Under the “Thailand-Plus-One” strategy, Thailand’s neighbors, especially Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar, have been taking on labor-intensive processes, receiving foreign investment by integrating with Thailand’s core production bases through cross-border production networks. This model has relied on daily roundtrips of components and intermediate goods based on the premise of eliminating tariffs and facilitating customs clearance through the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (ATIGA).

However, this premise was shaken by the Thailand-Cambodian border conflict and closure in May 2025. With assembly-line production organized by the hour, a border closure can immediately translate into a risk of production shutdown, potentially casting Thailand Plus One as a high-risk strategy.

If this situation were to persist, it would be difficult for neighboring countries to upgrade their industries, boost incomes, and reduce regional disparities. To attract investment going forward, it will be essential to provide institutional guarantees that logistics can be maintained regardless of political tensions.

ASEAN member states agreed to the upgraded ATIGA in October 2025. It was the first major review of the agreement since it came into effect in 2010, and was an attempt to modernize the arrangement against a background of expanding intra-regional trade. Its key aspects include: (1) Enhancing transparency of non-tariff measures (NTMs)), (2) Full legal recognition of electronic certificates of origin (e-Form D), (3) Expansion of electronic document exchange through the ASEAN Single Window (ASW), (4) Promotion of authorized economic operator (AEO) mutual recognition arrangements (MRA), (5) Establishment of a dedicated chapter on micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), (6) Incorporation of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms, and (7) Establishment of a framework for essential goods during humanitarian crises.

In particular, the new framework “Trade Rules That Work in a Crisis” is laudable for its commitment to transparency, consultation, and restraint in times of crisis as well as for its ambition for self-restraint in restricting trade in essential goods. Moreover, the deepening of digitization will increase the predictability of procedures in ordinary times and improve the efficiency of supply networks.

However, considering the experience of the Thai-Cambodian border closure, the upgraded ATIGA remains insufficient to prevent physical border closures. The humanitarian crisis framework emphasizes discussion and information sharing but does not have legally binding force to mandate maintenance of logistics corridors. That is, even though it demonstrates crisis preparedness, it has not reached a stage of preventing interruptions to logistics even during a crisis.

First, the transparency of NTMs and notification obligations strengthened by the upgraded ATIGA are effective in terms of normal regulatory measures, but they do not serve as rules that can directly prevent a full-scale border shutdown at times of military tensions.

Second, the crisis clause in the upgraded ATIGA states that it takes into consideration “essential goods,” yet the intermediate goods and components in Thailand-Plus-One transactions do not necessarily fall under “humanitarian goods.” The scope of crisis responses should not be limited to daily essentials.

Third, the introduction of ADR contributes to conflict mitigation, but it is not the same as a mechanism that ensures immediate action in case of conflict. It is merely a reactive solution, rather than a system to prevent interrupted logistics.

In light of this, I suggest that at least the following three additional points ought to be institutionalized as an extension of the upgraded ATIGA: 1) legal mandating of priority logistics corridors, 2) joint planning for securing alternative routes, and 3) enhanced transparency and notification obligations for security exceptions.

To begin with, when it comes to legal mandating of priority logistics corridors, the agreement should actualize the upgraded ATIGA crisis framework and specify that member states are obliged to partly maintain at least one border crossing point in the event of a conflict. Goods within the scope of this measure would be essential goods, registered intermediate goods that are part of the regional assembly-line production, and components difficult to replace in terms of contract fulfillment. A pre-registration system would also be introduced. This should go beyond mere self-restraint and be codified as a binding obligation to maintain operations.

Next, for joint planning for securing alternative routes, while the upgraded ATIGA has strengthened digitization and information sharing, it is up to individual member states to secure physical alternative routes. In the future, an Intra-regional Alternative Transportation Plan will be drafted as an appendix to the ATIGA, designating transfer ports and land routes in advance for when major national borders are closed. This allows companies to arrange alternative transportation as soon as a crisis occurs.

Third, and finally, when it comes to enhanced transparency and notification obligations for security exceptions, although the upgraded ATIGA has stronger notification obligations, any invocation of security exceptions remains heavily reliant on individual state discretion. When invoking exceptions, there should be an obligation to immediately submit an impact assessment, scope, and time forecast to the ASEAN Secretariat, so that the information can be shared among member states. These are procedural regulations that will increase the reliability of integration.

The upgraded ATIGA is a modernization for the post-tariff era. However, the Thai-Cambodian border closure has revealed the reality that the greatest risk to regional integration lies not in regulatory frictions but in political disruptions. For the ATIGA to truly become a next-generation trade charter, liberalization and efficiency alone are not enough; it is essential to institutionalize the principle of maintaining uninterrupted logistics even in times of crisis.