Maps of Ta Moan and Ta Krabei temples by EU edited by Bora Touch
Dear Readers,
Please find below: Maps of Ta Moan and Ta Krabei temples by EU edited by Bora Touch, Esq.
Click on each map to zoom in
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Thai loss Preah Vihear That Thai never owned [Thai shameless Ideology]
Before the Court, Cambodian representatives argued that Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear was clear from three separate but related viewpoints.Citing the convention of 1904 and the treaty of 1907, the spokesmen for Cambodia first argued that the applicable international agreements delimiting the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand clearly placed the temple of Preah Vihear in the chain of the Dangrek Mountains belonging to Cambodia. In addition, they emphasised that Cambodia had never abandoned its sovereignty over the territory in question and, on the contrary, had always continued, by virtue of the title established by the treaties, to exercise effectively therein its territorial powers. Finally, they pointed out that Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty in the disputed territory which might be considered to displace the sovereignty of Cambodia as established by the cited treaties and thereafter effectively exercised (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 4-15).
Taking a completely different tact, the government of Thailand concentrated its preliminary arguments on the issue of whether or not the International Court of Justice had jurisdiction in the case. Arguing that an earlier Siamese declaration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice had lapsed with the dissolution of that body in 1946, Thailand concluded that the International Court of Justice was without jurisdiction in the case because Thailand had never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Thai representatives argued further that the jurisdiction of the Court in the case, if it existed, could only rest upon the consent of the government of Thailand and such consent could not be derived or inferred from the application of the government of Cambodia. In consequence, the preliminary arguments of the Thai government asked the Court to declare that it had no jurisdiction over the issue of the sovereignty of Preah Vihear which the Cambodian government had brought before the Court (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 133-152). 1
2 The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
(this article is not intended for stirring up any resentment forward Thai people but for Khmer to undersatnad Thai ideology thanks from L.C) reference International Court of Justice (1962a) "Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents", 2 vols., vol. I: Application- Pleadings. International Court of Justice (1962b) World Court's Judgement on the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn.
2 The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
3 (this article is not intended for stirring up any resentment forward Thai people but for Khmer to undersatnad Thai ideology thanks from L.C)
reference International Court of Justice (1962a) "Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents", 2 vols., vol. I: Application- Pleadings. International Court of Justice (1962b) World Court's Judgement on the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn.
Under the French map Cambodia lost so many provinces to Thailand.Many Khmer have endured so much pain to see Cambodia being robed by Thai for so much land. You can see all the provinces along the border in Thai side are Khmer.They are still maintain Khmer culture,but under Thai country. Despite all of that land grabbing,Thai have no shame to the world to show its uncivilized and naive concept by invading 4.6 Km2 ,damaged the world heritage temple,using banned weapons such as cluster bombs and poison gas. UN should take this crime seriously and prosecute these criminal under the law of UNSC/ICJ.
I agreed with you that the CPP government,which is Hanoi installed to run Cambodia have failed in so many fields to response to Cambodia sovereignty and integrity.They are not competent.They are the laughing-stock of the Bangkok and Hanoi. Here the case they insult your intelligence :
Farmers who lost their land to Hanoi's encroachment were put in prison by its own government.Isn't it something against human logic? Isn't something against you as well?
5 comments:
Thai loss Preah Vihear That Thai never owned
[Thai shameless Ideology]
Before the Court, Cambodian representatives argued that Cambodian sovereignty over Preah Vihear was clear from three separate but related viewpoints.Citing the convention of 1904 and the treaty of 1907, the spokesmen for Cambodia first argued that the applicable international agreements delimiting the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand clearly
placed the temple of Preah Vihear in the chain of the Dangrek Mountains belonging to Cambodia. In addition, they emphasised that Cambodia had never abandoned its sovereignty over the territory in question and, on the contrary, had always continued, by virtue of the title established by the treaties, to exercise effectively therein its territorial powers. Finally, they pointed out that Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty in the disputed territory which might be considered to displace the sovereignty of Cambodia as established by the cited treaties and thereafter effectively exercised (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 4-15).
Taking a completely different tact, the government of Thailand concentrated its preliminary arguments on the issue of whether or not the International Court of Justice had jurisdiction in the case. Arguing that an earlier Siamese declaration recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice had lapsed with the dissolution of that body in 1946, Thailand concluded that the International Court of Justice was without jurisdiction in the case because Thailand had never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Thai representatives argued further that the jurisdiction of the Court in the case, if it existed, could only rest upon the consent of the government of Thailand and such consent could not be derived or inferred from the application of the government of Cambodia. In consequence, the preliminary arguments of the Thai government asked the Court to declare that it had no jurisdiction over the issue of the sovereignty of Preah Vihear which the Cambodian government had brought before the Court (International Court of Justice, 1962a: 133-152).
1
2
The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice,
1962a:
153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
(this article is not intended for stirring up any resentment forward Thai people but for Khmer to undersatnad Thai ideology thanks from L.C)
reference
International Court of Justice (1962a) "Case Concerning
the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v
Thailand), Pleadings, Oral Arguments,
Documents", 2 vols., vol. I: Application-
Pleadings.
International Court of Justice (1962b) World Court's
Judgement on the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn.
2
The Cambodian government responded to the Thai objections in a relatively brief set of observations which added little to its opening arguments. The Thai government, in turn, developed a longer counter-memorial which challenged the core of the Cambodian case. Supported by a variety of annexes, the counter-memorial of Thailand concluded that the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand, as specified in the 1904 convention, was clearly the watershed in the region of Preah Vihear which was the cliff edge fringing the promontory on which the sanctuary stands. Preah Vihear was plainly therefore located on Thai territory. In addition, the representatives of Thailand argued strongly that it was the Thai government which had exercised, without challenge or interruption, complete, unqualified, and exclusive sovereign jurisdiction over the disputed territory. The ensuing replies and rejoinders on the part of both governments added little new insight to the arguments outlined above (International Court of Justice,
1962a:
153-436).
In May 1961, the Court rejected the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand and ruled that it had competence in the case. One year later, the Court, by a majority vote of 9 to 3, upheld Cambodian sovereignty over the temple of Preah Vihear. In explaining this decision, the president of the Court observed that the Thai government, as it had earlier accepted the terms of the 1904 convention, could not now deny that it was ever a consenting party to the pact. In other words, the government of Thailand could not claim and enjoy the benefits of the settlement for over fifty years and then assert that it had never been bound by it. In support of its decision, the Court pointed out that the government of Thailand after 1904 had continued to use and even to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as being situated in Cambodia (International Court of Justice, 1962b).
3
(this article is not intended for stirring up any resentment forward Thai people but for Khmer to undersatnad Thai ideology thanks from L.C)
reference
International Court of Justice (1962a) "Case Concerning
the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v
Thailand), Pleadings, Oral Arguments,
Documents", 2 vols., vol. I: Application-
Pleadings.
International Court of Justice (1962b) World Court's
Judgement on the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn.
Under the French map Cambodia lost so many provinces to Thailand.Many Khmer have endured so much pain to see Cambodia being robed by Thai for so much land. You can see all the provinces along the border in Thai side are Khmer.They are still maintain Khmer culture,but under Thai country.
Despite all of that land grabbing,Thai have no shame to the world to show its uncivilized and naive concept by invading 4.6 Km2 ,damaged the world heritage temple,using banned weapons such as cluster bombs and poison gas.
UN should take this crime seriously and prosecute these criminal under the law of UNSC/ICJ.
I agreed with you that the CPP government,which is Hanoi installed to run Cambodia have failed in so many fields to response to Cambodia sovereignty and integrity.They are not competent.They are the laughing-stock of the Bangkok and Hanoi.
Here the case they insult your intelligence :
Farmers who lost their land to Hanoi's encroachment were put in prison by its own government.Isn't it something against human logic?
Isn't something against you as well?
True Khmer
Post a Comment