/
/
f4fifrti0
)
/
l^qul/t u '/ / /
(nrnlrs) (1uocrt. or 15 vr 6z) TEMPLEOF PREAHVTHEAR answered..However, the Cambodian troops were not in fact sent; i" Ju:re Tg5+, Cambodia addressed to Thailand a further N-ote ""a ii iirfott"ation had been received to the effect that ri"ii"g'that, tn"i t"roopswere already in occupation, the despatch of the CamUo&^" lri,opt had. been'suspend,iA in order not to - aggravate. the The Note went on to ask that Thailand should either rit*tion. withdraw her troops or furnish Cambodia with her views on the "troops" matter. This Note 6qually received no repi5r.But the Thai (the Cour': und.ersta^nds iftut they are in- fact a police- force) .remained,.Again, therefore, it would seemthat Thailand, u'htle tal<rng and certain toJat action, was not prepared to deny the French Cambod.ianclaim at the diptomatic level'
32
;;1. -.!4+
iH? 5r.
No furt,rer diplomatic correspondencewas-producedto the Court; but event,rally,^in 1958, a conflrence was held at Bangkok between Thailand and cambodra, to discuss various territortal matters tn &rp"t. br:tween-itt. P"tties, includ.ilg l]ttt. of Preah Vihear. The of Thaitand hayi.ng. d6c[ned to discuss -the - legal reft*."tautive asipectsol the matter, the negotiaiions broke down and Cambodia initituted the present proceedings.
,
0#T,r
Fr#ry
The Co,rrt wili now state the conclusions it draws from the facts as above set out. doubt as to Siam's acceptanceof the^map Even if there were any -the frontier indicated thereon, the Lourt in r9o8, and hence of would cortsid.er,i" ttt. iight of the subsequentcourse of events, that by her conduct Jrom asserting that she Thailand is now preclud."etl alil""l a,:cept it. Sire has, fdr frfty yeqrs,.enjoyed such benefits as fn. ft.ui y it tgol conferred o" hei if only ihL benefit of-a stable frontier. llrance,-ana itttot-tgh her Cambodia, relied on Thailand's of tfie map. Siice neither side can plead :rr3l,, *J "...pt"n,. -@an cewas-uW
fuqr"alqryd ibLgr3p-wffi;*
;; -; iH? .tfrn;
to Thaiiand,whilecon-
^"F1 t"d enjoy the benefiti of the settlement,to dent' ii""i"ttit;iairn that sf,e\vasever a conientingpa"rtvto it.
b,\
lhe Ccurt _howeverconsidersthat Thaiiand iq--rgq-8il$gqq g-tF -af -t-be--w lhe --qut c-o1lrec_c 4 ep t t ho A nn ei I h *p il iep res.e,u:t-i-ng t s i i.d3llgt" bet-$3P oi a. Um i t at i on, and.h errce:g."a" @-!!g-qg
ttre:iront:Affffi;-#.
@bq{ilff 3o
i;;iiT;r\. fli.-=eo[.t atns6etsfurther that, lookedat
.; r||!ira
':jtf ..trF il:*
ffitiLtr 0
lw4 /
/
rEMPr,EoF PREAHvIHEAR(uenrrs) (1uocn' oF 15 vr 6z) as a whole, Thailand's subsequent conduct confirms and bears out do n.. origitri acceptance, and_that Thailand's acts on the ground r"ffi"e 1o negative this. Both Parties, by their conduct, recog"ot nized the 1:,nea'nd thereby in effect agreed to regard it as being the frontier line.
33
The Cou,rt must now consider two further matters' Thailand contends ttrat since r9o8, and at any rate up to lrer own r934-J-935 r.tt.v, rh. believed that'the map line and w-atershedline coincided, itt"t if she accept6d the map line, she didso onlv.in ;;d;ir;;;f;i" is evident thal such a contetttion would be quite It l["t Uefief. advanced contention incotrsistent *ittt Thailand's equally strongly-so"treiqtty evidenced of exircise that these acts in the concreti for if her belief r.hat rfr. n"a sovereignty over the Temple .area: I Annex the about Thailand v,as truly under a. mi"sapprehension iinewatershed correct the indicited it beiieved really ihe lj;;:ia h.er It .n she must hlve believed that, on the.ba,sisjn 9f lhe TaP, an-d. she If cambodia. rightfully arealay Temple the it, acceptanceof U.U.i-and s,j.h a beiief is implicit in any piea that she ffi!;;h " the Annex I map only becauseshe thought it was corii"a "...pi,:d acts on the giound would have to be regarded as her rect-then .iriolations of the sovereignty which (on the basis of the a.iiu.r"t" she-musi bi presume.d to have thought stated) ;;;;ptor,, possess.The'conclusion is that Thailand cannot allege C^*b6dia 1:o"bo'oe I that she *,r, ord."r any misapprehensionin accepting the Annex 1or line, for th.is is wholly inconsistent with the reason sl9 glves her acts or: the gto,rn"d,namely that she believedher self to possess sovereignt5'in this area.
of misapprehension It may t,e addedthat eveni{ Thailand's_plea .";id:]; lrrin.ipr., be accepted,it should hgve been advanced ;h;;iiy ;dei ffuitand,'s owi surv.y_.of.jh..disputed region.was ."rii.6 out in ,gii:igss. Sincethen"Thailandcould not have been 'under any misapPrehension.
the There is finally one further aspectof the case with which the that considers Court The deal. to it feel:; Court to map "'...it"ty the caused Parties oi tfr. Annel I map-by the o1 part integral an "...pt"r..become to an'd r:reaty settlement ent.i the it It cannotlte said that this processinvolved a departureJrom, and
;; ",f ,:iH . xFrrt .9_s
bir I t{xth:
rw/f oF 15 vt 6z)
TEMpLti oF PREAH VTHEAR(rrlnnrrs) (luocrr.
34
:III?
even a violation of, the terms of the Treaty of rgo4, wherever the
.llF
ourt oT,as-T-li?tT map Ii ne dlv ersedTrom th e Ii neAftreG"f amfi accurateby rnam@pects .".{ lh; to the true watirshed line or not) was accepted by the reference "',,ilEi,
;islF . tt4rr
Parties in :9o8 and thereafter as constituting the result of the interpretatio-n given by the two Governments to the delimitation whicir the Tre"aty itsilf required. Tn other words, the Parties at that tim: adopt.a an inf.erpretation of the treaty settlement which causec the map line, in s6 far as it may have departed {to.the line of t.re waters^hed,to prevail over the relevant clause of the Even if, howev.r, ttt. Court were called upon to deal with ;;;rlt. the matter rlow as one solely of ordinary treaty interpretation, it considers that the interpret.tiott to be [i,r.tt wouid be the same, 7 ,r''n In genera,.,when two countries estaU-fttft^ tlfiti"t
o". &
r ^
12- 1'' L
ior ttt. followingreasons.
:,t
A
+
| / 7t'9' 4l, *t-*_;4 i[t-> fUr*f
VWq. t v|
between them,
blnary objectsis to achieverAtabllitf
!fr. Tgjal]:{ This is impxsible it tfte hne so establisfd can, at "?y -?,T:".! ,n) process,be called in and.on the basis of a continuouslyar^7{aArc ,'.rf 4 any-lltseggl?g whenever claimeil claime{ nuestion. and rectification i^Lt' n arrd. q".ttio", q uestion , a lits r d irectificption t s r e c t i f i c a t i o n c I YF!9yW aime{,y!9!9yw',,,'i^Lo..n1f )ucn,a rs d.rscovereo. to a clausein the PaIgnItrelly by referenCâ&#x201A;Ź: ,lt#' .,,.rW "fi-nality-wouitf. De never be would_.never indefini?ely, W:: . ^ il contitrueindefinitely,..and continue pioaeaa-couid ..+"a finaltty be discovered' /.,;o&'i'^a ;i";;.;';;;.d t,L,,L' ^d W: " to remained lwn- ,64, .^!A,t/44 errorsltill possible as long so ieached be compt..,9l1 would &,*" { Such a frorrtie-r,-ro'i"iito* being s1abi9, > W--,fi pi.."tio"..:it *,r.t be askei ryhVtf,e Partiesin this caseprovrdedz t'.,'\U ,{ *'*i Wl-1rlrty -lause-itdi..tittg r.ryl"[o" th.T;;y for a delimitatior,,i*i.ia "t regioriwou.ldbe the watershed'There that the frontier iine in this ,IALfr\ /v^:W' '17,, ddno more than refer to a watershed which treaties aie boundary ,,t'(.'(W u,. ({t'f-'*:. J.ine,or to a crest line, and which make no provision for any.deli' . ffr(4L p.ie-seut--c3E9"-mus!-Iave , q, d Il'W , mitation in addition. Ths-J.a-*;-er-ia--tb-e--
','^*fu&il't '";;1xr,r* r,ALtuouai*;^,,. fi" yutN-;fr* 4 | *:?F',:-*x-:â&#x201A;Źs*+r*.'-+;?nau';Tffil'*3:i;'f;-fr'T3n'i# s"uld-9adv-bave!""! 1 tfu had.a re4Eorl-f-olq*'ps-ibj.#[i.Ibqifj.ep".Ihli
' ua^ouuu
':--:;;::--*'"-'"*-l:*ll-*l?;ga"ffiiiitv."lt ii org-q9.elvIs.,egtusvsYr" ,:|arAwu u ;ttffiaefi*it;-tinnE anc-riiap-iinci-.ar#esdred-to ltsell to acfrleve
Wf
*r*
\* ,tLg,tw 71p$ ;b f a(Artt , .//,, 'lr/LA'*' { {W^:'i *b df /Of ''l CvVh*"1 '''^u flu-.,, W!:'
Variousf:rctorssupport the view that the primary object of the Parties in t:he frontier settlementsof r9o4-r9o8was to achleve certainty a'd finaiity. From tfre e,ria.nl6 tittii.itea to tft. Court, and from ttre statementsof the Partiesthemselves,it is clear tnlt ^ indo_-hrencn Inoo_with French wrth long_frontiers very long_frontrers Siam'svery of Siam's questionof *troie question fn. whole the I1 uncertainty, China had, :.nthe period prior to-rgo+l been a causeof trouble and friction, engendering-what was describedin one conplaied befoie the Court as a state of "growing i;;t";.titoi"*."t tension" in the relations between Siam and France. The Court a thinks it ielSitimate to conclude that an important' not to say
32
L f \ ) /
I
f,w't/,
{-
UX/h0tf
vIHEAR(unnrrs) (;uocrrl' oF 15 vt 6z) oF PREAH 35 TEtrIPLr; period,(rvh,ich of the T9o-4-I9oB Daramountobiect of the settlemerrts regUlationof all outstandtnglrontter Lroughtaboufa comprehensive betweenthe two couniries),was to- put an end to this ^;f-t."ti"" ouestions and to achievefrontier stability on a basis of It^t. certainty and finalitY. Boundary Treaty of.z3.l{arch }9o7, the In the Frir.nco-Siamese Partieslg6ifl:dinthepreamblethattheyweredesirous..otensuring relatingtolhe commonfrontiers i# ;i;;i i.g..irffis an4 Siam". A further token of the sameobject is to of lnao-ChTna containsa-mpie desi.., of which the d.ocumentation in the touna ue for P?rties, by both Jl.aturaland .,rid.n.., and rvhich was eviqced
b,?
;'C6il"d'T
itselfa r."s,>nfttfqg:ffff*-fn'
-'?ltti i:llt ::tl!} '
.Its
-r'elte-d lins;.
dd: "'fthffir'ti! . ir-i"hiva;Af;atiry-li6"':''-@
over The same vie.,r,isstrongly supported by the Parties' attitude specificalll'.excluding By ireaties. frontiers in the r92S u"d iqSi of previous treaties' u'hich frontiers Jrcm tftJ it"..is-5i't.,rition
i^rr.igtS at,A i937' Treatiesotherwiseefrected, ,th,t-,P-9-!tig=1ry u,itneisio thc p1i-q!qeun-ti4pq{q!ge-l-heJ-e!!ecn99! { +11*{-g can properiybe taKen and rg37 -friahty -desired tnirXita. Thaii atfit-uda-in-i4tS ln the r9o4-r9oB th.y ;:'tffi.;^'th"t "quutty period. o!=!L' The indication of thq line of the watershed in- Articl-e ,r convgnl-ql1tand - , " lvay Ian an obvious " - : - ' i
'e"4E;i;r
LLtarJ i3 E'â&#x201A;Źrrtrrdr fr"t jbctively, rnou8lr tho Eh jl Eenerlt t9rm:l h; g-D1gctI'QV' iielirsi I,Ine a trglt]gt of_lceq4bjre 1r.5r,'t1"Ef i:1,.':l^t: " no reasonto"b"b tirint<that the Partiepattachedany TFAe-gfi'oilever, of_ds9q4b:ng
h,+
jY"'.'Jrth;;;;.r..J;.1lq+++9ryFqq #'."dii;#;;d;ii;iu! ot hnattt1:' oI 3'olt'.3atei.:J'eJlr4'lt,i[g pyqir@lglglpor!41-cg, in t.!r,e-1,n-!9.qe9-!9 -r.-.-:--.-:r-i--'
-;
-
iffii'h;"Jiffi4:*6;l*;*;;aH ;-i'.--
;
^-
i-
rL^
:-+^-^^+-
^{
f,nclrfr:
nt
a,,-
ouit1=1!rg Dy a.cqepted Dy as acceptgo' deliqi_t_e{;4d as e,renTuallv delimi*t-e$;4d h"iing to i1;-n1";iin-eii the-mapline as ev?nTuallv herine ro
;i. ;*+ il'ya.lbryq+4 ;;iffi.r {bdf f::'^',n treatvof :'-t matter irrfffr.=e"nff;traffi-1r i"t6t.o;i;J;'pG;;;;;
in t"uoo. of the line as mappedr4.
'{rr ;itll
,-rg|| , i},FF
the disputerl area.
it beGiven th,3 Brounds on rvhich the Court bases its decision, the line comes unnâ&#x201A;Ź:cess"tyt consid.errvhether, at Preah Vihear, line in *"pp.d d.oesin fact correspond to the true lva"tershed the horv not' if "i or, r9o4-r9o$, in corresPond so did tiris vic'irrity, or watershed l.ine in fact runs' 33
;; "1!4(t i:!||r .:i$ill ..l}li|
Dxrlo
tf
36
w*
'$!r) .d|f i:5lF . J'4F
oF pREAHVIHEAR(rrrnnrrs)(1uoclr. oF I5 vr 6z) TEMPLT;
at the end-of tlie presented_ Referringfrnally to the Submissions for the reasonsindicated at the beor"iltoi.Jding., i!S,l""ft, filst- and dgrnent,finds that Qarybo=dia.s ni""ile of tle"piese on the legatStatus L.o.tdsnbrr,issions,callingfor pronouncements jrontier line in the.disputedregion, I I oi1r.. e"ner: I map and oi the to ) ir" U. entertainedonly to the extent that they give e'xpression as cllims to be dealt with in the operativeproi!o_"na_1,-q.+!''ryt oI tn,r.J;ir;*.-";.^Ii a;J. ";rm tthtrffi vrsrons uii.i having it"tda her own claim concerningsovereigntlv.o\:er at the end of the preah Vihealr,confinedherselfin her Submissions the contentions ofposing denials and arguments to -to oi"t Oro.eedings word as it seesfit ;illi" ;t1.-.f f;rt1,, IEavingit to the Court the reasonsiln rvliichits -.taiitts Judgmentis based' submitted to the court b-v camIn the prosenceof the over concerningthe sovereignryOoai" u"d Thailand,respectively, Court the States, two these bet\^'een ln diipute tnus Vihear Preah rvith her third Subfinds in favrur of Camdodiain accordance regardsthe fourth as Cambodia of in favour finds -isriorr. It e,lso of armed detachments of the withdrarn'al the .,orr..rning Submission
L
-./ -,
I
10rces. -ei-r.Sards the fifth Submission of Cambodia concerning resttit does not t"iio", ihe rlourt consid,ersthat the request.made in case (in.which claim original cambodia's of represent any extension U.." itr.ceivable at the stige at rn'hich it was flrst i,''*il;'tr"'ie ' tt"tir.r is it, like the fourth Submissio-n,implicit in, artd hand, other On the . itself "ar"*.aj. sovereigqty. of claim trre ;;;;;.;iirf "", has been placed b6fore the Court showing in no concrete evrdlnce oU3ects6f the kind mentioned in this Subway--tf'tat any positive Temple mission hav: in'fact been removed by Thailand from the in 195_4 it occnpation Thailand.'s area si... oife*pte 9i 1l]:l::: that Thailarrd has not so much denied the aliegation as contended' question that it is irr:ceiviUt.. tn the circumstances, horvever,.the finding give.a onlv can court the u,hich on one is of restitution antr to it relating without oi principle in favour of Cambodia, particular obiects. -----J r*:-- For these reasons,
--*\*\\-\.\\\!\!\.
Tsr Coullt, by nine v,)tes to three, finds that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia;
,i;;
.ffi .r{ttt .-:EF 'JNF
'
f^,nnt b lW b/r 37
TEMeLEoF PREAHvIHEAR(unzurs) (lunclt. oF 15 vt 6z)
,11,,/, b,b 11.
finds in constrquence, by nine vo:es to three,
that Thailanrl is under an obligation to withdraw any militarS' police forr:es,or other guardi _orkeepers,stationed by her at or ^
-!he r emp-ls,r-qi+-l:Ltf .'Sly -ot. 9."99$] 1Lt-1Ti15:- - *
-*r
,Ju. :.'tr|; 't}fl"
llw t|l
by seven votes to fi.ve, that Thaiian<l is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any oUf."ts of th,: kind. specifiedin-Cambodia's fifth Submission which iiy,since the date bi tn. occupation .9-fthe Tem.ple by Thailand in i954, havr: been removed from the Temple or the Temple area bv the Thai authoritiesDone in Erglish and in French, the English-text-being authoritative, at the F.".. Palace, The Hague, this fifteenth day of June, one thousancl nine hundred and sixll'-11v6, in three copies, one of which rvill b,: placed in the archivei of the Court and the others transmitted ,:o the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia and to the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand, respectiveiv' (Si.gned)B. Wlxt.+RSKI, President.
-tt
( Si gned) GanNteH-Cotcxnt, Registrar.
Judge Tl:;rx-r Declaration:
and Judge MonEru
make the foliorving Joint
We wish to make clear the reason rvhy, to our great regret^,lve \\,ere unable to concur in the ntajority opinion on the clause ot the ;p;;"11;; provisions of the Judgrnel! concerning th: f:l:t*:"" UV tnala.rd to Cambodia of any objects $'hich may have Deen removed frotn the TemPIe, The fact that we vo6d against this clause of the opelative pros visions is in no way connecied ri'ith the foundation of Uambodla so did We question. in claim for the resi5ration of the objects because $,e ':hink that the Court should have refrained from proon that claim since, having been g*dg for the. first time ;;;;i"g be in the Submissiont nt.a by cambodia on 5 I'iarch 1962, it must considered trt be out of tirne. J)
rlI; .:tLt lit*
n t t :&(rb f V e / f 38
h-7
rEMpr,E oF PREAHvIHEAR (uenrrs) (luoclr' oF 15 v 6z)
d-g9cted formul.ale.d-:slq4bgdd:4PPl&gggls rmul ar eq ln'v a I I I u u ur 4 s ra p F/' rJ asit is ro clainr The LA9-.1I-1^9JIg-glgH v r tothereturn the Temp]eas such,but rat{tef.to,io .y "i"TffiEffii;;fifi" '.rt 1s "olTiltfr.i6Turn-iif ;ffi, 'me p(
ffia-Ji
.cambod-
i"" ;;;;eignty over the said.portion-of territory, that it,,? :1I: if."if""a;s dUtigationto withdriw the detachmentsof armed forces being explicitly indicated ith;d stat:onef,there, this consequence Cambocliain its-APPlication. by -'Th. of Cambodiansovereigntyover other possibleio.rregoen_ce the portior.of t.iritoty in whictt the Tem.pleis situated,,nameiy, fir;iil"J's obligationio restoreto Cambodiaany objectsthat may that is not have been removedfrom the Temple,is a consequence the said of rbturn for the it"in"t indicated.in the eppUcation.A claim the in contained implicitly be to c6isidered be oUie.tr innot iru cu*bodia in its Application, that claim having, as ;;;;;;.d it.d above,a compiefelydifferentsubject' il;;6;.;tr "-it i. o"ty lt tn" claim by Cambodiahad had directly .qs,1,t-:,*1.., the return of the Temple-thatit would have beenpossrble,but tnen onlv throrigh a liberal constructionof such a clarm, to conslder ;;;t ii;;i-Ei"i- was concernedalso with objects which, having part of the -emple prior to the Apnlicition, had, alsoprior il;.a io tn. App,iication,beerirein'ovedfrom the Tempie'
Vice-PresidentArreno and Judge Sir Gerald FttzrlaunlcB ifr. j"agment of the C6uristatementsof their Separate "pp.rajo Opinions. Koo and Sir Percy Judges .![onpNo Q-urx:exa, wprrrxcrox statementsof their Court of the Tt . io ,pp.rrJ Sreuppn Judgment DissentingOpinions' ( Initialled) B- W.
..;
(Initialled) G.-C. -r!F
iiEJ? .::S*i .. !li{o
s6
:fif ii-ilt