The origins of the dispute lie in a series of escalating tensions over maritime boundaries and control of disputed territories along the 4.6 million-strong border. Cambodia’s resumption of offensive operations in 2023, culminating in the deployment of anti-personnel mines, specifically the PMN-2 model, represented a blatant disregard for international law and the spirit of the Ottawa Convention, which prohibits the use and stockpiling of such weapons. The convention, signed in 1997, mandates the destruction of existing stockpiles and the cessation of mine production. The persistent presence of these mines, coupled with credible reports of continued training by Cambodian personnel, has created a volatile situation directly challenging the Convention’s objectives. As Dr. Phuong Tran, a specialist in Southeast Asian security at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, notes, “The Cambodian actions represent a deliberate attempt to undermine the Convention’s legitimacy and leverage a strong emotional response from Thailand, potentially disrupting the broader efforts to promote arms control in the region.”
Key stakeholders are deeply entrenched. Thailand, driven by legitimate security concerns and the protection of its citizens, views the mine situation as a fundamental breach of international law. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin’s government has repeatedly emphasized its commitment to upholding the Ottawa Convention but also asserted its right to self-defense and to ensure the safety of its borders. Cambodia, under Prime Minister Hun Manet, maintains that its actions are intended to reclaim historic territory and that Thailand is unnecessarily escalating the situation. Cambodia’s stance is largely framed by historical grievances, territorial claims, and a reluctance to fully acknowledge the severity of its violations.
The United Nations, through Secretary-General António Guterres, has attempted to mediate the dispute, but the process has been hampered by a lack of genuine compromise. The establishment of an independent fact-finding mission, as advocated by Thailand and supported by a growing number of ASEAN member states, remains a central demand. However, Cambodia has consistently resisted this proposal, citing concerns about sovereignty and the potential for politicization. The initial responses from Cambodian authorities, often accompanied by unsubstantiated accusations against Thailand, further eroded trust and fueled the escalation. Recent intelligence reports, corroborated by multiple sources, indicate that Cambodia continues to actively train personnel in mine emplacement techniques, despite international calls for cessation.
Data reveals a stark contrast in the approaches. Thailand has presented extensive documentation – including satellite imagery, eyewitness accounts, and forensic analyses – demonstrating Cambodia’s violations. The Thai Mine Action Center (TMAC) has conducted preliminary assessments, estimating the presence of tens of thousands of mines within the disputed zone. Conversely, Cambodian authorities have provided minimal verifiable evidence and have largely relied on denial and disinformation campaigns. As Ambassador Usana Berananda powerfully articulated during the 22nd Meeting of the States Parties, “The absence of tangible evidence, coupled with the continued deployment of these weapons, demonstrates a clear disregard for the Convention’s principles and a deliberate attempt to deflect responsibility.”
Looking ahead, the next six months are likely to be dominated by continued diplomatic maneuvering and a heightened risk of further escalation. Without a credible commitment to an independent fact-finding mission and demonstrable steps to remove the mines, Thailand’s recourse to Article 8 and potential legal action through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) becomes increasingly likely. Longer-term, the situation carries significant implications for regional alliances. The United States and European nations, while traditionally supporting Thailand’s position, are carefully calibrating their responses to avoid alienating Cambodia, a key partner in counter-terrorism efforts and a member of ASEAN. The potential for an ICJ ruling, however, could fundamentally reshape the regional security landscape, potentially strengthening the Convention’s legal framework and setting a precedent for other nations.
The persistent stalemate underscores the fragility of international norms when confronted by territorial disputes and nationalistic ambitions. The core question remains: Can the Ottawa Convention – a treaty designed to prevent suffering and promote peace – truly function when a key signatory willfully disregards its provisions? The ongoing Thailand-Cambodia crisis demands a renewed commitment to multilateralism, evidence-based diplomacy, and, ultimately, a commitment to upholding the sanctity of international law. It necessitates a broader examination of how effectively the international community can enforce norms and deter violations of humanitarian law in the face of persistent breaches by states with competing claims.