Journal of Political Science and Legal Studies

Law and Management of Border Conflicts: A Case Study of Thailand–Cambodia and Lessons from Southeast Asia

ฺBunsum Lumsai — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This article examines the role of law and political mechanisms in managing border conflicts, using the Thai–Cambodian border dispute as a primary case study. It analyzes the relationship between sovereignty, territory, and international law, as well as the impacts of border conflicts on local communities and state security within the Southeast Asian context. Adopting an interdisciplinary analytical framework that integrates international law, political science, and political humanities, the study is based on documentary analysis of legal instruments, International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgments, and state and regional policy frameworks. The findings demonstrate that international legal mechanisms—particularly the ICJ—play a crucial role in providing normative clarity and legal legitimacy in territorial disputes. However, their effectiveness is constrained by limited enforcement capacity and by the persistent influence of domestic politics, nationalism, and historical memory in the disputing states. At the regional level, ASEAN contributes to conflict management by reducing tensions and maintaining regional stability through the ASEAN Way and the principle of non-interference. Nonetheless, structural limitations prevent ASEAN from functioning as a robust legal dispute settlement mechanism, positioning it instead as a political “middle ground” for dialogue. The article further highlights that border communities bear the direct social, economic, and human rights consequences of border conflicts, yet remain largely excluded from legal and policy decision-making processes. This exclusion underscores the tension between state-centric security and human security perspectives. The study argues that sustainable management of border disputes in Southeast Asia requires an integrated approach that combines international law, regional diplomacy, and meaningful participation of border communities. Such an approach is essential for fostering long-term peace, legitimacy, and security for both states and affected populations.

Energy Geopolitics and Power Politics: The Roles of the United States, Israel, and Iran in the Emerging World Order

Wittaya Prathepo — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This article examines the role of energy as a determinant of geopolitical power through the case of the United States, Israel, and Iran in the contemporary Middle East. The findings reveal that energy is not merely an economic resource but a “structure of power” that shapes state behavior and international relations. In the Middle Eastern context, the interactions among the United States, Israel, and Iran demonstrate how energy functions both as an instrument of power and as a site of conflict. The United States has shifted from a hegemonic power to a strategic balancer, maintaining influence through security architecture and global energy markets. Israel has leveraged natural gas resources to enhance its security and regional influence, while Iran employs energy as a tool of “resistance geopolitics” to challenge the U.S.-led order.Furthermore, the study argues that conflicts in the Middle East should be understood as structural conflicts centered on the control of energy resources and transportation routes, rather than solely ideological or religious disputes. Proxy wars and pipeline politics illustrate indirect forms of power competition among states.At the macro level, the transition toward a multipolar international system has intensified and complicated energy competition. Although U.S. dominance has relatively declined, it remains a key actor, while the rising roles of China and Russia are reshaping the regional balance of power.The article concludes that energy remains central to contemporary geopolitics and plays a crucial role in shaping the emerging world order.

Contesting the Selective Moralism of the Liberal International Order: A Behavioural Political Economy of Trust, Legitimacy and Sovereignty in the Non-Western World

Federico Verri — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

Why do non-Western states keep falling back on sovereignty and non-interference when liberal partners would prefer them to do otherwise? Treating that question as clashing values, or regime survival alone, misses what the diplomats themselves often say more bluntly — the rules are not applied the same way to everyone. This article works through the intuition with the tools of behavioural political economy. I read non-Western contestation of the liberal order, and specifically the diplomatic grammar of ASEAN and its neighbours, as a calibrated response to repeated experience of selective moralism: identical human-rights, use-of-force and sanctions claims pressed hard against some, waved through for others. The argument unfolds across three cases drawn from a corpus built in Scopus, Web of Science and HeinOnline (2014–2025), together with regional declarations and UN General Assembly resolutions — ASEAN's handling of the post-2021 Myanmar crisis; the uneven Southeast Asian reception of the 2016 South China Sea award; and the remarkably stable non-Western coalition against unilateral coercive measures. Drawing on Mayer, Davis and Schoorman (1995), Levi (1998), Tyler (2006), Beetham (1991) and Tallberg and Zürn (2019), and on fieldwork-informed observation across Asia, Africa and the Persian Gulf, I find that sovereignty operates here less as ideology than as commitment device — cheap to signal, costly to break, reassuring to neighbours whose regimes look nothing like each other but who share an interest in not being singled out next. Ontological security sharpens the pattern wherever outside pressure reaches the constitutive features of the political self. The implication is uncomfortable for Western reformers: legitimacy beyond the North Atlantic depends less on adding new substantive norms than on demonstrating procedural consistency, and reformers who skip the procedural work tend to deepen the contestation they meant to dissolve. The contribution is a synthesis and a tractable analytical model, the Trust–Legitimacy–Sovereignty (TLS) model, for political science, international law and Southeast Asian studies.

The right to pass through the Strait of Hormuz in the event of armed conflict: The clash between the law of the sea, the law of maritime warfare, and the right to self-defense

Terachai Dangpisan — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This article examines the scope of the right of transit through the Strait of Hormuz in situations of armed conflict, focusing on the interaction between the law of the sea, the law of naval warfare, and the law governing the use of force. The findings indicate that the Strait of Hormuz qualifies as a strait used for international navigation, thereby granting ships the right of transit passage under United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. However, this right is not absolute and is subject to limitations imposed by the law of naval warfare and the invocation of self-defence by states, which may justify the implementation of security measures affecting navigation. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that although the right of transit persists in legal terms, it becomes significantly weakened in practice due to military risks and security measures, leading to what can be described as a “functional closure” of the strait. In this situation, the strait remains legally open but is not effectively accessible in practice. At a theoretical level, the article argues that international law does not operate as a unified system but rather as a set of overlapping and competing legal regimes, resulting in legal indeterminacy in the protection of freedom of navigation under conditions of armed conflict.

Limitations of International Law in Modern Warfare: An Analysis of Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the United States–Israel–Iran Conflict

Jirada Bunmechareun — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This article examines the limitations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the context of modern warfare, with a particular focus on conflicts involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. These conflicts are characterized by asymmetric warfare, urban warfare, and proxy dynamics, which significantly challenge the practical application of legal norms. The findings indicate that although these principles remain normatively robust, their application in practice is highly flexible and, in some cases, strategically manipulated to legitimize the use of force. This is especially evident in civilian-targeting controversies, drone warfare, and targeted killings. Furthermore, the increasing reliance on proxy actors and the ambiguity surrounding the status of participants in armed conflicts contribute to the diffusion and avoidance of legal responsibility. At the institutional level, enforcement mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are constrained by political dynamics, including veto power and selective enforcement, which undermine their effectiveness. The article argues that while IHL retains its theoretical legitimacy as a normative framework, it fails in practice due to its entanglement with state power and the evolving nature of contemporary warfare. This gap between law and reality results in persistent impunity and weakens the capacity of international law to protect civilians and uphold human dignity.

A Book Review of Racism in U.S. Imperialism: The Influence of Racial Assumptions on American Foreign Policy, 1893-1946

Juan Miguel Palero — Sun, 23 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0700

This book review presents a thorough analysis and dissection of Rubin Francis Weston’s 1972 book, Racism in U.S. Imperialism: The Influence of Racial Assumptions on American Foreign Policy, 1893–1946, which has become a mainstay reference work about the intersection of race and American policymaking. Using archival research vis-à-vis detailed analysis of primary sources as its principal methodology, Weston endeavors to fill a lacuna in the literature that substantiates the prevailing and undeniable conception that race and American imperialism are inextricably intertwined. The book critically engages with its readers as it explores the backstage of American imperialist preoccupations across the Pacific region (Hawaii and the Philippines) and the Caribbean (Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Hispaniola). In sum, despite its built-in shortcomings, Weston’s observations and interpretations regarding the racial aspects of American imperialism are important to the field’s historiography, as they planted the appropriate seeds that serve as the foundation for future research.