Cambodia V Thailand
Cambodia V Thailand
Cambodia V Thailand
Thailand)
Cambodia complained that Thailand had occupied a piece of its territory surrounding the ruins of the
Temple of Preah Vihear, a place of pilgrimage and worship for Cambodians, and asked the Court to
declare that territorial sovereignty over the Temple belonged to it and that Thailand was under an
obligation to withdraw the armed detachment stationed there since 1954. Thailand filed preliminary
objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, which were rejected in a Judgment given on 26 May 1961. In its
Judgment on the merits, rendered on 15 June 1962, the Court noted that a Franco-Siamese Treaty of
1904 provided that, in the area under consideration, the frontier was to follow the watershed line,
and that a map based on the work of a Mixed Delimitation Commission showed the Temple on the
Cambodian side of the boundary. Thailand asserted various arguments aimed at showing that the
map had no binding character. One of its contentions was that the map had never been accepted by
Thailand or, alternatively, that if Thailand had accepted it, it had done so only because of a mistaken
belief that the frontier indicated corresponded to the watershed line. The Court found that Thailand
had indeed accepted the map and concluded that the Temple was situated on Cambodian territory. It
also held that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police force stationed
there and to restore to Cambodia any objects removed from the ruins since 1954.
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 the Judgment delivered by it on 11 November 2013, 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. It 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 of Preah Vihear 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. It subsequently identified
and defined the limits of that area.
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.
borders of Thailand and Cambodia. The temple and the grounds are
tiated in 1904-07 and which determined that the line was generally
at Preah Vihear followed the edge of the escarpment, with the nat-
shed line at Preah Vihear so that the temple was shown as being
in question.
the original provision of the treaty, and since the deviation from the
less, the Court justified its decision on either of two alternative bases:
(1) that the two countries adopted the maps at the time of their
As the facts were reported by the Court, the maps were never
body was dissolved before the maps were published. Copies were
could have been no doubt that the maps purported to be the out-
reasonable time.3 The theory is that the first country may have
relied on its own position and the other country ought to be estopped
international law where the parties could have avoided it, and here
error.
Since the Court concluded that Thailand had adopted the maps
in 1908-09, thus making them a part of the treaty, and since this con-
over a long period of time, as well as other events,7 the Court found
sion adverse to the real sovereign.8 In this case the basis of pre-
of the evidence taken by the Court, Cambodia could now claim the