In a modern world, most of the border conflicts erupt from the colonial legacies. The imperialist post-colonial visions of nationhood and identity also play a negative role in this realm. The cusp of these two elements is more prominent in South Asia, where geopolitical proximities usually turn into kinetic conflicts, resulting in deterioration of the state-to-state relations on the one hand, and having long-lasting impacts on the general population on the other hand. The recent Thai-Cambodia escalation clearly reflects this dichotomy. Centered upon Preah Vihear Temple, the roots of the conflict can be traced back to the 20th century when Indochina was under French rule.
“The conflict persists till the present day, depicting the limitations of International Law due to the lack of an enforcement mechanism.”
To consolidate its control, France demarked the boundaries between Cambodia and Thailand via the Franco-Siamese Treaty (1904). However, after France had left the area, there arose ambiguity regarding the status of the Temple. Although France declared it a part of Cambodia (in the Annex 1 map), Thailand objected to the decision due to the position of the temple (on the Thai side). Bangkok argued against the colonial division, but both sides failed to reach a mutual agreement.
In the legal domain, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is also tasked with resolving this perplexity. For instance, based on the colonial maps, Thailand’s failure to timely object (referring to the “persistent objector” clause in International Law), and the evidence presented by Phnom Penh, the court ruled in favor of Cambodia in 1962 and again reinforced its decision in its judgment in 2013.
Moreover, UNESCO also listed the said Temple as part of Cambodia in 2008. But the political and military leadership in Thailand has time and again rejected this claim, citing domestic factors and the colonial policies. As a result, the conflict persists till the present day, depicting the limitations of International Law due to the lack of an enforcement mechanism.
The recent escalation can be marked as one of the deadliest confrontations between the neighbors since 2011. It started when a Cambodian soldier was killed within a disputed territory. Both sides have their own narrative regarding the incident. Cambodia blames Thailand for initiating the tensions, but the latter denies the allegation, referring to the suspicious activities of the soldier.
The competing claims (routine patrolling vs. alleged trespassing attempt) sparked shockwaves among the public, which resulted in heavy military deployments across the borders. Cambodia responded with the rockets while Thailand preferred an air-to-land attack with its drones and F-16 jets. This was followed by the border closure, mass displacement of the population, and the civilian casualties across both sides.
“The political crisis compelled the Thai PM to adopt a hardliner approach for regime stability, resulting in unnecessary escalation.”
The domestic factors cannot be ignored in the analysis. For instance, the leadership style, type of regime, legitimacy issues, and other constraints led to the conflict alongside external elements. For that purpose, neoclassical realism and diversionary war theory can be taken into consideration. In May 2025, a phone call between the Thai PM with the Cambodian senate president (who was called “Uncle”) got leaked. It sparked controversy owing to a confession made by the former regarding the diffusion of the conflict.
This event followed widespread hate against the Thai PM, which resulted in breaking the coalition of the governing parties and leaving the PM in severe political turmoil. The Constitutional Court initially ordered the suspension of the PM. So, the political crisis compelled the PM to adopt a hardliner approach for regime stability, which resulted in an unnecessary escalation.
Cambodia, on the other hand, played its card in the right way, it requested international actors, i.e., UNSC, to help both parties de-escalate. Even before the conflict ignited, Cambodia had requested the ICJ once again to issue an updated verdict over the status of the Temple. This approach helps Cambodia present itself as a supporter of liberal institutionalism and a responsible state concerned with defending its sovereignty following international legal obligations. It proved beneficial for the government in many ways: first, the legitimacy and support of the government surged domestically.
Second, the strategic patience increased the “win-shots” of the government as compared to its neighbor. Third, it gained support from the international actors owing to its rhetoric of peaceful coexistence. Fourth, by presenting Thailand as an aggressor, Cambodia increased its soft image on the global stage. Fifth, it framed the incident in a coherent and well-organized way to divert the attention of the relevant stakeholders to help Cambodia find a long-term solution to its disputed territories. In short, it can be said that the recent conflict between Thailand and Cambodia mirrors a unique blend of heritage, sovereignty, and power politics that is the main thesis of this article.
At present, a functional cease-fire has been established between both parties. To analyze how de-escalation took place, several factors can be taken into consideration. Firstly, ASEAN, a regional forum where both Cambodia and Thailand are members, stepped in. Under the leadership of Malaysia, it facilitated direct talks between both parties at the end of July and convinced them of the operational pause. In a General Body Meeting on August 7, 2025, ASEAN observers agreed to be deployed alongside borders, something unusual as compared to the passive role the forum plays in the regional disputes.
“Cambodia gained support from international actors by presenting itself as a responsible state adhering to international law.”
Secondly, international actors maintained pressure on both parties to halt their hawkish ambitions. For instance, USNC, under the Presidency of Pakistan, called for an immediate ceasefire. This was an alarming symbol given the history of deadly UNSC interventions into kinetic conflicts concerning the general public. Donald J. Trump also threatened both states regarding the potential tariffs in case they fail to comply with international law. Moreover, China, the EU, and all other significant players in global politics called upon maximum restraint and a pragmatic and rational dispute resolution approach instead of escalating the conflict. It worked out, given the complex economic, political, and military dependence of both states on these actors.
Thirdly, domestic pressure also pushed both governments to halt the cross-border operations. For instance, Monks in both states organized public gatherings urging their respective governments to pursue the path of peace instead of choosing war. The mass civil-society movements and media framing of the issue, showcasing the humanitarian cost of the conflict (i.e., IDP), also play a crucial role in this regard. Overall, one can say that, though often ignored, the societal factors in both states played an important role in reshaping their foreign policy.
When it comes to what could be done to avoid future confrontations between the two states, there can be many solutions i.e. developing a complex interdependence framework, incorporation both states in the regional connectivity projects, formulating a comprehensive, non-interference based dispute resolution mechanism by ASEAN, and following the international legal obligatory framework ensuring win-win situation for the both states. But what matters the most is how regional and global actors mediate to sort out long-term solutions for the disputed land. Or else, the conflict, though settled down now, could ignite any time in the future, as the historical record tells.
The most significant development in this realm would be compelling both states to formulate a legally binding framework to deal with the possible escalation in the future. For instance, the presence of the UN and ASEAN observers along the border to provide a timely reporting of the violation of the ceasefire agreement, establishing a hotline communication between the two states, which could ensure quick communication within a few hours of escalation, and above all, the timely mediation by the relevant actors.
“ASEAN’s deployment of observers marks a shift from its traditionally neutral stance in regional disputes.”
In conclusion, one can say that the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia is deeply rooted in colonial history. Internal factors have significantly contributed to the initiation of the recent tug-of-war. But what remains worth noticing is ASEAN’s lead in providing good offices to both states, and the deployment of the observatory mission alongside the borders. It shows a clear shift from its previous neutral stance.
This is the key to being capitalized to gain the maximum outputs. Instead of looking into ASEAN from a leader-specific viewpoint, it is high time for the group to take the lead in the regional affairs. Or else, the consequences could spill over all across the region, deteriorating the prosperity and economic progress of ASEAN.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author. They do not represent the views, beliefs, or policies of the Stratheia.
