Unknown author
Sent to Khmerization by L.C
Thailand should be aware of the resolution 242 for trying to defy the verdict of the International Court of Justice. The Acquisition of Territory Captured in a War and of Self-Defense is different from a war of Aggression and an invasion of Cambodia territory.
There is a further cardinal point regarding the question of whether the acquisition of captured territory from Cambodia by Thailand can be regarded as illegal. The great authority in international law, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war."
[Is the acquisition of captured territory by Thailand is illegal The great authority in international law, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor.]
The case of a war of self-defense of in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Cambodia acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. … Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, Cambodia which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder.
“Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By [Thailand ] armed attacks against Cambodia in 2008 to 2011, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, the Thai states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Cambodia’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),(4) of the same article.”
Article 2, clauses 3-4 essentially prohibit war (except in self-defence) by stating:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, is not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The Thailand measures went beyond mere power projection. Thailand did not plan merely to attack Cambodia to dominate and grab territory; their objective also to destroy Cambodian temples. Their own words leave no doubt as to this intention. Thailand meant to annihilate a neighboring country and fellow member of the UN by force of arms.
The wording of UN Resolution 242 clearly reflects the contention that none of the territories were occupied territories taken by force in an unjust war.
Because the Thailand were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 is Cambodia branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the territories.
Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for what it calls “a just and lasting peace.”
L.C's Note: May be Cambodia would rather have war than have peace with a neighbour from hell like Thailand.
Sent to Khmerization by L.C
Thailand should be aware of the resolution 242 for trying to defy the verdict of the International Court of Justice. The Acquisition of Territory Captured in a War and of Self-Defense is different from a war of Aggression and an invasion of Cambodia territory.
There is a further cardinal point regarding the question of whether the acquisition of captured territory from Cambodia by Thailand can be regarded as illegal. The great authority in international law, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor. In drafting its preamble, the architects of Resolution 242 were referring to known international legal principles that precluded territorial modifications as a result of aggression. The preamble talks about "acquisition of territory by war."
[Is the acquisition of captured territory by Thailand is illegal The great authority in international law, has drawn the distinction between unlawful territorial change by an aggressor and lawful territorial change in response to an aggressor.]
The case of a war of self-defense of in response to aggression is a very different matter. This distinction was further made by Stephen Schwebel, who would later become the legal advisor of the U.S. Department of State and then serve as President of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Cambodia acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense. … Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, Cambodia which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder.
“Territorial Rights Under International Law. ... By [Thailand ] armed attacks against Cambodia in 2008 to 2011, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, the Thai states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Cambodia’s territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3),(4) of the same article.”
Article 2, clauses 3-4 essentially prohibit war (except in self-defence) by stating:
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, is not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
The Thailand measures went beyond mere power projection. Thailand did not plan merely to attack Cambodia to dominate and grab territory; their objective also to destroy Cambodian temples. Their own words leave no doubt as to this intention. Thailand meant to annihilate a neighboring country and fellow member of the UN by force of arms.
The wording of UN Resolution 242 clearly reflects the contention that none of the territories were occupied territories taken by force in an unjust war.
Because the Thailand were clearly the aggressors, nowhere in UN Security Council Resolutions 242 is Cambodia branded as an invader or unlawful occupier of the territories.
Resolution 242 is the cornerstone for what it calls “a just and lasting peace.”
L.C's Note: May be Cambodia would rather have war than have peace with a neighbour from hell like Thailand.
2 comments:
Thanks to the Resolution 242 we safe the Resolution 242 assured Khmer sovereignty .
Next is to the East of Cambodia, where it has bigger issue.
Post a Comment