The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) is one of the three pillars of ASEAN: the ASEAN Economic Community, the ASEAN Political and Security Community and the socio-cultural of ASEAN. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the trade potential and market size of ASEAN countries, both through the opening of free trade within the region and through the mobility of capital and workers qualified. Like the pillars. This means that all three must function 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 an unrest situation on the southern border, the issue of border demarcation in the disputed areas around the Prasat Khao Phra Viharn temple between Thailand and Cambodia and including regional terrorism. Regional conflict is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which sees five sovereign states overlapping: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get Original Essay The dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and later 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 and was founded in the 11th and 12th centuries during the golden era of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims over Thailand as the temple's origin belongs to the Khmer empires, but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect territory that originally belongs to the Thais. The elaborate and distorted history, exaggerated nationalist sentiment and political force have created a much worse and controversial situation to be drawn with a proper conclusion. The border between Thailand and Cambodia has evidently not been demarcated and the obligations and agreements signed between the two countries are questionable. The question of where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia lies is still at the heart of the debate today. The border dispute also continued with the development of two other Hindu temples called Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150 km west of the temple. The genesis of the dispute dates back to the period of the French protectorate, and the border pacts of 1887 and 1893 signed between the Siamese and the French according to which the Thais had claimed all the territory on the left bank of the Mekong River. To escape the Thai government, the Cambodian king requested French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thai and French colonial authorities who controlled Cambodia signed pacts that the border line would run along the watershed along the eastern of Mount Dangrek. The Dangrek was established as a border under the Convention signed between France and Siam signed on 7 October 1902. Under Article 3, a joint commission was formed by the two who surveyed and established which border will go between the pass Kel and the Col de Preah Chambot along with the Preah Vihear temple area. The joint commission report makes no reference to Mount Dangrek. While the commission concluded its final reports, on 23 March 1907 the Siamese and French governments jointly signed pacts (Pacts between France and Siam with a protocol on the democracy of the border). Under this contract, Thailand ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon and Siem Reap to the French fornegotiate for Dan-Sai and Krat. The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and be ready for a new topographic map. By 1907, French officials had sent nearly 11 maps to the Thai authorities. According to one of the maps produced the border was drawn with the Namsen basins and the Mekong on one side and the Nam Mou on the other. This avoided the watershed line that placed the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thais contested that the map was not binding as it had not been approved by the joint commission. In 1941, the Thai army recaptured the provinces of Siem Reap and Battambang. In 1954, they also took 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 case against Thailand. Cambodia's first request to the ICJ stipulated that Thailand should withdraw its military that had been stationed at the temple since 1954. The second was that the owner of the Preah Vihear Temple should belong to Cambodia. On June 15, 1962, the ICJ called for jurisdiction in favor of Cambodia and insisted that the ruling was based on valid maps made during the 1904 and 1907 border settlement showing the temple exactly in Cambodian territory. He also instructed Thailand to return all artifacts and antiquities to Cambodia. This ruling sparked angry reactions from Thailand. Thailand radically protested against this ruling and stated that the French survey map of 1907 cannot be considered definitive to define the territorial owners as it is not an official document of the border commission and the contract of joint commission stipulated in 1904. But the ICJ summarizes that the Thai authorities were unable to provide a clear exception to the maps made by the Cambodian in 1907, nor did they make alternative maps. The court, therefore, considers itself obliged to uphold the right of ownership of the temple to Cambodia. In 1963 the Cambodians under Prince Sihanouk officially took possession of the temple. He announced that Thais will be allowed to visit the temple without visas. He allowed the Thais to keep the temple artifact despite the ICJ's command. Any further negotiations to resolve the dispute failed as Thailand did not fully agree with the ICJ's ruling. Negotiations and steps on border demarcation and demarcation were reinstated only in 1997. On June 14, 2000, a memorandum of understanding was made in Thailand and Cambodia on border detection and demarcation. As per the MoU, a Joint Boundary Commission has been established to fix the discussed border areas. Although many other contracts and understandings were made, the agreement was reached in 2008. For example, the first joint ministerial meeting in 2003, the establishment of the joint committee managing the sanctuary in March 2004, unable to elaborate any major development . The consequences of the 2011 general elections in Thailand, with the coming to power of Thaksin's Pheu Thai party under his sister Yingluck Shinawatra, raise hopes for a recovery of the broken relations between the two nations. Rather, many questions are growing about the governments recently voted in along with the resolution of this controversy. Whether the election results are enough to change Thailand beyond its bitter split with Cambodia is extremely doubtful. Will Yingluck Shinawatra, with the continuous protests and challenges of the competing party, be able to face the challenges that the authority distributes within thecountry along with interstate conflicts? Yingluck will have to face the big problem of her competitor. The contestant has already begun to question the political legitimacy of Yingluck and her crew. Thaksin's arrival in Cambodia with Yingluck in August 2011 had sparked strong criticism from the Democratic Party. Yingluck is seen not as the country's new leader, but as Thaksin's replacement. It has been continually argued in Bangkok that any policies defined and implemented by the new government will bear the imprint of Thaksin Shinawatra. On the one hand, there is still hope that the relationship between Thaksin and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen will be a positive factor for Yingluck to regulate relations between the countries. There is a constant fear that, like her ancestor Yingluck, she too may abandon her country to benefit from other bilateral benefits. In February and April 2011, the armed conflict between these countries resulted in a serious threat to regional peace and stability. ASEAN must act soon to control any such confrontation in the future. If the conflict does not subside, it will pose a major challenge to ASEAN's credibility as a regional organization. The two important articles of the ASEAN Charter outline agreements for the settlement of disputes. Article 22 of the Charter states that all ASEAN member countries must establish and maintain a dispute settlement mechanism. Since Article 23 says that members involved in a dispute can ask ASEAN to mediate, obtain good offices or conciliate, however, ASEAN is unable to find any solution to the dispute despite repeated efforts. The initiatives taken so far by the ASEAN presidency to mediate between the two countries and resolve the dispute have failed. According to ASEAN's position in 2011, Indonesia had proposed that the two countries relocate a spectator troupe to the disputed territory. It was not possible to reach a solution in this regard, as both contested members did not reach any clear conclusion. As members of ASEAN, both Thailand and Cambodia must abide by the rules of its Friendship and Cooperation Pacts. This pact states that all ASEAN members should resolve disputes between states peacefully and avoid the use of the threat of force between states. However, ASEAN members have so far failed to respect the anchoring of the peaceful dispute resolution mechanism. Furthermore, these compacts do not provide any framework for operational protection to address a crisis situation. However, ASEAN conciliation is essential, given the widespread circumstances any third-party intervention will be terribly 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. The main objective of the ASEAN Economic Community is to develop the trade potential and market size of ASEAN countries, both through the opening of free trade within the region and through the mobility of capital and workers qualified. Like the pillars. This means that all three must function 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 an unrest situation on the southern border, the issue of border demarcation in the disputed areas around the Prasat Khao Phra Viharn temple between Thailand and Cambodia and including regional terrorism. The conflictregional is evident in the past. The tension of the conflict in the South China Sea, which sees five overlapping sovereign states: China, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and the Philippines. The dispute first begins over the territorial sovereignty of the temple and then spreads over an area of ​​4.6 km of land adjacent to the temple premises. This temple was known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thai and Preah Vihear in Cambodia and was founded in the 11th and 12th centuries during the golden era of Khmer civilization. It is disputed that Cambodia has more powerful competing claims over Thailand as the temple's origin belongs to the Khmer empires, but Thailand has its own claims and evidence to protect territory that originally belongs to the Thais. The elaborate and distorted history, exaggerated nationalist sentiment and political force have created a much worse and controversial situation to be drawn with a proper conclusion. The border between Thailand and Cambodia has evidently not been demarcated and the obligations and agreements signed between the two countries are questionable. The question of where exactly the border between Thailand and Cambodia lies is still the crux of the debate today. The border dispute also continued with the development of two other Hindu temples called Ta Krabey and Ta Krabey, located 150 km west of the temple. The genesis of the dispute dates back to the period of the French protectorate, and the border pacts of 1887 and 1893 signed between the Siamese and the French according to which the Thais had claimed all the territory on the left bank of the Mekong River. To escape the Thai government, the Cambodian king requested French protectorate status in 1863. In 1904, the Thai and French colonial authorities who controlled Cambodia signed pacts that the border line would run along the watershed along the eastern of Mount Dangrek. The Dangrek was established as a border under the Convention signed between France and Siam signed on 7 October 1902. Under Article 3, a joint commission was formed by the two who surveyed and established which border will go between the pass Kel and the Col de Preah Chambot along with the Preah Vihear temple area. The joint commission report makes no reference to Mount Dangrek. While the commission concluded its final reports, on 23 March 1907 the Siamese and French governments jointly signed pacts (Pacts between France and Siam with a protocol on the democracy of the border). Under this contract, Thailand ceded the border provinces of Battambang, Sisophon, and Siem Reap to the French to negotiate for Dan-Sai and Krat. The Thai government asked the French to do a survey and be ready for a new topographic map. By 1907, French officials had sent nearly 11 maps 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 line that placed the temple under Cambodian territory. The Thais contested that the map was not binding as it had not been approved by the joint commission. In 1941, the Thai army recaptured the provinces of Siem Reap and Battambang. In 1954, they also took 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 case against Thailand. Cambodia's first request to the ICJ stipulated that Thailand should withdraw its military that had been stationed at the temple since 1954. The second was that the owner of the Preah Vihear Temple should belong to Cambodia. On 15 June 1962, the ICJ requested jurisdiction in favor of Cambodia and insisted that the.