A Thai soldier on duty at one of the disputed temple sites. The Cambodian government has now officially lodged its several border disputes with Thailand at the International Court of Justice in the Netherlands. But Thai prime minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra knows that the ICJ is a toothless dragon. It has no enforcement mechanisms or international police force and relies heavily on cooperation between the parties. ICJ was established by the United Nations Charter in 1945, but has a long history of accusations of bias. According to Thai lawyers who recently attended the failed Phnom Penh conference on June 14 and 15, no fewer than 118 countries refuse to be bound by the court’s compulsory judgments. The withdrawals include the United States since 1986 (the Nicaragua war) and Iran since 1979 (handing over American hostages). Israel has refused pro-Palestinian jurisdiction by ICJ several times and Australia has declined the court’s intervention in maritime disputes since 2002. An ICJ Russian-appointed judge has called the court a broken sword or paper tiger. Thailand has refused to be bound by its compulsory judgments since 1960, thus effectively voiding the ICJ verdicts in 1962 and 2013 which turned over the disputed Preah Vihear temple complex to Cambodian jurisdiction. In 1962 a minority of the 12 international judges sided with Thailand because of the vagueness and complexity of the maps drawn up in the early 20th century. Cambodian ambassador to the Netherlands, Kim Suor Sovannary, delivers the petition. Nothing will happen once the ICJ delivers yet another judgment, probably in 2026 or 2027. Only joint meetings between Cambodia and Thailand can resolve the ongoing territorial border disputes. In the meantime, the two ASEAN partners threaten each other militarily and economically in tit-for-tat dramas. The Thai premier has now warned about moving heavy weapons into disputed areas and fanning rising nationalist tensions. She concluded, “When there are communication mismatches, we have never provoked violence or made inflammatory remarks domestically or internationally.” In other words, the only answer is for troops on both sides to agree a return to barracks.