From July to December, Cambodia’s Civilians Paid the Price — and Thailand Must Be Held to Account

Editorial – Traju Bulletin Team

What happened along the Cambodian–Thai border in 2025 was not a misunderstanding between equals, nor a series of unfortunate accidents. It was a pattern of violence in which Cambodian civilians, religious sites, and essential infrastructure repeatedly fell under Thai military fire. When the events of July and December are examined together, the conclusion is unavoidable: Cambodian civilians bore the cost, and international law requires accountability.

The warning signs were already present in July. During the mid-year escalation, Cambodia’s national demining authority, the Cambodia Mine Action Centre (CMAC), conducted an emergency response mission on 2 August 2025 at Tamon Senchey Pagoda in Taham Village, Kokmorn Commune, Banteay Ampil District, Oddar Meanchey province—an area heavily affected by cross-border bombardment. CMAC’s bomb-disposal experts confirmed that the pagoda had been bombed by the Thai Air Force, identifying the use of F-16 aircraft and MK-82 guided munitions, including GBU-12 Paveway II bombs.¹ This was not a political allegation made in the fog of war; it was a technical finding based on physical evidence by Cambodia’s competent authority. A Buddhist pagoda, a protected religious site, had been struck by precision-guided air-delivered weapons.

International media reporting during July did confirm armed clashes, civilian displacement, and fighting affecting populated border areas.² From a legal standpoint, July therefore established not only foreseeability, but documented proof that Thai military operations had already endangered civilian life and protected sites. The risk was known. It was not corrected.

December confirmed that failure.

As fighting escalated again in early December 2025, Reuters confirmed that Thai F-16 fighter jets conducted airstrikes along the Cambodian border, even as ceasefire claims circulated.³ These were active combat operations, not symbolic shows of force. The humanitarian consequences were immediate. The Guardian reported that more than half a million people fled border areas—an extraordinary level of displacement for Southeast Asia.⁴ A subsequent Guardian report confirmed hundreds of thousands of evacuees, as civilians fled intensified fighting.⁵ The Associated Press reported that border clashes intensified with airstrikes and artillery attacks, driving civilians from their homes and emptying border communities.⁶ Together, these independent accounts converge on a single reality: civilian life was systematically disrupted by sustained military action.

The human cost was deadly. The Guardian confirmed that at least eleven Cambodian civilians were killed during the December fighting.⁷ These were not combatants. They were civilians caught in the blast radius of air power and heavy weapons. When modern fighter aircraft and guided bombs are used near villages, civilian harm is not accidental; it is foreseeable. International humanitarian law exists precisely to prevent such outcomes.

Khmer-English media documented what international correspondents could not cover village by village. Khmer Times reported that Thai soldiers opened fire on civilian homes in Prey Chan village, in the Banteay Meanchey–Oddar Meanchey border area, injuring civilians and forcing residents to flee.⁸ Cambodianess published eyewitness accounts describing live ammunition fired near civilian houses, prompting families to run for their lives.⁹ Cambodian authorities further stated that Thai air operations damaged a school and a civilian bridge, and that a baby was among those killed. These details are reported by Khmer-English outlets and attributed to Cambodian officials. International agencies confirm civilian deaths and mass displacement, even if they do not name every victim or document every damaged building. This distinction reflects reporting scope, not the absence of harm.

Even Cambodia’s cultural heritage was placed at risk. On 10 December 2025, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre publicly urged all parties to protect cultural heritage amid the fighting, citing concern over clashes affecting the vicinity of Preah Vihear, a UNESCO World Heritage Site.¹⁰ For Cambodians, this was not symbolic language. Preah Vihear is a pillar of national identity and sovereignty, and its endangerment underscored how deeply the violence cut into Cambodia’s cultural and spiritual life.

These facts lead to an unavoidable legal conclusion. Cambodia is a State Party to the International Criminal Court. Thailand is not. But under Article 12(2)(a) of the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on Cambodian territory, regardless of the nationality of those responsible.¹¹ War crimes under the Statute include attacks against civilians, indiscriminate or disproportionate attacks, and attacks against religious buildings and civilian infrastructure. Where violence is widespread or systematic, it may also constitute crimes against humanity. Responsibility does not end with pilots or soldiers; it extends to those who planned, authorized, or knowingly permitted such operations.

Taken together, July and December reveal a clear pattern. July produced technical confirmation of air-delivered attacks on a pagoda. December brought mass displacement, civilian deaths, and village-level violence. This was not an isolated tragedy. It was repetition, escalation, and foreseeability, the foundation of legal responsibility.

Cambodia is not asking the world for sympathy. It is asking for the law to be applied. Borders can be disputed. Civilians cannot be legitimate targets. Pagodas, homes, schools, bridges, and heritage sites are not military objectives. Cambodia’s appeal to international justice is not provocation; it is restraint, a choice to answer force with law rather than retaliation.

If the world looks away, it sends a dangerous message: that civilian suffering in small states is negotiable. International law demands better. Justice is not an obstacle to peace. It is the only path toward it.

Footnotes

ទំនាក់ទំនង