The Cambodia–Thailand 2025 Border Dispute Part 2: Humanitarian and Economic Perspectives

Although friction over demarcation and sovereignty is not new, the dispute along the border between Thailand and Cambodia underscores the enduring relevance of the laws of war and the high costs of conflict in an interdependent regional economy in the wider Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

I. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Border Clashes

The laws of war are not abstract ideals; they are frameworks designed to limit the effects of conflict. Both Cambodia and Thailand are parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, which require protection for civilians, cultural property, the sick and wounded, and non-combatants. The Hague Conventions further regulate the conduct of hostilities, prohibiting indiscriminate bombardment and attacks on cultural heritage.

A confrontation between Thailand and Cambodia at Ta Muen Thom in February 2025 escalated into artillery exchanges and airstrikes by May. Reports indicate 30 people killed and 300,000 displaced; and comments on drone warfare, landmines, and heavy artillery deepening the civilian toll. The mass civilian displacement and reported civilian casualties and including deaths, raise concerns under the principle of distinction, which obliges belligerents to always differentiate between combatants and civilians. Shelling of populated areas implies a failure to respect this principle and may amount to indiscriminate attacks. Furthermore, reports indicated there was even the shelling around ancient temples, villages and key structures, including hospitals. Even if unintended, the use of heavy weapons in densely populated areas also indicates potential breaches of proportionality, as the harm to civilians appears excessive in relation to any direct military advantage.

The integration of drones and modern surveillance technologies has made localized disputes even more volatile. The use of these relatively new technologies in warfare, and the lack of appropriate regulation in many instances, exacerbates the difficulty of ensuring precaution in attack, another IHL obligation. Interestingly, some segments of the Cambodian and Thai public have not only blamed the other side but also criticized domestic elites accused of exploiting nationalist rhetoric for political advantage. This raises the possibility that accountability, if it emerges, may be driven internally through public demand for transparency rather than externally through international tribunals.

II. Economic Consequences of the Clashes

While the humanitarian violations capture legal headlines, the economic costs are equally revealing. Cambodia and Thailand are significant trading partners, with bilateral trade exceeding USD 4 billion in 2024. The 2025 clashes disrupted this interdependence in multiple ways. Border checkpoints closed, and retaliatory bans on imports were imposed. Cambodia targeted Thai agricultural products, which had a limited domestic impact but disrupted Thai farmers. More consequentially, Cambodian agriculture, which is heavily reliant on Thai fertilizers, faced immediate shortages, forcing costlier imports from third countries.

For Thailand, the absence of Cambodian migrant labor in manufacturing and agriculture created ripple effects. Labor shortages delayed construction, disrupted supply chains, and slowed exports, exposing Thailand’s dependence on its neighbor’s workforce.

Tourism also bears disproportionate losses. In 2024, 2.15 million Thai visitors entered Cambodia, comprising nearly one-third of all arrivals. Conflict sharply reduced these numbers, cutting revenue for Cambodia’s service sector. On the Thai side, border towns that depended on Cambodian visitors were estimated to lose 3 billion baht (USD 712 million) per month. These disruptions threatened livelihoods in both countries’ hospitality and retail sectors, industries that are notoriously sensitive to security concerns.

For ASEAN, the dispute struck at the heart of its integration project. The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) promotes free movement of goods, labor, and investment. Border clashes between members undermine this vision and weaken the bloc’s credibility as a guarantor of regional stability. Malaysia, as ASEAN’s 2025 chair, convened emergency talks that led to a ceasefire. External powers also weighed in, including China and the United States (US), which both called for restraint. This reflects broader geopolitical caution: Southeast Asia’s disputes remain primarily intra-regional, and ASEAN’s role as mediator is vital to maintaining autonomy from outside influence. While ASEAN’s principle of non-interference limits coercive measures, its convening power remains valuable. By providing a diplomatic space, ASEAN prevented escalation and demonstrated that even limited mechanisms can yield practical results.

The Cambodia–Thailand clashes illustrate how colonial-era borders, nationalist politics, and modern technology intersect to produce instability. There are several lessons which emerge: Firstly, IHL remains fragile without enforcement. Training and education, which both militaries receive with ICRC support, have not prevented violations. Without accountability, legal norms risk erosion. Economic repercussions on trade, labor, and tourism are affected by the conflict. While armies can sustain border deployments, small businesses and households cannot withstand prolonged disruption. Furthermore, protecting heritage sites such as Preah Vihear is not only a legal obligation but also a political necessity to prevent inflaming nationalist narratives. ASEAN can develop stronger conflict management. Mediation by Malaysia provided a stopgap, but reliance on voluntary diplomacy cannot guarantee stability. Institutional reforms may be necessary to strengthen ASEAN’s conflict-resolution toolkit.

III. Moving Forward

The US and Malaysia oversaw the signing of a Peace Accord in Kuala Lumpur in October 2025. However, this was short-lived following several Thai soldiers injured due to a landmine explosion along the border. This indicates security concerns remain for Cambodia and Thailand. Yet with the removal of artillery from the region and both states allowing observers to monitor the situation reveals peaceful efforts; and its continuation will depend on both accountability and regional cooperation. Domestically, both governments must resist nationalist manipulation and ensure transparency in addressing violations.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has consistently highlighted that training, without robust enforcement mechanisms, proves insufficient. The 2025 clashes serve as a clear illustration of how diminished levels of accountability can lead to a significant erosion of respect and compliance with IHL. Civil society organisations in both countries could be instrumental in documenting violations and advocating for governmental reforms. ASEAN’s principle of non-interference limits coercive measures, but its convening power remains valuable. However, with institutional reforms, such as a regional conflict-resolution mechanism or joint monitoring missions, in collaboration with the ICRC, ASEAN could strengthen its ability to manage disputes proactively. Hence, ASEAN must evolve beyond reactive mediation and strengthen mechanisms to manage disputes. Globally, international partners should support these efforts without overshadowing ASEAN’s role.

Ultimately, sustainable peace in Southeast Asia requires more than ceasefires. It requires institutions capable of safeguarding human dignity, preserving cultural heritage, and protecting the economic foundations of prosperity. The Cambodia–Thailand clashes of 2025, as highlighted in the map and selected timeline below, serve as a reminder that law, diplomacy, and economics are inseparable in the pursuit of regional stability.