*Originally published in 2025 and preserved as part of our archive project.Get E-International Relations delivered directly to your inbox, free of charge. As you sign up, consider becoming a paid subscriber to support our work.

The Cambodia-Thailand border conflict is characterized by recurring tensions over territorial demarcation and national sovereignty, particularly around the Preah Vihear temple and adjacent areas. This conflict continues to show the fragile nature of peace and regional order in mainland Southeast Asia. Although occasional armed skirmishes have given way to recent diplomatic exchanges, the dispute remains unresolved, deepens historical grievances, competes nationalist narratives, and limits existing conflict resolution mechanisms.Traditionally, such interstate disputes in Southeast Asia have been mediated through regional bodies like ASEAN, or adjudicated by international legal institutions such as the ICJ. However, the erosion of confidence in multilateral institutions, the paralysis of global governance mechanisms, and the growing polarization of international politics have challenged these conventional avenues for dispute settlement.

In this evolving geopolitical landscape, the role of global hegemons, particularly the US, in maintaining regional stability and deterring conflict demands renewed scrutiny. Within the framework of Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), which posits that a dominant power is essential to the creation and preservation of international order, this article examines whether the foreign policy approach of US President Donald Trump offers an unconventional but potentially effective model for managing the Cambodia-Thailand border tensions. By analyzing Trump’s transactional and unilateral style of diplomacy through the theoretical lens of HST, this article explores the possibility that hegemonic leadership can still serve as a stabilizing force, even in an increasingly multipolar and fragmented international system. The article also opens a critical dialogue on whether power-based statecraft can succeed where institutional diplomacy struggles, particularly in the context of small state conflicts in contested geopolitical spaces.

HST argues that the maintenance of international order and the provision of global public goods, such as security, open markets, and stable currency regimes, require the leadership of a dominant power (Webb et.al, 1989). This hegemon, by its overwhelming capabilities and strategic interests, upholds the rules of the game, deters conflict, and manages systemic risks that could destabilize the international system. Historically, the US has played this role, particularly in the post-World War II liberal order, by strengthening multilateral institutions, protecting and promoting global trade, and providing security guarantees to allies and partners.

In this traditional model, border conflicts between smaller states, such as Cambodia and Thailand, have often been defused or managed through a combination of US-led diplomatic and economic pressure and strategic use of development assistance. The US has long leveraged its hegemonic influence and encouraged states to resolve disputes within institutional frameworks like the United Nations or ASEAN, while simultaneously offering economic and political incentives to deter escalation. However, the foreign policy orientation of Trump marks a significant departure from this established hegemonic model. Guided by the “America First” policy, Trump prioritizes a transactional, nationalist, and unilateral approach to international affairs. His administration withdrew from multilateral agreements, such as the Paris Climate Accord and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), disinvested in traditional alliance systems, and relied on coercive tools, including tariffs, sanctions, and political pressure, to advance US interests (O'Brien, 2024).

This hegemonic approach, coined as transactional hegemony, substitutes long-term normative commitments with short-term strategic bargaining (Flint, 2025). It reimagines the hegemon not as a steward of global public goods, but as a dominant player in a series of bilateral negotiations by using its power asymmetry to extract favorable outcomes. While critics argue that this undermines global stability and the rules-based order, it nonetheless........

© E-International