Arab Uprisings Point Up Flaws in Global Court

Tawakkol Karman, a Yemeni Nobel laureate, sought justice in the International Criminal Court for protesters killed in an uprising.

July 7, 2012
By LYDIA POLGREEN
The New York Times

“For justice to be legitimate, it is essential that it be applied equally to all”

JOHANNESBURG — It was exactly the kind of case the International Criminal Court was created to investigate: Yemen’s autocratic leader was clinging to power, turning his security forces’ guns on unarmed protesters. Hundreds were left dead, and many more were maimed.

But when Yemen’s Nobel laureate, Tawakkol Karman, traveled to The Hague to ask prosecutors to investigate, she was told the court would first need the approval of the United Nations Security Council. That never happened, and today the former president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, is living comfortably in Yemen’s capital, still wielding influence.

Now, as the world confronts increasing evidence of atrocities on a much vaster scale in Syria as President Bashar al-Assad’s government battles a growing rebellion, there are signs that Mr. Assad is likely to evade prosecution, much as Mr. Saleh has.

The men have not been prosecuted because they have powerful allies, underlining what critics say are crucial flaws in the court’s setup. That now threatens to undermine the still-fragile international consensus that formed the basis for the court’s creation in 2002: that leaders should be held accountable for crimes against their own people.

Already, the failure to act against some leaders challenged by the Arab Spring is emboldening critics who see the court as just another manifestation of a deeply undemocratic international order. So-called justice, they say, is reserved for outcast leaders, including an assortment of African officials from weak states with few powerful patrons.

Uganda: From Rome to Kampala in Search of International Justice

6 June 2010
Gabby Mgaya
AllAfrica.com

For additional information, click here

Dar Es Salaam — IT all started in Rome eight years ago when the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICC) came into force, which marked the entity's establishment.

Eight years later last week, a meeting to review the statute is taking place in the Ugandan Capital Kampala, with the most nagging issue on the agenda being a proposal to give the International Criminal Court in The Hague the power to prosecute the crime of aggression.

The court has come a long way since then, with the intervening period proving an intense period of institution building, legislating, investing and reaching out to affected communities.

It is not a secret that the world has experienced - and continues to experience - worst atrocities against innocent people in form of civil wars, systematic murder, wars of aggression, genocide, use of certain weapons that are gaseous or poisonous and human rights abuse.

The world both recalls and follows with compelling awe, past and continuing civil wars in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Southern Sudan, Darfur, Somalia and Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi. The civil war in Rwanda reached its climax with the genocide in 1993 in which more than 1 million lives were lost.

That is Africa. Worldwide, the world recalls with horror the wanton killings of innocent citizens in the former Yugoslavia, Cambodia, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq and several other places.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing in this entire sad situation is the fact that most such crimes have gone unpunished. Its perpetrators continue to roam the streets and country sides whereas their appropriate place should have been behind bars.

Even the choice of Uganda as the venue for this important conference is in the view of many observes an appropriate and a symbolic one. Uganda has got some of the world's excellent international conference facilities in Africa.

But the east African country has also had its share of massive human right abuses going back to the days of reign of Dictator Idi Amin Dada. To date, parts of Northern Uganda are experience one of the most devastating civil wars perpetrated by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), which is an ICC's major concern. The court seeks to arrest LRA's leader Joseph Kony.

Amidst tight security, more than 100 nations, contingents of human-rights groups and lawyers from around the globe, began meeting on Monday to tackle a myriad of issues that could fundamentally expand the power of international law.

The ultimate recommendation expected is to open the door to criminal accusations against powerful political and military leaders for attacks the court deems unlawful. These could range from full-scale invasions to pre-emptive strikes.

The court, the world's first permanent criminal court, already has a mandate to prosecute three groups of grave crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.

The massive turn-out at the Kampala conference is testimony to the importance nations, pressure groups and NGOS, human rights groups and lawyers from all over the globe attach to the crimes of war and impunity.

Tanzania is being represented by a delegation led by President Jakaya Kikwete who joined other prominent leaders including United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and ex-UN Chief Kofi Annan. It is interesting to note that the meeting is also being graced by a number of war victims.

Tanzanians know the dire consequences of civil wars and genocide in neighbouring countries that has manufactured thousands of refugees who moved in to save their dear lives.

The fact that Tanzania hosts the International Rwanda Tribunal that has been trying genocide suspects is both a sign of international acceptance of the country as an island of peace in the troubled Great Lakes Region and its quest to see that justice is done to the victims of the genocide in its partner East African Community (EAC) member state. It is also meant to deter any future such action.

There are many expectations on the ICC treaty review meeting in Kampala. It is hoped that it would ensure that genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes no longer go unpunished.

There have been significant achievements. By March 2010, Bangladesh had ratified the Rome Statute. Uganda and Burkina Faso has enacted complementarily and cooperation of legislation. Other countries have also responding to the call to implement, ratify and enact ICC legislation before the Kampala conference.

Overseas Cambodians would welcome government lawsuit against Thailand on Preah Vihear temple

17 March 2010
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

Overseas Cambodians would be very happy if the government would truly complain about Thailand to the UN regarding the 4.6-square-km area surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. Thailand claimed that this land area belongs to them. Ear Channa, Secretary-general of the Norway-based Cambodian Watchdog Council, told RFA: “If the Cambodian PM truly takes this case to complain to the UN, we all would be very happy and we will all welcome this action because this is what we want from the start. We kept on suggesting to the Cambodian government to peacefully end this case with the UN or The Hague International Court of Justice because if we insist on holding bilateral negotiations, we don’t know when it will end and it could lead to more unending bloody fights. This is what we call peaceful resolution and we end it without a drop of blood at the UN.”

Hun Sen ups stakes in border stand-off

"Cambodia has reached the limits of its patience.": HUNSEN

ANALYSIS: Cambodia's complaint to world court will prolong dispute

11/02/2010
Thanida Tansubhapol and Apinya Wipatayotin
Bangkok Post

Cambodia has approached the International Court of Justice over the disputed territory near the Preah Vihear temple in a move that has stoked blazing tensions over the issue.

Thailand wants the dispute over the 4.6 sq km area settled by the two countries through the Joint Boundary Commission.

A Foreign Ministry source said the chances of a bilateral solution would diminish if the international court in the Hague became involved.

Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen said on Tuesday his country would complain to the court that Thailand was occupying its land, Associated Press reported.

"Cambodia has reached the limits of its patience," Hun Sen said during a visit to the disputed border territory.

"Cambodia wants to solve this territorial dispute by filing a complaint to the international court at the Hague." He said he would also ask the United Nations to help solve the border issue.

What Cambodia plans to do is not new. In 2008, Phnom Penh tried to take the disputed area issue to the United Nations Security Council.

Thailand, under then prime minister Samak Sundaravej, successfully convinced members of the council in Thailand and New York, and other members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, that the issue should not be resolved by outsiders.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday the issue should be beyond the authority of the world court. He earlier insisted on using negotiations to fight for Thai sovereignty over the area around the temple as it is part of Kantharalak district in Si Sa Ket.

The world court ruled in 1962 that the temple belonged to Cambodia but it did not touch on the disputed area.

Nationalist passions have run high along the border since 2008, when Thailand first backed, then opposed, Cambodia's bid to have the temple declared a World Heritage site by the United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organisation.

Cambodian-Thai relations worsened late last year when Cambodia named former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra an adviser on economic affairs.

The Cambodian government refused to extradite him to Thailand despite the government's request.

The two countries are now poised for a conflict over a management plan for the temple, submitted to Unesco by Cambodia. The UN agency requires Cambodia to safeguard the temple as a historical World Heritage site.

Thailand suspects that Cambodia has included part of the disputed area in its plan. The plan will be tabled for discussion by the World Heritage Committee at its next meeting in July in Brazil.

"It is clear that Cambodia will include N3, or the overlapping area of 4.6 kilometres, in the plan," said Vasu Poshyanandana, secretary-general of Thailand's International Council on Monuments and Sites.

"We will object to the plan before it is included in the conference's agenda," he said.

"Cambodia has carried out the plan without Thailand's consent. That makes the plan unacceptable."

Thailand will soon map out its position to counter the Cambodian proposal.

The landscape management plan will be circulated to members of the World Heritage Committee about six weeks before the meeting.

But Mr Vasu said: "We have no need to wait until that time."

On the border dispute with Thailand - Op-Ed by MP

Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Op-Ed by Anonymous Reader MP

By all means pursue legal avenues to regain any Khmer territories/temples (Ta Moan Thom?) currently under Thai control. The Thais, however, having lost the Preah Vihea case at the ICJ are unlikely to co-operate through legal processes, and that is why they always insist on 'bilateral' negotiation - a delaying tactic designed to wear down the political will of their opponents. If pressed, they will likely put forward 'joint-development' proposals which, with their existing superior physical infrastructures such as roads and tourism logistics, will mean that Thailand can resume its pre-dispute position, taking the lion's share in future development of these areas.

It is in Cambodia's interest to transform traditionally conflict scarred regions into zones of peace and development, but this should not override vital national boundary and integrity which must be clearly delineated and defended from further encroachments. Failing to do so will leave future generations with compounded and unfair burdens to bear. They could be your own children or grand children answering the calls of nationalistic duties.

Cambodia should learn from Laos who spent 2 years honing their military prowess, spending millions of dollars on military hardware in the process prior to their effective campaign to seize disputed Mekong islets from Thailand in the late 1980s.

Until such a time when territorial disputes can be amicably settled, Cambodia should be in a position to back up her legitimate claims with telling, concrete measures, rather than being bamboozled to no end with empty gestures from Bangkok.

Lives will be lost and people will be maimed in armed clashes, but just as our ancestors had been compelled to make these sacrifices so that we have a place still to call home, the sacrifice to be made by the soldiers and their families will not be forgotten by a grateful nation.

MP

Phay Siphan: The Preah Vihear issued with Thailand is merely a technical issue ... it is not a dispute between nations -sic!-

Phay Siphan: International resolution of the Preah Vihear dispute is the destruction of Hun Xen’s concluded 2000 MOU

Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Everyday.com.kh
Translated from Khmer by Socheata

Phay Siphan, spokesman of the Council of Ministers, said that the resolution of the Preah Vihear temple dispute with Thailand through an international court is tantamount to the destruction of the 2000 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [KI-Media note: the 2000 MOU was concluded between Hun Sen’s government and Thailand]. Phay Siphan told The Phnom Penh Post regarding the opposition wanting the government to bring this dispute issue to be resolved by an international court, that: “This is the freedom of the opposition. Up to now, we do not consider the Preah Vihear temple dispute as a dispute between nations. We consider the Preah Vihear temple dispute as a separate issue because we have prepared 70% of the map from Anlong Veng down to the Cham Yeam point already.” He added: “Therefore, if we take this dispute to resolve outside [of the bilateral discussion with Thailand], this means that we are destroying the 2000 achievement. Therefore, the opposition party should revisit what was the gain from the 2000 MOU to the good cooperation between Cambodia and Thailand, in the sense of preserving peace, in the sense of the application of what we have agreed on since 1904 and 1907 and the map preparation in 1908. Do we want to sue each other to come up with a new map? In summary, the Preah Vihear issue is merely a technical issue, i.e. it is not a political affair.”
-----
KI-Media note: Phay Siphan seems to forget that the 2000 MOU did not stop Thailand from invading part of Cambodia. How many more Cambodian soldiers need to be killed for Phay Siphan to acknowledge this fact? As is, Thailand is also questioning the validity of all the treaties it concluded in 1904 and 1907.

Thailand: A nation of dishonesty

Map of the 1962 ICJ's verdict: Areas above yellow line is Thailand. Areas below yellow line is Cambodia. Red stars with arrows are spots where clashes took place on 3rd April, 2009.

Opinion by Khmerization
15th May, 2009

“Peaceful co-existence between neighbours can only possible if they treat each other with respect. Cambodia, being a small and weak nation, has not been treated with respect by its powerful neighbours to the west and east since time immemorial. And, as long as Cambodia is weak economically and militarily, Cambodia will continue to be disrespected by its neighbours for many centuries to come.”

The recent diplomatic wars of words between Thailand and Cambodia over claims and count-claims of compensation for damages caused by recent border clashes are a cause for concerns. The wars of words will certainly increase military and diplomatic tensions between the two neighbours if both sides do not seek a compromising solution any sooner.

Cambodia had sent a diplomatic note demanding for $2.1 million in compensation from Thailand for the destruction to a Cambodian market and villagers’ homes during the 3rd April fighting.

Cambodia believe that it has the right to seek reparations for damages to 264 stalls that caused 319 families to be homeless because their stalls and homes were deliberately and directly targeted by Thai shells.

But, Thailand, who, due to its military superiority, has signalled that it will never budge to Cambodia’s demand. Instead it has responded with a threat of counter-claims. The Thai response was nothing short of dishonesty. It is arrogant and it is full of threats. By trying to absolve its responsibility, Thailand, had turned around and claimed that those stalls and homes were built on Thai soils and threatened to lodge a counter-claim.

Mr. Kasit Piromya, the Thai Foreign Minister, had gone another step by reminding Cambodia about the military rules of engagement that would inevitably cause collateral damages.

The Thai claims had ignored many fundamental factors about military rules of engagement and facts involving the history of the Preah Vihear disputes. Military rules of engagement dictates that both sides of the military conflict must refrain from targeting civilian entities. Thai army, in this case, had undeniably broke the rules of engagement by deliberately targeting the Cambodian civilians.

Thailand had also ignored the International Court of Justice (ICJ) fundamental rulings when it claimed that the areas belong to Thailand or that they are situated in a dispute zone.

One of the ICJ’s rulings stated that “Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw troops or police from the Temple, or its vicinity on Cambodian territory”. This clearly shows that the ICJ had adjudicated the areas in the “vicinity” of the temple as belonging to Cambodia. Maps from the 1904-1908 Treaty, signed by both Cambodia and Thailand, had also put the Preah Vihear temple and the areas in its “vicinity“ in inside Cambodia. So, the notion that the surrounding areas had not been adjudicated by the ICJ is a misconception.

In another front, the Thai Nation newspaper had attacked the integrity and the sincerity of Cambodia in relation to the border conflicts. It called Cambodia’s claims of compensation as “absurd” and “another step backward for peace”. It also accused Unesco of ignoring the Thai court injunction by deciding to inscribe the temple unilaterally without Thailand’s agreement. It had also accused Cambodia of not being “sincere about reconciliation”.

The Nation’s accusation is preposterous. First, Unesco, as an independent international institution, does not need to seek Thailand’s permission to inscribe Preah Vihear temple because the temple is solely and exclusively the property of Cambodia.

Secondly, Cambodia has been very sincere and patient for the last ten months. Cambodia had refrained from using force when Thai soldiers forced their ways in to occupy the Preah Vihear vicinity on 15th July, 2008. Cambodia was very patient and sincere in engaging Thailand peacefully and diplomatically, even though Thailand had appeared to have played games with Cambodia during the many fruitless talks. Cambodian soldiers were forced to use force only as a last resort when Thai troops, in a provocative and arrogant manner, repeatedly encroaching on Cambodian territories that resulted in the deadly clashes on 15th October 2008 and 3rd April 2009.

The Nation newspaper, and Thailand in particular, had on many occasions accused Cambodia of laying fresh mines that have maimed many Thai soldiers. The Thai accusation is a self-admission that the areas claimed to be Thai territories are actually located inside Cambodian territories because it is impossible for Cambodian troops to cross into Thai territories and lay mines there.

Peaceful co-existence between neighbours can only possible if they treat each other with respect. Cambodia, being a small and weak nation, has not been treated with respect by its powerful neighbours to the west and east since time immemorial. And, as long as Cambodia is weak economically and militarily, Cambodia will continue to be disrespected by its neighbours for many centuries to come. If Cambodia desires to be treated equally and with respect, then it is imperative that Cambodia strengthen its economic and military powers significantly.

Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a seminar about Preah Vihear

Radio Free Asia
By Chivita
7th November, 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization
Related article on Preah Vihear Court Case.

The debates about the 1962 verdict of the International Court of Justice on the Preah Vihear issue and trades between the neighbouring countries among participants of a seminar organised by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs have produced two opposing views.

Some Thai academics have told the seminar that the International Court of Justice has judged to give ownership of Preah Vihear temple to Cambodia, so Thailand must respect the court’s verdict. But some old participants of the seminar expressed their dissatisfaction with the 1962 court’s verdict.

One old man, Mr. Tepmontri Nithapayom, said that there were five complaints against Thailand to the International Court of Justice but two of the complaints, which related to ownership of the lands surrounding Preah Vihear temple, have not been judged by the court as belonging to Cambodia. So the demarcations that were done after the court case by using the old maps were illegal.

Mr. Tepmontri Nithapayom said: “But in the first and second complaints lodged with the court, the court has not judged in favour of Cambodia. These two complaints were in relation to the legality of the maps and the ownership of the lands surrounding the Preah Vihear temple. So if the court agreed with the Franco-Siamese Border Demarcation Commission who produced the 1908 maps, then the court would have agreed with the Preah Vihear maps and maps of the areas surrounding the Preah Vihear temple.”

However, other participants of the seminar, which was organised by Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, who believe that neighbouring countries can peacefully co-exist with one another and can conduct trades smoothly with each other have reminded the seminar that the Thai people should not use Thai nationalism to overshadow peace-building and peace-maintaining with their neighbours.

Deputy Chairwoman of Chamber of Commerce of Trat province, Mrs. Duangchai Chanthorn, said that the people of the neighbouring countries want to conduct trades rather than make wars with each other.

According to Mrs. Duangchai, Thailand’s annual exports to Cambodia is worth 50 billion baht ($US1.25 billion), including border trades because the Cambodian people like the taste of the Thai products.

Both Cambodia and Thailand planned to hold talks about border disputes in Siem Reap next week.
-----------------------------------------------------
The 1962 Preah Vihear Case:

Cambodia’s complaints against Thailand: Cambodia asked the court:

1. "To adjudge and declare that the map of the Dangrek sector (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia) was drawn up and published in the name and on behalf of the Mixed Delimitation Commission set up by the Treaty of 13 February 1904, that it sets forth the decisions taken by the said Commission and that, by reason of that fact and also of the subsequent agreements and conduct of the Parties, it presents a treaty character;"


2. "To adjudge and declare that the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand, in the disputed region in the neighborhood of the Temple of Preah Vihear, is that which is marked on the map of the Commission of Delimitation between Indo-China and Siam (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia);"


3. "To adjudge and declare that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Cambodia";


4. "To adjudge and declare that the Kingdom of Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forces it has stationed, since 1954, in Cambodian territory, in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear";


5. "To adjudge and declare that the sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which have been removed from the Temple by the Thai authorities since 1954 are to be returned to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia by the Government of Thailand.": ICJ Reports 1962,

The 1962 court judgement:

On 15th June, 1962 the court judged that:

1. "the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia;"[Cambodia's Submission 3]


2. "Thailand is 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"; [Cambodia's Submission 4]


3. "Thailand is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects of the kind specified in Cambodia's fifth Submission which may, 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.": ICJ Reports 1962, p. 36, 37. [Cambodia's Submission 5].

Overseas Khmers plan to hold a demonstration against Thailand in front of the International Court of Justice in The Hague

Radio Free Asia
By Mao Sotheany
23rd October 2008
Translated from Khmer by Khmerization

Overseas Khmers plan to hold a peaceful demonstration on the 1st of November 2008 in front of the International Court of Justice building in The Hague and in front of the Thai embassy in The Hague.

In a letter obtained by Radio Free Asia, the demonstration organising committee has appealed to all Khmers around the world, from all political persuasions and from all walks of life to stand up to unite in joining this peaceful demonstration against the Thai invasions of Khmer territories and the territories around the Preah Vihear temple.//

Weekend reading: A Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 on Preah Vihear Temple

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.

Source: International Court of Justice

Curious about the 1962 Preah Vihear case? Learn more about it

Respected KI-Media Reader,

Are you curious about the Prasat Preah Vihear lawsuit case? Want to learn more about it? Want to find out about what happened during the proceedings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague? Want to read what Thailand's claim was?

If you answer yes to any of the above, please click here to find out the details on this court case pitting Cambodia and Thailand. Once you reach the International Court of Justice webpage, please click on each tab (Application, Incidental Proceedings, Merits, etc...) to access the various PDF files providing further information. Please download the PDF files to your computer by right clicking on each one of them, to read them online, simply click on each filename.

Again, we would like to thank Dr Lao Mong Hay for pointing out this treasure trove of information.

Thank you,

KI-Media team