Monday, 06 June 2011
Cheang Sokha
Phnom Penh Post
Thai officials have reportedly said they will disregard any ruling from the United Nations’ International Court of Justice that requires them to withdraw troops from the contentious Thai-Cambodian border near Preah Vihear temple.
The Bangkok Post reported yesterday that Thai Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon (pictured) had said The Hague-based ICJ had “no authority” to order a withdrawal of Thai troops from the area, as Cambodia has requested.
“Thailand will respect the ICJ’s decision, but the body has no authority to order Thai troops to retreat. Thai soldiers won’t step back from our territory,” Prawit reportedly said.
Thai army deputy spokesman Veerachon Sukhondhadpatipak said yesterday that he had no knowledge of the issue, and other Thai officials could not be reached for comment.
However, Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn reportedly backed up Prawit’s comments.
“The ICJ has no authority to force Thailand to withdraw troops,” Panitan told the Bangkok Post.
The comments raise the prospect that Cambodia and Thailand will reach yet another impasse in their long-running border dispute.
The countries appeared last week before the ICJ after Cambodia called on the court to reinterpret its 1962 ruling awarding Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia to also bear on the surrounding territory, which is claimed by both sides. Ahead of such a reinterpretation, which could take years, Cambodia has called on the court to order interim measures including a requirement that Thailand withdraw all troops from the area.
Foreign Minister Hor Namhong said last week that a ruling on such interim measures was likely to come between 40 and 45 days after the hearings.
Cambodia’s move to bring the dispute before the ICJ came following deadly fighting near the 11th-century temple in February that killed 10 people.
Andrey Poskakukhin, head of the information department at the ICJ, said last month that the UN court had no power to enforce its judgments itself.
“Usually, the state parties respect the judgments of the court. In fact they always respect, but if one party doesn’t respect it, [the other] can appeal to the UN Security Council,” he said.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Koy Kuong said Cambodian officials were unperturbed by Thailand’s stance.
“If the ICJ orders the withdrawal of Thai troops from those areas and Thailand ignores it, that is an issue between the ICJ and Thailand,” he said.
On Saturday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a diplomatic note to the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh to complain about alleged violations of Cambodian airspace by Thai fighter jets near the border on three occasions over the past week. The ministry claimed these alleged flights “constitute a preparation for another offensive against Cambodian territory”.
Veerachon dismissed these allegations as “groundless”.
“If we had an aircraft that flew, it happened in Thai territory, for sure,” he said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JAMES O’TOOLE
Thai officials have reportedly said they will disregard any ruling from the United Nations’ International Court of Justice that requires them to withdraw troops from the contentious Thai-Cambodian border near Preah Vihear temple.
The Bangkok Post reported yesterday that Thai Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwon (pictured) had said The Hague-based ICJ had “no authority” to order a withdrawal of Thai troops from the area, as Cambodia has requested.
“Thailand will respect the ICJ’s decision, but the body has no authority to order Thai troops to retreat. Thai soldiers won’t step back from our territory,” Prawit reportedly said.
Thai army deputy spokesman Veerachon Sukhondhadpatipak said yesterday that he had no knowledge of the issue, and other Thai officials could not be reached for comment.
However, Thai government spokesman Panitan Wattanayagorn reportedly backed up Prawit’s comments.
“The ICJ has no authority to force Thailand to withdraw troops,” Panitan told the Bangkok Post.
The comments raise the prospect that Cambodia and Thailand will reach yet another impasse in their long-running border dispute.
The countries appeared last week before the ICJ after Cambodia called on the court to reinterpret its 1962 ruling awarding Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia to also bear on the surrounding territory, which is claimed by both sides. Ahead of such a reinterpretation, which could take years, Cambodia has called on the court to order interim measures including a requirement that Thailand withdraw all troops from the area.
Foreign Minister Hor Namhong said last week that a ruling on such interim measures was likely to come between 40 and 45 days after the hearings.
Cambodia’s move to bring the dispute before the ICJ came following deadly fighting near the 11th-century temple in February that killed 10 people.
Andrey Poskakukhin, head of the information department at the ICJ, said last month that the UN court had no power to enforce its judgments itself.
“Usually, the state parties respect the judgments of the court. In fact they always respect, but if one party doesn’t respect it, [the other] can appeal to the UN Security Council,” he said.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Koy Kuong said Cambodian officials were unperturbed by Thailand’s stance.
“If the ICJ orders the withdrawal of Thai troops from those areas and Thailand ignores it, that is an issue between the ICJ and Thailand,” he said.
On Saturday, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent a diplomatic note to the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh to complain about alleged violations of Cambodian airspace by Thai fighter jets near the border on three occasions over the past week. The ministry claimed these alleged flights “constitute a preparation for another offensive against Cambodian territory”.
Veerachon dismissed these allegations as “groundless”.
“If we had an aircraft that flew, it happened in Thai territory, for sure,” he said.
ADDITIONAL REPORTING BY JAMES O’TOOLE
5 comments:
ICJ handles contentious cases brought to it by countries that have accepted its jurisdiction. Its workload has varied. It was quite busy between 1946 and about 1966. Then its work tailed off in the 1970s. Communist countries and Third World countries boycotted it as a club for rich western countries. Since the late 1980s it has been busier than ever before (and much busier than the PCIJ ever was). Countries have now found greater use of it; ironically about a third of recent cases have been disputes between African countries. As at February 2005, the ICJ had delivered 89 judgements since 1946, dealing with such matters as land frontiers and maritime boundaries, territorial sovereignty, the non‐use of force, non‐interference in the internal affairs of countries, diplomatic relations, hostage‐taking, the right of asylum, nationality, rites of passage and economic rights. The details are on the website: http://www.icj‐cij.org.
There are times when a country finds a use for the ICJ and others when it does not. For example, in the mid‐1970s, Australia led the ICJ case against French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. France said that nuclear testing was a matter of national security and so it did not accept that the ICJ had the right to interfere in its nuclear testing programme. It boycotted the ICJ case brought by Australia. Fiji and New Zealand (although coincidentally it stopped testing in the atmosphere). Currently Australia is embroiled in a dispute with the new country of East Timor dividing up the oil and natural gas resources in the seabed between both countries. On March 22 2002, Australia notified the ICJ that it no longer accepted ICJ’s jurisdiction on maritime boundary disputes and so in effect it will boycott any hearing that East Timor may bring against it. Meanwhile in mid‐2005, with no hint of embarrassment, the same Australian Government announced that it would try to take Japan to the ICJ over its proposed resumption of whaling (which is a major issue of outrage in Australia).
1
2
There is no international enforcement system. Once an ICJ decision is made, there is no automatic "police force" to follow it up. The matter could be referred to the UN Security Council but here it would be vulnerable to the veto system of the five permanent members. For example, in the 1980s Nicaragua took the United States to the ICJ over the mining of its harbours. When the US realized that the case was going badly, it walked out of the ICJ and then vetoed attempts by the UN Security Council to enforce the ICJ decision.
There should be a campaign to encourage governments to accept the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction. This should be part of a general concern by citizens in expecting a better standard of international behaviour from their governments. There needs to be a general monitoring system by NGOs on how governments are living up to ‐ or failing to live up ‐ their international obligations.
By the way, the ICJ’s limitation to affairs between nation‐states is a reason for the creation of the new International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC hears cases brought against particular individuals accused of committing particular crimes. The ICC, also based in The Hague, is completely separate from the ICJ.
In Thai-Cambodia case the only concern is the USA it may veto to save Thailand .
The start of the current crisis between Thailand and Cambodia stems from the Thai prime minister, Abhishit, sending a group of Thais into Cambodia on a spying mission.
When the situation between Thailand and Cambodian was already tense, Thailand sent in tractors to build a road in the disputed territory. Those tractors building road caused the Cambodians to fire on the tractors to stop them. By the way, the road, is for security purpose so that Thai military vehicles can better move into Cambodian territory.
Thailand has blamed UNESCO for exacerbating the dispute with its 2008 decision to list the Preah Vihear border temple as a heritage site despite Bangkok’s objections.
“the latest apparent goal of Thailand's military aggression is to take control over … Tamone and Ta Krabei temples of Cambodia.”
These two temples, located “deep inside the Cambodian territory,” are distinct from the border-temple of Preah Vihear.
Thai deafened Minister Prawit Wongsuwon said that the ICJ had "no authority" to issue such an order and Thailand would not comply should one be issued.
Thailand is acting like the world superpower , lately Thailand is a sheep wearing tiger skin only the very few superpower can defy such an order uless Thailnd is the permanent member of the security council of the united nation .
Thailand still stubborn and refuse UN Court's ordered??
I urge cambodian army to shoot down Thai' airplane, don't let them take a picture of our troops location! This is danger for our troops safety...If Thai violated our airspace Shoot the fucken plane down!!!!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment