DPA
Bangkok - Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej left Monday for a two-day visit to Cambodia, which is expected to touch on a bilateral dispute over the famed Phra Viharn temple, known as Preah Vihear in Cambodia, on their common border. "We will be discussing many issues, such as a Cambodia's request for a loan to build a road and perhaps Phra Viharn," said Thai Foreign Minister Noppodon Patama at the airport before the Thai delegation departed.
Ownership of Phra Viharn, an ancient Hindu-style temple that straddles the Thai-Cambodian border, has been a contentious issue between Thailand and Cambodia for decades.
The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice, which ruled on June 15, 1962, that the temple belonged to Cambodia.
Although the temple, perched on a cliff overlooking Cambodia, is now under the management of the Cambodian government, the easiest access to the site for tourists is via Thailand.
Thailand reportedly blocked a Cambodian attempt to have the temple declared a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) last year, citing an ongoing dispute over the exact demarcation of the temple compound, which is still disputed.
It is hoped that the demarcation disagreement will be settled before the next World Heritage committee meeting from July 4 to 12 in Canada.
Ownership of Phra Viharn, an ancient Hindu-style temple that straddles the Thai-Cambodian border, has been a contentious issue between Thailand and Cambodia for decades.
The dispute was taken to the International Court of Justice, which ruled on June 15, 1962, that the temple belonged to Cambodia.
Although the temple, perched on a cliff overlooking Cambodia, is now under the management of the Cambodian government, the easiest access to the site for tourists is via Thailand.
Thailand reportedly blocked a Cambodian attempt to have the temple declared a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) last year, citing an ongoing dispute over the exact demarcation of the temple compound, which is still disputed.
It is hoped that the demarcation disagreement will be settled before the next World Heritage committee meeting from July 4 to 12 in Canada.
16 comments:
Never let the Thaicong win!
Have you ever thought why the Thai land is so huge? Do they look like loser to you?
Let it be known that the border issue must be solved by the border committee between Cambodian and the Thaicong!
This issue of Khmer Phrea Vihear temple deal cultural heritage must be solved UNESCO!
The fucken Thaicong must not politicize border issue with UNESCO because the UNESCO job is to deal with cultural issue only! Therefore UNESCO should have no problem is recognize Khmer Phrea Vihear temple as part of the world heritage!
Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of 15 June 1962
Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.
In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.
Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.
*
* *
In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission
In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.
The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.
The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.
The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.
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.
Don't violate this!
And also DO NOT VIOLATE THIS ONE!!!
Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962
CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of 15 June 1962
Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on 6 October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of 26 May 1961, found that it had jurisdiction.
In its Judgment on the merits the Court, by nine votes to three, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and, in consequence, that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
By seven votes to five, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities.
Judge Tanaka and Judge Morelli appended to the Judgment a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quintana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.
*
* *
In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear. This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute had its fons et origo in the boundary settlements made in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam. The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular, involved. That Treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission
In the eastern sector of the Dangrek range, in which Preah Vihear was situated, the frontier was to follow the watershed line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was agreed, at a meeting held on 2 December 1906, that the Mixed Commission should travel along the Dangrek range carrying out all the necessary reconnaissance, and that a survey officer of the French section of the Commission should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range. It had not been contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections duly made this journey, in the course of which they visited the Temple of Preah Vihear. In January-February 1907, the President of the French section had reported to his Government that the frontier-line had been definitely established. It therefore seemed clear that a frontier had been surveyed and fixed, although there was no record of any decision and no reference to the Dangrek region in any minutes of the meetings of the Commission after 2 December 1906. Moreover, at the time when the Commission might have met for the purpose of winding up its work, attention was directed towards the conclusion of a further Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907.
The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Government, which did not dispose of adequate technical means, had requested that French officers should map the frontier region. These maps were completed in the autumn of 1907 by a team of French officers, some of whom had been members of the Mixed Commission, and they were communicated to the Siamese Government in 1908. Amongst them was a map of the Dangrek range showing Preah Vihear on the Cambodian side. It was on that map (filed as Annex I to its Memorial) that Cambodia had principally relied in support of her claim to sovereignty over the Temple. Thailand, on the other hand, had contended that the map, not being the work of the Mixed Commission, had no binding character; that the frontier indicated on it was not the true watershed line and that the true watershed line would place the Temple in Thailand, that the map had never been accepted by Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it she had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicated corresponded with the watershed line.
The Annex I map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to function some months before its production. While there could be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector, the Court nevertheless concluded that, in its inception, it had no binding character. It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced. The maps were moreover communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission, who said nothing. to the Siamese Minister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, who thanked the French Minister in Bangkok for them, and to the Siamese provincial governors, some of whom knew of Preah Vihear. If the Siamese authorities accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could not now plead any error vitiating the reality of their consent.
The Siamese Government and later the Thai Government had raised no query about the Annex I map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1935 a survey had established a divergence between the map line and the true line of the watershed, and other maps had been produced showing the Temple as being in Thailand: Thailand had nevertheless continued also to use and indeed to publish maps showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia. Moreover, in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, it would have been natural for Thailand to raise the matter: she did not do so. The natural inference was that she had accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map, irrespective of its correspondence with the watershed line. Thailand had stated that having been, at all material times, in possession of Preah Vihear, she had had no need to raise the matter; she had indeed instanced the acts of her administrative authorities on the ground as evidence that she had never accepted the Annex I line at Preah Vihear. But the Court found it difficult to regard such local acts as negativing the consistent attitude of the central authorities. Moreover, when in 1930 Prince Damrong, on a visit to the Temple, was officially received there by the French Resident for the adjoining Cambodian province, Siam failed to react.
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.
Thanks mate, 1:25, for getting us the court verdict on the Preah Vihear case.
"For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear."
These type of thing required careful reading, and I read the entire thing three time, LOL, which is still not enough, but with some reservation, the last paragraph clearly shown that the court ruled Preah Vihear belong to us.
The only think I am not clear about is the first clause for the above paragraph, "For these reasons,"
I need to see what they referred to as "Annex I map", and maybe other things.
Just off the top of my head, the border or frontier is still disputable because the court doesn't explicitly rule on frontier.
Furthermore, the Thai can still dispute for the temple if they find any error that is used to arrive at the court verdict or they find some new discovery that was not considered at the time, but that may be a tough case for them to do.
Last but not least, the damn law alway has loop holes. Who know what they got in their hand now until you hear them out. Life is just suck, folks. What can I tell you?
We don't neek to bullshit around with Thai. Just fuck the Thai king asswhole, and Samak's asswhole to calm them down in order to get the temple in question, other temples and Khmer land back, Period.
Easy for you to say, but I tell you this: if you don't show openness to the Thai to the court, most of the time the court see you in contempt and tend to rule against you in the case at hand.
You seem to agree with the court jurisdiction, why keep bullshiting around? The simple thing is that we must implement the court's verdict straight away, period.
Your greedy people must undestand your greedness.
Hey dude, I am not bullshitting. Go an talk to your local law professor for your own confirmation. Law is not as rigid as science formula. It has a lot of loop holes. Furthermore, with a different set of judges and lawyers this case might not even came out the same way. That is how bad thing can be.
I don't need you to tell me where to read law.
Just stop bullshitting around, your mouth is so smelly. Your should consult your second hand law/political science professors on how to stop being greedy, period.
Implement the court's verdict, period.
You mean enforcing the court ruling you (idiot), but that is the international court duty, not ours. And the court will hear from the Thai as well as our side.
Anyhow, you shouldn't be talking about this if you think the law is that simple for ordinary people.
Blocking Preah Vihear from being registered as the World Heritage has nothing to do with demaration. It is wrong for Thailand manipulating the scenario to block it from moving forward; their action benefits no one but animosity and mistrust between the two friendly people.
I am sure we can work things out with our brother Thai. I have a good feeling about this. BTW, I can see a lot Khmer in the Thai's new PM ( Samak Sundaravej). This maybe our lucky years. I hope they will elected him twice. Anyone bashes the New Thai PM is dead meat. You got that?
Fuck the Thaicong PM or whatever!
To night you will be fucken dead meat because you can't achieve erection and your wife will kick your arse and beat the crap out of you! Aahhahahhahaha!
Hey, this is not the west. Our wives are very more mature and patient here.
Post a Comment