A lot of Thai websites and Thai news have started to spread news that ICJ [International Court of Justice] may not accept Cambodia's case and the result may in Thai favor and Thai lawyers started studying the history of Cambodia and Thailand it's a lot of bullshit, hard to swallow if you're Khmer.
On Thai news :
“(1) according to Cambodia, the Judgment [rendered by the Court in 1962] is based on the prior existence of an international boundary established and recognized by both States;
(2) according to Cambodia, that boundary is defined by the map to which the Court refers on page 21 of its Judgment …, a map which enables the Court to find that Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple is a direct and automatic consequence of its sovereignty over the territory on which the Temple is situated …;
(3) according to the Judgment, Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or other personnel from the vicinity of the Temple on Cambodian territory. Cambodia believes that this is a general and continuing obligation deriving from the statements concerning Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty recognized by the Court in that region.”
Thailand said that they are studying these three points carefully . It claimed the Thai lawyers, who are in charge of the ICJ case against Cambodia, have also studied Khmer history in depth.
On Thai news :
“(1) according to Cambodia, the Judgment [rendered by the Court in 1962] is based on the prior existence of an international boundary established and recognized by both States;
(2) according to Cambodia, that boundary is defined by the map to which the Court refers on page 21 of its Judgment …, a map which enables the Court to find that Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple is a direct and automatic consequence of its sovereignty over the territory on which the Temple is situated …;
(3) according to the Judgment, Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or other personnel from the vicinity of the Temple on Cambodian territory. Cambodia believes that this is a general and continuing obligation deriving from the statements concerning Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty recognized by the Court in that region.”
Thailand said that they are studying these three points carefully . It claimed the Thai lawyers, who are in charge of the ICJ case against Cambodia, have also studied Khmer history in depth.
5 comments:
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(CAMBODIA v. THAILAND)
I.C.J. Reports 15 JUNE 1962
Facts
a. The International Court of Justice delivered judgment, on the issue whether the
Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of
Cambodia, by 9 votes to 3. The International Court of Justice delivered
judgment, on the issue whether Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any
military or police forces stationed at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian
territory by 9 votes to 3. The International Court of Justice delivered judgment on
the issue whether Thailand is under an obligation to restore Cambodia any
objects, which may have been removed from the Temple by Thai authorities by 7
votes to 5.
b. Both Cambodia and Thailand submitted claims to the ICJ regarding the disputed
territory and sovereignty of the Temple of Preah Vihear located on the
Thai/Cambodian borders. The ICJ heard arguments from Thai and Cambodian
representatives about the disputed land and it’s historical context found in the
map, Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia, a treaty drawn up and published on
behalf of the Mixed Delimitation Commission of which both Cambodia and
Thailand were found to be parties.
c. Cambodia argued that the Temple was located within the boundaries of the
Cambodian territory as decided by the Thai/Cambodian Mixed Delimitation
Commission. As such, Cambodia sought to force withdraw of Thai troops from
the Temple area.
d. Thailand claims the map Annex I, from which all territory disputes stem, was
never officially approved of by the Thai delegation. Thailand maintains that the
French Commission (representing Cambodia) alone published the map.
Thailand further claims that the territory upon which the Temple sits is Thai, not
Cambodian.
Questions
a. Did Cambodia and Thailand adopt the Annex I map which delimitated the frontier
in the Preah Vihear region, making the document binding?
b. Is Thailand under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces stationed
at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory?
c. Is Thailand under an obligation to restore Cambodia any objects, which may have been removed from the Temple by Thai authorities?
Decisions
a. The Court found that the delimitation line determined by the Franco-Siamese
Mixed Commission is the official border between Cambodia and Thialand. This
indicated to the Court that both Cambodia and Thailand adopted the Annex I
map which delimitated the frontier in the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear.
As such, Annex I is binding and Thailand must respect the borders established
by the document. The Court reasons that Thailand had every opportunity to
contest the borders established by Annex I, but did not, even with ample
knowledge that the Temple would be included within the Cambodian border.
b. The Court held that because Thailand is party to the territorial agreement
between Cambodia and Thailand, it must withdraw troops from the Temple of
Preah Vihear, as it is not Thai property. Because the Temple was clearly
labeled on the Annex I map of the territory in question, and because it clearly sits
within Cambodia territory, Thailand could not make the defense that she had
authority to station guards at this location. Further, the Court finds Thailand’s
defense insufficient on all accounts because Thai authorities did not raise
questions about Annex I, and it did not contest the location and ownership of the
Temple until 1958, a full 50 years after the Court established that Thailand
consented to the agreement with Cambodian and French authorities.
The Court rejects Thailand’s claim that Annex I was used only for cartographical
reasons because no other maps were available. The use of Annex I, which
clearly marked Temple Preah Vihear as the property of Cambodia, could have
been contested for it’s accuracy with Cambodian representatives. As Thailand
never took such necessary steps to rectify the cartographical errors, the claim is unfounded.
Principles
a. The international law elements of the case are territorial sovereignty, and the
power of treaties.
b. The Court weighed heavily the historical context of the creation of Annex I in
making its judgment. It is clear that the Court found it important to first clarify the
frontier lines between Cambodia and Thailand before deciding the issue of
sovereignty. Because one could not be correctly judged without the other, the
principles of subject-matter jurisdiction, temporal jurisdiction and territorial
jurisdiction are all important in this case.
c. The power of treaties held Thailand accountable for the border dispute and
allowed Cambodia to expel Thai forces from the Temple.
Conclusions
The Court’s ruling in this case settled the border dispute between Cambodia and Thailand over the location of Temple Preah Vihear. Further, the ruling put a
freeze on Thailand’s use of troops in the Cambodian territory as well as
proscribed that Thailand return to Cambodia any items taken from the Temple
after the map Annex I was consented upon by both nations.
Bibliography
Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962
many thanks for your effort to post this meaningful article, Thanks one again, Mike
Didn't anyone know in the real Thai history its been stated Thai's has invaded, robbed and looted Cambodia since 14th century? Isn't this what they are doing today?. These Thai's and their lawyers better read the real history of the Khmer Empire and not the fake fairy tales history the evil Thai's have created. Hopefully they know that these Thai's came from Nanchao China during the mongol invasion and invaded and stole land from the Khmer Empire.
Post a Comment