Thai 1


INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (/en)
Français (/fr/affaire/151)
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand)
Cases (/en/list-of-all-cases) Previous (/en/case/150) Next (/en/case/152)
Overview of the case (/en/case/151)
Institution of proceedings (/en/case/151/institution-proceedings)
Provisional measures (/en/case/151/provisional-measures)
Written proceedings (/en/case/151/written-proceedings)
Oral proceedings (/en/case/151/oral-proceedings)
Other documents (/en/case/151/other-documents)
Orders (/en/case/151/orders)
Judgments (/en/case/151/judgments)
Summaries of Judgments and Orders (/en/case/151/summaries)
Press releases (/en/case/151/press-releases)
See multimedia galleries (/en/cases/multimedia/151)
See other cases involving
Cambodia (/en/cases-by-country/kh)
Thailand (/en/cases-by-country/th)
See other cases involving
Provisional measures (/en/cases-by-phase#1)

See also Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (/en/case/45)


OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 28 April 2011, the Kingdom of Cambodia submitted to the Court, by an

Application filed in the Registry, a Request for interpretation of the Judgment
rendered by the Court on 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah
Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). In that Judgment, the Court had ruled that “the
Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”
and that “Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military . . . forces . . .
stationed . . . at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory”. In 2008, on
Cambodia’s request, the Temple was included on the list of World Heritage sites by
UNESCO. Following that inclusion, several armed incidents took place between the
Parties in the frontier area close to the Temple. On the same day that it filed its
Application, Cambodia, stressing the urgency and the risk of irreparable damage,
also filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures. In its Order of 18
July 2011 on that Request, the Court ruled that it could exercise its power under
Article 41 of the Statute and indicated provisional measures requiring, among other
things, both Parties to withdraw their military personnel from a “provisional
demilitarized zone” surrounding the Temple, as defined in the Order. In that Order,
the Court observed in particular that “a difference of opinion or views appears to
exist between [the Parties] as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment” and
that “this difference appears to relate” to three specific aspects of the said Judgment
: first, to the meaning and scope of the phrase “vicinity on Cambodian territory”
used in the second paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment ; next, to the
nature of the obligation imposed on Thailand in the second paragraph of the
operative clause of the Judgment, to “withdraw any military or police forces, or
other guards or keepers”, and, in particular, to the question of whether this
obligation is of a continuing or an instantaneous character ; and, finally, to the
question of whether the Judgment did or did not recognize with binding force the
line shown on the Annex I map as representing the frontier between the two Parties.


On 21 INTERNATIONAL
November 2011, within the time-limit fixed for this purpose, Thailand filed
COURT OF JUSTICE (/en)
written observations on the Request for interpretation submitted by Cambodia. The
Court then decided to afford each of the Parties the opportunity of furnishing further
written explanations, pursuant to Article 98, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court. It
fixed 8 March 2012 and 21 June 2012 as the respective time-limits for the filing of
such explanations by Cambodia and by Thailand. Those pleadings were filed within
the time-limits thus prescribed. In accordance with the same provision, the Court
also decided to afford the Parties the opportunity of furnishing further oral
explanations at hearings held in April 2013. Following the conclusion of those
hearings, the Court began its deliberation.
In the Judgment delivered by it on 11 November 2013, the Court recalled that

Cambodia’s Request for interpretation was made by reference to Article 60 of the
Statute, which provides that “[i]n the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of
[a] judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party”. After
examining whether the conditions indicated in Article 60 were satisfied, the Court
concluded that there was a dispute between the Parties as to the meaning and scope
of the 1962 Judgment. The Court then turned to the interpretation of the 1962
Judgment. In determining the meaning and scope of the operative clause of the
original Judgment, the Court first pointed out that, in accordance with its practice, it
would have regard to the reasoning of that Judgment to the extent that it sheds light
on the proper interpretation of the operative clause. The Court noted that the
principal dispute between the Parties concerned the territorial scope of the second
operative paragraph, namely the territorial extent of the “vicinity” of the Temple of
Preah Vihear.
The Court considered that, in view of the reasoning in the 1962 Judgment, seen in
the light of the pleadings in the original proceedings, the second operative paragraph
of the 1962 Judgment required Thailand to withdraw from the whole territory of the
promontory any Thai personnel stationed on that promontory at the time.
Accordingly, the Court found that the term “vicinity on Cambodian territory” had to
be construed as extending at least to the area where a police detachment had been
stationed at the time of the original proceedings. The Court observed that that


findingINTERNATIONAL
was confirmed by a number of other factors, and in particular by the fact
that the area around the Temple is located on an easily identifiable geographical
feature, namely a promontory. In the east, south and southwest, the promontory
descends by a steep escarpment to the Cambodian plain. The Parties were in
agreement in 1962 that this escarpment, and the land at its foot, were under
Cambodian sovereignty in any event. To the west and north-west, the land drops in a
slope, less steep than the escarpment but nonetheless pronounced, into the valley
which separates Preah Vihear from the neighbouring hill of Phnom Trap, a valley
which itself drops away in the south to the Cambodian plain. The Court considered
that Phnom Trap lay outside the disputed area and the 1962 Judgment did not
address the question whether it was located in Thai or Cambodian territory.
Accordingly, the Court considered that the promontory of Preah Vihear ends at the
foot of the hill of Phnom Trap, that is to say, where the ground begins to rise from
the valley.
In the Court’s view, the reasoning followed in the 1962 Judgment showed that the
Court considered that Cambodia’s territory extended in the north as far as the line on
the map annexed to Cambodia’s pleadings in the original proceedings (the “Annex I
map”), which the Parties had accepted. Accordingly, the Court found that, in the
north, the limit of the promontory is the Annex I map line, from a point to the north-
east of the Temple where that line abuts the escarpment to a point in the north-west
where the ground begins to rise from the valley, at the foot of the hill of Phnom
Trap.
The Court then examined the relationship between the second operative paragraph
and the rest of the operative part. It considered that the territorial scope of the three
operative paragraphs is the same : the finding in the first paragraph that “the Temple
of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia” must be
taken as referring, like the second and third paragraphs, to the promontory of Preah
Vihear.


Lastly, INTERNATIONAL
the Court observed that the Temple of Preah Vihear is a site of religious and
cultural significance for the peoples of the region and is now listed by UNESCO as
a world heritage site. In this respect, the Court recalls that under Article 6 of the
World Heritage Convention, to which both States are parties, Cambodia and
Thailand must co-operate between themselves and with the international community
in the protection of the site as a world heritage. In addition, each State is under an
obligation not to “take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or
indirectly” such heritage. In the context of these obligations, the Court emphasized
the importance of ensuring access to the Temple from the Cambodian plain.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the
Court.
INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDINGS
Application Instituting Proceedings (/files/case-related/151/16470.pdf)

28 April 2011
Available in:
English (/files/case-related/151/16470.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/16471.pdf)
WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (/files/case-

related/151/16472.pdf)
28 April 2011
Procedure(s): Provisional measures
Available in:


Written Observations of Thailand (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf)
21 November 2011
Available in:
volume I (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf)
French (/files/case-related/151/17285.pdf)
volume II, annexes (/files/case-related/151/17286.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17286.pdf)
"Response" of Cambodia (English translation) (/files/case-

related/151/17288.pdf)
8 March 2012
Available in:
Further Written "Explanations" of Thailand (/files/case-related/151/17292.pdf)

21 June 2012
Available in:


ORAL PROCEEDINGS
Verbatim record 2011/13 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Public sitting held on Monday 30 May 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case
concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah
Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand)
Available in:
Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)
Translation (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-01-BI.pdf)
(bilingual version) Translation (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-01-BI.pdf)

Public sitting held on Monday 30 May 2011, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Tuesday 31 May 2011, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case
Available in:


Public sitting held on Tuesday 31 May 2011, at 5 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Owada presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Monday 15 April 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Monday 15 April 2013, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:


Public sitting held on Wednesday 17 April 2013, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Wednesday 17 April 2013, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Thursday 18 April 2013, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:

Public sitting held on Friday 19 April 2013, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Tomka presiding, in the case
Available in:


 Translation (/files/case-related/151/151-20130419-ORA-01-01-BI.pdf)
INTERNATIONAL
(bilingual version) COURT (/files/case-related/151/151-20130419-ORA-01-01-BI.pdf)
Translation OF JUSTICE (/en)
OTHER DOCUMENTS
Reply of the Kingdom of Thailand to the question put to the Parties by Judge
Cançado Trindade (/files/case-related/151/17656.pdf)
7 June 2011
Available in:
Reply of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the question put to the Parties by Judge
Cançado Trindade (translation) (/files/case-related/151/17658.pdf)
7 June 2011
Available in:
Comments of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the reply provided by the Kingdom

of Thailand to the question put to the Parties by Judge Cançado Trindade
(translation) (/files/case-related/151/17652.pdf)
13 June 2011
Available in:


Comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the reply given by the Kingdom of
Cambodia to the question put to both Parties by Judge Cançado Trindade
(/files/case-related/151/17654.pdf)
14 June 2011
Available in:
Written reply of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the question put by Judge Yusuf
at the end of the public sitting held on Wednesday 17 April 2013 at 3 p.m.
26 April 2013
Available in:
Written reply of the Kingdom of Thailand to the question put by Judge Yusuf at
the end of the public sitting held on Wednesday 17 April 2013, at 3 p.m.
26 April 2013
Available in:
Comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the written reply of Cambodia to the

question put by Judge Yusuf at the end of the public sitting held on Wednesday
17 April 2013, at 3 p.m. (/files/case-related/151/17436.pdf)
3 May 2013
Available in:


Comments of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the written reply of Thailand to the
question put by Judge Yusuf at the end of the public sitting held on Wednesday
17 April 2013 at 3 p.m. (/files/case-related/151/17434.pdf)
3 May 2013
Available in:
ORDERS
Order of 18 July 2011 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf)

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures
Available in:
English (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf)
French (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-00-FR.pdf)
Bilingual (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-00-BI.pdf)
Dissenting Opinion of President Owada (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-01-EN.pdf)

Declaration of Judge Koroma (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-02-EN.pdf)

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-03-

EN.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-03-EN.pdf)
Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-04-

EN.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-04-EN.pdf)

 French (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-04-FR.pdf)
Dissenting Opinion of Judge Xue (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-05-EN.pdf)

Dissenting opinion of Judge Donoghue (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-06-EN.pdf)

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Guillaume (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-07-EN.pdf)

Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Cot (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-08-EN.pdf)

JUDGMENTS
Judgment of 11 November 2013 (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-

00-EN.pdf)
Available in:
English (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf)
French (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-00-FR.pdf)
Bilingual (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-00-BI.pdf)
Joint Declaration by Judges Owada, Bennouna and Gaja (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-

JUD-01-01-EN.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-01-EN.pdf)

 French (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-01-FR.pdf)
Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-02-

EN.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-02-EN.pdf)
Declaration of Judge ad hoc Guillaume (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-03-EN.pdf)

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Cot (/files/case-related/151/151-20131111-JUD-01-04-EN.pdf)

SUMMARIES OF JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
Summary 2011/5 (/files/case-related/151/16584.pdf)

Summary of the Order of 18 July 2011
Available in:
Summary 2013/2 (/files/case-related/151/17716.pdf)

Summary of the Judgment of 11 November 2013
Available in:
 PRESS RELEASES

Press release 2011/14 (/files/case-related/151/16480.pdf)
2 May 2011
Cambodia files an Application requesting interpretation of the Judgment rendered by the Court on 15 June 1962 in the
case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) and also asks for the urgent indication of provisional
measures
Available in:

19 May 2011
Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold
public hearings on Monday 30 and Tuesday 31 May 2011
Available in:

31 May 2011
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) - Conclusion of the public hearings on Cambodia's Request for the indication of provisional
measures
Available in:

7 July 2011
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to
deliver its Order on Monday 18 July 2011 at 10 a.m.
Available in:


18 July 2011
Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court finds
that both Parties must immediately withdraw their military personnel currently present in the provisional demilitarized
zone defined by it, and refrain from any military presence within that zone and from any armed activity directed at that
zone
Available in:

5 December 2011
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - The Court authorizes the Parties to furnish further written explanations
Available in:

29 November 2012
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Court to hold public hearings from Monday 15 to Friday 19 April 2013
Available in:

27 March 2013
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Live and on-demand webcasts - Public hearings from Monday 15 to
Friday 19 April 2013
Available in:


27 March 2013
(Cambodia v.Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Opening of the public admission and media accreditation procedure
Available in:

19 April 2013
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:

18 October 2013
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Monday 11 November 2013 at 10
a.m.
Available in:

11 November 2013
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - The Court finds that the 1962 Judgment decided that Cambodia had
sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear
Available in:

 Home (/en) Contact (/en/contact-the-court) Disclaimer (/en/disclaimer) Accessibility
INTERNATIONAL
(/en/accessibility) COURT
Faq OF JUSTICE (/en)
(/en/frequently-asked-questions) Employment (/en/employment)
Sitemap (/en/sitemap) Site search (/en/quick-search) Document search (/en/advanced-
search)
© International Court of Justice 2017-2020 – All rights reserved.
(https://itunes.apple.com/nl/app/cij-icj/id1447243376?l=en&mt=8)
(https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.icj.icjmobileapp&hl=en)

Thai 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thai 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (/en)

Cases (/en/list-of-all-cases) Previous (/en/case/150) Next (/en/case/152)

Overview of the case (/en/case/151)

Institution of proceedings (/en/case/151/institution-proceedings)

Provisional measures (/en/case/151/provisional-measures)

Written proceedings (/en/case/151/written-proceedings)

Oral proceedings (/en/case/151/oral-proceedings)

Other documents (/en/case/151/other-documents)

Summaries of Judgments and Orders (/en/case/151/summaries)

Press releases (/en/case/151/press-releases)

See multimedia galleries (/en/cases/multimedia/151)

See other cases involving

Provisional measures (/en/cases-by-phase#1)

On 28 April 2011, the Kingdom of Cambodia submitted to the Court, by an

In the Judgment delivered by it on 11 November 2013, the Court recalled that

Application Instituting Proceedings (/files/case-related/151/16470.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/16470.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/16471.pdf)

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (/files/case-

English (/files/case-related/151/16472.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/16473.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17285.pdf)

volume I (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17284.pdf)

volume II, annexes (/files/case-related/151/17286.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17286.pdf)

"Response" of Cambodia (English translation) (/files/case-

English (/files/case-related/151/17288.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17289.pdf)

volume I (/files/case-related/151/17288.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17288.pdf)

volume II, annexes (/files/case-related/151/17288.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17288.pdf)

Further Written "Explanations" of Thailand (/files/case-related/151/17292.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17292.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17293.pdf)

volume I (/files/case-related/151/17292.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17292.pdf)

volume II, annexes (/files/case-related/151/17294.pdf) English (/files/case-related/151/17294.pdf)

Verbatim record 2011/13 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2011/14 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20110530-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2011/15 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110531-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20110531-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20110601-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2013/1 (/files/case-related/151/151-20130415-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130415-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2013/2 (/files/case-related/151/151-20130415-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130415-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130417-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2013/4 (/files/case-related/151/151-20130417-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130417-ORA-02-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2013/5 (/files/case-related/151/151-20130418-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130418-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Verbatim record 2013/6 (/files/case-related/151/151-20130419-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

Original Language (/files/case-related/151/151-20130419-ORA-01-00-BI.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17656.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17657.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17658.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17659.pdf)

Comments of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the reply provided by the Kingdom

English (/files/case-related/151/17652.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17653.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17654.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17655.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17430.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17431.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17432.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17433.pdf)

Comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the written reply of Cambodia to the

English (/files/case-related/151/17436.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17437.pdf)

English (/files/case-related/151/17434.pdf) French (/files/case-related/151/17435.pdf)

Order of 18 July 2011 (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf)

Dissenting Opinion of President Owada (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-01-EN.pdf)

Declaration of Judge Koroma (/files/case-related/151/151-20110718-ORD-01-02-EN.pdf)