Published on : 10 June 2011
By International Justice Desk
Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are deliberating whether to wade into a bloody border conflict, after Cambodia asked that it order Thailand to withdraw troops from positions near an 11th century Hindu temple.
By Jared Ferrie,
Chiang Mai, Thailand
Public hearings were conducted May 30 and 31 in response to a request from Cambodia that the Court interpret a 1962 judgment that placed the Preah Vihear temple inside Cambodian territory. Although the judgment also supported a map demarcating the border, Thailand argues that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction to rule on the border.
A disputed 4.6 square kilometer section of land at the foot of the temple has become a flashpoint for military clashes, including those that claimed at least 10 lives in February.
Cambodia hopes an ICJ clarification will effectively demarcate the border. Thailand wants the Court to dismiss Cambodia’s application, arguing that it has complied with the 1962 ruling, which required it to withdraw its forces from the temple and Cambodian territory in the vicinity.
War of letters
Thai officials have made that argument repeatedly, in public statements and in a February 5 letter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
But in its own letters to the UNSC, including one dating back to 1966, Cambodia has claimed that Thailand repeatedly violated the ruling, not only stationing troops nearby, but on one occasion invading the temple complex itself.
The April 23 1966 letter, which was provided to the International Justice Tribune by the Documentation Centre of Cambodia, describes an alleged sequence of clashes in and around the temple.
“On 3 April 1966 at about 7:30 p.m., a unit of Thai Armed Forces about 100 strong attacked and burned the Cambodian post held by nine guards appointed to watch over the temple of Preah Vihear,” wrote Norodom Kantol, who was Cambodia’s foreign minister.
“The aggressors captured five of these guards and occupied the temple.”
The letter goes on to claim that Cambodian troops took back the temple from the Thais who allegedly executed the five prisoners as they were withdrawing.
It also claims that the Thai military used the confrontation to expand into Cambodian territory. Quoting a statement made by Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia’s head of state at the time, the letter claims:
“They have drawn a new frontier line, to our disadvantage, in the neighbourhood of Preah Vihear itself. In particular, they have laid barbed wire and set up military or police posts which in certain places encroach to a considerable depth on our territory, thus scorning the judgment of the International Court of Justice.”
Thailand has maintained that it accepted the section of the 1962 judgment that placed Preah Vihear within Cambodia. But both the section referring to the borderline, and Thailand’s interpretation of it, is less clear.
Drawing lines in the sand
In its summary of the 1962 judgment, the Court explained that various maps had been produced that demarcated the border according to the different designations of the watershed line at the foot of the hill upon which Preah Vihear stands. However, the Court found evidence that Thailand accepted a map it referred to as Annex I.
“The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line,” said the summary.
Thus, the Court appears to have ruled already on the border demarcation issue. But the 1962 judgment also admits that the Thai government never officially endorsed the Annex I map. And over decades the issue has only become more opaque.
Cambodia says it wants a speedy decision by the ICJ in hopes that it will help resolve the border crisis. Authorities have warned of the potential for further clashes, as both countries continue to maintain a heavy military presence in the area.
The ICJ has not determined when it will decide whether or not to examine and interpret the 1962 judgment, saying only that the date “will be determined in due course.”
4 comments:
That's right! Line up all them rocket and missile toward Thailand...when they encroach just blast them Up!!!!
Damn, I don't understand, after China provided 50,000 sets of uniforms and boots the soldier in the picture still wear thong.
Article 60 of the Statute of the Court
The Court begins by noting that its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 60 of the Statute is not preconditioned by the existence of any other basis of jurisdiction as between the parties to the original case and that accordingly, even if the basis of jurisdiction in the original case lapses, it may nevertheless deal with a request for interpretation. when a request for the indication of provisional measures is made in the context of a request for interpretation of a Court’s judgment under Article 60, it has first to consider whether the conditions to examine such a request appear to be satisfied. To this effect, Article 60 of its Statute requires that there be a “dispute as to the meaning or scope” of the said judgment.
The Court will observes that the Parties disagree on whether there is a dispute amongst them about the meaning or scope of 1904-1907 Franco-Sian treaty and the ruling of ICJ in 1962. Cambodia understands the Judgment as establishing an obligation of result on the Thailand, “ withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity”, to provide the requisite review and reconsideration “irrespective of any law impediment” and “by its actions thus far”, theThailand understands the Judgment “to constitute merely an obligation of means, not . . . of result”. On its part, the Thailand secretly redrawn its own Unlilteral map that created the conflict to which constitutes “an abuse of ICJ ruling”, of the 15/06/1962 Judgment.
(I)
(II)
- Link between the alleged rights to be protected and the Request for interpretation
The Court , to indicate the requested provisional measures, it must be convinced that there exists a link between the alleged rights the protection of which is sought and the subject of Cambodia’s Request for interpretation.Cambodia seeks clarification of the meaning and scope of Thailand withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, whereby the Court may found that Thailand is under an obligation to withdrawn its troop from Preah Vihear temple and vicinity, It observes that it is the interpretation of the meaning and scope of obligation, and hence of the rights which Cambodia and its nationals have on the basis of the Request for interpretation, and that Cambodia filed a request for the indication of provisional measures in order to protect these rights of the Court’s final decision. The Court thus must concludes that the rights which Cambodia seeks to protect have a sufficient connection with the Request for interpretation.
(L.C)
Post a Comment