Abstract
The Cambodian–Thailand frontier conflicts over the Preah Vihear Temple and its surrounding areas are a testament to the enduring shadows of colonial cartographic politics, disputed sovereignty, and politicized heritage. This study examines the controversy in the Cambodian context, tracing its origins to the Franco-Siamese treaties of 1904 and 1907 and the ensuing mutually inconsistent delineations of the Dangrek mountain watershed, culminating in the Annex I map to Cambodia’s advantage. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1962 in favor of Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple itself but refrained from addressing ambiguities regarding the surrounding territory. Such ambiguities, left untouched for so long, were once more raised in 2008 when Preah Vihear was listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, igniting a game of nationalism and military engagements. In 2011, ASEAN’s role in mediating conflict and its most extensive intervention in member state conflict were tested. The ICJ unanimously reaffirmed Cambodia’s full sovereignty over the promontory in 2013, thereby legally confirming Phnom Penh’s sovereignty, but it did not appease Thai protests in adjacent areas. The latest escalations in July and December 2025 brought extra rational actors. Under Malaysian chairmanship, ASEAN brokered ceasefire deals and hosted special ASEAN foreign minister meetings in Kuala Lumpur aimed at de-escalation and dialogue to end fighting between Thailand and Cambodia; the United States, China, and Russia exerted varying degrees of influence, including through diplomatic pressure, support, and mediation. It contends that Preah Vihear is a cultural heritage site where identity intersects with power politics and the rule of law. It concludes that long-term occupation requires a combination of legal definitions, ASEAN-facilitated diplomacy, and cultural coordination that transforms the temple from a monument of enmity into a symbol of shared heritage and regional reconciliation. We conclude that legal rulings alone cannot resolve identity-linked territorial disputes without complementary regional diplomacy and the depoliticization of heritage.