Bangkok Post
The falsified border map used by Cambodia at
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) could be key evidence allowing a
verdict in favour of Thailand, the Thai legal team fighting the case
says.
Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra presents bouquets of flowers to the Thai legal team, including the only woman in the courtroom of the International Court of Justice, Alina Morin of Romania, heroine of the Preah Vihear temple case. (Photo by Chanat Katanyu)
Virachai Plasai, head of the Thai team and Thai ambassador to The
Hague, said the team noticed Cambodia's use of the falsified map as part
of its formal request for the ICJ's interpretation in 2011 and had
corrected it in Thailand's first written defence. But the falsified map
with "colourful adjustments" was used again by Cambodia in its second
written statement to the court in March 2012, the Thai legal team head
said.
Alina Miron, a map expert who is one of four foreign lawyers on the
Thai team, said the Foreign Ministry found out about the falsified map a
year and a half ago.
"I was very excited to see that map and we had to build up the story.
Foreign Ministry staff have been really great in trying to find out the
answers.
"They were wonderful trying to build the story up [in court]. Nobody wanted to do it but I had to," she said.
"I am proud to be helping Thailand. I have participated in this case
because the Foreign Ministry contacted Alain Pellet, who invited me to
join the team," Ms Miron added.
Thailand's team of lawyers in the Preah Vihear case met Prime
Minister Yingluck Shinawatra at Government House Monday to report on
their performance during the oral statements at the ICJ.
Ms Yingluck thanked the team for its hard work and research in Thailand's defence.
She also said the Thai people had given moral support to the team, and were proud of them.
Ms Yingluck said the team was able to clearly explain points of concern to the public and rebutted Cambodia's arguments.
The public were provided with information which made them more
knowledgeable about the case and they had become more confident in
understanding the situation after hearing the Thai legal team's
explanations, she said
James Crawford, a lawyer on the team, said the Thai team had done a very good job and it is satisfied with its performance.
"[But] it's difficult to say how the court will rule after this. It's
like being in the middle of the sea, like being in the hands of the
gods," he said.
Mr Virachai thanked the government, officials from related
ministries, and the Thai public who gave support to the team throughout
their verbal testimony last week in the Hague, which he said showed
unity within the country.
"One thing I want to mention to is the case of Prince Damrong
Rajanupab who went to the Preah Vihear temple a long time ago as an
archaeologist but his case was considered by the 1962 court, so this
time we mentioned him to compare with the visit of then Prince Norodom
Sihanouk of Cambodia which is a good legal point," Mr Virachai said.
Thailand has prepared detailed geographic coordinates as requested by
one of the ICJ judges and will submit them to the court before the
Friday deadline. He declined to elaborate on the details.
The ambassador said the next step is to continue providing
information to the public about the final court decision by highlighting
the critical points the team made during its oral testimony.
Defence Minister Sukumpol Suwanatat said that Thailand's coordinates would be based on the Thai cabinet resolution of 1962.
In a Defence Council meeting Monday, ACM Sukumpol thanked officers
for preparing useful information, especially data on maps, for the Thai
legal team.
Defence spokesman Col Thanathip Sawangsaeng quoted the minister as
saying that useful information on maps had been very important for
Thailand's defence in its oral statements before the ICJ last week.
3 comments:
Some information retrieved from 1962 ICJ's case:
From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map. Even if there were any doubt in this connection, Thailand was not precluded from asserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for fifty years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 has conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex I map caused it to enter the treaty settlement; the Parties had at that time adopted an interpretation of that settlement which caused the map line to prevail over the provisions of the Treaty and, as there was no reason to think that the Parties had attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regulation of their own frontiers, the Court considered that the interpretation to be given now would be the same.
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.
For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear.
From the above reasons,
I don't believe that the judges in this 2013 dare to alter the judgement of ICJ in 1962.
They stated clearly that Map Anex I is legal.
Let me back track a little bit here. According to the Wikipedia, the original border delimitation between French Indochina and Siam at the time was the so-called "Watershed line". However, according to the French-Siam Treaty, the extent of Siam did not go as far as the Watershed line at all. The extent of Thailand only goes so far and stop short of the Khmer Preah Vihear Temple and its vicinity. Even Thailand's leaders of the time accepted it.
That was why in 1962, the World Court used that Map or Delimitation Treaty between French Indochina and Siam as it basis. Naturally, according to the map, the Preah Vihear Temple is found to be under the territory of Cambodia. In addition even the vicinity or the surrounding region is within the territory of Cambodia according to that very same map.
So how can the very map be "falsified" if the World Court used it in its judgment already. I bet Thailand will explain to the World Court about the term temple "vicinity" according to its ONE SIDED THAILAND MADE UP Map. Now that is called "false map" for sure! Lol.
Post a Comment