文章重申了1962年国际法院关于柏威夏寺的裁决，强调领土主权

A State cannot use force to enter an area, expel or obstruct the local population, install barbed wire, establish military posts, and then invoke the very situation it created as evidence of sovereignty. If such logic were accepted, international law would be replaced by the principle that “might makes right.” That is the logic of power, not the logic of law. Preah Vihear: a legal lesson that should not be forgotten In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory. In 2013, the Court interpreted its 1962 Judgment and further clarified Cambodia’s sovereignty over the promontory of Preah Vihear within the scope defined by the Court, together with Thailand’s obligation to withdraw relevant personnel from that area. Those judgments did not resolve every segment of the Cambodia–Thailand boundary. But the legal lesson relevant here is clear: the physical presence of armed forces on the ground cannot override sovereignty determined by law. Time cannot turn an unlawful act into territorial title Control of territory by force does not automatically become lawful merely because it continues over time. Additional troop deployments, roads, posts, or other infrastructure cannot transform a situation originating in force into a lawful source of sovereignty. The central question is therefore not: “Who is physically present there?” The proper question is: “Who has lawful title to the territory?” Claims to sovereignty must be answered through law: Which treaty provides the basis? Which map supports the claim? Which boundary record confirms it? What legal evidence sustains the assertion? If those questions are answered only by pointing to the presence of troops, then what is being demonstrated is not legal title. It is merely power. Guns are not an answer to the question of sovereignty. Peace must rest on law, not force The Cambodia–Thailand border issue should not be reduced to a contest over who can deploy more troops, stretch barbed wire farther, or create facts on the ground more quickly. International borders must be determined through law, treaties, maps, boundary instruments, and peaceful dispute-settlement mechanisms. The Thai military’s incursion into Cambodian territory and any attempt to alter the situation on the ground must therefore be assessed on the basis of law and verifiable evidence, not by treating a situation created through military force as a new legal reality. History may record where an army once stood. But law determines which State holds sovereignty over that territory. Barbed wire may obstruct people, but it cannot obstruct the law. Containers may block a road, but they cannot create a border. Armed forces may unlawfully occupy a location by force, but they cannot create lawful sovereignty. This is not only about defending Cambodian territory. It is about defending a foundational principle of the international order: borders are determined by law, not by guns; sovereignty derives from lawful rights, not from faits accomplis created by force; and aggression cannot become territorial title.