(Phnom Penh): As tensions along the Cambodia–Thailand border intensify and diplomatic channels scramble to arrange an urgent online discussion between the leaders of Cambodia and Thailand—expected to include U.S. President Donald Trump, a witness to the Kuala Lumpur Peace Joint Statement—Thailand has chosen an extraordinary moment to dissolve its parliament.

The dissolution, announced only hours before President Trump is scheduled to convene talks aimed at stopping the fighting between Thailand and Cambodia, has startled many diplomatic observers. At first glance, it may look like routine domestic politics. But on closer examination, it appears to be something else: a calculated attempt by Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin to distance himself from responsibility at the very moment accountability is most demanded.

Even with the dissolution of parliament and the reduction of Prime Minister Anutin to a caretaker role, Thailand cannot deny responsibility as a state for actions linked to armed confrontation with Cambodia. The dissolution of parliament is a domestic constitutional procedure; it does not suspend international obligations.

Through this maneuver, Anutin appears to be signaling that he lacks the authority—or the mandate—to order an end to hostilities. But regardless of caretaker status, Anutin remains a representative of the Thai state in international relations and cannot escape the state’s duties and responsibility.

Who Bears International Responsibility—Thailand’s Institutions or the Thai State?

In international relations, responsibility does not rest on parliament, courts, or a cabinet as separate institutions. It rests on the state—the internationally recognized legal entity. Governments may collapse, elections may be pending, and leaders may operate as a “caretaker government,” but a country’s international obligations do not pause simply because domestic politics becomes unstable.

The Battlefield Reality Is What the World Sees

What the international community ultimately responds to is not political excuses, but facts on the ground. Along the border, Thai military forces have continued operations, including deployments of personnel and heavy military assets. Reports and accusations from the Cambodian side describe the use of advanced weaponry and cross-border military activity that, in Cambodia’s view, constitutes incursions into Cambodian territory.

These developments have sharply increased tensions and undermined security along the border, while also raising concerns about the safety of culturally significant areas.

Cambodia has also voiced grave concern that areas near heritage sites—such as Ta Krabey and Preah Vihear, which are associated with world heritage status—have been subjected to bombings and heavy mortar fire, while toxic smoke has also been launched towards nearby Cambodian border villages, further endangering local civilians.

The “No Authority” Argument Cannot Erase State Responsibility

In this context, any claim that the Thai leadership has “no authority to decide”—whether due to internal political turmoil or the dissolution of parliament—cannot erase the international responsibility of a state. As long as a state’s armed forces continue to conduct operations that intensify conflict and instability, state responsibility remains intact and cannot be denied.

This also means that even as a caretaker prime minister, Anutin remains an official representative of the Thai state in international relations. Caretaker status may reduce domestic political flexibility, but it does not cancel international duties or accountability.

The Question Trump Will Ask: “Then Who Has Authority?”

If Anutin tells President Donald Trump that he has no authority—or that responsibility has been transferred to the military—President Trump is unlikely to accept that answer. At the level of presidential diplomacy, the response would be straightforward:
- “Then who has authority?”
- “If you don’t have it, who should I speak to?”

In other words, if Anutin claims he cannot stop the conflict, he is implicitly identifying someone else as the real decision-maker.

If the Military Is Named as Responsible, Pressure Will Intensify

If Anutin says the military “holds authority and responsibility,” international pressure will not decrease—it will shift, and become heavier. Military-to-military pressure would emerge more visibly, with the United States and other actors likely seeking clarity on:
- Who commands operations?
- Who ordered escalation?
- Who can order an immediate stop?

This kind of pressure cannot be hidden behind civilian politics.

If the military is viewed as the true authority that can both direct and halt the conflict, the United States may reassess key dimensions of defense relations with Thailand—ranging from joint training to arms-related cooperation and sensitive security coordination. Thailand’s defense sector has long relied heavily on such relationships, and it would have strong incentives to avoid this level of scrutiny.

Beyond that, multilateral diplomatic pressure, as well as direct pressure from President Trump, could become decisive—potentially forcing Thailand back toward a civilian political track in order to restore clarity, credibility, and accountability in negotiations.

Therefore, Anutin cannot deny responsibility—even if parliament is dissolved by royal decree at his request—because the state remains responsible internationally and the world will still demand a credible authority capable of stopping the violence.

Conclusion

Thailand’s political maneuvering may complicate domestic decision-making, but it cannot erase international responsibility. As long as Thai armed forces remain active along the border and the conflict continues, the world will not focus on who claims to lack authority; it will ask:

“Who is responsible?”

And that answer will not end with a caretaker prime minister insisting he has “no power.” Domestic political change may delay decisions briefly, but it cannot silence the international demand for accountability—nor can it remove the central question the world wants answered: who truly controls state power in Thailand when force is being used?

For these reasons, Anutin’s parliament-dissolution tactic cannot shield Thailand from responsibility on the international stage.