INTRODUCTION
Thailand has endured a persistent and violent uprising for the past two decades in its Southern Border provinces, including Yala, Narathiwat, Pattani, and parts of Songkhla (Potchapornkul, 2020). The conflict, stemming from historical grievances, ethnic identity, and political marginalisation, has resulted in severe human rights abuses against civilians, which raises critical questions regarding the applicable legal framework governing these violations. This article examines whether the situation constitutes an armed conflict regulated by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) or remains an internal disturbance ruled by International Human Rights Law (IHRL). In addition, this article analyses cases of abuses against civilians and protected persons not participating in hostilities by assessing their legal implications under the relevant framework.
The uprising has been marked by bombings, assassinations, and clashes between Thai state forces and militants, which are primarily driven by separatist groups with Malay-Muslim backgrounds such as the Barisan Revolusi Nasional (BRN) (Chalk, 2021). In response to the insurgency, the Thai government has implemented countermeasures that have, at times, exacerbated non-combatants’ suffering (Pherali, 2021). Reports from Human Rights Watch and other organisations showcase extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and restrictions on freedom of movement across the border (Human Rights Watch, 2024; Human Rights Watch, 2025; Asia News Network, 2025). This article seeks to determine whether these violations fall under IHL, which governs armed conflicts, or IHRL, which applies in peacetime but permits certain derogations during emergency circumstances.
THE APPLICABLE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
IHL distinguishes between international and non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), particularly in Common Articles 2 and 3 of the Geneva Conventions. For a NIAC to exist, two key criteria must be fulfilled: protracted armed violence and a minimum level of organisation among non-state armed groups (International Committee of the Red Cross, n.d.). The conflict in the Southern Border provinces of Thailand meets this criteria.
First, the intensity of violence has been significant. Since 2004, more than 7,000 people have been killed in the hostilities, including civilians caught in crossfire or deliberately targeted (Human Rights Watch, 2024). These attacks occur frequently, with combatants employing improvised explosive devices, shootings, and arson against both enemy and civilian targets (Human Rights Watch, 2025). State security forces have responded with military operations, leading to recurring violence that shows no signs of subsiding (Human Rights Watch, 2025).
Second, the organisation of armed groups is evident. For example, the BRN operates with an apparent command structure, issues public statements, and coordinates attacks strategically (Chambers & Waitoolkiat, 2020; Asia News Network, 2025). The armed group’s ability to sustain prolonged hostilities against the Thai state forces, as mentioned in the first criterion, also supports the classification of this situation as a NIAC. If IHL applies, certain protections for civilians and restrictions on warfare come into effect. According to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, deliberate attacks on non-combatants, collective punishments, and forced disappearances constitute war crimes in NIAC.
On the other hand, if the violence fails to meet the threshold of an armed conflict, IHRL remains the governing legal framework. Thailand has ratified the core human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, detention, and torture. However, IHRL allows for derogations in times of public emergency, provided they are justified by necessity, proportionate, and non-discriminatory (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, n.d.).
The Thai government has not officially declared a continuous state of emergency in the Southern Border provinces, but it has imposed special security laws granting broad powers to military authorities stationed along the border. One of the special security laws is the 1914 Martial Law Act, which is still enforced by the military authorities despite the lack of an updated declaration on the state of emergency by the government (Pherali, 2021). IHL allows the use of lethal force against lawful combatants, whereas IHRL permits it only when strictly necessary to protect life.
Ultimately, the distinction between IHL and IHRL has significant consequences for accountability and civilian protection. Under the IHL regime of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II, attacks on civilians are unequivocal war crimes, detainees must be treated humanely, enforced disappearances are prohibited, and collective punishments such as village-wide curfews are illegal (International Committee of the Red Cross, n.d.). Meanwhile, under the IHRL regime of ICCPR, unlawful killings and torture remain violations with enforcement relying on domestic and international human rights mechanisms, and derogations must be justified as well as temporary (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, n.d.).
Some observations can be drawn from the situation regarding the Thai government’s approaches. The state’s reluctance to classify the conflict as a NIAC may stem from political and legal ramifications, including international scrutiny and obligations under IHL. Nevertheless, this ambiguity undermines accountability and leaves civilians in a legal grey zone.
DOCUMENTED VIOLATIONS AGAINST CIVILIANS AND PROTECTED PERSONS
Unfortunately, the nature of widespread abuses against civilians throughout the conflict in Thailand’s Southern Border provinces is heavily dependent on the applicable legal framework. If the situation is classified as a NIAC under IHL, insurgent attacks targeting civilians and religious figures (Asia News Network, 2025) would constitute war crimes, as IHL explicitly prohibits deliberate violence against individuals not participating in hostilities. Similarly, security forces’ imposition of collective punishments, including village-wide curfews and movement restrictions (Pherali, 2021), would contravene Article 4(2)(b) of Additional Protocol II, which prohibits collective punishments. Enforced disappearances, reported by both militants and state forces, further contravene IHL’s protections against arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment.
However, if the situation remains an internal disturbance, IHRL is still to address allegations of abuse. In this context, extrajudicial killings and torture by security forces (Human Rights Watch, 2024; Human Rights Watch, 2025) potentially breach the fundamental prohibitions under ICCPR. Arbitrary detentions under emergency laws, often prolonged without judicial review, similarly violate Article 9 of the ICCPR’s guarantees of due process for individuals.
The legal classification thus shapes not only the characterisation of violations but also avenues for accountability. Under IHL, attacks on civilians and collective punishments could be prosecuted as war crimes, whereas IHRL violations would rely on domestic or regional human rights mechanisms (Lubel, Pejic, & Simmons, 2019). This difference underscores the urgency of clarifying the conflict’s legal status: a step that the Thai government has yet to commit to, leaving victims in a void where neither framework is fully applied. Meanwhile, civilians continue to endure a reality where bombings, disappearances, and systemic restrictions persist regardless of policies, highlighting the need for immediate protections grounded in the applicable legal basis.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is indisputable that the protracted hostilities in Thailand’s Southern Border provinces present a dire humanitarian crisis aggravated by legal ambiguity. The evidence strongly suggests that the conflict fulfils the criteria of a NIAC, given the intensity of hostilities and the organised nature of insurgent groups. Nevertheless, the Thai government’s reluctance to formally acknowledge this classification has left civilians in a vulnerable state, where neither IHL’s protections nor IHRL’s full safeguards are effectively applied. This legal void exacerbates their vulnerability, as abuses ranging from targeted attacks and enforced disappearances to arbitrary detentions and collective punishments persist with limited accountability.
Therefore, addressing this crisis demands urgent and collective action. Independent assessment to clarify the conflict’s legal status is essential, as doing so would establish critical IHL protections for civilians and protected persons while also strengthening avenues for prosecuting war crimes. The United Nations or an independent commission of experts, as agreed by conflicting parties and a neutral third party, should urgently assess the conflict’s legal status, determine whether it triggers IHL protections, and clarify obligations for all parties.
At the same time, Thailand must enforce domestic accountability mechanisms to investigate and ameliorate both past and ongoing violations, whether perpetrated by state forces or non-state combatants. Equally important is ensuring unimpeded humanitarian access to conflict-affected communities across the borders, whose survival and dignity crucially depend on aid and medical care. Beyond immediate measures, working towards a long-term resolution will require addressing the conflict’s root causes through inclusive dialogue between parties and reforms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asia News Network. ( 2025, May 7). Insurgency in Thailand’s Deep South escalates as government cracks down on militant leaders. Accessed July 16, 2025. https://asianews.network/insurgency-in-thailands-deep-south-escalates-government-to-crackdown-on-militant-leaders/.
Chalk, P. (2021). The history of terrorism in Southeast Asia. In Routledge handbook of US counterterrorism and irregular warfare operations (pp. 117-133). Routledge.
Chambers, P., & Waitoolkiat, N. (2020). Militarization and securitization in Thailand’s Deep South. In Southern Thailand/Patani: Understanding the dimensions of conflict and peace (pp. 87-140). Peace Resource Collaborative.
Human Rights Watch. (2024). Thailand. In World report 2024: Events of 2023. Accessed July 14, 2025. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/thailand.
Human Rights Watch. (2025, May 29). Thailand: New insurgent attacks on civilians despite pledge. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/29/thailand-new-insurgent-attacks-civilians-despite-pledge [accessed July 14, 2025].
International Committee of the Red Cross. (n.d.). Fundamentals of international humanitarian law: Basic rules and principles [Casebook section]. ICRC. Accessed July 14, 2025. https://casebook.icrc.org/law/fundamentals-ihl.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (GC I). Accessed July 16, 2025. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=4825657B0C7E6BF0C12563CD002D6B0B&action=openDocument.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (GC II). Accessed July 16, 2025. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=F542F6F34FFC7F9DC12563CD002D6B3E&action=openDocument.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (GC III). Accessed July 16, 2025. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=77CB9983BE01D004C12563CD002D6B5C&action=openDocument.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1949). Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC IV). Accessed July 16, 2025. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B3D&action=openDocument.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (1977). *Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). Accessed July 16, 2025. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AA0C5BCBAB5C4A85C12563CD002D6D09&action=openDocument.
Lubell, N., Pejic, J., & Simmons, C. (2019). Guidelines on investigating violations of international humanitarian law: Law, policy, and good practice [Report]. Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights; International Committee of the Red Cross.
Potchapornkul, E. (2020). The administration of justice in Thailand’s southern border provinces. In A. Engvall, S. Jitpiromsri, & E. Potchapornkul (Eds.), Southern Thailand/Patani: Understanding the dimensions of conflict and peace (pp. 149-231). Peace Resource Collaborative.
Pherali, T. (2021). Social justice, education and peacebuilding: Conflict transformation in Southern Thailand. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 53(4), 710–727.
United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Treaty]. United Nations Treaty Series, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (n.d.). Derogation during public emergency [E4J Module Series]. UNODC. Accessed July 14, 2025. https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-7/key-issues/derogation-during-public-emergency.html.
