Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who Owns the Preah Vihear Temple? A Cambodian Position

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
ASEAN International Law

  • 618 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For historical discussion of the Temple, See Charles Spinks, The Khmer Temple of Prah Vihar, The Australian National University (1959); John Black, The Lofty Sanctuary of Khao Phra Vivar, XLIV The Journal of Siam Society, Pt 1, (April 1956), 1–33. Etienne Aymonier, Khmer Heritage in Thailand, White Lotus 241–257 (1999).

  2. 2.

    Raoul Jennar, The Truth of Trust and Confidence shall be verified (forthcoming Oct. 22, 2008), available athttp://msnpvk.com/documentations.htm. (last visited on Jan. 7, 2009) Thai army shelled the area near the “disputed” area: “Reactions of the Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Will send a diplomatic Protest Note even if Thailand apologizes”, Kohsantpheap Newspaper, Feb. 17, 2009; “Thais Give Apology Letter to Hun Sen After Shelling ´Error´”, Cambodia Daily, Feb. 20, 2009. Sam Rith, S’pore minister says ASEAN can help solve Preah Vihear dispute, Phnom Penh Post, Feb. 26, 2009; Nopporn Wong-Anan, Thai, Cambodian PMs meet as border tension eases, Reuters, Feb. 27, 2009.

  3. 3.

    Official Summary of the Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear(Merits) Judgment of 15 June 1962, available athttp://www.I.C.J-cij.org/docket/index.php? sum = 284&code = ct&p1 = 3&p2 = 3&case = 45&k = 46&p3 = 5;(lasted visited on Jan. 12, 2009) and for the whole decision, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand) 1962 I.C.J.6 (“I.C.J Report (Merits) hereafter”); 56 American Journal of International Law 4, 1033–1053 (Oct. 1962).

  4. 4.

    Id at 37; “The Preah Vihear Temple Case”, in Abdulgaffar Peang-Meth, Cambodia and the United Nations: Comparative Foreign Policies Under Four Regimes, PhD Dissertation, The University of Michigan 278 (1980); Phil Chan, acquiescence/Estoppel in International Boundaries: Temple of Preah Vihear Revisited, 3 Chinese J. Int’l L. 426 (2004); Note Sur la Question de Preah Vihear, Mission Permanente du Camboddge au Nation Unies; Note on the Question of Preah Vihear, Royal Embassy of Cambodia, Canberra, Australia (Jan. 1958).

  5. 5.

    Letter of 21 July 2008 of the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the President of the UN Security Council, S/2008/474, 1–9.

  6. 6.

    The Cambodian-Thai Boundary is governed by two treaties, (1) Franco-Siamese Convention of 13 February 1904, Treaty Between France and Siam, Mar. 23, 1907. Recuel des Actes du Gouvernment Cambodgien 123 (1920). All relevant sections of the Franco-Siamese treaties and protocols (1867–1937) relating to the Thai-Khmer boundary were re-printed in: Victor Prescott, A Study of the Delineation of the Thai-Cambodian Boundary. Canberra: Office of National Assessments 123–127 (1985). Important to note that before the 1907 Treaty was entered into, the Khmer King pressed for the return of some of the provinces which had been taken by Siam before the French arrival: “We insist on the former natural limits of the Khmer Kingdom which, prior to the Siamese invasion, included on Siam’s side the provinces of Battambang,Siem Reap, Stung Treng,Tonle Ropov,M’lou Prey, Kuckhan [Sisaket], Prey Sar, Soren [Surin], Sankeac [Sangkha], Neang Rong [Buriram], Nokoreach Seima [Kora], beyond the Phnom Dangrek Mountain, Koh Kong, Krat and Chantabor [Chantaburi] touching upon Bacnam [paknam] and the Kingdom of Champassac”, “Letter of the King of Cambodia HM Sisowath to the French Colonial Governor to Cambodia” (Nov. 5, 1906), I.C.J Reports (Pleadings), 479–480.

  7. 7.

    Id. Article 1 of the 1904 Treaty provides that the boundary “…follows the line of the watershed between the basins of the Nam Sen and the Mekong Rivers on the one hand and that of the Nam Moun on the other, and rejoins the Phnom Padang range, of which it follows the crest eastwards until it reaches the Mekong…”.

  8. 8.

    For general discussion of the Khmer-Thai boundary, See Sarin Chhak, La Frontière khméro-thaïlandaise (dactylographiée ed.,Thèse de Droit public, Paris 1966); and Sarin Chhak, Le Trace De La Frontiere Cambodgienne Avec le Laos et le Sud-Vietnam, Thesis Pour la Doctorate de Sciences Politiques, Faculte de Droit et des Sciences et Economiques, Universite de Paris (1964); Khim Chhun Y,Prum Daen Kampuchea [or The Cambodian Boundaries], Vol. 1 (Pt 11) and 2 (Pt21), Phnom Penh, Cambodia, (2000); Larry Palmer, Thailand’s Kampuchea Incidents—Territorial Disputes and Armed Confrontation along the Thai-Kampuchean Frontier, 1 News from Kampuchea 4, 1–31 (1977); Natalie Gurney, A History of the Territorial Dispute Between Siam and French Indochina and Post-War Political Developments in the Disputed Territories (May. 1950) (unpublished Master Thesis, John Hopkins University (on file with author); Thadeus Flood, The 1904 Franco-Thai Border Dispute and Phibuun Songkhraam’s Commitment to Japan, 10 Journal of Southeast Asians History 2, 304–244 (1969); K. Landon, Thailand’s Quarrel with France in Perspective, The far Eastern Q. 25–42 (Nov. 1941); Lawrence Briggs, The Treaty of March 23, 1907 Between France and Siam and the Return of Battambang and Angkor to Cambodia, The Far East Quarterly 439–455 (1945–6).

  9. 9.

    Victor Prescott, A Study of the Delimitation of the Thai-Cambodian Boundary. Canberra: Office of National Assessments (1985) 15, 20.

  10. 10.

    JCJ Reports (Merit), 21; Pippa Tubman, National Jurisprudence in International Tribunals, 28 N.Y U. J. Int’L. & Pol. 134 (1995–1996). It is important to note that Prince Damrong Rajanubhab, then Minister of Interior of Thailand, was involved in negotiations of both Thai-Khmer 1904 and 1907 boundary treaties. He received the 11 maps in 1908 from France. He would have noticed that Preah Vihear was in Cambodian territory on Annex I because before his official trip to the Temple in 1930, he, who was not only as the President of the Royal Institute of Siam but also Senior Minister or Aphiratmontri, had written to seek permission from France to visit the Temple. This was proof of recognition of the Cambodian sovereignty over the Templeand acceptance of the boundary line on the Annex I map. This fact was recently exposed by a respected Thai scholar, Professor Charnvit Kasetsiri, Prasat Phra Vihar—karani siksar pravatisatr kar muang lathichatniyum [Preah Vihear temple—a Case study on Politics and Nationalism], Southeast Asian Studies Program, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand 1–7 (Jun. 20, 2008), available athttp://www.charnvitkasetsiri.com/PDF/PreahVihearFor20June.pdf. (last visited on Jun. 7, 2008).

    Also of note, when Prince Damrong arrived at the Temple, he ordered that his and his entourage’s pavilion be erected on Thai side, i.e. the northern bank of the Takhop stream which served as the boundary of the two states: “Affidavit of HRH Phun Pisatmai Diskul of 9 June 1961”, in Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear. Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, I.C.J Reports, (1962), 401 (“I.C.J Reports, - Pleadings”). The Prince was actively involved in map trainings, and zoning (administrative division) of Thailand from 1892–1915. See generally, Thongchai Winichakul, Siam Mapped, A History of the Geo -Body of a Nation (University of Hawaii Press 1994); Paitoon Mikusol, Social and Cultural History of Northeastern Thailand from 1868–1910: A case Study of the Huamuang Khamen Padong (1984) (Surin, Sangkha and Khukhan) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington) Neil Englehart, Culture, Choice and Change in Thailand in the Reign of King Chulalongkorn 1968–1910 (1996) (unpolished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California)((on file with author); Alfred Battye, The Military, Government and Society in Siam: 1968–1910: Politics and Military Reform During the Reign of King Chulalongkorn (1974) (unpolished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell).

  11. 11.

    Cambodia maintained that the boundary line of the area on Annex I map is the correct watershed, “Reply by Mr. Acheson” in 2 I.C.J Pleadings, 466–472. Importantly, a report by Thai-French Officers, Sanam Rithikray and Henri Dessemond, of Mixed Commission who placed the boundary stone pillar at Kel Pass, clearly reported that the boundary line was not running along the edge of the Preah Vihear escarpment. “Report of Placing of Boundary Stone at Kel Pass, November 12, 1908, I.C.J Reports (Pleadings), 675. The plea of error and that the error was not noticed by Siam/Thailand had no factual basis.

  12. 12.

    I.C.J Reports (Merits) 30; also Victor Prescott, Map of Mainland Asiaby Treaty, Melbourne University Press (1975), 437. According to a Thai former Minister for Education, General Manich Jumsai, Thailandhad lost the maps annexed to the 1907 Treaty and therefore no one in Thailandknew whether or not the Preah Vihear was situated in Thailand, but he claimed it for Thailandany way. Brig. Gen. Manich Jumsai, History of Thailand & Cambodia (from the Days of Angkor to the Present), Bangkok 213-216 (1970). Other sources, however, suggested that Thailand did have the relevant maps. Larry Sternstein, “A Catalogue of Maps of Thailand”, 1 The Siam Society. Fiftieth Anniversary Commemorative Publication 72 (1954); and Thailanddid know that the boundary line ran along the Takhop stream north of the Temple and not along the eastern escarpment of the Temple. Charuwan Phungtian, Thai-Cambodian Culture Relationship Through Arts (2000) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Magadh University) Bodh-Gaya 248.

  13. 13.

    I.C.J Reports (Merits), 22; Krishna Rao, The Preah Vihear Case and the Sino-Indian Boundary Questions, New Delhi-1 (1963), 4; R.Y. Jennings, The Acquisition of Territory in International Law 49 (Manchester University Press 1963).

  14. 14.

    I.C.J Reports (merits), 26; A. Rustemeyer, Temple of Preah Vihear Case,Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1981), 273–4; C. Thornberry, The Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), 26 Mod. L. Rev. 448–451 (1963).

  15. 15.

    The I.C.J ruling is understood as such by everyone, including officials and Counsel of Thailand. Brig. Gen. Manich Jumsai, History of Thailand& Cambodia(from the days of Angkorto Present) 215 (1970). Phillip Jessup, The Price of International Justice 15 (Columbia University Press 1971). Thomas Donovan, The Marouni River tract and its Colonial Legacy in South America, Chicago-Kent J.Int’l L. & Comp. L. 4, 11–12 (2004); Ashraf Ibrahim, The Doctrine of Laches in International law, 83 Va.L. Rev. 654 (1997); Thoma Grant, Territorial Status, Recognition, and Statehood: Some Aspects of the Genocide Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), 33 Stan. J. Int’l. 321 (1997); Joaquin Roy, Lawyers Meet the Law: Critical USVoices of Helms-Burton 6 U. Miami Y.B. Int’l. 64 (1997–1998); Anthony Aust, The Theory and Practice of Informal International Instruments, 35 Int’ Comp. L. Q. 4, 810 (Oct. 1986).

  16. 16.

    I.C.J Reports (Merits), 30; Durward Sandifer, Evidence Before International Tribunals, University Press of Virginia (rev. ed. 1975); James Gathii, Geographic Hegelianism in Territorial Disputes Involving Non-European Land Relations: An Analysis of the Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Namibia), 15 Leiden J. Int’l L. 616 (2002); Phillip Jessup, The Price of International Justice 15 (Columbia University Press 1971), Masahiro Miyoshi, Consideration in the Settlement of Territorial and Boundary Disputes 114 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1993); Ralph Brock, The Republic of Texas is no More: An Answer to the Claim that Texas was unconstitutionally Annexed to the United States, 28 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 740 (1997).

  17. 17.

    G. M Kelly, The Temple Casein Historical Perspective, 39 Brit. Y. B. Int’l.467 (1963),; I.C.J Reports (Merits) 33; Giovanni Distefano, The Conceptualization (Construction) of Territorial Title in the Light of the International Court of Justice Case Law, 19 Leiden J. Int’l.1059–1061 (2006).

  18. 18.

    “Note to U.N. Acting Secretary General”, (July 6 1962), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok, 1(6) Foreign Affair Bulletin (June-July 1962), 130; The Bangkok Post, 22 June 1962; Bangkok World, 4 July 1962; Intelligence Memorandum—Cambodia’s Boundary Problems, Directorate of Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA/BGI GM 88–2) (27 February 1968), 5.

  19. 19.

    “Understanding the Temple of Preah Vihear Issue”, Statement 25 March 2008 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand; Supalak Ganjanakhundee, “Thailand, Cambodia to cooperate on Preah Vihear: Kasit”, The Nation 26 December 2008.

  20. 20.

    The I.C.J Decision caused an uproar in Thailand, Bangkok World, 16 July 1962; L. P. Singh, The Thai-Cambodian Temple Dispute, 2 Asian Survey 8 (Oct., 1962). Thai army officers pleaded with PM Marshal Sarit “for permission to march right to…have lunch in” the national Capital of Phnom Penh, Bernard Gordon, “Cambodia: Where Foreign Policy counts”, 5(9) Asian Survey 445 (1965).

  21. 21.

    Letter from the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the Present of the UN Security Council, 21 July 2009, (S/2008/474), 5, 6, 7.

  22. 22.

    Id at 5.

  23. 23.

    Id at 6.

  24. 24.

    Letter of 21 July 2008 of the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the President of the UN Security Council, (S/2008/474), 5.

  25. 25.

    Letter of 16 October 2008 of the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the President of the UN Security Council, S/2008/65, 2.

  26. 26.

    Brian Summer, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, 53 Duke L. J. 1812 (April 2004); “…there is no clear distinction between the two types, many disputes could easily be defined as relating to both territory and boundaries. Territorial disputes involve the disputed title to sovereignty usually over a large area of territory and its population. In some cases a territorial dispute may not involve land boundaries, as in the case of disputed islands or in case where the extent of territory is clearly defined. However, a territorial dispute will often have a boundary element, in terms of defining the exact extent of the disputed area.”, Elia Zureik & Mark Salter, Global Surveillance and Policing, Border, Sec. & Identity175 (2005). According to I.C.J caselaw, the I.C.J adjudicated the whole dispute even though this went beyond the scope of the terms of reference. In Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Libyan Arabic Jamahiriya v Malta), I.C.J Reports 13 (1985), in the Special Agreement, the Parties did not ask the Court explicitly to draw the delimitation line, but the Court interpreted the agreement in the a way that it was deemed to include the function of delimitation. Para.19. In Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tuninia v Libyan Arabic Jamahiriya) I.C.J Report 18 (1982), the parties asked the I.C.J to take into consideration newly accepted trends of the law of sea at the Third United Nation Conference on the Law of the Sea, the I.C.J ruled that even if it was not asked to do so, it would have still done it itself. Para 24.

  27. 27.

    Pippa Tubman, National Jurisprudence in International Tribunals, 28 N.Y.U. J. Int’l. & Pol. 134 (1995–1996); Gary Scott & Craig Car, The I.C.J and Compulsory Jurisdiction: the Case for Closing the Clause, 81 Am. J. Int’ L. 64 (1987).

  28. 28.

    Brian Summer, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, 53 Duke L. J. 1812 (April 2004).

  29. 29.

    Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium v. Netherlands) 1959, I.C.J. Reports (1959), 209 WL 5; J. Castellino & S. Alien, Title to Territory in International Law, a Temporal Analysis, (2003), 122–3.

  30. 30.

    Id. at 122–3.

  31. 31.

    Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso V Mal) I.C.J Reports (1986).

  32. 32.

    Id, para. 17.

  33. 33.

    S. Akween, International law and Protection of Namibia’s Territorial Integrity 5 (1997); Enno Milman & Chritine Chinkin, Unlawful Territorial Situation in International Law (2006), Ian Brownlie, The Rule of Law in International Law 151 (1998).

  34. 34.

    A. Allott, 9 Boundary and Law in Africa in African Boundary Problems 13 (C.G Widstand ed., 1969).

  35. 35.

    Surya Sharma, Territorial Acquisition & Disputes and International Law23 (1997).

  36. 36.

    Brian Summer, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, 53 Duke L. J. 1812 (April 2004).

  37. 37.

    Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina /Faso/Mali), I.C.J Reports 1986, 563; Surya Sharma, Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina-Faso/Republic of Mali)—A Critique, 11 & 12 Kurukshetra L.J. 150 (1985–86).

  38. 38.

    TheIslandof Palmas Case (United States and Netherlands), 2 U.N. Reports of International Arbitration Awards (1928), 829.

  39. 39.

    Id, 838, 840. Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium v. Netherlands) 1959, I.C.J. Rep, 209 (20 June 1959). The principle is confirmed by subsequent case, i.e. Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), I.C.J. Rep. 1986, and Case Concerning Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), 1994 I.C.J Rep. 1. “As far as the application of acquiescence and estoppel, the distinction between the territorial and boundary disputes are irrelevant”, Nuno Sergio Margo Antunes & Estoppel, Acquiescence and Recognition in Territorial and Boundary Dispute Settlement, 2 IBRU Boundary and Territory Briefing 8, 6 (2000).

  40. 40.

    In its Application and Memorial, Cambodia asked the I.C.J to adjudicate and declare:

    1. (1)

      that [Thailand] in under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forced it has stationed since 1954 in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear.

    2. (2)

      That the territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to Cambodia.

    In its Final Submissions, Cambodia asked the I.C.J:

    1. (1)

      To adjudicate and declare that the map of Dangrek sector (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia) was drawn up and published in the name and on behalf on 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. (2)

      To adjudicate 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 Indochina and Siam (Annex I map to the Memorial of Cambodia);

    3. (3)

      To adjudicate and declare that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of [Cambodia];

    4. (4)

      To adjudicate and declare that [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. (5)

      To adjudicate and declare that sculptures, stelae, fragments of monument, sandstone model and ancient pottery which have been removed from the Temple by the Thai authorities since 1954 are to be returned to [Cambodia] by [Thailand].

  41. 41.

    I.C.J Rep. 1962 (Merits), 14.

  42. 42.

    I.C.J Rep.1962 (Merits), 17.

  43. 43.

    Surya Sharma, Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law 27 (1997); Brian Summer, Territorial Disputes at the International Court of Justice, 53 Duke L. J. 1812 (April 2004).

  44. 44.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 (Merits), 10; see supra note 38 for submissions that were made by Cambodia.

  45. 45.

    Victor Prescott, Map of Mainland Asia by Treaty 437 (1975); “Prasat Phra Viharn & Phra Viharn Mountain”, in Charuwan Phungtianm, Thai-Cambodian Culture: Relationship Through Arts 247 (unpub;oshed Ph.D. dissertation, Magadh University 2000).

  46. 46.

    I.C.J Reports (Merits), 36; and D. Johnson, Judgment of May 26, and June 15, 1962, Case Concerning theTemple of Preah Vihear, 11 Int’& Comp. L. Q. 1202 (1962).

  47. 47.

    “Rejoinder of the Royal Government of Thailand”, Vol. 2 I.C.J Reports (Pleadings), 547, “Argument of Mr. James Nevins Hyde”, 273, in Vol. 2 I.C.J Reports (Pleadings); Sakeus Akweenda, The Legal Significance of Maps in Boundary Questions: a Reappraisal with Particulars Emphasis on Nambia” 60 Brit. Y.B Int’ l. 222 (1989); Dennis Rushworth, “Mapping in Support of Frontier Arbitration: Maps as Evidence”, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin (Winter 1997–1998), 53; William Bishop, International Law. Cases and Materials 446–447 (3th ed. 1962); Alexandra Denes, Recovering Khmer Ethnic Identity From the Thai Nationalist Past: An Ethnography of the Localism Movement in Surin Province 138 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University 2006) (on file with author).

  48. 48.

    James N. Hyde, Jessup: Memorials and Reminiscences, 80 Am. J. Int’l.903 (1986),. The advice was that the treaty definition would prevail: See Guenter Weissberg, Supra note 47. The Court, however, held otherwise, as one of counsel, Phillip Jessup, for saw it “the Court found that Siam did not at the time challenge the accuracy of the map and that its conduct was acquiescent…Thailand is now precluded from asserting that she had not accepted the map”. Phillip Jessup, The Price of International Justice15 (Columbia University Press 1971).

  49. 49.

    Guenter Weissberg, Maps as Evidence in International Boundary Disputes: a Reappraisal, 57 Am. J. Int’l. 798 (1963).

  50. 50.

    Id, at 798. The dissenting opinion of a minority judge is not binding, not the Court’s opinion and it could not transform into an obligation. See R.P. Anand, The Role of Individual and Dissenting Opinions in International Adjudication, 14 Int’ & Comp. L. Q. 3, 797–798 (Jul. 1965). See generally, 68 Inet’ Ct. Just. Y.B (1947–8).

  51. 51.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 (Merits), 35; D.H.N. Johnson, “Judgment of May 26, 1961, and June 15 1962, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear”, 11 American Journal of International Law (1962), 1188.

  52. 52.

    “ as a consequence” to use the words of J.H. W. Verzijl, International Court of Justice. Case Concerning the Templeof Preah Vihear(Cambodia v. Thailand), 9 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Recht 248 (1962).

  53. 53.

    Victor Prescott, Map of Mainland Asia by Treaty 437 (Melbourne University Press 1975).

  54. 54.

    Keith Highet, Evidence, the Court, and theNicaraguaCase, 81 Am. J. Int’L. 25 (1987); also Durward Sandifer, Evidence Before International Tribunals 338–339 (rev. ed 1975). Note that Phillip Jessup, a counsel advising and defending Thailand in the case, provided his statement of support of the book in Forward of the book.

  55. 55.

    Krishna Rao, The Preah Vihear Case and the Sino-Indian Boundary Question, New Delhi-1 (1963), 2; I.C.J Reports (Merits), 32.

  56. 56.

    Guenter Weissberg noted and quoted it in Maps as Evidence in International Boundary Disputes: a Reappraisal, 57 Am. J. Int’L. 797 (1963).

  57. 57.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 (Merits), 34.

  58. 58.

    Guenter Weissberge, Maps as Evidence in International Boundary Disputes: A Reappraisal, Am. J. Int’L. 802 (1963); Victor Prescott & Gillian Triggs, International Frontiers and Boundaries, Law, Politics and Geography, (2008), 210.

  59. 59.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 Vol 2 (Pleadings), 216.

  60. 60.

    Victor Prescott, A Study of the Delimitation of the Thai-Cambodian Boundary. Canberra: Office of National Assessments (1985) 15, 20.

  61. 61.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 (Merits) 34; also Kaiyan Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary Decisions 315 (Cambridge University Press 2007); Kaiyan Kaikobad, Some Observations on the Doctrine of Continuity and Finality of Boundaries, Brit. Y.B. Inte’ L. 118–141 (1984).

  62. 62.

    Letter of 21 July 2008 of the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the President of the UN Security Council, S/2008/474, 6.

  63. 63.

    I.C.J Reports 1962 (Merits), 36.

  64. 64.

    Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court 161–163 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).

  65. 65.

    “Decision of Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Matter of the Pious Fund, October 14, 190”, 2 Am. J. Int’L. 900 (1908); also Michael Reisman, The Breakdown of the Control Mechanism in ISCID Arbitration, Duke L. J. 800 (Sept. 1989).

  66. 66.

    Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No.11 (1925), (“PCIJ”) 29–30.

  67. 67.

    PCIJ, Series E, No. 9, 174.

  68. 68.

    South West Africa, I.C.J Reports (1966), 56.

  69. 69.

    Decision of 14 March 1978 on Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (Interpretation of the Decision of 30 June 1977, Court of Arbitration (UK v. France), 54(6), International Law Reports, (1978) para. 28.

  70. 70.

    Supra, note 68, para. 22.

  71. 71.

    Supra note 68, para. 28. More recent Genocide Case, the Court reaffirmed the interdependence of the two parts by saying that: “a general finding may have to be read in context in order to ascertain whether a particular matter is or is not contained in it’,Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, judgment of 26 February 2007, para 126.

  72. 72.

    Stephan Wittich, Permissible Derogation from Mandatory Rules? The Problem of Party Status in the Genocide Case, 18 Eur. J. Int’L. 603 (2007).

  73. 73.

    Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Lybia), Judgment of 10 December 1985, para. 48.

  74. 74.

    Decision of 14 March 1978, 54 International Law Report (1978), 171.

  75. 75.

    I.C.J Reports (1962) 32; also Justin Hughes, American Moral Rights and Fixing the Dastar “Gap”, 69 Utah L. Rev. 706 (2007).

  76. 76.

    I.C.J Reports (Merits), 14.

  77. 77.

    “Judgment of May 26, 1961 and June 15, 1962, Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear”, 11 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, (Oct., 1962), 1199.

  78. 78.

    Hyung Lee, Mapping the Law of Legalizing Maps: The Implications of the Emerging Rule on Map Evidence in International Law, 14 Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J. 170–176 (2005),; Peter Radan, Post-Session International Border: A Critical Analysis of the Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Commission, 24 Melb. U. L. Rev. 59 (2000); Peter Trooboff, Haihua & Eric Keong, Treaties—Treaty of Peace Between Egypt and Israel—Demarcation of Internationally Recognized Boundaries—Arbitration of Dispute—Taba, 83 Am. J. Int’L. 595 (1989); Lung-chu Chen & W.M. Reismant, Who Owns Taiwan: a Search for International Title, 81 Yale L. J. 673, (1972); Thomas Donovan, Challenges to the Territorial Integrity of Guyana: a Legal Analysis, 32 Ga. J. Int’ & Comp. L. 714 (2004); Christopher Brown, A Comparative and Critical Assessment of Estoppel in International Law, 50 U. Miami L. rev. 397,402 (1996).

  79. 79.

    Article of 1(c) of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of Kingdom of Cambodia and the Government of Kingdom of Thailand on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary (14 June 2000).

  80. 80.

    Supalak Ganjanakhundee, “Preah Vihear Controversy a Hot Topic in No-confidence”, The Nation, 25 June 2008; Abhisit Vejjajiva. Now Prime Minister of Thailand, “Thailand never accepted the map that Cambodia represented to the World Court in 1962 and that Thailand intended to seek the return of Preah Vihear ‘when the opportunity arose’” Bertil Lintner, Temple Furor Exposes Delicate Ties, Far Eastern Economic Rev. 39, Jul. & Aug. (2008). The Note has been used to as the guidance for the ongoing negotiations. Supalak Ganjanakhundee, “Common Sense Should decide the issue of Preah Vihear Temple, unless it becomes politicized”, The Nation, 2 July 2008.

  81. 81.

    1(6) June-July (1962) Foreign Affair Bulletin, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand, 130.

  82. 82.

    Results of searches by the author and advice by the officials of UN References Unit, Dag Hammarskjöld Library, 12 August 2008.

  83. 83.

    The implication of the statement in the 1962 Note that “the decision goes against the express terms of the 1904 and 1907 treaties and is contrary to the principle of international law and practice” is this: Traditionally, where the textual terms of the treaty differed with boundary map, the text of the treaty prevailed, as Thailand was advised by its counsel: supra, note 54, at 798, but the I.C.J in the Temple case accepted the map over the text of the Treaty.

  84. 84.

    Aide Memoire Sur Les Relations Khmero-Thaidaises/Aide Memoire on Khmero-Thai Relations (October 1962), 75.

  85. 85.

    Alastair Lamb, Asian Frontiers. Studies in a Continuing Problem (1968) p.5; Nejib Jibril, The Binding Dilemma: From Bakasi to Badme—Making State Comply with Territorial Decisions of the International Judicial Bodies, 19 Am. U. Int’L. Rev. 680 (2004); Gary Scott and Craig Carr, The I.C.J and Compulsory Jurisdiction: The Case for Closing the Clause, 81 Am. J. Int’ L. 63–64 (1987); Cambodia: general Survey, National Intelligence Survey, NIS 43A GS (rev, April 1972), 46.

  86. 86.

    U.S.Department of State, International Boundary Study No. 40 (Revised), Cambodia-Thailand Boundary, (23 November 1966), 2.

  87. 87.

    Durward Sandifer, Evidence before International tribunals (1975), 455, also Advisory Opinion P.C.I.J. Series. B, No. 9 (1927), at 22.

  88. 88.

    Generally, D. W. Bowett, Res Judicata and the Limits of Rectification of Decisions by International Tribunal, 8 Pt.3 Afr. J.Int’L. & Comp. L. 577–591 (1996); Kaiyan Kaikobad, Interpretation and Revision of International Boundary Decision (Cambridge University Press 2007); Shabtai Rosenne, Interpretation,Revision and Other Recourses from International Judgments and Awards (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2007).

  89. 89.

    Letter of 18 July 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2008/470), 2; Letter of 28 July 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2008/917), 1–2; Letter of 15 October 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2008/653).

  90. 90.

    Gabcikovo Nagymaros Project 1 I.C.J Report (1997) para, 141–74; Kal Raustiala & Anne-Marie Slaughter, International Law, International Relations and Compliance, in Handbook of International Relations 538–9 (Walter Carlsnae ed., 2002); Colter Paulson, Compliance with Final Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 98 Am. J. Int’ L. 436 (July 2004).

  91. 91.

    The Charter of United Nations, reprinted in D.J Harris, Case and Materials on International Law, Sweet & Maxwell (5th ed. 1998), 1064.

  92. 92.

    Id.

  93. 93.

    N. Singh, The role and record of the International Court of Justice 41, (1989); M. Bulterman, M. Kuijer, H. Schermers, Compliance with Judgments of International Courts, 26–27 (1996).

  94. 94.

    J.Crawford, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentary136 (2002). See generally M. Polti & G. Nesi (eds), The International Criminal Court and the Crime of Aggression (2004).

  95. 95.

    Ibid, 211; See also Enrico Milano, Territorial Disputes, Unlawful Territorial Situations and State responsibility,” in The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals (2004).

  96. 96.

    “Delimitation …means the laying down – not the laying down on the ground, but the definition on paper, either in words or on a map – of the limits of a country”, J. Trotter, The Science of Frontier Delimitation, Royal Artillery J. (1897), cited in D. Ruschworth, Mapping in Support of Frontier Arbitration: Delimitation and Demarcation, IBRU Boundary and Security Bulletin 61 (1997).

  97. 97.

    “Argument of James Nevin Hyde, Counsel of the Government of Thailand”, I.C.J Reports (Pleadings), 272. “… demarcation [means] the physical marking of the boundary on the ground”, Ruschworth, supra note 93.

  98. 98.

    Victor Prescott, Political Frontiers and Boundaries, London: Allen & Unwin (1987), 236; H.J. Collier, D. Prescott & V. Prescott,Frontiers of Asia and Southeast Asia 59 (Melbourne University press 1977).

  99. 99.

    Khien Theeravit, Thai-Kampuchean Relations: Problems and prospects, 22 Asian Survey 6, 567 (1982).

  100. 100.

    Michael Leifer, Cambodia and Her Neighbors, 34 Pacific Affairs 4, 365–366 (1961–1962); Letter of 8 December 1958 of the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the President of Secretary General (S/4126); Letter of 29 November 1958 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia to Secretary General. (S/4121); Sarin Chhak, La Frontière khméro-thaïlandaise, Thèse de Droit public, dactylographiée, Paris, (1966), 60.

  101. 101.

    Relations Between ThailandandCambodia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bangkok, Thailand(1959). When it transpired that Thailand’s strategy “to drag out the negotiation past May 1960 when she would not be bound by the Court’s jurisdiction in disputes where other party had accepted the competence of the Court under Article 36 of the its statute”, Michael Leifer, Cambodia and Her Neighbors, 34 Pacific Affairs 4, 366 (1961–1962).

  102. 102.

    “Borders”, BangkokPost 28 May 1997.

  103. 103.

    Discussion between the author with H.E Var Kimhong, Adviser to the Royal Government in Charge of State Border Affairs of Cambodia, in 2006; and Saritdet Marukatat; “Drawing a Very Fine Line”, Bangkok Post, 8 July 1999.

  104. 104.

    Joint Press Release of The Cambodian-Thai Joint Commission on Demarcation for land Boundary, Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 7 June 2000.

  105. 105.

    “Thai-Cambodian Relations”, Bangkok Post 14 June 2000; “Cambodia-Thailand Cooperation Boosted”, Press Release by Ministry of Foreign Affairs repeated joint press release of 7 June 2000.

  106. 106.

    Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of Kingdomof Cambodiaand the Government of Kingdomof Thailand on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary, (14 June 2000), 2.

  107. 107.

    Generally & McNeil, Memorandum of Understanding 88 (1994) American Journal of International Law; D.J. Harris, Case and Materials on International Law, (1998) 771; Year Book of International Law Commission II (1966) 188; Jerry Z. Li, “The Legal Status of Three Sino-US Joint Communiqués” 5 Chinese Journal of International Law (2006) 617. “A bilateral Meeting Between Cambodia and Thailand. Hor Hamhong: If Thailand Adheres to the MoU, Solving the Boundary Issues is no Difficulties”, Kohsantapheap Newspaper, 2 March 2009.

  108. 108.

    Letter of 16 October 2008 from the Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, S/2008/657, 2. This letter is a reply to Cambodia’s letter of 15 October 2008 to the President of Security Council, S/2008/653.

  109. 109.

    Instead of seeking enforcement of the I.C.J judgment under Article 94 of the UN Charter, Cambodia seems to want to go to an international court again to solve the current boundary disputes should bilateral negotiations fail: Aide Memoire: Cambodia-Thailand Boundary Issue Settlement, The Royal Government of Cambodia (13 October 2008), 3.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sydney, Australia

    Bora Touch

Authors
  1. Bora Touch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bora Touch .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. YIJUN Institute of International Law, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

    Eric Yong Joong Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 YIJUN Institute of International Law

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Touch, B. (2022). Who Owns the Preah Vihear Temple? A Cambodian Position. In: Lee, E.Y.J. (eds) ASEAN International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-3194-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-3195-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation