An overview of Cambodia's 11th century Hindu Preah Vihear temple, about 245 kilometers (152 miles) north of Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Hundreds of Cambodian soldiers were camped at a cliff-top Khmer temple and World Heritage, February 9, 2011
Photo: AP
By Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer | Phnom Penh Tuesday, 03 May 2011
The International Court of Justice is likely to hold a hearing on the Preah Vihear temple issue in a matter of weeks, an official there told VOA Khmer Tuesday.
Photo: AP
By Kong Sothanarith, VOA Khmer | Phnom Penh Tuesday, 03 May 2011
The International Court of Justice is likely to hold a hearing on the Preah Vihear temple issue in a matter of weeks, an official there told VOA Khmer Tuesday.
Related Links
Cambodia has petitioned the court to re-interpret a 1962 decision that gave Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia but left both Thailand and Cambodia claiming adjacent land.
Cambodia hopes a hearing will clarify the decision, which officials here say should include the land. Both sides claim a 4.6-kilometer stretch of land near the temple.
The disputed land has been at the center of a military standoff since 2008 that has killed dozens of people in a series of skirmishes over the years, including the deadliest clashes over the last week and a half. At least 18 have died in fighting that began April 22.
On April 28, Cambodia filed a request to the international court to clarify its 1962 decision, requesting “urgent” action to protect Preah Vihear temple, as Cambodian and Thai troops exchanged rocket and artillery fire along the border.
Biris Heim, a spokesman for the International Court of Justice, said the court will now “fix a date with all parties” so that they can appear before the court with arguments.
“It will be an oral hearing, and it can be between a few days and a few weeks,” he said.
Both Cambodia and Thailand have been notified of the case, he said, but the court will not send investigators to the field.
“Parties will provide evidence,” he said. “The court can only make an interpretation by hearing from both sides.”
Thailand, meanwhile, has begun preparing a group of experts to respond to the court, according to Thai media.
4 comments:
ICJ verdict:
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 hue line of the watershed, and other rnaps 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 m 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
Doesn't matters what we've in our side Thai ambitious is still there how can we kill Thai idealogue it never go away.
Unless some miracle happen in the Thai society as a whole and Thai can come to term with reality otherwise it a long day for us .
It's all fucken French government's fault!
If you're Thai, you would blame the French. But if you're Cambodian, you would thank the French. After Cambodia became French protectorate, Cambodia was able to get back provinces of what is now werstern part of Cambodia from Siem. Then again, you could also blame the French for giving Kampuchea Krom(south Vietnam) to Vietnam. But I think Vietnamese were already dig themselves deep inside Kampuchea Krom. The Vietnamese cancer had already infected and eaten Cambodia flesh. It was already known to be untreatable. And thank to much favoritism for the Vietnamese by the colonial French and a huge Vietnamese population living in Prey Nokor, Kampuchea Krom, the French had no other choice but to give away that land to Vietnam to create 2 Vietnams, north and south. If there were few Vietnamese living in Prey Norkor, I think Kampuchea Krom would still be part of Cambodia. But we all know too well about the motive of the Vietnamese. Cambodia may gain one side but lost the other.
Post a Comment