Sent to Khmerization by L.C
Article 60 of the Statute of the Court
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) begins by noting that its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 60 of the Statute is not preconditioned by the existence of any other basis of jurisdiction as between the parties to the original case and that accordingly, even if the basis of jurisdiction in the original case lapses, it may nevertheless deal with a request for interpretation. When a request for the indication of provisional measures is made in the context of a request for interpretation of a Court’s judgment under Article 60, it has first to consider whether the conditions to examine such a request appear to be satisfied. To this effect, Article 60 of its Statute requires that there be a “dispute as to the meaning or scope” of the said judgment.
The Court will observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is a dispute amongst them about the meaning or scope of 1904-1907 Franco-Sian treaty and the ruling of ICJ in 1962. Cambodia understands the Judgment as establishing an obligation of result on the Thailand, “ withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity”, to provide the requisite review and reconsideration “irrespective of any law impediment” and “by its actions thus far”,Thailand understands the Judgment “to constitute merely an obligation of means, not . . . of result”. On its part, the Thailand secretly redrawn its own unilateral map that created the conflict to which constitutes “an abuse of ICJ ruling”, of the 15th June 1962 Judgment.
Link between the alleged rights to be protected and the Request for interpretation
The Court, to indicate the requested provisional measures, it must be convinced that there exists a link between the alleged rights the protection of which is sought and the subject of Cambodia’s Request for interpretation.Cambodia seeks clarification of the meaning and scope of Thailand withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, whereby the Court may found that Thailand is under an obligation to withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, It observes that it is the interpretation of the meaning and scope of obligation, and hence of the rights which Cambodia and its nationals have on the basis of the Request for interpretation, and that Cambodia filed a request for the indication of provisional measures in order to protect these rights of the Court’s final decision. The Court thus must concludes that the rights which Cambodia seeks to protect have a sufficient connection with the Request for interpretation.
(L.C)
The Court will observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is a dispute amongst them about the meaning or scope of 1904-1907 Franco-Sian treaty and the ruling of ICJ in 1962. Cambodia understands the Judgment as establishing an obligation of result on the Thailand, “ withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity”, to provide the requisite review and reconsideration “irrespective of any law impediment” and “by its actions thus far”,Thailand understands the Judgment “to constitute merely an obligation of means, not . . . of result”. On its part, the Thailand secretly redrawn its own unilateral map that created the conflict to which constitutes “an abuse of ICJ ruling”, of the 15th June 1962 Judgment.
Link between the alleged rights to be protected and the Request for interpretation
The Court, to indicate the requested provisional measures, it must be convinced that there exists a link between the alleged rights the protection of which is sought and the subject of Cambodia’s Request for interpretation.Cambodia seeks clarification of the meaning and scope of Thailand withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, whereby the Court may found that Thailand is under an obligation to withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, It observes that it is the interpretation of the meaning and scope of obligation, and hence of the rights which Cambodia and its nationals have on the basis of the Request for interpretation, and that Cambodia filed a request for the indication of provisional measures in order to protect these rights of the Court’s final decision. The Court thus must concludes that the rights which Cambodia seeks to protect have a sufficient connection with the Request for interpretation.
(L.C)
4 comments:
1
Article 51 – The Right to Self-Defence
According to Charter VII, article 51 of the United Nations Charter, countries can engage into military action only in self-defence, including collective self-defence:
51. Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 51 of the UN Charter clearly recognizes “the inherent right of Cambodia self-defence”. That is, the language of Article 51 does not identify or stipulate the kind of aggressor or aggressors against whom this right of self-defence can be exercised … and certainly does not limit the right to self-defence to attacks by States!
Despite the considerable breadth of the written pleadings typically
submitted by Cambodia to the ICJ, oral proceedings may still
hold some value as well as symbolic meaning. Amid volumes of
written submissions, oral proceedings provide the Cambodia with an
opportunity to focus the attention of the judges in a memorable
way on the core issues at stake in their dispute.
The most forceful arguments in defence of Thailand that questioning the ICJ jurisdiction, would be inappropriate given Cambodia status as representatives of sovereign States. sovereign States should not be denied the opportunity to present their arguments to the fullest extent.
[Thailand can not threaten a sovereign State, saying that their case will not be heard to the end in the way it wishes.]
The ICJ’s deferential attitude towards State sovereignty reflects its status as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, an institution based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all of its members and the protection of their territorial integrity and political independence.In keeping with an institution whose Charter precludes it from authorizing interventions in matters which are essentially within a State’s domestic jurisdiction, the ICJ refrains, generally speaking, from adopting procedures which would in any way restrict the exercise of State sovereignty.
To Khmerization, if you have time here the link that LC doesn't want you to know ! Compare the half of page 2 and his !
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:I-jNjlSBhLgJ:www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/139/14637.pdf+Article+60+of+the+Statute+of+the+Court&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiB2lwiwXw-g4UHUErodLQXzutd_s-T0DfiUufePOhJ2z6Lr_HA14DRhL5DKR-3zAqtHpKSXcNzrn6UYH0LEN8dtQxzKapP_j08JIITVWDBBpPDxShYa3QfxeGGu2qm30py-S9T&sig=AHIEtbSRyT45HYu6nbHWsEDSQb2otvXCfA
4:01 AM, thanks for your info. Good luck.
Post a Comment