Power Politics and Border Disputes: What factors account for the intensity of the Cambodia-Thailand Border Dispute?
Location
FA-152
Start Date
1-5-2026 12:50 PM
Department
Political Science
Abstract
History does not repeat itself, but it does offer lessons. The 1648 Westphalia Treaty ended 30 years of religious warfare in Europe by recognizing states’ sovereign power, whereas colonialism defined territorial boundaries for many states in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, ambiguous boundary lines have left several regional countries with endless border disputes. The China-India border dispute, the Indonesia-Malaysia border dispute, and the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute are just a few examples. In particular, the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand has intensified from the 11th-12th century Preah Vihear Temple and its promontory along the Dangrek Mountains to Phnom Trap and other areas, including sea borders. Military clashes of varying scales have taken place between the two sides. In recent years, several skirmishes from 2008 to 2011 and in 2025 caused the deaths of soldiers and civilians and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from both countries. Although a ceasefire reached in December 2025, many Cambodian people still cannot return home. Bilateral negotiations have stalled, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s efforts to resolve the dispute have been insufficient. The 1962 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was unable to bring peace. This intractable dispute threatens the regional security in Indochina and Southeast Asia more broadly. This paper aims to identify three key factors that have intensified the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute: (1) the ambiguity of colonial-era boundary lines and the 1962 ICJ decision, (2) the influence of extreme nationalism and dis/misinformation on political motivation and public opinion, and (3) the effectiveness and limitations of national and international mechanisms in addressing the dispute. Key terminology: border dispute, ICJ, nationalism, public opinion, political motivation, ASEAN, and intensity
Faculty Sponsor
Sangmin Bae
Power Politics and Border Disputes: What factors account for the intensity of the Cambodia-Thailand Border Dispute?
FA-152
History does not repeat itself, but it does offer lessons. The 1648 Westphalia Treaty ended 30 years of religious warfare in Europe by recognizing states’ sovereign power, whereas colonialism defined territorial boundaries for many states in South Asia and Southeast Asia. Unfortunately, ambiguous boundary lines have left several regional countries with endless border disputes. The China-India border dispute, the Indonesia-Malaysia border dispute, and the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute are just a few examples. In particular, the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand has intensified from the 11th-12th century Preah Vihear Temple and its promontory along the Dangrek Mountains to Phnom Trap and other areas, including sea borders. Military clashes of varying scales have taken place between the two sides. In recent years, several skirmishes from 2008 to 2011 and in 2025 caused the deaths of soldiers and civilians and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people from both countries. Although a ceasefire reached in December 2025, many Cambodian people still cannot return home. Bilateral negotiations have stalled, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)’s efforts to resolve the dispute have been insufficient. The 1962 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was unable to bring peace. This intractable dispute threatens the regional security in Indochina and Southeast Asia more broadly. This paper aims to identify three key factors that have intensified the Cambodia-Thailand border dispute: (1) the ambiguity of colonial-era boundary lines and the 1962 ICJ decision, (2) the influence of extreme nationalism and dis/misinformation on political motivation and public opinion, and (3) the effectiveness and limitations of national and international mechanisms in addressing the dispute. Key terminology: border dispute, ICJ, nationalism, public opinion, political motivation, ASEAN, and intensity