Border Dispute and Political Feud Between Thailand and Cambodia
Introduction
The border between Thailand and Cambodia has been a contentious issue for years, with occasional conflicts flaring up between the two neighboring countries. However, the most recent fight has a deeper root cause - a political feud between the two nations. This feud has not only strained the relationship between the two countries, but it has also shattered an old friendship that was once strong.
History of Conflict
The border dispute between Thailand and Cambodia dates back to the colonial era, when the French drew up the border between the two countries. Over the years, several clashes have occurred, with both sides claiming ownership over the Preah Vihear temple. In 2011, the International Court of Justice ruled in favor of Cambodia, but tensions have still remained high between the two countries.
The Political Feud
The recent fight at the border is a result of a political feud between the two nations. In 2019, Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha was accused of manipulating the election to maintain his grip on power. This led to a fallout between him and his Cambodian counterpart, Hun Sen, who has been in power for over 35 years. The strained relationship between the two leaders has now spilled over into the border dispute, causing further tensions between the two countries.
Conclusion
The ongoing political feud has not only affected
About the Organizations Mentioned
International Court of Justice
The **International Court of Justice (ICJ)** is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, established in 1945 under the UN Charter and beginning its work in 1946. Located in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ settles legal disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by UN organs and specialized agencies. It is the only international court with general jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes between countries, making its rulings a primary source of international law[1][2][5]. The Court comprises **15 independent judges** elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and Security Council. Judges represent a global regional balance and do not act as representatives of their own states. States party to a case may appoint an ad hoc judge for that specific case, who holds the same powers as permanent judges during proceedings[2][4]. The ICJ's jurisdiction is twofold: *contentious jurisdiction*, where it resolves disputes between consenting states regarding international law issues, and *advisory jurisdiction*, where it issues legal opinions on questions posed by UN bodies or specialized agencies[1][3]. Only states may be parties in contentious cases, and jurisdiction depends on their consent, often via treaties or declarations accepting the Court’s authority[3][5]. Since its inception, the ICJ has handled over 160 cases, including significant disputes concerning territorial sovereignty, maritime boundaries, and treaty interpretations. Notable advisory opinions have influenced international legal norms and UN policy, such as opinions on decolonization and use of force. While ICJ rulings are binding on parties involved, enforcement relies on UN mechanisms and political will, as the Court lacks direct enforcement power[2][5]. For business and technology sectors, the ICJ’s role in clarifying international legal frameworks impacts cross-border disputes, sovereignty issues affecting global trade, and the development of international law that underpins regulatory environments. Its influence helps stabilize legal expectations among states, fostering a predictable global environment critical for international business and
