Preah Vihear Temple: A Flashpoint in Thai-Cambodian Border Dispute
Photo by Bram Wouters
Quick Revision
Preah Vihear straddles the natural frontier between Cambodia and Thailand.
The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the temple lay in territory under Cambodian sovereignty.
Tensions flared into open conflict in July 2025, when cross-border fighting killed dozens.
Key Dates
Key Numbers
Visual Insights
Preah Vihear Temple Location and Disputed Area
Shows the location of the Preah Vihear Temple straddling the border between Thailand and Cambodia, highlighting the disputed area.
Loading interactive map...
Exam Angles
International Relations: Border disputes, role of ICJ
History: Khmer Empire, colonial legacies
Geography: Location of the temple, border regions
Polity: Implementation of ICJ rulings, bilateral relations
View Detailed Summary
Summary
Preah Vihear straddles the natural frontier between Cambodia and Thailand. Built between the 9th and 12th centuries by Khmer kings, the temple honors Shiva. The dispute between Thailand and Cambodia has its roots in colonial-era borders.
The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the temple lay in territory under Cambodian sovereignty. In its ruling on November 11, 2013, the Court declared unanimously that the 1962 Judgment decided that Cambodia possessed “sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear”, and ordered Thailand to withdraw its forces from that territory. Tensions flared into open conflict in July 2025, when cross-border fighting killed dozens and displaced more than 300,000 people.
Background
Latest Developments
Practice Questions (MCQs)
1. Consider the following statements regarding the Preah Vihear Temple dispute: 1. The temple was constructed primarily during the Angkor period of the Khmer Empire. 2. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 1962 definitively awarded the entire promontory of Preah Vihear to Cambodia. 3. The recent conflict in July 2025 was the first instance of armed clashes between Thai and Cambodian forces over the disputed territory. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A.1 and 2 only
- B.2 and 3 only
- C.1 and 3 only
- D.1, 2 and 3
Show Answer
Answer: A
Statement 1 is correct as the temple was built during the Angkor period. Statement 2 is correct as the ICJ awarded the promontory to Cambodia. Statement 3 is incorrect as there have been previous clashes.
2. In the context of the Preah Vihear Temple dispute, which of the following best describes the significance of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)?
- A.The ICJ acts as a mediator between Thailand and Cambodia to facilitate negotiations.
- B.The ICJ's rulings are non-binding recommendations that the involved parties can choose to ignore.
- C.The ICJ provides legally binding judgments on disputes submitted to it by states.
- D.The ICJ primarily focuses on cultural preservation of heritage sites like Preah Vihear.
Show Answer
Answer: C
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN and its judgments are legally binding on the parties involved.
3. Which of the following statements regarding the historical context of the Preah Vihear Temple is NOT correct?
- A.The temple was primarily dedicated to the Hindu deity Shiva.
- B.The temple's construction spanned several centuries, from the 9th to the 12th centuries.
- C.The temple was built by the Cham civilization.
- D.The temple is an example of Khmer architectural style.
Show Answer
Answer: C
The temple was built by the Khmer kings, not the Cham civilization.
4. Assertion (A): The ICJ's 2013 ruling on the Preah Vihear Temple dispute reaffirmed Cambodian sovereignty over the entire promontory. Reason (R): Thailand's military presence in the disputed area was deemed a violation of international law. In the context of the above statements, which of the following is correct?
- A.Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.
- B.Both A and R are true, but R is NOT the correct explanation of A.
- C.A is true, but R is false.
- D.A is false, but R is true.
Show Answer
Answer: A
The ICJ ruling did reaffirm Cambodian sovereignty and Thailand's military presence was a violation.