Military confrontations between Khmer and Thai troops are increasingly tense

A Khmer soldier (R) carrying a B-40 rocket launcher while a Thai soldier sitting at left looked on on 7th October, 2008 near Preah Vihear temple.

Radio Free Asia By Sav Yuth
11th October, 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization

The military confrontations between Khmer and Thai troops in the disputed areas of Preah Vihear are increasingly tense as both sides are in fighting mode in anticipation of the ministerial meeting between the two countries.

Villagers who live at the foot of the mountain near Preah Vihear temple have said on the 11th October that they have seen Khmer and Thai troops had dug trenches since Friday until Saturday in anticipation of the break out of fighting.

Villagers said that pregnant women and children were starting to leave their houses and at night time they climb up to sleep at the top of the mountain near the Preah Vihear temple due to anticipation of the break out of fighting.

One villager said: “The Khmer and Thai sides are digging their trenches since morning until night time. Some villagers have left because they are scared.”

But commander of the intervention forces of Division 12 based in Preah Vihear, Gen. Srey Doeuk, said on the morning of Saturday that the military situation there is still calm.

The commander said that on the morning of Friday there was one Thai jet fighter which flew three times in reconnaissance but he added that Khmer troops are not scared of this intimidation.

Gen. Srey Doeuk said: “There is no change. The situations are still the same as when you were here. The jet fighter has flown from east to west, west to east three times. We have monitored the flight but there was nothing happened. They can fly as many times as they like but we are not afraid one bit.”

The situation in the areas became tense on the 8th of October when Khmer troops spotted the Thai side transported three artillery guns to the frontline and at night they heard Thai military trucks transported more troops to the areas.

At Prolean Indri (Eagle Field), where the fighting broke out recently at Phnom Trop, the Cambodian troops are on high alert. Deputy commander of Division 43 based in the areas, Col. Bun Thean, said: “We are still on high alert. But we have not seen anything happen yet. We are constantly monitoring the movements of the Thai troops. They dare not to violate us like before, like in the frontline of Phnom Trop they have constantly made contacts with us. Now they are the one who is asking to meet us. We only meet them when they asked to meet us.”

Between the 3rd and 8 October one Khmer and four Thai soldiers were injured during the armed clash and mine explosions at Prolean Indri at Phnom Trop.//

Thailand increased troop deployments along the borders

Thai troops are camping near the Preah Vihear temple on the 8th of October, 2008.

Radio Free Asia By Sophal Mony
10th October, 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization

The Cambodian authority has said that Thailand has increased troop deployments along the Khmer-Thai borders in the Preah Vihear regions.

Deputy Police Commissioner of Banteay Meanchey province, Mr. Sam Chith, said on the 10th October that the Thai side has stealthily deployed troops in the middle of the night and on the night of Wednesday the 8th October there were about 80 black-clad and paramilitary troops had been deployed as a reinforcement.

Mr. Sam Chith said: “They have deployed 80 more black-clad and paramilitary troops. But they deployed them about 20 kilometres from here, somewhere in Thmor Puok district….from the north of Boeng Trokuon to the north of the Dangrek Ranges.”

The Thai deployments have been increased due to the recent fighting after Thai troops had violated Cambodian territorial integrity and mine explosions which injured two Thai soldiers at Phnom Trop in Preah Vihear province.

Khmer border guards said that the Thai side has continuously deployed troops at night time along the areas of the north western provinces.

Captain Liv Sipha, deputy commissioner of the military police of Battambang province stationed at Samlaut district, said that the situation along the Khmer-Thai borders in Battambang province is normal and the Khmer and Thai side still have cordial contacts with each other.

Captain Liv Sipha said: “All the borderlines in Pailin and Battambang have no problem. Nothing has changed. in short, the situation from Poipet to Pailin and as far as Koh Kong we don’t have any problems.”

Since fighting broke out in Preah Vihear on Friday the 3rd of October, villagers at Boeng Trokoun and other border areas are afraid to leave their houses due to fears. But reports on this Friday have said that the fears among the villagers in border areas had been subsided. One villager said: “There is no problem. People are still crossing the borders to work on the potato and sugarcane farms (in Thailand) as normal. They slept in their huts along the Thai paddies. When the fighting broke out there were fears among these people, but now everything has returned to normal.”

Villagers and border guards who live along the borders said that even though there is no armed confrontation there they are still worried. They said that they are waiting for the results of the Khmer-Thai ministerial meeting on the 13th of October, 2008.//

Thai business [in Cambodia] under threat

Protest in front of the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh in 2003

Friday June 27, 2008
NAREERAT WIRIYAPONG SOMRUEDI BANCHONGDUANG
Bangkok Post

Thai businesses operating in Cambodia have expressed concern that bilateral relations could be shaken by conflict over the Preah Vihear temple.

The opposition Democrat Party has blasted the government over the past week, alleging that it is ceding Thai territory to Cambodia for supporting the latter's bid to register Preah Vihear as a World Heritage site.

The World Court earlier ruled that Preah Vihear is Cambodian territory and that Thailand has no claim to the temples.

The Thai embassy in Phnom Penh recently met with Thai business executives operating in Cambodia to discuss the political and social tensions between the two countries.

Business leaders want to avoid a repeat of the anti-Thai riots of January 2003, when the Thai embassy and Thai businesses were sacked. The riots were sparked by allegedly inflammatory remarks made by a Thai actress and resulted in hundreds of millions of baht in damage.

''We do hope that the current arguments will not last long,'' said Chitrapongse Kwangsukstith, chief operations officer for upstream petroleum and gas business of PTT Plc.

''There are several possible peaceful solutions that will be of mutual benefit. But if the situation could not be ended quickly and get worse, it would possibly make the relationship sour and cause the parties to lose trust in each other. [Thai] businesses operating [in Cambodia] could be affected.''

PTT holds a licence to develop an offshore natural gas block off the east coast of Cambodia. It also has been in discussions about petroleum exploration rights in the overlapping area that is claimed by both countries.

Dr Chitrapongse said that the temple issue could complicate discussions over the overlapping claims.

Niyom Waiyaratchapanich, the chairman of the Thai Chamber of Commerce's committee on border trade development, called on the government and related parties to end the conflict quickly.

''If it is prolonged and intensified to provoke nationalistic actions, Thai businesses in Cambodia would be seriously affected,'' said Mr Niyom.

Thai investors rank third among foreign businesses investing in Cambodia after Korea and Japan. Most Thai investments are in hotels and construction.

Thailand enjoys a trade surplus of 35 billion baht in trade worth 40 billion baht annually, he added.

Thailand's Siam Cement Group has operated a cement plant in Cambodia and plans to expand its logistics and trading businesses. The Charoen Pokphand group has invested in an animal feed and integrated agricultural project there.

Thai Airways International files daily between Bangkok and Phnom Penh, while Bangkok Airway operates daily flights from Bangkok to Cambodia's capital and Siam Reap. Thai Air Asia has seven flights a week between Phnom Penh and Bangkok.

Figures from the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) show that 35,796 Thai nationals visited Cambodia in 2007, up 14.5% over the previous year, mainly for tourism and business. Meanwhile, 108,776 Cambodians visited Thailand, down 13.2%, due mainly to a sharp rise in the Thai baht. Cambodia uses the US dollar as its main currency.

''Conflicts over Preah Vihear are highlighted once again, making the bilateral relationship not so smooth. This could cause Cambodian tourists to lose confidence in visiting Thailand,'' the TAT said in a recent report.

Siam Commercial Bank executives said they were closely monitoring events.

Paspun Suwanchinda, the bank's executive vice-president, said the bank's operations in Phnom Penh had not been affected by the Preah Vihear case.

''Business transactions remain at normal levels,'' she said.

SCB operates branches in Phnom Penh, Battambang, Siem Reap and Sihanoukville under the name Cambodian Commercial Bank.

But while the situation appears stable now, Ms Paspun said the bank had contingency plans to cope with ''unpredictable events''.

''We are receiving round-the-clock information updates from the Thai embassy, and we have also held briefings with our staff to be sensitive to the situation,'' she said.

"I retain sovereignty, not lose it." : Noppadon [-Does it mean that Cambodia loses her right to the disputed border zone?]

Wed, June 25, 2008
By Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation

"The ICJ ruled only the temple was under Cambodia's sovereignty and Thailand obligated to hand the ruin temple to Cambodia, not soil under and surrounding the ruin" - Thai Democrat MP Sirichok Sopha

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama said in the censure debate late Tuesday night that he has managed to retain the national sovereignty, rather than lost it, in dealing with Cambodia over the Hindu temple of Preah Vihear.

The joint communique signed with Cambodia's Deputy Prime Minister Sok An on June 18 did not give up the reservation against the world court's ruling made by former foreign minister Thanat Khoman, he said.

Sovereignty over the Preah Vihear temple, ruled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962 in favour of Cambodia, was a hot debate in the parliament. The opposition Democrat Party accused the government of causing of lost in the sovereignty as allowed Cambodia to unilaterally apply the temple as the world heritage.

Actively support Cambodia's application to the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (Unesco) means recognition Cambodia's sovereignty over the temple's area, said Democrat MP Sirichok Sopha.

"The ICJ ruled only the temple was under Cambodia's sovereignty and Thailand obligated to hand the ruin temple to Cambodia, not soil under and surrounding the ruin," he said.

Noppadon, however, rejected the allegation, saying the Thai Cabinet in July 1962, shortly after the ruling, agreed to hand the temple together with some square of kilometres in and surrounding the temple to Cambodia.

As long as Cambodia did not claim anything beyond the then handed over area, Thailand lost nothing beyond what it has lost 46 years ago, Noppadon said.

Cambodia's new map, which is used in the application to Unesco was cross-checked by L 7017 map used by the Thai military to determine Thai boundary, not the French-made map, he said.

"The inherent right, if really existed, as reserved by former minister Thanat has not changed. No any single word in the joint statement mentioned about that right and the reservation," he told the Parliament.

Moreover, Unesco's Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage's article 11 stated that: "The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute," he said.

"We have three layers of legal protection over our sovereignty. I see no point in the allegation that I lost our sovereignty," he said.

The minister said the idea of applying jointly for the Unesco status, as suggested by the opposition, could not be achieved because Cambodia has rejected the idea.

"What I can do is to protect our territory and reserved the right to jointly propose some ancient objects under the temple's periphery in the overlapping area to the Unesco in the next two years," he said.

All heated up about heritage [-Preah Vihear is Khmer's heritage anyway, NOT Thai's]

Wednesday June 25, 2008
Bangkok Post

Public frenzy over the registration of Preah Vihear temple ruins on the Thai-Cambodian border as a World Heritage Site by Cambodia comes at a crucial time. Overnight, the issue has become a hot debate. We see a number of self-proclaimed protectors of the ancient site. Strangely though, many fear Thailand will ''forever lose'' the site, which actually stopped belonging to the country when the International Court of Justice gave a ruling in favour of Cambodia almost half a century ago.

As the issue is avidly politicised, people keep mentioning ''the loss'' without knowing exactly what we are to lose if Preah Vihear gains international recognition at the Unesco meeting in Quebec soon.

A superficial look at the issue may give the impression that the thing called ''cultural heritage'' does matter in our society. But does it, really?

Let's look at the way we have handled our heritage and heritage sites and we may realise that the opposite is exactly the truth. Do we take good care of Ayutthaya -our World Heritage site - which is under threat from encroachment? The attack on Phanom Rung Historical Park in Buri Ram is still fresh in our memory. We have heard of a mining concession in an area adjacent to the buffer zone of Huai Kha Kaeng wildlife sanctuary in Uthai Thani - which is also a World Heritage site. Are we considering doing anything to protect it?

Temple thievery, with bandits making off with precious artifacts, have made headlines so often that we are quite familiar with it.

Closer to us all in the Big Mango, national artist Acharn Chakrabhand Posayakrit is facing a tremendous threat in the form of a project to build a 32-storey condominium next door to his house, which also serves as the office of the Chakrabhand Posayakrit Foundation on Soi Ekamai. The project, which is being carried out by Singapore-based Dalvey Residence Co, has the alleged potential to harm a collection of artworks by this National Artist, including a number of paintings, puppets from his historic production, Romance of the Three Kingdoms and also his new production, Taleng Phai, whose preparation is under way.

Inarguably, Acharn Chakrabhand's house is a living heritage _ a place where the National Artist makes new creations. It is also a place where a number of artists and musicians come to work on the puppets, practise their skills and rehearse their performance almost every day. The house is a place of learning for art students.

Worse, it has been found that existing laws are all in favour of the project developer, rather than individual residents like Acharn Chakrabhand.

Although Dalvey has said it will do its best to minimise the impact from its construction, there is no guarantee that the house will still be livable in, either during construction which is to last three years, or after project completion.

After all, such a huge building will unavoidably alter the physical environment of the neighbourhood - and not necessarily in a positive way.

Interestingly enough, the state authorities, including the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry, have looked into the issue. With despair, they have admitted that they do not have the power to stop the project, given the laws they have in their hand. Instead, they are placing their hope on ''social pressure'' to help the embattled artist.

The artist has launched a signature-collection campaign in which his fans and supporters sign up to voice their disapproval of the project. Yet no one knows if enough pressure can be generated, as Acharn Chakrabhand's fight against the project goes on almost unnoticed by society at large.

That is in profound contrast to what has happened in the Preah Vihear case.

More important, we have not heard a single word from the Culture Ministry, the agency authorised to safeguard the nation's culture and heritage. Which raises the question: can we still place our hopes in this agency?

I dare not say.

Acharn Chakrabhand's house is not just an individual's house. It is part of our national heritage which we cannot afford to lose.

Ploenpote Atthakor is Deputy News Editor, Bangkok Post.

The judgement of the World Court, 1962

Views inside the ICJ in 1962 (Photos: NorodomSihanouk.info)

Wednesday June 25, 2008
Bangkok Post

Published here is the International Court of Justice's ruling delivered on June 15, 1962, in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Merits) between Cambodia and Thailand.

The proceedings were instituted on Oct 6, 1957 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand having raised two preliminary objections, the Court, by its judgement of May 26, 1961, found that it had jusisdiction.

In its Judgement delivered today (June 15, 1962), 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 Judgement a Joint Declaration. Vice-President Alfaro and Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice appended Separate Opinions; Judges Moreno Quktana, Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender appended Dissenting Opinions.

In its Judgement, 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 February 13, 1904 was, in particular, involved (in which Thailand swapped the land on the right side of the Mekong river, namely Battambang, Siam Riep and Sri Sophon, in exchange for Chanthaburi, Trat and Dan Sai district in Loei province).

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 Dec 2, 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 Cornmission after Dec 2, 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 March 23, 1907.

The final stage of the delimitation was the preparation of maps. The Siamese Goverment, 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 Thalland 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 1 map was never formally approved by the Mixed Commission, which had ceased to funciion 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 1 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 1 map prior to its negotiations with Cambodia in Bangkok in 1958. But in 1934-1995 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-Simese 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 1 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 now precluded from assserting that she had not accepted it since France and Cambodia had relied upon her acceptance and she had for 50 years enjoyed such benefits as the Treaty of 1904 had conferred on her. Furthermore, the acceptance of the Annex 1 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 watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance of a final regdation 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.

The Hague, June 15, 1962.

Preah Vihear Temple Row: Top [Thai] official abruptly moved

Wednesday May 07, 2008
THANIDA TANSUBHAPOL
Bangkok Post

Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama yesterday ordered the abrupt transfer of a senior ministry official handling the Preah Vihear temple dispute with Cambodia to an inactive post. Treaties and Legal Affairs Department director-general Virachai Plasai has been made an ambassador attached to the ministry, an inactive position.

He was on his way to Phnom Penh with foreign affairs permanent secretary Virasakdi Futrakul yesterday for talks with Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister Sok An on the controversial issue of Unesco World Heritage listing for Preah Vihear.

Krit Kraichitti, currently head of the International Economic Affairs Department, will replace Mr Virachai.

The cabinet yesterday approved the special reshuffle order.

Tanatip U-patising, who is the ambassador attached to the ministry, will replace Mr Krit.

It is believed the transfer was linked to Mr Virachai's handling of the Preah Vihear issue.

Mr Noppadon explained that the transfer was meant to improve efficiency and working coordination.

''I try to put the right person in the right job. There was no other reason for the transfer,'' said Mr Noppadon.

He said Mr Krit, who formerly headed the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department, knows the problem (Preah Vihear) very well.

''Each horse has a lot of experience but I want the horse that can run on the right track,'' said Mr Noppadon.

What's happening?

BangkokPost.com, dpa

Cambodia and Thailand were in total agreement about a famous border temple on Monday: Both claimed they were puzzled why Unesco called off a meeting with their foreign ministers over Wat Preah Vihear.

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation late on Sunday cancelled a meeting with Thailand and Cambodia over efforts to put the Preah Vihear temple on the Unesco World Heritage list.

In Bangkok, officials said they had no idea why Unesco called off the meeting, which was to have taken place on Friday and Saturday in Paris. Foreign Minister Noppadon Pattama was prepared for the trip, when Unesco notified the ministry of the cancellation.

But in Phnom Penh, there was even more confusion.

"We received no invitation from the Unesco about talks, so we do not understand why they said talks are cancelled," said Phay Siphan, spokesman for the Cambodian cabinet, or Council of Ministers.

The Cambodians said there was no question about jurisdiction over the temple, and the only topic up for discussion is border jurisdiction.

The campaign to make Preah Vihear a Unesco site has turned into something of a nightmare. Cambodia and Thailand must come to some agreement over putting the temple, known as Khao Phra Viharn in Thailand, on the world heritage list.

The temple is at the top of a sheer cliff which the World Court ruled in 1962 is in Cambodia. However, the only easy access to the temple is through Thailand. If that weren't enough, the border in the region, except for the actual temple grounds, is unclear because of border disputes.

Cambodia said on Monday that no discussions mediated by the UN body had been mooted in past months and the issue was under control without the need of intervention by a third party.

But Thai officials said they had been informed that Unesco will now send its representative, Francesco Caruso, for separate talks with the Thai and Cambodian governments.

Mr Caruso has been appointed by Unesco as a special coordinator between Thailand and Cambodia on the issue and is due in Bangkok next month.

Obituary: Brice Clagett, US Lawyer helping Cambodia win the Preah Vihear case in 1962

A devoted genealogist, Brice McAdoo Clagett bought a home built by his ancestors centuries ago. (Family Photo)

Brice Clagett; Specialized in International Disputes

Wednesday, April 16, 2008
By Joe Holley
Washington Post Staff Writer

Brice McAdoo Clagett, 74, a Washington lawyer and historic preservationist, died April 8 of cardiac arrest at George Washington University Hospital.

An attorney for more than four decades with the law firm of Covington and Burling, Mr. Clagett's specialties included public and private international law, foreign claims, international arbitration, international land and maritime boundaries, transportation and environmental law and Middle Eastern law.

In 1960, former secretary of state Dean Acheson, a partner in the firm, asked Mr. Clagett to serve as a juridical counselor with the Cambodian delegation to the International Court of Justice at The Hague. The case was a boundary dispute between Cambodia and Thailand. Cambodia prevailed, and Acheson was made Prince of the Royal Order of Cambodia, while Mr. Clagett was made Commander of the Order.

In 1975, he argued before the Supreme Court in United States v. Maine on behalf of 11 of the 13 Atlantic coastal states that were challenging on constitutional grounds the alleged federal ownership of the Atlantic coastal shelf, which included oil-drilling rights.

Afterward, he received a letter from New Hampshire's deputy attorney general. "I have yet to make my maiden argument in the Supreme Court, and when I do I will think back to yours as a model," wrote David H. Souter, who is now a Supreme Court justice.

Mr. Clagett often appeared before the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established to settle claims between Iran and American nationals after the Islamic Revolution of 1979. He also represented numerous foreign governments in matters involving boundary disputes, natural resources, expropriation, war damages and treaty claims.

Born in the District, Mr. Clagett graduated from St. Albans School in 1950. He graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. He was on the Harvard Law Review and the Board of Editors and won a Rotary Fellowship to study for a year at the University of Allahabad, India.

Mr. Clagett joined Covington and Burling as an associate in 1958 and became a partner in 1967. He retired in 2002.

A lifelong advocate of historic and land preservation and environmental protection, he served as chairman of the Maryland Historical Trust from 1972 to 1978 and chairman of the Maryland Environmental Trust from 1985 to 1989. He also was a member of the Clagett Family Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

In 1968, he and his first wife, Virginia Parker Clagett, bought Holly Hill, a house in Friendship that was built by Mr. Clagett's ancestors more than three centuries ago. He lavished great care on both the house and gardens.

Passionate about history and genealogy, he compiled a 1,200-page book about 20 generations of his family, including his maternal grandfather, William Gibbs McAdoo, secretary of the Treasury in the Wilson administration.

"I wasn't born when I was born, and I won't die when I will die," he said in 1975. "I am part of a continuum of the family."

His first marriage ended in divorce.

Survivors include his wife of 20 years, Diana Sinkler Clagett of the District; and two children from his first marriage, John Brice de Treville Clagett of Friendship and Brooke Clagett of the District.