Outline Notes
1962 Judiciary
“The court finds that the Preah Vihear Temple is situated in the territory under Cambodia’s sovereignty; finds in the consequence, that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military, police forces, or other keepers and guards, stationed by her at the temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory; and that Thailand is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects of the kind specified in fifth Submission of Cambodia which may, since the date of occupation of the temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by Thai authorities.”
2013 Judgement
IS201-G3-Assignment Cam-Thai-Border-Disputes-Readings.pdf
The court delivered its judgement on 11 November 2013. In its Judgment on Cambodia’s request for interpretation, the Court (1) Finds, unanimously, that it has jurisdiction under Article 60 of the Statute to entertain the Request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment presented by Cambodia, and that this Request is admissible; (2) Declares, unanimously, by way of interpretation, that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as defined in paragraph 98 of the present Judgment, and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, that were stationed there.
Aftermath
Both Cambodia and Thailand was satisfied by the ruling.
The Thailand was satisfied with the ICJ ruling. The prime minister said the government will prioritize Thai sovereignty, national pride, and national interests instead of conflict.
Although the ruling is passed. The conflict will only be solved by negotiation by the two countries. However, the negotiation kept being put off.
2015: meeting of leaders of Cambodia and Thailand
- Avoid controversy of Preah Vihea Temple dispute and put off the negotiation from 2013
The pagoda and cluster of houses west of Preah Vihea was not in the agreement in 2013. Thailand still have the capability to claim those areas.
Phnom Trap was considered outside the 1962 judiciary and wasn’t decided if it’s in Cambodia or Thailand.
Outline Draft
Was the 2013 judiciary effective in ending the border conflict?
The 2013 Judgement
On November 11th, 2013, the ICJ concluded that (1) it has jurisdiction under Article 60 of the Statute to entertain the Request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment presented by Cambodia, and (2) that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 decided that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear and for withdrawal of Thai forces in the area.
The Aftermath
Both Cambodia and Thailand were satisfied with the resolution and had their military maintain peace along the border. However, the two country still needs to work out how to implement the judgement. While Thailand still need to reshape its foreign policy and resolve its domestic issues, the negotiation of the resolution kept being put off. In January 2011 a group of about 2,000 began protests against the government, accusing of failing to safeguard Thai sovereignty in a border dispute with Cambodia. Unless this problem is dealt with, the deal from the ICJ won’t be officially finished.
yellow red shirt protest, to calm have to come to cambodia. Unrest protest against the agreement with cambodia from the citizen means the negotiation cannot be resolved unless the domestic situation in Thailand calm down.
In January 2011 a group of about 2,000 began protests against his government, accusing him of failing to safeguard Thai sovereignty in a border dispute with Cambodia.
To solve the dispute completely, on 28 April 2011, Cambodia filed a request for interpretation of the 1962 judgment, as well as a request for the indication of provisional measures, in the Registry of the International Court of Justice, referring to Article 60 of the Statute and Article 98 of the Rules of Court. It put five submissions (1) To adjudge and declare that the map in 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 neighbourhood 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.
In July 2011, ICJ issued a provisional measures by ordering (1) both Parties shall immediately withdraw their military personnel currently present in the provisional demilitarized zone, as defined in paragraph 62 of the present Order, and refrain from any military presence within that zone and from any armed activity directed at that zone; (2) Thailand shall not obstruct Cambodia’s free access to the Temple of Preah Vihear or Cambodia’s provision of fresh supplies to its non-military personnel in the Temple; (3) Both Parties shall continue the co-operation which they have entered into within ASEAN and, in particular, allow the observers appointed by that organization to have access to the provisional demilitarized zone; (4) Both Parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.