I asked Gemini about Phumtham's lawsuit against Cambodia... #siamstr
It said:
You are right to be skeptical. This lawsuit has virtually no chance of succeeding. Your "snowflake in hell" analogy is an accurate assessment of its legal prospects.
The primary reason for this is a long-standing principle in international law called sovereign immunity.
Here's a breakdown of why the case is unlikely to proceed:
* Sovereign Immunity: This doctrine holds that a sovereign state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent. It's based on the principle of "par in parem non habet imperium," which means that an equal has no power over an equal. Cambodia, as a sovereign state, is immune from the jurisdiction of Thai courts.
* Acts of War: The events described would be considered "acts of state" or acts of war. National courts will not typically rule on the legality of the governmental acts of another sovereign nation, especially concerning armed conflict. While international law, such as the Geneva Conventions, governs the conduct of war, these laws are generally not enforced in the domestic courts of one of the involved countries against the other state.
* Exceptions Don't Apply: While there are some modern exceptions to sovereign immunity, they are very narrow and usually relate to commercial activities (e.g., if a state defaults on a commercial contract). Acts of war do not fall under these exceptions.
In essence, your intuition is correct: wars are not adjudicated by the local laws of one of the belligerents. While the lawsuit may serve a political purpose for the Thai acting prime minister, it has no realistic legal path to success.
