ICJ may let Cambodia, Thailand decide on boundary [If that's the case, why bring the issue to the ICJ in the first place. The fact that Cambodia took the dispute to the ICJ was because Cambodia and Thailand don't know where the border lies]

Bangkok (The Nation/ANN) -- The International Court of Justice (ICJ) might save all parties from disaster when it delivers its judgement on the Preah Vihear case next week, as there is room for compromise - and for Thailand and Cambodia to peacefully make a deal.

There is a high possibility the ICJ will clarify the 1962 judgement on the border temple by explaining only legal aspects of the ruling. The court may say the boundary is inseparable from what the court ruled 50 years ago, according to legal experts at the Foreign Ministry.

The clarification may not seek to clearly clarify the 'vicinity' around Preah Vihear temple, but could be used as a framework for Thailand and Cambodia to negotiate the boundary line.

Thailand and Cambodia have set up a joint mechanism to consider the consequences of a court verdict legally and politically. Thai Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul and his Cambodian counterpart Hor Namhong met last week in border towns Poi Pet-Aranyaprathet to make clear they would not allow the court ruling, whatever it is, to jeopardise good relations between the two countries.

Thailand and Cambodia already have a joint mechanism for boundary demarcation. It could use the ICJ verdict as a framework to negotiate and settle the boundary line.

If the ICJ does not rule in such a way, the Thai Foreign Ministry anticipates three other possible scenarios. The court could say it has no jurisdiction to interpret the 1962 judgement; it could rule in favour of Cambodia; or in favour of Thailand.

To decide in favour of Cambodia, the court would say that when it ruled in 1962 it saw a clear boundary line defined by the French map of 1:200,000 scale. That map enabled the court to rule that the Preah Vihear temple was situated on territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.

If the court rules in that way, the vicinity of the temple where Thailand is obligated to withdraw troops and personnel from would be defined by the line on the map. The disputed area of 4.6 square kilometres would, thus, be under Cambodian sovereignty.

In this scenario, the current Thai government under Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra would face strong opposition from nationalist groups who alleged earlier that this government came to a deal with Cambodia, through the court, to make a territorial loss in exchange for personal interests for the Shinawatra clan. Anti-government sentiment is growing at present due to the amnesty bill - and the Preah Vihear ruling mount more pressure.

But the Preah Vihear case would not be a threat to the government if the court ruled in favour of Thailand. It would be a relief if the court said it had no jurisdiction to interpret the 1962 judgement, as both countries have no dispute on the old verdict.

For that reason, Thailand has complied with the 1962 judgement properly and Cambodia already accepted it 50 years ago. There is no further dispute. What Cambodia proposed to the court in 2011 was a new territorial dispute, on which the court cannot rule.

The vicinity of Preah Vihear temple is not necessarily defined by the international boundary line - and the Annex I map in Cambodia's proposal did not indicate the same area as determined in the 1962 judgement.

Ruling in favour of Thailand may create political difficulties for the Cambodian government, which is not as strong as before, as the opposition won more seats in the Parliament in the recent election.

Some judges might take note that experts indicated during previous oral testimony in April that the 1962 Thai cabinet resolution determined a 0.25 square kilometre area for the temple to sit on. The late King Norodom Sihanouk said the Thai-determined area was a few metres shorter than what Cambodia claimed.

The court could say that the area of 0.07 square km northeast of the temple is also included in the Preah Vihear vicinity.

If the court does so, Cambodia would get a bit more land, at least enough to tell the public that Phnom Penh "won" the case.