merely political assertions; they rest upon solid international legal foundations.
Thailand’s prolonged detention of 18 Cambodian combatants after the cessation of hostilities, combined with its attempt to impose political conditions for their release, clearly violates both the Geneva Conventions and the Kuala Lumpur Peace Agreement.
Under these circumstances, the use of terms such as “violating the Geneva Conventions” and “deceiving the United States” is legally credible and consistent with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and international treaty obligations.
