By Avudh Panananda
The Nation
ANALYSIS
The dispute over the vicinity of Preah Vihear Temple will forever be a nightmare unless Thailand can form a common stand to negotiate with Cambodia.
Without a consensus in society, even the International Court of Justice may not be able to bring about a successful conclusion to the long-festering dispute.
And the country is likely to plunge deeper into misery if and when the ICJ issues interpretation of the 1962 judgement concerning Preah Vihear.
Presently attention is being focused on the ICJ's order for provisional measures, particularly the provisional demilitarised zone and the withdrawal of Thai and Cambodian military personnel.
But the ICJ's order goes beyond provisional measures. By an unanimous decision, the 16 presiding judges rejected Thailand's request for dismissal.
This means the ICJ will proceed to interpret the 1962 judgement as per the Cambodian request.
Following two public hearings in May, the judges have outlined interpretation to cover three issues.
First issue is the meaning and scope of Preah Vihear vicinity on Cambodian territory. At issue is not the precinct of the temple but its vicinity.
Thailand contends instantaneous compliance on the judgement pertaining to vicinity on the Cambodian side of the frontier. But the two countries appear to have differing views on frontier and vicinity.
Second issue is whether the obligation for troops withdrawal imposed on Thailand in 1962 is of the continuing or instantaneous character.
Legal jargon aside, the ICJ is about to interpret whether Thailand was right to remove troops from certain areas but keep on the deployment at other areas surrounding the temple.
Third issue is whether the 1962 judgement did or did not recognise with binding force the line shown on the map (drawn up in 1907 by the Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission) as representing the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand.
Interpretation on this last issue is most critical because the ICJ will either validate or invalidate Thailand's claim in regard to the Thai-Cambodian borders pertaining to the temple.
If Thailand continues to allow partisanship and domestic political rivalry to cloud judgement, then the prospects for two neighbouring countries to achieve a win-win solution is virtually nil with or without the ICJ's interpretation and provisional measures.
All sides, particularly the rival Democrat and Pheu Thai parties, must form consensus on how to handle the temple's vicinity, otherwise the country may end up an outcast in the international community.
The dispute over the vicinity of Preah Vihear Temple will forever be a nightmare unless Thailand can form a common stand to negotiate with Cambodia.
Without a consensus in society, even the International Court of Justice may not be able to bring about a successful conclusion to the long-festering dispute.
And the country is likely to plunge deeper into misery if and when the ICJ issues interpretation of the 1962 judgement concerning Preah Vihear.
Presently attention is being focused on the ICJ's order for provisional measures, particularly the provisional demilitarised zone and the withdrawal of Thai and Cambodian military personnel.
But the ICJ's order goes beyond provisional measures. By an unanimous decision, the 16 presiding judges rejected Thailand's request for dismissal.
This means the ICJ will proceed to interpret the 1962 judgement as per the Cambodian request.
Following two public hearings in May, the judges have outlined interpretation to cover three issues.
First issue is the meaning and scope of Preah Vihear vicinity on Cambodian territory. At issue is not the precinct of the temple but its vicinity.
Thailand contends instantaneous compliance on the judgement pertaining to vicinity on the Cambodian side of the frontier. But the two countries appear to have differing views on frontier and vicinity.
Second issue is whether the obligation for troops withdrawal imposed on Thailand in 1962 is of the continuing or instantaneous character.
Legal jargon aside, the ICJ is about to interpret whether Thailand was right to remove troops from certain areas but keep on the deployment at other areas surrounding the temple.
Third issue is whether the 1962 judgement did or did not recognise with binding force the line shown on the map (drawn up in 1907 by the Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission) as representing the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand.
Interpretation on this last issue is most critical because the ICJ will either validate or invalidate Thailand's claim in regard to the Thai-Cambodian borders pertaining to the temple.
If Thailand continues to allow partisanship and domestic political rivalry to cloud judgement, then the prospects for two neighbouring countries to achieve a win-win solution is virtually nil with or without the ICJ's interpretation and provisional measures.
All sides, particularly the rival Democrat and Pheu Thai parties, must form consensus on how to handle the temple's vicinity, otherwise the country may end up an outcast in the international community.
1 comment:
For ah thai is a lose-lose. But, for khmer is a win-win.Long live khmer people and nation!
Post a Comment