Thailand’s Border Policy amid the Cross-Border Crisis from Myanmar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article primarily aims to analyze Thailand’s border policy in the context of impacts arising from the crisis in Myanmar following the 2021 military coup. The coup has triggered a range of cross-border issues—including humanitarian concerns, security challenges, and transnational threats. Employing a qualitative research methodology, the study analyzes secondary data from academic literature, reports by relevant agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the media, covering the period from 2021 to 2024, with a focus on the Thai–Myanmar border. The study finds that Thailand's border management continues to prioritize state security over human rights principles, resulting in limitations on the protection of displaced persons and refugees. Responses to the situation are often ad hoc, lacking a systematic legal or institutional framework. This has led to uncertainty in policy measures, absence of shared operational standards, and a lack of continuity in long-term management. Additionally, the article highlights policy limitations in addressing transnational threats, particularly cross-border crime. It provides an analysis at both the policy structure and implementation levels, comparing Thailand’s border policies with those of neighboring countries such as India, Laos, and Bangladesh. The article proposes recommendations for improving Thailand’s policy system in the long term, emphasizing a balance between state sovereignty and human rights principles. It also underscores the critical role of civil society in filling the gaps left by the state and advocates for its formal inclusion as a policy partner.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The journal retains the rights of publication. Opinions in each article belong to the author and are their responsibility. The editorial team may not have to agree with his/her academic opinion. We only provide open, public, and fair space for academic freedom.
References
Agnew, J. (2005). Sovereignty regimes: Territoriality and state authority in contemporary world politics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(2), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2005.00468.x
AHA Centre. (n.d.). About AHA Centre. ASEAN Coordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance. Retrieved June 26, 2025, from https://ahacentre.org/about-us/
Amnesty International. (2023). Caught between borders: Refugees fleeing Myanmar and the Thai response. Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/asa39/6580/2023/en/
AP News. (2023, November 20). From scams to slavery: How a Thai border town became ground zero for transnational crime. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/1133cd767e4015229f4b43fc675bcfa6
Asia Pacific Refugee Rights Network, Asylum Access Thailand, People Empowerment Foundation, & Refugee Rights Litigation Project. (2021). Refugee Rights Network in Thailand: Joint Submission for the Universal Periodic Review of Thailand. Retrieved from https://asylumaccess.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Refugee- Rights-Network-in-Thailand_en.pdf
Asian Development Bank. (2023). Greater Mekong Subregion economic cooperation program strategic framework 2030. Retrieved from https://www.adb.org
Baldwin, D. A. (1997). The concept of security. Review of International Studies, 23(1), 5– 26.
Bangkok Post. (2025, March 15). Refugees in limbo, Thailand in denial. Retrieved from https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion/2982101/refugees-in-limbo-thailand-in-denial
Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & de Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Chachavalpongpun, P. (2013). Thai-Cambodian conflict: The failure of ASEAN’s dispute settlement mechanisms. Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 1(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.18588/201305.000005
Chongkittavorn, K. (2023). Transnational threats in mainland Southeast Asia. ASEAN Security Outlook, 11(2), 24–35.
Décobert, A. (2016). The politics of aid to Burma: A humanitarian struggle on the Thai–Burmese border. Routledge.
Décobert, A. (2023). Aid, displacement and authoritarianism: Myanmar's borderlands in crisis. Journal of Refugee Studies, 36(2), 245–264.
Fortify Rights. (2023). Thailand: Protect Myanmar refugees, allow humanitarian aid. Retrieved from https://www.fortifyrights.org/tha-inv-2023-06-21/
Fortify Rights. (2024, May 17). Thailand: Prevent Forced Returns of Myanmar Refugees, Provide Humanitarian Aid. Retrieved from https://www.fortifyrights.org/tha-inv-2024-05-17/
Grindle, M. S. (1980). Politics and policy implementation in the Third World. Princeton University Press.
Hou, T. (2024). Humanitarian aid practices on the Thai–Myanmar border after the coup: Beyond depoliticization and inequality. Journal of International Humanitarian Action, 9(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-024-00157-0
Human Rights Watch. (2022). Thailand: Stop forced returns of Myanmar refugees. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/12/16/thailand-stop-forced- returns-myanmar-refugees
Human Rights Watch. (2023, November 29). Thailand: Recent refugees pushed back to Myanmar. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/29/thailand-recent- refugees-pushed-back-myanmar
Interpol. (2023). Cyber-enabled crimes and transnational threats in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from https://www.interpol.int/en/Crimes/Cybercrime
International Crisis Group. (2023). Managing Myanmar’s border crisis: The regional implications. Retrieved from https://www.crisisgroup.org
Jesuit Refugee Service. (2023). Annual Report 2023: Finding Hope in the Reality and Responding with Love. Retrieved from https://jrs.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/JRS_annual-report-2023_Eng_compressed.pdf
Jesuit Refugee Service. (n.d.). Thailand. Retrieved from https://jrs.net/en/country/thailand/
Jones, R., & Johnson, C. (2016). Border militarisation and the re-articulation of sovereignty. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(2), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12115
Krause, K., & Williams, M. C. (1997). Critical security studies: Concepts and cases. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
Mae Tao Clinic. (n.d.). Our Services. Retrieved from https://maetaoclinic.org/our-services/
Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking asylum: Human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. University of Minnesota Press.
Newman, E. (2010). Critical human security studies. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 77–94.
Saisin, A., Somboonboorana, S., Laishram, R. S., & Chaisingkananont, S. (2023). Securitization in Moreh town of Manipur State, India and the impact of the Myanmar political conflict. Research in Globalization, 7, 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resglo.2023.100150
Scott, J. C. (2009). The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia. Yale University Press.
The Border Consortium. (n.d.). TBC | The Border Consortium. Retrieved from https://www.theborderconsortium.org/
UNHCR. (2022). Myanmar Emergency Update (as of 5 December 2022). Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int
UNHCR. (2023). Thailand country factsheet. Retrieved from https://www.unhcr.org/th/thailand-factsheet
UNHCR. (2024a). Thailand Multi-Country Office – Strategy 2022–2026. Retrieved from https://reporting.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2025-01/Thailand%20Multi-Country%20Office%20%20%20Strategy%202022%20%E2%80%93%202026_0.pdf
UNHCR. (2024b). Myanmar emergency overview map: Number of people displaced (as of 29 April 2024). Retrieved from https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/myanmar
UNHCR Thailand. (2023). Thailand and UNHCR. https://www.unhcr.org/th/thailand-and-unhcr
UNOCHA. (2024). Humanitarian Needs Overview – Myanmar. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/myanmar/myanmar-humanitarian-needs-overview-2024
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security. New York: Oxford University Press.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2010). Convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees. https://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10333
กระทรวงกลาโหม. (2565). กรอบความร่วมมือด้านความมั่นคงชายแดนระหว่างไทยกับประเทศเพื่อนบ้าน. กรุงเทพฯ: สำนักงานนโยบายและแผน.
กรุณา ใจใส. (2567). สงครามยึดเมียวดีกับชีวิตคนชายแดน. ศูนย์วิจัยและพัฒนานโยบายสาธารณะ มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์ (TU-RAC).
จุฑามณี สามัคคีนิชย์. (2566). นโยบายต่างประเทศไทยต่อเมียนมาหลังรัฐประหารในเมียนมาปี 2021. วิทยานิพนธ์รัฐศาสตร์มหาบัณฑิต, มหาวิทยาลัยธรรมศาสตร์.
ชนะศึก โรจนพิทยากร. (2564). การรัฐประหารในเมียนมา ปี พ.ศ. 2564 กับการเพิ่มขึ้นของปัญหายาเสพติดในไทย. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
ไทย พีบีเอส. (2568, 19 กุมภาพันธ์). ปิดฉาก "คอลเซนเตอร์" เมียวดี ไทยเตรียมรับ "ศึกใหม่ชายแดน". สืบค้นจาก https://www.thaipbs.or.th/news/content/349457
ไทยรัฐ. (2568, 11 มีนาคม). เปิดเส้นทางจ่ายค่าไถ่ แก๊งคอลเซนเตอร์ “เมียวดี”. สืบค้นจาก https://www.thairath.co.th/scoop/theissue/2846537
มติชนออนไลน์. (2568, 21 พฤษภาคม). มาริษ เผยเร่งแก้ปัญหาชายแดนไทย-เมียนมา เน้นไม่กระทบคนไทยในพื้นที่. สืบค้นจาก https://www.matichon.co.th/politics/news_5193485
วรเชษฐ์ รัตนพันธ์. (2565). การบริหารจัดการผู้ลี้ภัยการสู้รบจากเมียนมา: กรณีศึกษาการลักลอบออกนอกพื้นที่พักพิงชั่วคราว. วารสารมุมมองความมั่นคง, 9, 57–74.
อัจฉรียา สายศิลป์. (2566). ผลกระทบจากการเคลื่อนย้ายฐานการทำงานขององค์กรพัฒนาเอกชนจากชายแดนไทย-เมียนมา. วารสารสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยวลัยลักษณ์, 10(2), 19–38.
The101.world. (2568). ซีลชายแดน: หยุดวิถีชีวิต แต่มิจฯ ไปต่อ. สืบค้นจาก https://www.the101.world/thai-seal-border-scammers/