Listen to the audio version of this article (generated by AI).
As a lawyer from Cambodia, I write from the perspective that regional peace cannot be sustained through unilateral accusations or domestic litigation alone. When disputes arise between neighboring states, the question is not simply who speaks louder, but which forum can credibly and lawfully resolve the dispute.
International law was developed precisely because interstate conflict cannot be settled fairly if each side insists on its own courts. Domestic legal measures may be lawful within national borders, but they are rarely sufficient when allegations involve cross-border conduct, military confrontation, or harm affecting civilians.
International law requires that disputes between states be resolved through peaceful means. Article 2(3) of the United Nations Charter obliges all member states to settle disputes without endangering international peace, while Article 33 encourages recourse to negotiation, arbitration, and judicial settlement. In this sense, turning to the International Court of Justice is not escalation, but the most principled legal alternative to conflict.
The Limits of Domestic Forums
National courts have borders; international disputes do not. National courts play an essential role in maintaining justice within a state. However, when allegations concern foreign officials or cross-border incidents, domestic proceedings inevitably belong to one side. Even where judicial independence exists, such litigation risks being perceived as politically influenced rather than neutral.
If a state is prepared to pursue remedies through its own domestic courts, it demonstrates that the dispute is being framed in legal terms. Yet interstate responsibility cannot be credibly determined by one party’s judiciary alone. The principled course is not unilateral litigation at home, but recourse to a shared forum of justice.
A dispute between states requires a forum beyond national control, where evidence and law—not politics—determine outcomes.
Why “Our Court” Matters
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) exists as the principal judicial forum for disputes between states. It was established precisely to prevent international disagreements from being reduced to instruments of national confrontation.
The ICJ provides a neutral venue where sovereignty, territorial integrity, and state responsibility may be examined through evidence, procedure, and impartial judgment. Such a process serves not only one side, but both, by ensuring legitimacy and reducing the risk of escalation.
Thailand has repeatedly emphasized the importance of peaceful dispute settlement and the rule of law in regional affairs. Where serious cross-border allegations arise, credibility depends not only on pursuing remedies, but on pursuing them before a neutral and internationally legitimate forum.
For this reason, if Thailand believes it has serious legal complaints against Cambodia or Cambodian leaders, the appropriate and internationally respected path is to bring such claims before the ICJ, rather than relying solely on domestic courts. Submitting disputes to the ICJ would not diminish sovereignty; it would strengthen legitimacy, reduce tension, and demonstrate a commitment to resolving conflict through law rather than confrontation.
The ICC and the Limits of Criminal Jurisdiction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) serves a distinct function: accountability for the gravest crimes under international law. At the same time, ICC jurisdiction is limited by treaty membership and other legal thresholds. It cannot be invoked casually or politically.
It remains a court of law, governed by strict admissibility requirements and the principle of complementarity.
Conclusion: Courage Through Neutral Justice
Southeast Asia cannot afford escalation through politicized legal threats or unilateral measures. What the region needs is courage: the courage to place disputes before neutral judges, to accept lawful outcomes, and to ensure that civilians are never reduced to pawns of nationalism.
This is not a question of Thailand versus Cambodia. It is a question of whether our region will choose law over escalation, and justice over unilateralism.
If peace and accountability are truly the objectives, then the proper remedy lies not in one side’s courtroom, but in a forum of international adjudication that belongs to neither party alone. Justice must be neutral, or it is not justice at all.
Note: This Op-Ed was written by Long Panhavuth, a lawyer at PAN & Associates Law Firm.
