ฟ้องเขมรชดใช้ เอาผิดผู้บงการ ไทยทำได้แค่ไหน?
Summary
The question is how far Thailand can hold the Cambodian side’s planners responsible for the border attacks and obtain redress for victims, using the legal tools available.
Thai courts can hear both criminal and civil cases; the issues are cross-border jurisdiction, personal and functional immunity, and the prospects for freezing or seizing assets in Thailand.
The ICC and the ICJ are fundamentally different: the ICC prosecutes individuals for war crimes, the ICJ settles disputes between states — so this case fits the ICC better.
An arrest warrant or red notice restricts the accused’s travel, which is real pressure even without an arrest.
The conclusion is a combined strategy: Thai criminal proceedings alongside civil claims and the ICC, to send a political signal, compensate victims and build international pressure at once.
Key points
Thai courts are not a dead end
Both criminal and civil routes are open, jurisdictional limits notwithstanding.
Immunity is the key hurdle
Personal immunity and functional immunity have to be kept distinct.
The ICC tries people; the ICJ tries states
That difference determines which route the case takes.
A warrant bites before any arrest
Travel restriction is pressure that applies immediately.
The Security Council can defer an investigation
That is a political risk any plan has to account for.
Running several routes at once works better
Thai courts, civil claims and the ICC each do something different and reinforce each other.