In a world governed by law, principles must triumph over paradoxes. Cambodia's recent imminent intention to file an application to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), regarding the dispute over the Mum Bei area and the Temples of Ta Moan Thom, Ta Moan Tauch and Ta Krabei is a deliberate and lawful step to uphold peace, safeguard regional stability and advance the rule of international law.

Thailand's official response, through a press release issued by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs on June 16, to Cambodia's legal filing, reveals a position that is not only paradoxical but also legally unfounded, diplomatically inconsistent and contradictory to Thailand's previous engagement with international adjudication. While it purports to support peaceful settlement procedures, its actions in this case reveal a different story: rejection and non-cooperation.

Thailand’s denial of ICJ compulsory jurisdiction: A flawed assertion

Thailand claims that the Country has not recognised ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction since 1960. However, it is important to remember that the ICJ firmly rejected this allegation in its 26 May, 1961 decision on preliminary objections in the Preah Vihear Temple Case. The court concluded that Thailand, through its actions and involvement in prior proceedings, had acknowledged its jurisdiction. The court determined that it had jurisdiction based on Thailand's past acceptance and failure to object in a timely and consistent way, confirming the estoppel principle.

Furthermore, even if Thailand withdraws its declaration under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, this does not absolve it of its obligations under international law, particularly the principle of pacta sunt servanda and the obligation to settle disputes peacefully, as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the UN Charter.

Most importantly, Thailand's statement ignores the notion that rejecting compulsory jurisdiction does not imply legal immunity. Articles 2(3) and 33(1) of the UN Charter obligate all states to resolve disputes peacefully, including through judicial settlement. The ICJ underscored in the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and Bosnia v. Serbia (2007) cases that states are not absolved of responsibility by avoiding jurisdictional admission. These cases are critical precedents.

Cambodia's application is consistent with both Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute and Article 92 of the UN Charter. It encourages Thailand to fulfil its international obligations by engaging in a process that is intended to promote peace, rather than to perpetuate disputes.

A paradox in the promise of peace

Thailand's claim of a “strong commitment to the peaceful settlement of disputes” does not seem to be congruent with its diplomatic posture or its activities on the ground.

It's not enough to just say “peace”. Thailand has to live it. While Cambodia has pursued legal avenues in accordance with international law, Thailand has refused jurisdictional cooperation, failed to support the Court's role in dispute resolution, and, most troublingly, unlawfully opened fire and initiated escalatory activities in the contested areas, including military posturing and obstructive actions.

This paradox challenges Thailand's claimed commitment to the UN Charter, which requires all member states to avoid the threat or use of force and to resolve conflicts through lawful and peaceful means. Cambodia's approach to the ICJ is one of conflict prevention, not provocation.

Cambodia has always upheld the Charter's obligations for collaboration, good faith, and legal involvement.

Cambodia's recourse to the ICJ: Legal, appropriate and responsible

In paragraph 3 of its statement, Thailand claims that third-party arbitration “may not always be conducive” to cordial ties, especially in complex historical conflicts. However, this is not a matter of preference; it is a matter of principle.

Cambodia’s submission is completely consistent with the UN Charter and the ICJ Statute, and it is a textbook illustration of Article 33(1) of the Charter in action: “The parties to any dispute... shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement… ”

Cambodia has exhausted various bilateral efforts, including the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC) and other bilateral mechanisms. However, these venues have failed to resolve the disagreement definitively. Therefore, resorting to the ICJ — as both parties did in 1962 and again during the 2011-2013 interpretation proceedings — is not only lawful but also prudent.

The ICJ serves as a neutral, rules-based mechanism that ensures legal clarity, finality and procedural fairness. The ICJ may not deliver outcomes that satisfy all parties, but it guarantees justice through impartiality rather than political compromise. As a result, it continues to be the UN’s primary judicial organ under Article 92 of the Charter.

It is logical that those who have not prevailed or won before the Court, as in the 1962 and 2013 Preah Vihear rulings, may find the Court inappropriate. However, the ICJ deserves respect and not rejection since it implements the law without fear or favour.

Peace through law, not paradox

Cambodia’s application to the ICJ is not a provocation, but rather a legal plea for peace. It is not a rejection of conversation, but rather its continuance through already agreed-upon institutional channels.

Thailand's objections are not only legally ineffective but also contrary to its declared principles. By rejecting judicial institutions while claiming benign intent, it undermines the same underpinnings of the international legal order that it purports to uphold.

Cambodia has expressed her steadfast commitment to addressing this issue through legal and peaceful means, and Thailand is urged to join her – not in defiance, but in dignity and legality, in pursuit of lasting peace and cooperation between the two neighbours.

Michael R. Wiser, International Affairs Observer. This opinion piece reflects the author's views and opinions and seeks to promote constructive legal discussion between states in conformity with the United Nations Charter and international law.