International Court of Justice: Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)

Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962

CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (MERITS) Judgment of 15 June 1962 Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction. In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory. By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities. Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions. * * * In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907. The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line. The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent. The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react. From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same. The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line. For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.

Mark A. Vejjajiva: 'Unesco special envoy 'supports Thai stance'

Unesco special envoy Koichiro Matsuura meets Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva at Government House yesterday to discuss the border tensions between Thailand and Cambodia. CHANAT KATANYA

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE SERIOUS DAMAGE OF THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

FM: Unesco visit ‘good for Thailand’

Many people will wonder why the visit to Thailand by the special envoy of the UNESCO is good or beneficial for Thailand. In the middle of such a hostile confrontation with Cambodia, when Thailand says the visit is good for Thailand, it also means that the visit is bad for Cambodia. 

With regard to the visit to Preah Vihear, why Mr. Matsuura will not be “allowed” by Thailand to see the sight? The temple belongs to Cambodia; therefore shouldn’t be up to the Cambodian authority and the Unesco to make the decision? 

Mr Koïchiro Matsuura, Director-General UNESCO
 http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=43651&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

STATEMENT CONCERNING THE SERIOUS DAMAGE OF THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

BEWARE OF GRAFFIC PICTURES! Please click here to download the damage report: http://www.box.net/shared/rujodfov6i 

http://whc.unesco.org/en/news/708

================

FM: Unesco visit ‘good for Thailand’

The Bangkok Post

• Published: 25/02/2011 at 12:59 PM
• Online news:

The visit to Thailand by the special envoy of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) today will be beneficial to the country, foreign affairs spokesman Thani Thongphakdi said on Friday.

The Foreign Ministry will take this opportunity to provide the envoy with the facts relating to the recent border clashes between Thai and Cambodian troops, said Mr Thani, the director-general of the Department of Information at the ministry.

He said the special envoy on Preah Vihear temple for Unesco, Koïchiro Matsuura, will not be allowed to visit the clash sites in Si Sa Ket border province as it is not appropriate at this time.

Mr Thani excpected Mr Matsuura will  later travel to Cambodia.

“But he will visit only Phnom Penh and will not go to the disputed border area,” he said.

He did not think the visit by the special envoy of Unesco amounted to interference in Thailand’s internal affairs.

Mr Matsuura arrived in Bangkok on Thursday night and will have discussions with Foreign Minister Kasit Piromya and Natural Resources and Environment minister Suvit Khunkitti this afternoon.

The Case Concerning the Khmer Temple of Preah Vihear

To read the case please click on the title or go to: http://www.box.net/shared/6u9f34a9up

It is a good idea for all Khmers to learn about this case and share it among interested people around the world. Thailand has no legs to stand on legally, but it might use its muscle to rob Preah Vihear from Cambodia. Stand up and unite : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWR9ODWSNxg

Bad signs

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/asia/223391/thais-hurt-in-landmine-blast

To avoid a bigger war: Please be and stay sober

PLEASE BE AND STAY SOBER

With some 15,000 troupes from each side amassed around Cambodia’s Preah Vihear Temple, things could go wrong at the frontlines and the fighting could quickly escalate into a “bigger war” of which, according to some reports, Thailand has been preparing to battle.

Hopefully, Cambodia will be able to handle such a large scale fight on its own without dragging Vietnam and Laos to get involved.  With all things considered, Thailand (with 300,000 combatants and a military budget of some $5 Billions) is far superior to Cambodia.  If the fight is brief and concise Thailand may have the advantage. However, if the war is long and protracted, the outcome of the war will be like when Vietnam invaded Cambodia in the 80’s and 90’s. Thousands body bags of dead Thai soldiers will be shipped back home in disgrace.

The fight will probably split ASEAN into pieces as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia may have some forms of friendship agreements—like an agreement which states that “if one country is attacked, all country is under attack.”

The Indochinese Federation in disguise would be on one side and the original members or the “Founding Fathers” of ASEAN would be on the other side and Cambodia would be the battle ground all over again.

The suppliers of weapons and military goods will be the Americans and the Chinese as the sales of weapons will impact economic growth in America and China.  

Let’s hope and pray that some soldiers at the frontlines won’t step on a landmine or get drunk with white rice liquor, Singha beer or Angkor Beer.  

To PM Abhisit Vijjajiva, PM Hun Sen, Dr. Marty Natalegawat as well as all Thai and Cambodian soldiers at the frontlines, please be and stay sober.

Preparing For A Bigger War

February 24, 2011: While terror attacks are up so far this year, investigations are more frequently leading back to drug gangs, who are financing the attacks and protecting the terrorists. Police have made hundreds of arrests, and about a hundred terrorists have surrendered. While many trace their radicalization of Moslem religious school, there always seemed to be someone from one of the drug gangs there to provide cash, or weapons, to keep the killing going.

Red shirt populists and yellow shirt royalists are still demonstrating in the capital, but the sense of crises has diminished. The yellow shirts are largely responsible for the current "war" with Cambodia, by pushing the use of force to press a shaky claim on some land around a border temple. Most of the population backs the red shirts, but no one wants a civil war over the issue of new elections (which the royalists would lose).

The armed forces have put 15,000 troops on the Cambodia border, around a 4.6 square kilometer temple compound that both nations claim control over. Cambodia have about the same number of troops in the area, but Thailand has prepared plans to send a lot more troops to the border, and apply Thailand's larger and more powerful military power against Cambodia.  The royalists running the current government see this as a way to gain wider support in Thailand.

February 22, 2011:  Six Gripen fighter jets flew in from Sweden, flown by Swedish pilots. The air force has bought twelve of these aircraft, to replace decades old U.S. F-5s. Another six Gripens will be delivered over the next six years. The six that just arrived will enter service in a month or so.

February 21, 2011: In the south, two bombs went off, killing one and wounding 17.

February 20, 2011:  A ceasefire was agreed to with Cambodia, and took effect in the border area where troops have been shooting has been more frequent in the last few months. The basic border dispute is about a century old, and none of the previous agreements have lasted.

February 17, 2011: In the south, a car bomb went off, wounding 17. Elsewhere in the south, a soldier doing intelligence work was shot and killed.

February 15, 2011: In the south, a Moslem villager was shot dead with an AK-47 fired from a passing motorcycle. On the Cambodian border, fighting again broke out, apparently in the form of grenades being thrown by both sides.

February 14, 2011:  Two F-16s, on their way to a training exercise, crashed in the forest. The pilots ejected, and an investigation is under way to determine the cause of the loss. Thailand's F-16As are old models, with decades of use on them.

February 13, 2011: In the south, a car bomb went off, killing one and wounding 17.

February 10, 2011: In the south, two Buddhists and a Moslem were killed by Islamic terrorists.