By Dr. Seun Sam, Policy analyst of RAC

In the 21st century, the legitimacy and stability of the global order rest firmly on the foundation of international law. From the United Nations Charter to various international treaties and adjudicating institutions, global norms serve as essential tools for resolving conflicts peacefully and promoting cooperation among states. Among these institutions, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stands as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, tasked with settling legal disputes submitted by states and offering advisory opinions on legal questions. The ICJ plays a vital role in shaping a rules-based world order. Respect for its decisions is not optional; it is a reflection of a nation’s maturity, commitment to peace, and integration into the modern global community.

Cambodia is a case in point. Despite being a relatively small nation with limited geopolitical influence, Cambodia has consistently demonstrated its respect for international institutions and their decisions, including those rendered by the ICJ. The most prominent example is the Preah Vihear Temple case, a territorial dispute with Thailand that has tested both countries' commitment to international norms.

Cambodia and the ICJ: A Model of Compliance

The dispute over the ownership of the Preah Vihear Temple, a 9th-century Khmer sanctuary situated near the Cambodia-Thailand border, dates back to the colonial era. In 1962, after a lengthy legal battle, the ICJ ruled in favor of Cambodia, affirming that the temple is located on Cambodian territory. This decision was based on a 1907 map drawn by French colonial authorities and later recognized by Thailand.

Despite internal wounds from a devastating civil war and the horrors of the Khmer Rouge regime, Cambodia respected the ICJ’s decision without hesitation. The Kingdom did not have the political, military, or economic power to enforce the ruling unilaterally, nor did it attempt to challenge or discredit the court. Instead, Cambodia presented itself as a responsible member of the international community, committed to peaceful dispute resolution and adherence to legal norms.

This respect for the ICJ ruling reflected Cambodia's strategic vision for long-term peace and development. It understood that its future lay not in confrontation, but in cooperation with international institutions and neighboring countries. Cambodia’s approach has helped improve its international image and served as a lesson in diplomacy and legal integrity.

Thailand’s Rejection and Criticism of the ICJ

In contrast, Thailand’s response to the ICJ ruling has been marked by resistance, skepticism, and at times outright rejection. While Thailand initially accepted the 1962 ruling publicly, successive governments and nationalist factions have repeatedly contested the ICJ’s findings. Some Thai leaders and media outlets have gone so far as to accuse the ICJ of being a biased or corrupt international organization, undermining the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of their citizens.

This dismissive attitude came into sharper focus during the 2011–2013 hearings at the ICJ, when Cambodia requested the Court to interpret the 1962 ruling following renewed military clashes in the area. Cambodia argued that Thailand had violated the ICJ's decision by stationing troops near the temple. In 2013, the ICJ unanimously clarified that the area surrounding the temple—known as the promontory—also belongs to Cambodia and ordered Thai troops to withdraw.

Once again, Thailand was reluctant to comply fully and questioned the legal authority of the court. Instead of embracing the rule of law and setting a regional example, Thailand adopted a position that undermined international norms and inflamed nationalist sentiment at home.

The Importance of Upholding International Law

International laws are not made to favor one country over another; they are designed to maintain global peace, equality, and stability. Disputes are inevitable between neighboring countries, especially those with complex historical and territorial entanglements. However, the true test of a nation’s maturity lies in how it chooses to resolve those disputes—whether through confrontation or through the legitimate mechanisms of international law.

The ICJ, like all international organizations, is not perfect. However, it remains the highest and most respected legal forum available to states. Rejecting its authority on the grounds of nationalism or convenience not only damages the international legal system but also sends a dangerous message that might makes right.

If every country were to reject rulings that do not favor them, the world would descend into legal chaos. Wars would become more likely, and international relations would devolve into a zero-sum game of power rather than peaceful cooperation. Therefore, modern nations have a moral and legal obligation to uphold the rule of law—even when it is inconvenient or contrary to their immediate interests.

A Call for Thailand to Reconsider

As a fellow ASEAN member and an influential player in Southeast Asia, Thailand’s actions set an important precedent. If Thailand continues to challenge the legitimacy of the ICJ and portrays it as a corrupt or biased institution, it risks damaging not only regional stability but also its own standing in the global community.

Thailand is a country with a rich cultural heritage and a modern economy. It has the capacity to be a leader in the region—not just economically or militarily, but morally and diplomatically. However, to achieve this, it must show respect for international rulings and refrain from inciting nationalism at the expense of peace. Compliance with the ICJ’s decisions would demonstrate Thailand’s commitment to international justice and to being a modern, responsible nation.

Conclusion

Cambodia’s conduct in the Preah Vihear case offers a powerful example of how a nation, regardless of its size or power, can rise above short-term national sentiment and commit to the greater good of international peace. Its unwavering respect for the ICJ reflects its desire to be a modern, law-abiding member of the global community.

Thailand, on the other hand, still has the opportunity to correct its course. By embracing the ICJ ruling and working with Cambodia in the spirit of friendship and legal cooperation, Thailand can contribute to a more stable and prosperous Southeast Asia.

In an age where international cooperation is more necessary than ever—from climate change to security to trade—respecting international law is not a weakness; it is a strength. It is the cornerstone of a modern nation. Countries that disregard this principle isolate themselves not only from their neighbors but from the shared values of peace and justice that bind the global community together.

RAC Media