The Cambodia–Thailand border dispute remains one of Southeast Asia’s most sensitive flashpoints, blending historical grievances, unresolved colonial-era demarcations, and volatile nationalist sentiments. Despite an official ceasefire signed on July 28, 2025, the situation remains tense, with sporadic incidents undermining stability. The fragile truce is being monitored by ASEAN observers, yet the presence of landmines, lingering ordnance, and mutual distrust between the two nations continues to threaten the peace process.
This article provides an in-depth analysis of the latest developments, humanitarian implications, and the political landscape surrounding the ongoing dispute.
1. Historical Context and Roots of the Dispute
The conflict between Cambodia and Thailand over their shared border—particularly around the Preah Vihear Temple and adjacent territories—has deep historical roots.
- Colonial-era boundaries: Much of the dispute stems from maps drawn during the French colonial administration of Cambodia, which Thailand has periodically contested.
- UN and ICJ rulings: In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) awarded the temple to Cambodia, but disputes over the surrounding land continued.
- National pride and sovereignty: For both countries, the issue is tied not only to land but also to national identity and historical dignity, making diplomatic compromise politically sensitive.
2. The July 2025 Ceasefire Agreement
Following a sharp escalation of hostilities in late July, which included heavy artillery exchanges and cross-border rocket fire, both governments reached an unconditional ceasefire on July 28, 2025.
Key elements of the agreement include:
- Immediate cessation of hostilities along all contested border areas.
- Deployment of ASEAN observers, led by Malaysia, to monitor compliance. These teams are stationed on both sides of the border but cannot cross into the other nation’s territory.
- Commitment to future bilateral talks, with the next meeting scheduled for later this month.
While the agreement was welcomed by the international community, both sides remain cautious, with military forces still stationed in forward positions.
3. Continuing Security Risks
Despite the ceasefire, the border remains hazardous, particularly due to landmines and unexploded ordnance.
- On August 9, 2025, three Thai soldiers were injured—one critically—after a landmine exploded in Sisaket province, near the Cambodian border.
- Cambodia has denied planting new mines, suggesting they may be remnants from previous conflicts dating back decades.
- The Thai Army reported finding over 800 rocket-impact craters in the border region, some within civilian and medical zones, raising concerns about the long-term safety of residents.
The presence of these hidden dangers means that peace on paper does not translate into safety for soldiers or civilians on the ground.
4. Humanitarian Impact
The conflict has inflicted a heavy humanitarian toll on both sides.
- Displacement crisis: More than 300,000 people fled their homes during the late-July clashes. While evacuation centers have closed in most areas, thousands remain in temporary shelters.
- Casualties: As of August 10, the death toll stands at 17, including both combatants and civilians.
- Economic strain: Border communities, many of which rely on cross-border trade and tourism, have seen livelihoods disrupted. Farmers have abandoned fields near the conflict zone, and small businesses are struggling to survive.
International aid agencies have called for urgent demining operations and humanitarian assistance, but access to certain areas remains restricted due to military control.
5. Political Dynamics in Thailand and Cambodia
The dispute has also had significant political repercussions in both countries.
- Thailand: Polls indicate that the Thai public has greater confidence in the military than in the civilian government to handle the dispute. This sentiment could strengthen the military’s influence in political decision-making, potentially affecting the democratic balance of power.
- Cambodia: The government has framed its position as a defense of sovereignty, using nationalist rhetoric to rally domestic support. However, economic disruptions in border provinces have placed pressure on the administration to secure a lasting peace.
Both governments face the challenge of balancing public expectations of firmness with the practical necessity of compromise.
6. ASEAN’s Role and Limitations
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has stepped in as a mediator, dispatching monitoring teams to the border. This marks a significant step for ASEAN, which traditionally adheres to a policy of non-interference in member states’ internal affairs.
However, limitations exist:
- Observers are restricted to one side of the border, limiting their ability to verify incidents.
- ASEAN lacks enforcement mechanisms; its success depends on the willingness of both governments to adhere to the agreement.
- Internal divisions within ASEAN mean that not all member states are equally committed to pressuring either side toward resolution.
Still, the deployment of observers is seen as a symbolic commitment to peace and a potential foundation for long-term conflict resolution.
7. Risk of Renewed Hostilities
While open warfare has stopped, the situation is precarious for several reasons:
- Mutual distrust – Both sides continue to accuse each other of violations, including troop movements and artillery positioning.
- Unresolved territorial claims – The underlying dispute over border demarcation remains unsettled, leaving fertile ground for future flare-ups.
- Domestic political pressures – Leaders in both countries may find it politically advantageous to take a hardline stance, which could reignite tensions.
- External factors – Economic downturns or unrelated political crises could shift attention away from peace efforts.
Analysts warn that without clear, enforceable agreements on troop withdrawal and demilitarization, sporadic incidents could escalate into full-scale conflict again.
8. International Legal Avenues
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) remains the ultimate legal authority for resolving territorial disputes between states. In past rulings, the ICJ has sided with Cambodia regarding the temple itself, but not all surrounding areas.
If both nations agree, the ICJ could:
- Clarify the boundaries using historical maps, satellite data, and legal precedents.
- Set conditions for joint development of disputed areas.
- Facilitate mechanisms for peaceful arbitration in future disputes.
However, referral to the ICJ requires mutual consent, which is politically difficult given domestic nationalist pressures.
9. Pathways to Lasting Peace
A sustainable resolution would require multi-layered measures, including:
- Bilateral dialogue: Continuation of high-level meetings between defense and foreign ministers.
- Joint border demarcation: A technical commission supported by international experts to finalize the boundary line.
- Demining and ordnance removal: Accelerated clearance operations in coordination with NGOs like the Halo Trust.
- Economic cooperation zones: Establishing shared markets and cross-border trade hubs to turn contested areas into mutually beneficial zones.
- Public education campaigns: Reducing nationalistic hostility by promoting historical understanding and cultural exchanges.
10. Conclusion
The Cambodia–Thailand border dispute remains a volatile issue where diplomacy, historical grievances, and military realities intersect. While the July 2025 ceasefire has stopped large-scale fighting, the peace is fragile—threatened by landmines, mutual distrust, and unresolved territorial claims.
The coming months will be critical. If both governments can leverage ASEAN’s monitoring, engage in sincere dialogue, and address humanitarian needs, there is a chance to transform this flashpoint into a model of regional conflict resolution. Failure to do so risks plunging the border back into violence, with devastating consequences for both nations and the stability of Southeast Asia.
