Thailand-Cambodia Truce 2025: Legal Framework Under International Law Explained
Introduction
At the end of July, fifteen years after breaking out into serious conflict bordering the shared century-old maritime border, Thailand and Cambodia reached an unstable ceasefire after a week of intense fighting over their indisputable old border.
This ceasefire is being mediated by China, Malaysia, and the United States to provide a reprieve for the bloodiest sandwich war between the neighbors in more than ten years. However, which international laws allow such a covenant to be established, upheld, and recognized as a valid agreement? To illustrate this, we will examine three key clauses in the UN Charter and other agreements that parties use to pursue peace.
Prohibiting the Use of Force
Under Article 2(4), the UN Charter makes it obvious that nations are forbidden to threaten or to apply force to the territory or political independence of any other nation. The rule is that boys can’t take each other’s toys or destroy each other’s sandcastles.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Thai and Cambodian soldiers violated this rule when they started shooting near Preah Vihear Temple area, as a child pushing another on the swings does by disobeying the safety rule on the playground
By reaffirming the ceasefire, the two governments committed themselves to Article 2(4) and drew their troops back, returning the fundamental security term of the international playground.
Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully
After the exercise of force, Article 33 of the UN Charter comes into action; or rather, the states involved must find a peaceful way of resolving their differences; that is, it can be either negotiation, mediation, or the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Cognize that Article 33 acts like a school mediator that intervenes when two of the schoolchildren are engaged in a fight over the pencil and makes them reason rather than fight.
Even in the 2025 conflict, the Malaysians hosted preliminary negotiations and the Chinese held a meeting of the senior diplomats in Shanghai to restore the two sides to talking. This diplomatic shuttle can be resonated to the text of Article 33, which enumerates the following measures to stop hostility: negotiation, inquiry, mediation, and conciliation.
Right of Self‑Defense
Article 51 recognizes a nation’s right to self-defense, even during a siege, in contrast to a domestic resident’s ability to barricade a door against intruders. Thailand invoked this right to fire back after it accused Cambodia of breaching the Malaysian-sponsored ceasefire.
Cambodia rejected new attacks, making it a so-called he said, she said over who started the recent exchanges. Under Article 51, however, self-defense must be proportionate and immediate; therefore, any retaliatory act to restore security after this incident will constitute another contravention of the Charter.
Role of the Security Council
Where fighting endangers peace from a global perspective, Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter grant authority to the UN Security Council to apply measures, including economic and military ones, but they must be done after trying all non-violent means.
Even though no such UN measures have been imposed in this border skirmish, the threat of U.S. tariffs (up to 36 percent on Thai exports) acted as a small-scale Article 41 measure by forcing both combatants to adhere to the ceasefire painfully.
Geneva Conventions and Protection of Civilians
In addition to the Charter, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 established the rules as to how non-combatants were expected to be treated in times of conflict humanely. Their Common Article 3 covers non-international conflicts and requires minimum care to be given: violence is not supposed to be committed against any life, nor should people be taken as hostages or degradingly treated by the warring sides that are out of combat.
Such rules were crucial, as illustrated by the wholesale displacement of more than 300,000 civilians on either side. Safe delivery of returning families to their homes depends on regard to the pledge of humane treatment found in Common Article 3.
Illustration: The Neighbour’s Fence Dispute
Consider two neighbors who are disputing the location of a fence line. One of them begins to throw stones but decides to stop and become friends. Stone throwing is prohibited in Article 2(4). Article 33 states that they should bargain.
Article 51 allows every homeowner to retaliate in case the rocks are flung over. The Geneva Conventions are international laws that prohibit throwing stones at the windows of any person. This metaphor depicts how international law directs aggression into communication and shields innocents.
Conclusion
The July 2025 peace treaty between Thailand and Cambodia is based on legal terms contained in the UN charter and Geneva conventions. Article 2(4) outlawed the use of force, Article 33 required a peaceful settlement and Article 51 allowed necessary defense.
The practical measures are completed with security council tools (Articles 41 and 42) and Geneva provisions of civilian security. When both countries observe these rules, a battlefield pause can transform into a framework for achieving permanent peace. Without such legal guardrails, there is the risk of any border dispute becoming open conflict again as soon as negotiations are stalled.
Author
About the Author
