Can Cambodia and Thailand reach common ground over their border disputes?

Written by Savya Podder

Edited by Aveev Pankaj

No one knows what truly happened on the morning of 24 July, 2025. According to Thai newspaper The Nation, “Cambodian forces launched an attack” with Rocket Propelled Grenades and artillery shells over the Thai border, whereas The Phnom Penh Post claims that it was Thai armed forces that started an “unprovoked assault” against their soldiers. This was already a hint at where the situation was heading towards: an impasse. 

The standstill is also being evidenced by the two countries’ diametrically opposed views on various questions regarding the conflict. Should there be third party involvement with actors such as the International Court of Justice, who had previously been involved in this conflict? Cambodia is openly welcoming it, whilst Thailand is set on bilateral negotiations only. Which map should be used for the demarcation of the border? Cambodia continuously refers back to the 1904 Franco-Siamese treaty, whereas Thailand argues that parts of it are vague and inaccurate. 

Furthermore, this situation has a complex history. The 2025 conflict is a result of an ongoing dispute between the two nations. At the turn of the 20th century, Cambodia was a French protectorate, and a deal was signed between them and Thailand (then known as Siam) in 1904, which clarified the border between the two states. The reason for this is conflicts that had previously taken place, such as the Franco-Siamese crisis of 1893, after which Siam was forced to cede various territories to French Indochina. However, another refined version of the 1904 treaty was released in 1907.

The major disagreements between the countries started in 1962, when Cambodia had already gained freedom from France. Thailand had placed some of their troops in the Preah Vihear temple, which was a disputed area due to a lack of precision in the original treaty. Cambodia brought up the case to the International Court of Justice, and it was judged in 1962 that the temple lay on Cambodian soil, and that Thailand had to remove all troops from the area. Nevertheless, both sides still feel strongly about the issue.

Given these various factors, a solution seems improbable. Nevertheless, it is interesting to consider issues similar to this one, and how they were resolved. One that is particularly useful to look at is the Al Aqsa Mosque (located in East Jerusalem). It is officially considered to belong to neither Israel or Palestine, and rather, the Jerusalem Waqf (an organ of the Jordanian government) is responsible for its administrative matters. 

Although there are still disagreements between Israel and Palestine regarding the mosque, making it a neutral territory is the first step in deescalating the conflict. I believe that this is also the case regarding the conflict between Cambodia and Thailand. The temple has deep cultural symbolism for both countries. This is the only way that everyone is able to appreciate the significant landmark.

We may never be sure what truly happened on the morning of 24 July, 2025. Nevertheless, it is instrumental that the international community works to ensure that both parties are able to put this behind them, and reach a point of neutrality.