It would be interesting to see how this Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is mapped in relations to the Franco-Siamese boundary line of 1904/1907 and Thailand's unilateral map.
This DMZ is primarily one of the indications of provisional (temporary) measures by the Court to prevent further damages being done to the Temple as a result of military activities in the area pending its clarification of the 1962 verdict which will spell out the Court's stance on the boundary issue one way or another.
If Thai troops are not in the DMZ, there is no need for Cambodia to station military personnel within that zone either, except security personnel required to safeguard tourists and visitors to the Temple.
It is a positive sign for Cambodia that the Court unanimously rejected the request by Thailand that Cambodia's case be removed from the General List. This appears to indicate that the Court clearly believes it has a mandate to help resolve disputes between states and also an obligation under its relevant Statutes to clarify or reinterpret its 1962 ruling. Its decision is also final and not subject to further appeal.
This decision on provisional measures may fall somewhat short of what Cambodia seeks from the ICJ, but its effect is to pile more pressure on Thailand to face up to its responsibility before the international community whilst giving the Khmer temple of Preah Vihear the best possible chance to be spared from any more irreparable damage until the Court's next pronouncement (assuming that is, Thailand and Cambodia both comply with the indications made by the Court).
Had the Court instead indicated that Cambodia could station her military personnel within her 1907 boundary including having troops at the Temple ground or its immediate vicinity, the Thais would then be under no real pressure to refrain from firing or shelling in the direction of the Temple complex, inflicting further damages to the site under their pretext of due self-defence! Cambodia also has nothing to gain from engaging in military confrontations with Thailand provided Cambodian sovereignty remains free from Thai military or political occupation.
Note: the Temple site falls just inside the DMZ. This does not mean that the Court has acceded to Thailand's dispute claim over the area surrounding (or underneath!) the Temple because it had already ruled once that the Temple located on Cambodian sovereignty.
Of course, not being a legal specialist myself, it would be interesting to hear better informed opinions on this subject.
A strict complying with the ICJ decision today is what Cambodia needs. Thailand can no longer argue in it aggression, but letting Cambodia protect the site, doing restoration and developing it freely as tourist destination, since Thailand should not obstruct Cambodia’s free access to the Temple or prevent it from providing fresh supplies to its non-military personnel. As for the final decision on the demarcating boundary, we can wait for later ruling, maybe in the few months away from now. We should keep working or negotiating only in the framework of ASEAN as stated by the Court. On top of it, the prospect of peaceful solution is enhanced by the next Thai government in Bangkok, led by Yingluck Shinawatra of Puea Thai Party. Requiring both Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw troops from the provisional demilitarized zone near Preah Vihear Temple makes the pill easier for military and nationalist Thais to swallow. Yes, it makes the decision only a partial victory for Cambodia, but a wise decision to better protect the temple and allow the restoration to be done properly by experts and at the same time, the tourist enjoying their visits there. When ASEAN observers will be there, why Cambodia needs to give a pretext to the Thais to shoot on us by installing military personnel there? Long live the ICJ and long live Cambodia!
Yes, Thank ICJ that fairly judge that Cambodian-Thailand must withdraw its troop. I heard some Cambodians are not happy with this rule... I would like to let Cambodian know that The Court's rule today is just to prevent any clash that might increase tension between two nations and the damage of Preah Vihear temple as well as the Civilians there. As the Judges states, "the decision given in the present proceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures in no way prejudges any question that the Court may have to deal with relating to the Request for interpretation". So, The judge so far still not yet interpret the ICJ ruled in 1962, but first intervention that similar other civilian courts usually use to prevent tensions between two parties. What Cambodian should be happy is that the court accept the request for the interpretation of 1962 rule.
3 comments:
It would be interesting to see how this Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) is mapped in relations to the Franco-Siamese boundary line of 1904/1907 and Thailand's unilateral map.
This DMZ is primarily one of the indications of provisional (temporary) measures by the Court to prevent further damages being done to the Temple as a result of military activities in the area pending its clarification of the 1962 verdict which will spell out the Court's stance on the boundary issue one way or another.
If Thai troops are not in the DMZ, there is no need for Cambodia to station military personnel within that zone either, except security personnel required to safeguard tourists and visitors to the Temple.
It is a positive sign for Cambodia that the Court unanimously rejected the request by Thailand that Cambodia's case be removed from the General List. This appears to indicate that the Court clearly believes it has a mandate to help resolve disputes between states and also an obligation under its relevant Statutes to clarify or reinterpret its 1962 ruling. Its decision is also final and not subject to further appeal.
This decision on provisional measures may fall somewhat short of what Cambodia seeks from the ICJ, but its effect is to pile more pressure on Thailand to face up to its responsibility before the international community whilst giving the Khmer temple of Preah Vihear the best possible chance to be spared from any more irreparable damage until the Court's next pronouncement (assuming that is, Thailand and Cambodia both comply with the indications made by the Court).
Had the Court instead indicated that Cambodia could station her military personnel within her 1907 boundary including having troops at the Temple ground or its immediate vicinity, the Thais would then be under no real pressure to refrain from firing or shelling in the direction of the Temple complex, inflicting further damages to the site under their pretext of due self-defence! Cambodia also has nothing to gain from engaging in military confrontations with Thailand provided Cambodian sovereignty remains free from Thai military or political occupation.
Note: the Temple site falls just inside the DMZ. This does not mean that the Court has acceded to Thailand's dispute claim over the area surrounding (or underneath!) the Temple because it had already ruled once that the Temple located on Cambodian sovereignty.
Of course, not being a legal specialist myself, it would be interesting to hear better informed opinions on this subject.
A strict complying with the ICJ decision today is what Cambodia needs. Thailand can no longer argue in it aggression, but letting Cambodia protect the site, doing restoration and developing it freely as tourist destination, since Thailand should not obstruct Cambodia’s free access to the Temple or prevent it from providing fresh supplies to its non-military personnel. As for the final decision on the demarcating boundary, we can wait for later ruling, maybe in the few months away from now. We should keep working or negotiating only in the framework of ASEAN as stated by the Court. On top of it, the prospect of peaceful solution is enhanced by the next Thai government in Bangkok, led by Yingluck Shinawatra of Puea Thai Party. Requiring both Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw troops from the provisional demilitarized zone near Preah Vihear Temple makes the pill easier for military and nationalist Thais to swallow. Yes, it makes the decision only a partial victory for Cambodia, but a wise decision to better protect the temple and allow the restoration to be done properly by experts and at the same time, the tourist enjoying their visits there. When ASEAN observers will be there, why Cambodia needs to give a pretext to the Thais to shoot on us by installing military personnel there? Long live the ICJ and long live Cambodia!
Yes, Thank ICJ that fairly judge that Cambodian-Thailand must withdraw its troop.
I heard some Cambodians are not happy with this rule...
I would like to let Cambodian know that The Court's rule today is just to prevent any clash that might increase tension between two nations and the damage of Preah Vihear temple as well as the Civilians there.
As the Judges states, "the decision given in the present proceedings on the request for the indication of provisional measures in no way prejudges any question that the Court may have to deal with relating to the Request for interpretation". So, The judge so far still not yet interpret the ICJ ruled in 1962, but first intervention that similar other civilian courts usually use to prevent tensions between two parties.
What Cambodian should be happy is that the court accept the request for the interpretation of 1962 rule.
Post a Comment