(Phnom Penh): On March 1, 2026, Thailand’s Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul urged “immediate and sincere efforts to ease tensions through dialogue and diplomacy, in accordance with international law”, in response to escalating tensions in the Middle East.

The statement reflected the familiar language of contemporary diplomacy, in which governments frequently invoke restraint, dialogue and respect for international law to signal their commitment to global peace and stability.

Governments frequently invoke international law, restraint and dialogue to signal their commitment to maintaining peace and stability in an increasingly uncertain global environment.

Such appeals are both appropriate and necessary. Yet they also raise an important question: to what extent are these principles applied consistently, particularly within a country’s own regional context?

For Cambodia, the reference to international law carries particular historical and political significance. Cambodia has repeatedly relied on international legal institutions to resolve disputes with Thailand through peaceful means.

The most prominent example remains the Preah Vihear Temple case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In its landmark 1962 judgment, the court affirmed Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple. In 2013, the ICJ further clarified the scope of that ruling, confirming Cambodia’s authority over the promontory surrounding the temple complex.

From the standpoint of international law, the dispute was conclusively resolved. However, the political trajectory of the issue has been more complex. Within Thailand, the Preah Vihear dispute has periodically resurfaced in domestic political discourse, often framed through nationalist narratives.

At various moments, the implications of the Court’s decisions have been contested or reinterpreted within Thailand’s internal political debates. This dynamic reflects a broader structural challenge in international relations: the tension between international legal obligations and domestic political pressures.

While governments often affirm their commitment to international norms in principle, their consistent application can become more difficult when legal outcomes intersect with national identity, territorial sensitivity or political mobilisation.

Thailand’s recent call for diplomacy and adherence to international law in distant geopolitical crises therefore carries implications beyond its immediate context. It invites reflection on whether international legal norms are treated as enduring commitments guiding state behaviour, or whether they are invoked selectively depending on political circumstances.

Advocating restraint and diplomatic dialogue in conflicts beyond Southeast Asia is commendable. Yet the credibility of such appeals ultimately depends on the consistency with which these same principles are upheld in bilateral relationships closer to home.

International law derives its authority not merely from legal judgments but from the willingness of states to accept and implement those judgments in good faith. When states demonstrate consistent respect for international adjudication - even when outcomes are politically sensitive - they reinforce the legitimacy of international institutions and strengthen the broader rules-based order.

For Southeast Asia, where historical grievances, colonial-era boundaries, and nationalist politics continue to shape interstate relations, the consistent application of international law remains essential for maintaining regional stability.

In this context, the credibility of diplomatic appeals to international law is determined less by their rhetorical frequency than by their practical application. Consistency in respecting international legal outcomes - especially in one’s own neighbourhood - remains the clearest demonstration of genuine commitment to a rules-based international order.

Panhavuth Long is a lawyer at PAN & Associates Law Firm. All views in this article are his own.
=FRESH NEWS