Thailand-Cambodia Landmine Dispute: Are International Laws Just Suggestions Now?
The landmine: a weapon that should be an antique in a museum of human folly, instead remains a contemporary threat. Thailand’s recent accusation against Cambodia — reported by the Bangkok Post — that it violated the Ottawa Convention isn’t just a border skirmish amplified by diplomatic cables. It’s a stress test for the entire system of international norms, revealing how easily commitments collapse when they butt against perceived national security imperatives. Minister Maris Sangiampongsa’s condemnation poses a fundamental question: In an era defined by the erosion of global consensus, are any international agreements truly capable of preventing the resurgence of previously condemned practices?
Thailand’s Foreign Affairs Minister Maris Sangiampongsa accused Cambodia of breaching international law and violating its treaty obligations:
“The repeated landmine incidents clearly demonstrate Cambodia’s continued deliberate violations of Thailand’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. These actions are serious breaches of international law and of the recently agreed ceasefire.”
The core issue extends beyond the immediate territorial dispute; it implicates the very nature of international law itself. Verification and enforcement of conventions are always fraught, but this case highlights a particularly insidious challenge: the asymmetry of perceived threats. If Cambodia believes it faces an existential threat, the calculus of adhering to the Ottawa Convention shifts dramatically. This undercuts the foundational premise of the Ottawa Convention — a global commitment to ban anti-personnel landmines. The convention’s strength relies on the willingness of states to subordinate immediate tactical advantage to long-term global stability, a calculus increasingly out of favor.
What’s happening on the Thai-Cambodian border is a microcosm of a larger, more troubling trend: the re-emergence of localized conflicts fueled by great power competition. The region has historically been a theater of proxy wars and geopolitical competition, from the Vietnam War era to the present day, and the lingering presence of landmines is a physical manifestation of this turbulent past. While Thailand has made significant progress in clearing its landmine-affected areas, Cambodia’s capacity and commitment appear to be lagging, exacerbated by internal political instability and a complex, often antagonistic, relationship with its neighbors — one that has seen flare-ups of violence over contested territory stretching back decades.
Moreover, the alleged use of landmines underscores a critical point about the nature of international cooperation. It’s not enough to simply sign a treaty. As Anne-Marie Slaughter has argued, the effectiveness of international law hinges not just on formal agreements, but on the creation of dense networks of interaction and mutual accountability that embed those agreements in domestic legal and political systems. Without that kind of deep integration, international law remains a fragile veneer, easily peeled away by the sharp edges of national interest.
The implications of this landmine dispute extend far beyond Thailand and Cambodia. If Cambodia’s alleged violations go unchecked, it could embolden other states to view international norms as optional guidelines, particularly those related to weapons control in asymmetrical conflicts. This would weaken the international framework designed to prevent the use of indiscriminate weapons. Furthermore, it undermines the efforts of donor countries that have invested in landmine clearance and victim assistance programs in Cambodia, raising questions about the efficacy of external actors when domestic political will falters. The billions poured into demining efforts worldwide become suspect if the underlying incentive structures remain unchanged.
This isn’t just about bombs in the ground; it’s about the creeping erosion of the liberal international order itself. The Thai-Cambodian landmine issue serves as a chilling reminder: Upholding humanitarian principles in a world of competing interests requires not just constant vigilance, but a fundamental re-evaluation of the incentives that drive state behavior. Perhaps the greatest danger lies not in the immediate casualties inflicted by these weapons, but in the slow-motion collapse of trust that occurs when nations begin to view international agreements not as binding commitments, but as mere suggestions. And if that trust collapses, what then?
