Thailand 'To Comply' With UN Court Ruling

[webfact]

Thailand 'to comply' with UN court ruling

BANGKOK, June 7, 2011 (AFP) - Thailand will respect the ruling of the United Nations' highest court on whether it must withdraw troops from a border area at the centre of a deadly row with Cambodia, an official said Tuesday.

"Of course we will comply with the decision of the court," said Ittiporn Boonpracong, director general of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs.

"We are not compelled to comply but we will comply," he told reporters, arguing that the case is not within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Cambodia last month launched a legal bid at the court, based in The Hague, seeking to force Thailand to pull troops from a strip of disputed land near the ancient Preah Vihear temple.

Ittiporn said he expected a decision in three or four weeks on the request, which followed two episodes of fierce border fighting between the two countries earlier this year that left 28 people dead.

"Look at 1962, even though we disagreed with a number of legal issues, as a member of the UN we complied fully," Ittiporn added.

The court ruled in 1962 that the 900-year-old temple itself belonged to Cambodia but both Phnom Penh and Bangkok claim ownership of a 4.6-square-kilometre (1.8-square-mile) patch of nearby land.

Cambodia in April asked the ICJ to clarify that ruling and in the meantime asked for the urgent troop withdrawal.

-- (c) Copyright AFP 2011-06-08

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE

Thailand cannot duck World Court verdict

By Supalak Ganjanakhundee

The Nation

The possibilities for Thailand to defy an injunction or a verdict by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over the Preah Vihear case is very low as the court - the top judicial body of the United Nations - has many instruments and tools to enforce its ruling.

As long as Thailand accepts the court's jurisdiction or is not in a position to avoid it, the country will have to comply with the court ruling.

A recent announcement by Defence Minister Prawit Wongsuwan that Thailand would not comply with any ICJ injunction for withdrawal of Thai troops is misleading, unrealistic and might damage Thailand's international reputation.

The minister said the court has no authority to rule on the case but he did not offer sufficient legal arguments to back up the rationale behind his defiance.

Based on the 1962 judgement on the Preah Vihear case, Cambodia has requested the ICJ to clarify whether Thailand has adequately complied with the court ruling. Phnom Penh has also pleaded with the court to impose provisional measures to ban Thai military activities.

Thailand is arguing that the country has fully complied with the ruling and the court would no longer have authority to force the country to do anything more.

Cambodia says it is simply asking the court to clarify the ruling in accordance with the article 60 of the court statue so that the jurisdiction is a derivation of the article.

The question of the ICJ's jurisdiction is a legal technicality, which is too complicated for a military officer to make an offhand comment. Let the legal experts on both sides raise the question before the court and leave it to the court to decide whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the case.

If the court really has no jurisdiction, it would be fine for Thailand to maintain the status quo of the border arrangement with Cambodia.

However, if the court does have jurisdiction, Thailand cannot hold the position any longer that it would not comply with the court's injunction or verdict.

Whenever the ICJ delivers its verdict, it is binding on the parties to comply. If one of the parties to a dispute does not comply, the other party can ask the UN Security Council to enforce the verdict.

The Security Council, which is the most powerful body of the UN, is authorised to make recommendations and take measures to enforce the ruling.

Some times, the UN body takes time to enforce the ICJ verdict, but it does eventually. The case of Lake Chad, involving Nigeria and Cameroon, for example, was ruled by the court in favour of Cameroon in 2002 but the case was not settled until 2006.

When Nigeria refused to adhere to the verdict and withdraw its troops from the disputed area, then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan used his good offices to mediate a settlement of the dispute in line with the court ruling.

The UN called a series of tripartite summits of the two conflicting parties, who agreed to set up a joint committee to handle the boundary demarcation. With the supervision of the UN, Nigeria eventually agreed to withdraw its troops from the disputed area of Lake Chad and the Bakassi peninsular and returned the territory to Cameroon in 2006. Follow-up work and demarcation of boundary are being undertaken which are expected to be completed next year.

Studies by prominent legal experts Panat Tasneeyanond, Prasit Pivavatnapanich and Vipon Kititasnasorchai found that many other cases under the ICJ ruling could be settled successfully although it takes time. The parties, partly or fully, complied with the court ruling because as long as they are members of the UN, they cannot be in total defiance.

-- The Nation 2011-06-08

[rkidlad]

"We are not compelled to comply but we will comply," he told reporters, arguing that the case is not within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Not compelled and not within the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Why comply then? Stop posturing and comply like a civilised country in the 21st century. Pull your head out of your arse.

[hellodolly]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

[whybother]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

Joint management doesn't solve the issues of the disputed territory.

[hellodolly]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

Joint management doesn't solve the issues of the disputed territory.

I fail to understand your line of reasoning. If they both assume responsibility and work together it would seem to me that it would solve the issue. Even give them a chance to develop the area as a bigger tourist attraction. As usual just my JMO

[whybother]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

Joint management doesn't solve the issues of the disputed territory.

I fail to understand your line of reasoning. If they both assume responsibility and work together it would seem to me that it would solve the issue. Even give them a chance to develop the area as a bigger tourist attraction. As usual just my JMO

To get onto the world heritage list, the temple needs a buffer zone. That includes undisputed Thai territory and disputed territory. Not all of the disputed territory would be covered in the buffer zone.

Thailand has also been consistent in her position regarding inscription of the Temple of Phra Viharn on the World Heritage List. The Temple requires a buffer zone as a World Heritage site, and that can only be found in Thai territory. We understand that, and have always been ready and willing to undertake a joint nomination with Cambodia. It is Cambodia's constant refusal of such joint undertaking that is the root cause of the problems that have arisen over the inscription.. As the timeline approaches and the prospect is still uncertain, a "conflict by design" triggering the indication of an artificial provisional measures by the Court as a backdoor to clear the area for the much-desired buffer zone to be included in the management plan at the World Heritage Committee meeting at the end of next month, is a strategy that Thailand understandably resists.

http://www.mfa.go.th...35.php?id=27467

Edited June 8, 2011 by whybother

[wolfmanjack]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

If thailand would have paid attention to the treaty and the maps made in the first place then cambodia would have no claim on the temple.

[Thaifever]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

If thailand would have paid attention to the treaty and the maps made in the first place then cambodia would have no claim on the temple.

On a side note, why should anyone listen to the UN? It's a union founded by certain countries which make up by the elite. This elite reserves the right to veto for themselves. The basic foundation of the UN is flawed. What "peace solving" union would wage war on a country when they clearly have no right to be there? (I'm talking about Libya)

The land dispute is an unfortunate problem leftover from a previous government. Maybe they can continue to share it, and as someone else mentioned, promote tourism there for both countries.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Thaifever

[slapout]

Both sides seemly have the old syndrome of "I want, want, want" and sharing apparently is not a part of their thinking. Unless you consider 3 for me 1 for you as sharing.

[animatic]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

If thailand would have paid attention to the treaty and the maps made in the first place then cambodia would have no claim on the temple.

On a side note, why should anyone listen to the UN? It's a union founded by certain countries which make up by the elite. This elite reserves the right to veto for themselves. The basic foundation of the UN is flawed. What "peace solving" union would wage war on a country when they clearly have no right to be there? (I'm talking about Libya)

The land dispute is an unfortunate problem leftover from a previous government. Maybe they can continue to share it, and as someone else mentioned, promote tourism there for both countries.

Uh... it's NATO in Libya, not the UN troupes.

I guess when the boss said "The U.N. is not my father,"

all the children agree endlessly.

They long ago signed agreements to honor the decisions, but seems they are unsure about it, depending on which department head is speaking.

[arrowsdawdle]

Time for Abhisit and Hun Sen to kick off their shoes and have at it in a Muay Thai ring. Think of the revenues for ticket sales and pay per view. If they fight to a draw then they can have tie-breaker playing that foot volleyball game.

[colinscarr]

Share it? Share it!

That's what the stupid peasants living near the border (both sides) want.

How am I supposed to play with my new Ukrainian APCs if we come to a sensible peaceful arrangements with the neighbours?

Besides, there's a small matter of national 'face' at stake here.

[Kaker]

Uh... it's NATO in Libya, not the UN troupes.

Uh... it's approved by the UN Security Council.

For all of those that love to bash Thailand (not that it isn't warranted in many cases), the UN is one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of this planet. Of course you won't find that in any "UN Corruption Index".

[Puccini]

If Thailand had not stuck there head up there arse they could have settled this in a civilized manner with joint management by both countries. Cambodia is not lilly white in this fiasco either. JMO

The complication with "joint management" is that it takes two to tango.

4. Thailand has also been consistent in her position regarding inscription of the Temple of Phra Viharn on the World Heritage List. The Temple requires a buffer zone as a World Heritage site, and that can only be found in Thai territory. We understand that, and have always been ready and willing to undertake a joint nomination with Cambodia. It is Cambodia’s constant refusal of such joint undertaking that is the root cause of the problems that have arisen over the inscription.. As the timeline approaches and the prospect is still uncertain, a “conflict by design” triggering the indication of an artificial provisional measures by the Court as a backdoor to clear the area for the much-desired buffer zone to be included in the management plan at the World Heritage Committee meeting at the end of next month, is a strategy that Thailand understandably resists.

Source: http://www.mfa.go.th/web/2654.php?id=27174

[anterian]

The Thai army needs a border dispute, it has to justify its enormous and growing budget. Unless you have a tangible enemy armies in times of peace tend to shrink and suffer cut backs. This is why generals make off the cuff remarks, they like to keep the pot simmering. Naturally they don't want to pot to actually come to the boil, this would mean expending some of their expensive toys. On the other hand a few soldier's lives are of little financial value and are good emotional fuel.