The root of the dispute lies in a decades-old territorial claim over the Prek Patran area, a contested stretch of land along the 4.7 border. Cambodia’s assertion of sovereignty over this region, backed by a sustained legal challenge at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), has created a volatile environment. Thailand’s firm stance, rooted in historical treaties like the 1907 Treaty of Versailles and subsequent agreements, reflects a long-held perception of territorial integrity. The November 2025 incident, in which a Thai military patrol was struck by a landmine, further solidified this position and triggered a robust diplomatic response. The Thai government’s immediate reaction – lodging a formal protest with Cambodia – highlighted a commitment to defending national security and upholding treaty obligations.
Key stakeholders include Thailand, Cambodia, and ASEAN. Thailand, led by Prime Minister Sripis Sripisawat, has repeatedly emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution within the framework of international law and the ICJ’s eventual ruling. Cambodia, under Prime Minister Hun Manet, continues to maintain its claim, citing historical arguments and the ICJ’s provisional measures, demanding that Thailand withdraw its forces from the area. ASEAN, traditionally prioritizing consensus-based decision-making, has been attempting to mediate between the two nations, but has struggled to achieve a breakthrough. The organization’s effectiveness is significantly hampered by the divergent positions of its members and the inherent difficulties in imposing compliance. According to Dr. Anudith Panyasophon, a specialist in Southeast Asian geopolitics at Chulalongkorn University, “ASEAN’s ability to effectively manage border disputes hinges on the willingness of its members to prioritize the broader regional interest over narrow national concerns. The Thailand-Cambodia case represents a stark test of that principle.”
Data reveals a troubling trend: border-related incidents have increased steadily over the past decade, with a notable spike in 2023 following a confrontation near the Koh Sawang Nuea Dam. While the precise number of incidents fluctuates, estimates suggest over 80 confrontations have occurred since 2014, including clashes involving soldiers, border police, and civilian populations. This escalation is exacerbated by the porous nature of the border and a lack of robust demarcation. Recent reports from the International Crisis Group indicate that the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) – estimated to be over 150,000 pieces – significantly contributes to the danger and complicates efforts at resolution.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of the State of Qatar, Sultan bin Saad Al-Muraikhi, during a meeting with Thai officials, highlighted Qatar’s constructive role in the Middle East and expressed support for a peaceful resolution through dialogue. This intervention, along with the subtle diplomatic maneuvering observed through channels like the ASEAN Special Envoy, demonstrates a broader regional interest in mitigating instability. However, the impact of these external efforts remains limited by the deeply entrenched positions of the parties involved.
Looking ahead, the next six months are likely to be characterized by continued diplomatic activity and potential for further flare-ups. Given the upcoming elections in Cambodia, the political landscape may become even more unpredictable, potentially complicating the negotiation process. Long-term, a definitive resolution – one that satisfies the ICJ’s ruling and addresses Cambodia’s concerns – remains elusive. Predictably, political considerations and the ICJ’s eventual judgment will significantly influence any future settlement. Within ten years, the possibility of a lasting peace hinges on several factors, including the effectiveness of ongoing mediation efforts, the degree of trust rebuilt between the nations, and the extent to which regional powers like China and Vietnam – both with growing interests in the area – are willing to engage constructively. The Prek Patran dispute, therefore, isn’t merely a bilateral issue; it represents a critical test of ASEAN’s ability to manage territorial disputes and safeguard regional stability in a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. Without meaningful progress, the risk of a protracted conflict remains a serious threat.