Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 51 views

    Case Concerning The Tempile of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Obje :tions) of May

    Uploaded by

    Korina Marawis
    The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over a case between Cambodia and Thailand concerning sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It rejected Thailand's first preliminary objection that its 1950 declaration accepting ICJ jurisdiction was invalid. The Court found that while Thailand's previous declarations had lapsed, its 1950 declaration was a new, independent instrument made with the intent to accept ICJ jurisdiction, satisfying the Statute's requirements. As the Court had jurisdiction on this basis, it did not need to consider Cambodia's alternative basis for jurisdiction or Thailand's related objection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case Concerning The Tempile of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Obje :tions) of May

    Uploaded by

    Korina Marawis
    51 views2 pages
    The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over a case between Cambodia and Thailand concerning sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It rejected Thailand's first preliminary objection that its 1950 declaration accepting ICJ jurisdiction was invalid. The Court found that while Thailand's previous declarations had lapsed, its 1950 declaration was a new, independent instrument made with the intent to accept ICJ jurisdiction, satisfying the Statute's requirements. As the Court had jurisdiction on this basis, it did not need to consider Cambodia's alternative basis for jurisdiction or Thailand's related objection.

    Original Title

    4859.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over a case between Cambodia and Thailand concerning sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It rejected Thailand's first preliminary objection that its 1950 declaration accepting ICJ jurisdiction was invalid. The Court found that while Thailand's previous declarations had lapsed, its 1950 declaration was a new, independent instrument made with the intent to accept ICJ jurisdiction, satisfying the Statute's requirements. As the Court had jurisdiction on this basis, it did not need to consider Cambodia's alternative basis for jurisdiction or Thailand's related objection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    51 views2 pages

    Case Concerning The Tempile of Preah Vihear (Preliminary Obje :tions) of May

    Uploaded by

    Korina Marawis
    The ICJ ruled that it had jurisdiction over a case between Cambodia and Thailand concerning sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. It rejected Thailand's first preliminary objection that its 1950 declaration accepting ICJ jurisdiction was invalid. The Court found that while Thailand's previous declarations had lapsed, its 1950 declaration was a new, independent instrument made with the intent to accept ICJ jurisdiction, satisfying the Statute's requirements. As the Court had jurisdiction on this basis, it did not need to consider Cambodia's alternative basis for jurisdiction or Thailand's related objection.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice

    Not an official document

    CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPILE OF PREAH VIHEAR


    (PRELIMINARY OBJE<:TIONS)
    Judgment of 26 May 1961

    Proceedings in the case coricerning the Te:mple of Preah ty's Government hereby renew the declaration above
    Vihear (Preliminary Objectil~ns)between Camtdia and mentioned for a further period of ten years as from May 3,
    Thailand, which relates to the territorial sovereignty over the 1950, with the limits and subject to the same conditions
    Temple of Preah Vihear, were instituted by an Application by and reservations as set forth in the first declaration of Sept.
    the Government of Cambodia dated 30 September 1959. The 20, 1929."
    Government of Thailand raised two pmliminary objections Thailand had raised a first preliminary ol)jection on the
    to the jurisdiction. ground that that declaration did not constitute a valid accept-
    The Court held, unanimously, that it had jurisdiction. ance on her part of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
    Vice-President Alfaro and Judges Wellington Koo, Sir Ger- She in no way denied that she had fully intended to accept the
    ald Fitzmaurice, and Tanaka appended declarations to the compulsoryjurisdiction but, according to her argument, she
    Judgment and Judges Sir Percy Spender and Morelli had drafted her declaration in terms revealed by the decision
    appended separate opinions. of the Court of 26 May 1959in the case concerningthe Aerial
    Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria) to have been
    ineffectual. Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the
    Court provided that:
    "Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of
    the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are
    In its Judgment the Court noted that, in invoking the juris- still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties of the
    diction of the Court, Cambodia had based herself principally present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory juris-
    on the combined effect of her ,ownacceptance of the compul- diction of the International Court of Justice for the period
    sory jurisdiction of the Courl: and of a declaration made by which they still have to run and in accordance with their
    Thailand on 20 May 1950 which was in the fcdlowing terms: t e r n *:
    "I have the honour to inl'orm you that by a declaration The Court had held that that provision applied only to the
    dated September 20, 192!J, His Majesty' s Government original parties to the Statute, and that, Bulgaria not having
    had accepted the compulslury jurisdiction of the Perma- become a party to the Statute until 14 Deceinber 1955, her
    nent Court of International Justice in conformity with declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of
    Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute for a peiiod of ten the Perrnanent Court must be regarded as having lapsed on
    years and on condition of rt:cipmity. That declaration has 19 April 1946, the date when the Permanent Court had
    been renewed on May 3, 1'940, for another period of ten ceased to exist. In the present case, Thailand had proceeded
    years. on the basis that her position was the same as that of Bul-
    "In accordance with the jprovisions of Article 36, para- garia, since she had become a party to the Statute only on 16
    graph 4, of the Statute of ,the International Coilrt of Jus- December 1946, some eight months after the demise of the
    tice, 1have now the honoui: to inform you hat His Majes- Permanent Court. Her declaration of acceptance of the com-

    Continued on next page


    pulsory jurisdiction of the Permanen. Co~rrtwould accord- The sole relevant question was therefore whether the lan-
    ingly not have been transformed into an acceptance relating guage employed irr Thailand's 1950 declaration did reveal a
    to the present Court, and all she actually would have clear intention, in the terms of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the
    achieved was a necessarily inoperative renewal of an accep- Statute, 'to recogniise as compulsory the jurisdiction of the
    tance of the compulsory jurisdiction of a1 tribunal that no Court. If the Court applied its normal canons of interpreta-
    longer existed. tion, that declaration could have no other meaning than as an
    The Court did not consider that its Judgment of 1959 had acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the present
    the consequences which Thailand claimecl. Apart from the Court, since there was no other Court to which it could have
    fact that that Judgment had no binding force except between related. Thailand, which was fully aware of the non-
    the parties, the Court took the view that Thailand, by her dec- existence of the foimer Court, could have had no other pur-
    laration of 20 May 1950, had placed hemelf in a different pose in addressing the Secretary-General of the United
    position from Bulgaria. At that date, not only had Thailand's Nations under paragraph 4 of Article 36 of the Statute than to
    declaration of 1940 never been transforme:dinto an accept- recognise the compulsory jurisdiction of the present Court
    ance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the pizsent Court, but, under paragraph 2 c~fthat Article; nor indeed did she pretend
    indeed, it had expired, according to its own .terms,two weeks otherwise. The remainder of the declaration had to be con-
    earlier (on 6 May 1950). The declaration af 20 May 1950, a strued in the light ofthat cardinal fact, and in the general con-
    new and independent instrument, had nctt therefore been text of the declaration; the reference to the 1929 and 1940
    made under Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute, the oper- declarations must tte regarded simply as being a convenient
    ation of which, on any view, was wholly exhausted so far as method of indicating, without stating them in terms, what
    Thailand was concerned. were the conditions upon which the acceptance was made.
    In the course of the proceedings there had been some dis- The Court, therefore, considered that there could not
    cussion as to whether a lapsed instrument cc~uldbe renewed, remain any doubt as to what meaning and effect ought to be
    but the Court considered that the real question was, what was attributed to the 1950declaration and it rejected the first pre-
    the effect of the declaration of 1950. It had also been said that liminary objection I I Thailand.
    ~

    Thailand had in 1950 held a mistaken view and for that rea-
    son had used in her declaration language w.hich the decision
    of 1959 had shown to be inadequate to achieve its purpose,
    but the Court did not consider that the issue in the present
    case was really one of error, It had also been argued that the
    intent without the deed did not suffice to c:onstitute a valid The Court next found that that conclusion was sufficientto
    legal transaction, but the Court considered that, in the case of found the Court's ju.risdiction and that it became unnecessary
    acceptances of the compulsoryjurisdiction, the only formal- to proceed to a consideration of the second basis of jurisdic-
    ity rsquired was that of deposit with the Secretary-Generalof tion invoked by Czmbodia (certain treaty provisions for the
    the United Nations, a formality which hiad been accom- judicial settlement of any disputes of the kind involved in the
    plished by Thailand in accordancewith Article 36, paragraph present case) and of Thailand's objection to that basis of
    4, of the Statute. jurisdiction.

    You might also like