Historically, the border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia stems from the 1907 Treaty of Versailles, which ceded a large swathe of Cambodian territory to France, ultimately becoming Thailand. The 1960 treaty further solidified this delineation, although overlapping claims over areas like the Preah Vihear Temple – recently the subject of renewed territorial disputes – have fueled decades of contention. The 2011 occupation of the Preah Vihear Temple by Cambodian forces, followed by a protracted standoff, dramatically escalated tensions and exposed deep-seated grievances on both sides. The subsequent border demarcation process, overseen by the International Court of Justice, while legally definitive, failed to fully resolve the issue and underscored the deeply ingrained nationalist narratives driving the conflict. Several subsequent incidents, including the 2014 clashes that resulted in dozens of casualties, demonstrated the fragility of peace and the willingness of both governments to resort to force. According to a report by the International Crisis Group, “the border dispute has evolved from a geographically contained issue into a proxy conflict with wider geopolitical implications.”
Key stakeholders in this protracted disagreement include the governments of Thailand and Cambodia, each heavily influenced by nationalist sentiment and domestic political pressures. Within Thailand, the military has historically played a significant role in shaping policy, frequently invoking national security concerns to justify aggressive actions. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisins’ government, facing domestic criticism, appears to prioritize a measured approach focusing on diplomatic solutions and border security. Conversely, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet’s administration, leveraging nationalist support, has adopted a more assertive stance, appealing to historical claims and utilizing public opinion to pressure Thailand. International organizations, such as ASEAN, have repeatedly called for dialogue and a peaceful resolution, yet their influence has been limited by the deeply entrenched positions of the parties. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s 2013 ruling, which largely favored Cambodia’s claim to the Preah Vihear Temple, remains largely ignored by Thailand, furthering the asymmetry of power and fueling resentment. “The Cambodian government consistently frames the border issue as a matter of national sovereignty and historical justice,” notes Dr. Sopheap Sitha, a specialist in Southeast Asian political relations at Chulalongkorn University. This reflects a wider trend of assertive nationalism across the region, powerfully amplified by digital media.
Recent developments in the six months leading up to December 2025 demonstrate a continuation of this volatile dynamic. Despite the convening of the 3rd Special Meeting of the General Border Committee (GBC) – a mechanism designed to facilitate dialogue – no substantive breakthroughs have been achieved. Thai forces have continued to conduct “hot patrols” near the border, frequently alleging incursions by Cambodian forces, while Cambodian authorities have reported similar incidents. A particularly concerning development in November 2025 involved the reported shooting of a Thai border guard, resulting in retaliatory fire and a brief escalation of tensions. Data from the Thai Defence Industrial Cooperation Department indicates a sustained increase in military spending allocated to border security, with a particular emphasis on deploying armored vehicles and electronic surveillance systems. Furthermore, a joint survey conducted by the Thai and Cambodian governments regarding the demarcation line, completed in late 2025, has yet to be fully implemented, highlighting a lack of trust and a reluctance to compromise. The 3rd GBC’s failure to secure a sustained ceasefire underscores the limitations of this traditional approach to conflict resolution, suggesting a need for alternative mechanisms. According to a recent analysis by the Control Risks Group, “the Thai-Cambodian border dispute is increasingly characterized by a cycle of provocation and retaliation, making a lasting resolution exceedingly difficult.”
Looking ahead, the short-term (next 6 months) is likely to see continued low-level skirmishes, exacerbated by the upcoming Thai general election in 2027, where nationalist rhetoric is almost certain to be weaponized. The long-term (5-10 years) outcome remains uncertain, but the situation could stabilize if both governments prioritize diplomatic engagement and demonstrate a genuine willingness to compromise. However, the risk of a more serious escalation remains significant, particularly if the underlying grievances – encompassing resource control, historical narratives, and security perceptions – are not adequately addressed. The Mekong River itself represents a crucial point of contention, with both countries vying for access to its resources. “Ultimately, the fate of the Thai-Cambodian border hinges on the ability of both nations to move beyond narrow nationalistic interests and embrace a broader vision of regional stability,” explains Dr. Narin Nakray, a researcher at the Bangkok Institute of International Affairs. The potential for broader regional involvement, particularly from ASEAN, remains crucial.
The continued low-intensity conflict along the Thai-Cambodian border serves as a stark reminder of the fragility of peace in Southeast Asia. It demands careful and sustained attention from policymakers, not merely as a bilateral issue but as a crucial test of ASEAN’s ability to effectively manage regional disputes and uphold the principles of peaceful coexistence. The situation requires a measured and strategic response, focusing not just on immediate containment but on fostering a long-term commitment to dialogue, confidence-building measures, and a shared understanding of the complex geopolitical realities shaping the Mekong’s shifting currents. What lessons, if any, can be extracted from this seemingly intractable dispute to inform conflict resolution strategies in other volatile regions facing similar challenges of competing claims and nationalist fervor?