The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars of ASEAN: the ASEAN Economic Community, the Political and Security Community of ASEAN as well as the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the trade potential and market size of ASEAN countries, whether by opening free trade within the region or promoting mobility of capital and skilled workers. Like the pillars. This means that all three must operate simultaneously, anchoring and stabilizing the structure and strengthening the ASEAN community. However, ASEAN member countries still face problems both within and between regions, e.g. Rohingya Muslims have migrated to southern Myanmar. This also includes Thailand facing a situation of unrest on the southern border, the problem of border demarcation in the disputed areas around the Prasat Khao Phra Viharn temple between Thailand and Cambodia and regional terrorism. Regional conflict is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which has five overlapping sovereign states: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayThe dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and later extends to an adjacent 4.6 km plot of land to the temple premises. This temple was known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thai and Preah Vihear in Cambodia was established in the 11th and 12th centuries during the golden age of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims to Thailand, as the temple's origin belongs to the Khmer empires, but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect the territory that originally belonged to the Thais. The complex and distorted history, exaggerated nationalist sensation and power politics have created a situation far worse and difficult to bring to a proper conclusion. The border between Thailand and Cambodia has not been clearly demarcated and the obligations and pacts signed between the two countries are questionable. The question of where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia is located is still at the heart of the debate today. The current boundary controversy has also continued with the development of two other Hindu temples named Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150 km west of the temple. The genesis of the controversy dates back to the period of the French protectorate and the border pacts. of 1887 and 1893 signed between Siamese and French according to which the Thais had claimed all the territory on the left bank of the Mekong. To escape the Thai government, the Cambodian king requested French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thai and French colonial authorities controlling Cambodia signed pacts according to which the demarcation line would run along the watershed along the part east of Mount Dangrek. The Dangrek was created as a boundary under the Convention signed between France and Siam on October 7, 1902. Under Article 3, a joint commission was constituted by the two persons who studied and declared what boundary will go between the Col de Kel and the Col. of Preah Chambot as well as the Preah Vihear temple area. The Joint Commission report makes no reference to Mount Dangrek. As the commission concluded its final reports, on March 23, 1907, the Siamese and French governments signed pacts together (Pactes entre la France et le Siam avec un protocolconcerning border democracy). Under this contract, the Thais ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap to the French to negotiate Dan-Sai and Krat. The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and prepared for a new topographical map. In 1907, the French authorities had sent nearly 11 cards to the Thai authorities. According to one of the maps produced, the border was drawn with the Namsen and Mekong basins on one side and Nam Mou on the other. This avoided the watershed situating the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thais disputed that the map was not binding because it had not been approved by the joint commission. In 1941, the Thai army took over the provinces of Siem Reap and Battambang. In 1954, they also captured and occupied the territory of Preah Vihear after the withdrawal of the French army from Cambodia. In 1959, Cambodia took the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and filed a complaint against Thailand. Cambodia's first submission to the ICJ stipulated that Thailand should withdraw its armed forces stationed at the temple since 1954. The second was that the ownership of the Preah Vihear temple should belong to Cambodia. On June 15, 1962, the ICJ sought jurisdiction in favor of Cambodia and insisted that the judgment was based on valid maps drawn up during the 1904 and 1907 border agreement that precisely show the temple on Cambodian territory . He also asked Thailand to return all artifacts and antiques to Cambodia. This judgment sparked angry reactions in Thailand. Thailand radically protests against this judgment and declares that the French survey map of 1907 cannot be considered definitive in defining the territorial owners because it is not an official document of the boundary commission and has not been the subject of an audit. the mixed commission contract concluded in 1904. But the ICJ summarizes that the Thai authorities could not provide a clear exception to the maps made by the Cambodians in 1907 nor did they make alternative maps. The court therefore feels obliged to assist the temple property rights in Cambodia. In 1963, the Cambodians of Prince Sihanouk officially took possession of the temple. He announced that Thais would be allowed to visit the temple without a visa. He allowed the Thais to keep the temple artifact despite the ICJ order. Any subsequent negotiations to resolve the dispute failed because Thailand did not fully agree with the ICJ's judgment. Negotiations and agreements on the demarcation and demarcation of the boundary were not successful until 1997. A memorandum of understanding was signed throughout Thailand and Cambodia on June 14, 2000 on the survey and demarcation of the border. As part of the MoU, a Joint Boundary Commission was established to repair the disputed border areas. However, many other contracts and agreements were made, but the agreement took place in 2008. For example, the first ever joint ministerial meeting in 2003, the establishment of the joint sanctuary management committee in March 2004, without achieving to a major development. The aftermath of Thailand's 2011 general election, with Thaksin's Pheu Thai Party coming to power under the leadership of his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, provides hope of repairing broken relations between the two nations. On the contrary, many questions arise about the governments recently voted on at the same time as the settlement of this dispute. As for whether the election results will be enough to change Thailand beyond its bitter division with theCambodia, it is extremely doubtful. With constant admonitions and challenges from the competing party, will Yingluck Shinawatra succeed in overcoming challenges to authority within the country as well as inter-state conflicts? Yingluck's will face the major problem of its competitor. The competitor is already beginning to question the political legitimacy of Yingluck and her crew. Thaksin's visit to Cambodia with Yingluck in August 2011 sparked strong criticism from the Democratic Party. Yingluck is not seen as the country's new leader but as Thaksin's replacement. There has been an ongoing debate in Bangkok that any policies set and executed by the new government would bear the fingerprints of Thaksin Shinawatra. On the one hand, where there is still hope that the relationship between Thaksin and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen will be a positive factor for Yingluck to adjust relations between the countries. There is a constant fear that, like her ancestor Yingluck, she may abandon her country in favor of other bilateral benefits. In February and April 2011, armed conflict between these countries caused a major threat to regional peace and stability. ASEAN must act soon to control such confrontation in the future. If not calmed, the conflict will pose a major challenge to ASEAN's credibility as a regional organization. The two important articles of the ASEAN Charter outline dispute resolution agreements. Article 22 of the Charter states that all ASEAN member countries shall establish and maintain a dispute resolution mechanism. As Article 23 stipulates that disputing members may request ASEAN for mediation, good offices or conciliation, ASEAN is however unable to reach a settlement of the dispute despite repeated efforts . Initiatives taken so far by the ASEAN Chairmanship to mediate between the two countries to resolve the dispute have failed. In line with ASEAN's position, Indonesia proposed in 2011 to the two countries to transport a crew of spectators through the disputed territory. An agreement could not be reached on this point, as the two disputing members did not reach any clear conclusion. As members of ASEAN, Thailand and Cambodia must abide by the rules of their friendship and cooperation pacts. This pact stipulates that all ASEAN members must peacefully resolve interstate disputes and avoid the use of threat of force between states. However, ASEAN members have so far failed to respect the principle of peaceful settlement of disputes. Furthermore, these pacts do not provide any operational protection framework to deal with a crisis situation. However, ASEAN conciliation is essential, under the widespread circumstances, any third-party intervention will be extremely controversial. Panachai K, 1581002332The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars of ASEAN: the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Political and Security Community and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural Community. ASEAN. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the trade potential and market size of ASEAN countries, whether by opening free trade within the region or promoting mobility of capital and skilled workers. Like the pillars. This means that all three must operate simultaneously, anchoring and stabilizing the structure and strengthening the ASEAN community. However, ASEAN member countries still face problems both within and between regions, e.g. Rohingya Muslims have migrated to southern Myanmar. This also includes Thailand facing asituation of unrest on the southern border, the problem of border demarcation in the disputed areas around the Prasat Khao Phra Viharn temple between Thailand and Cambodia and regional terrorism. Regional conflict is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which has five overlapping sovereign states: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines. The dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and then extends to an area of ​​4.6 km. adjacent to the temple premises. This temple was known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thai and Preah Vihear in Cambodia was established in the 11th and 12th centuries during the golden age of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims to Thailand, as the temple's origin belongs to the Khmer empires, but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect the territory that originally belonged to the Thais. The complex and distorted history, exaggerated nationalist sensation and power politics have created a situation far worse and difficult to bring to a proper conclusion. The border between Thailand and Cambodia has not been clearly demarcated and the obligations and pacts signed between the two countries are questionable. The question of where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia is still at the heart of the debate today. The current boundary controversy has also continued with the development of two other Hindu temples named Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150 km west of the temple. The genesis of the controversy dates back to the period of the French protectorate and the border pacts. of 1887 and 1893 signed between Siamese and French according to which the Thais had claimed all the territory on the left bank of the Mekong. To escape the Thai government, the Cambodian king requested French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thai and French colonial authorities controlling Cambodia signed pacts according to which the demarcation line would run along the watershed along the part east of Mount Dangrek. The Dangrek was created as a boundary under the Convention signed between France and Siam on October 7, 1902. Under Article 3, a joint commission was constituted by the two persons who studied and declared what boundary will go between the Col de Kel and the Col. of Preah Chambot as well as the Preah Vihear temple area. The Joint Commission report makes no reference to Mount Dangrek. As the commission concluded its final reports, on March 23, 1907, the Siamese and French governments signed pacts together (Pacts between France and Siam with a Protocol Concerning Frontier Democracy). Under this contract, the Thais ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap to the French to negotiate Dan-Sai and Krat. The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and prepared for a new topographical map. In 1907, the French authorities had sent nearly 11 cards to the Thai authorities. According to one of the maps produced, the border was drawn with the Namsen and Mekong basins on the one hand and the Nam Mou on the other. This avoided the watershed situating the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thais disputed that the map was not binding because it had not been approved by the joint commission. In 1941, the Thai army took over the provinces of Siem Reap and Battambang. In 1954, they also captured and occupied the territory of Preah Vihear after the withdrawal of the French army from Cambodia. In 1959, Cambodia took the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in..