Preah Vihear Controversy: Cambodia's I C J Stance 'expected'

[webfact]

PREAH VIHEAR CONTROVERSY
Cambodia's ICJ stance 'expected'
Supalak Ganjanakhundee
The Nation
The Hague


The International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands, began hearings on the Thailand-Cambodia territorial dispute over the land surrounding the Preah Vihear Temple yesterday.

Phnom Penh says Thailand's 'vicinity' claim violates Preah Vihear judgement

THE HAGUE: -- Cambodia's statement to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the first day of a four-day hearing on the Preah Vihear tussle was not beyond expectation and Thailand can easily counter it, Foreign Minister Surapong Towichukchaikul declared.

"We are prepared and our team has all the right answers," he told reporters after the hearing at the ICJ's Peace Palace was completed yesterday.

The court opened the newly renovated Great Hall of Justice for the two conflicting countries to use for the first time since May 2012.

Cambodia pointed out in court yesterday that it had never accepted the "vicinity of Preah Vihear Temple" unilaterally claimed by Thailand as its own more than 50 years ago.

Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Hor Namhong accused Thailand of failing to comply with the court's July 18, 2011, order to withdraw troops from the court-determined demilitarised zone at the disputed border area.

"Thailand does not know how to defend the case but is delaying the judgement," he said.

The Cambodian counsel tried to convince the 17 judges that the application to the ICJ was merely a request for interpretation, not an appeal on the boundary issue as Thailand had told the court earlier.

The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the Hindu temple was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and Thailand was obligated to withdraw its troops from the temple and its vicinity.

The Cambodian counsel told the court that Thailand had unilaterally delimited the temple's vicinity by claiming 1 square kilometre of land around the temple. They said this was in contrary to the court's judgement in 1962.

Over the past 50 years, Phnom Penh has from time to time expressed its disagreement with Thailand's interpretation of the 1962 judgement, saying that the Kingdom was trying to establish a new boundary line.

Cambodian counsel Rodman Bundy said that even though Thailand claimed that late King Norodom Sihanouk accepted its new "boundary", the Thai government at the time did not fully implement the 1962 judgement.

In 1967, Cambodia again protested against Thailand's unilateral determination of Preah Vihear's "vicinity", Rodman Bundy told the court.

He went on to say that Thai governments, such as the one under former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006, had a different understanding of Preah Vihear's vicinity than that of the Cabinet in 1962.

Cambodia proposed that the temple's vicinity should be determined by the boundary line that appears in the 1:200,000-scale map created by the French government or the map referred to in Annex I of the original documents presented in court in 1962. According to this map, the court found the Preah Vihear Temple to be on Cambodia's side.

Though the Thai legal counsel were also at the court yesterday, they only listed to the arguments made by the other side. Thai chief counsel Virachai Plasai and his team will take the floor tomorrow to argue against Cambodia's position.

A group of senators including Khamnoon Sitthisaman and Rossana Tosittrakul appeared in the court before the hearing opened. They are urging the government not to accept the ICJ's decision, as the court tended to rule in favour of Cambodia.


-- The Nation 2013-04-16

[Markaew]

"A group of senators"..."They are urging the government not to accept the ICJ's decision, as the court tended to rule in favour of Cambodia."

Always somebody else's fault, never can take responsibility.

[Locationthailand]

Opening arguments. A lot more to come. The deliberation should be interesting.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Locationthailand

[Chrisswe]

After year's of good coperation in this area Thai / Cambodja. Democratic Party and PAD use this border issue as a political tool to crack down the government !!

[siampolee]

Already we see the mindset of it isn't right it's got to be us no other verdict will be acceptable.

A court case is where the plaintiff and the defendant try to air all the dirty washing, the history and dubious habits to the detriment of their opponent, the brief who is the most convincing eloquent orator will win the hearts of the judges and the jury and thus the outcome of a favourable verdict to one side, either plaintiff or defendant.

In short a court is no more than a legal boxing ring where fine rhetoric and proven facts will win the day, not a boxer knocking out his opponent with a left hook to the jaw. Jaws are the weapons of a lawyer in a court not the target...

In truth it is somewhat amusing to see that both the Thais and the Cambodians have to go before a western established international court to seek a solution to the matter.We all know that these two sovereign states consider themselves somewhat superior to the western world.

'Twill be interesting to see the viewpoint of the loser in the case with regards to the western influenced judicial system, process and outcome.

Me thinks the cry will be ''we wuz robbed.''

Falangs not same asThai, Falangs not same as Cambodians. Not understand justice and court system here in our countries.

[FarangTalk]

If only the PAD and military hadn't used this as a wedge to oust the elected Samak Sundaravej government. The government would have honoured it's stance to support the Cambodian application for UNESCO World Heritage Status.

As usual petty Thai nationalists spoiling it for everyone else.

[Sing_Sling]

The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the Hindu temple was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and Thailand was obligated to withdraw its troops from the temple and its vicinity.

. . . and the point of contention is?

[hellodolly]

Some how I don't see the typical Thai attitude of we are Thai we can not be wrong as a winning argument.

They are in an arena where they will need facts and I am not sure they understand that.

It would have been nice if they both could have gone in there with here is the situation how can we jointly administer the whole situation to the mutual advantage of both countries.

It is my understanding that the property in question is not suitable for growing any crops on but would be ideal for tourist shops and possibly a hotel.

[rubl]

Now you all, listen carefully: it's all the fault of the k. Abhisit, the Democrats party, the PAD, the yellows and the Army and anyone else is totally innocent.

BTW, just being sarcastic

[webfact]

Thailand ready to defend temple case at The Hague tomorrow
By Digital Media



THE HAGUE, Netherlands, April 16 – Thailand is set for a showdown at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) tomorrow in the oral hearing as senior Thai ministers have given reassurances that the country’s legal team’s well-prepared statement will defend the Thai position against Cambodian allegations regarding the disputed territory surrounding the Phra Viharn (Preah Vihear) temple.

Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Pongthep Thepkanchana said in a telephone interview from The Hague late last night that Cambodia’s allegations in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) yesterday were similar to a text statement it earlier submitted to the court.

“Their statement was as predicted and our legal team is ready to defend against their charges,” said Mr Pongthep who is the legal expert assigned by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra to take charge of the case.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the Thai legal team was not worried about the Cambodian opening statement on Monday which attacked Thailand on the unsettled ownership of the 4.6 sq km plot of land adjacent to the ancient Hindu temple.

The three-person legal team from Thailand is led by Thai ambassador to The Hague Virachai Plasai.

He said the Thai lawyers will reiterate the fact that the late King Norodom Sihanouk acknowledged Thailand’s erection of barbed wire around the temple to demarcate the border after the 1962 ICJ ruling.

Mr Surapong said the prime minister made a long-distance call from Bangkok on Monday and complimented him for talking to his Cambodian counterpart Hor Namhong before the hearing started.

Thailand’s oral statement will be presented tomorrow at 3-6pm and 8-9.30pm (Thai local time). The live broadcast is available at TV Channel 11 and the Foreign Ministry’s website: www.phraviharn.org, the ICJ website: WWW.ICJ-CIJ.ORG/HOMEPAGE and the United Nations’ website: HTTP://WEBTV.UN.ORG. Radio listeners can tune to AM1575, FM92.5 and AM891. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-04-16

[whybother]

The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the Hindu temple was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and Thailand was obligated to withdraw its troops from the temple and its vicinity.

. . . and the point of contention is?

The land next to the temple.

[Thai at Heart]

The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the Hindu temple was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and Thailand was obligated to withdraw its troops from the temple and its vicinity.

. . . and the point of contention is?

The land next to the temple.

The translation of the word vicinity it might appear?

[Sing_Sling]

The ICJ ruled in 1962 that the Hindu temple was situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia and Thailand was obligated to withdraw its troops from the temple and its vicinity.

. . . and the point of contention is?

The land next to the temple.

The translation of the word vicinity it might appear?

Correct - my point exactly. No need to translate from English to English. The 'vicinity' was already ruled upon if I understand this correctly

[Thai at Heart]

Might appear so, if that is the exact wording.

Vicinity isn't particularly ambiguous.

[JulesMad]

IMO the whole circus is a waste of time and (taxpayers) money.

The biggest error that the 1962 verdict failed to point out is the definition of "vicinity". (vicinity: the area near or surrounding a particular place)

This leaves too much room for interpretation...

Using common sense, I would say about 4.6 square kms

Thailand will never give in, not because of the few sq kms, but out of fear of losing face. They have gone too far already...

[Lite Beer]

Thailand is Prepared to Respond to Cambodia at the ICJ’s Hearings on Phra Viharn

On 15 April 2013 after the conclusion of the first day of the public hearings 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) at the International Court of Justice in the Hague, Mr. Surapong Tovichakchaikul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Phongtep Tepkanjana, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, and Air Chief Marshal Sukumpol Suwanatat, Minister of Defence, held a press conference to brief the media on the main points in Cambodia’s oral arguments as follows:

During today’s proceedings, Cambodia presented its counter-arguments to Thailand’s Further Written Explanations submitted to the Court last year, and argued that, in requesting the Court to interpret the 1962 Judgment, Cambodia had no intention of appealing or altering the judgment, but only asked the Court to define the terms “territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia” and the Temple’s “vicinity” contained therein.

Cambodia also attempted to show that Cambodia and Thailand interpret the judgment differently and that the “Annex I Map” is inseparable from the operative parts of the judgment, therefore satisfying the conditions for interpretation, and such interpretation would not be possible without referring to the map.

Cambodia also argued that the Court had already recognized that the lines on the map constitute the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand.

Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong said that Cambodia’s oral arguments follow directly from its written submissions to the Court, and that Thailand is ready to present its counter-arguments, especially on the implementation of the judgment.

Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Phongthep also added that Cambodia was trying to convince the Court that Thailand’s implementation of the judgment was based on its unilateral understanding of the judgment, in particular the putting up of a barbed-wire fence, following the line set out in the Thai Cabinet’s Resolution of 10 July 1962, which Cambodia found unacceptable.

He affirmed, however, that on 17 April 2013, Thailand will present solid and convincing evidence in response to Cambodia’s arguments. 15 April 2013

-- NNT 2013-04-16

[Thai at Heart]

vi·cin·i·ty

/vəˈsinətē/

Noun

The area near or surrounding a particular place.

Hmmmm. Not easy to get round that one I think

Edited April 16, 2013 by Thai at Heart

[Robby nz]

The Mrs (Thai) recons this is all a sham to hide what is going on behind the scenes with the marine boundary and I agree with her.

That is where the value is, in oil, not in a little bit of ground.

Once the lines in the sea have been drawn, which cant be seen easily, and the oil leases have been let to the Taksen or Hunsin oil exploration company and on sold to a legitimate exploration Co for a huge profit then the temple dispute can be put to bed.

Money beats national pride, face, every time.

[rubl]

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Surapong Tovichakchaikul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education Phongtep Tepkanjana, and Air Chief Marshal Sukumpol Suwanatat, Minister of Defence, held a press conference to brief the media on the main points in Cambodias oral arguments as follows: ... Cambodia also attempted to show that Cambodia and Thailand interpret the judgment differently ...

A difference in interpretation, really? We need three ministers to fly to the Hague to tell us that? And here I was thinking Ms. Yingluck handpicked her cabinet on knowledge, capabilities, potential and suitability.

[Sing_Sling]

And here I was thinking Ms. Yingluck handpicked her cabinet on knowledge, capabilities, potential and suitability.

Fool!

[whybother]

Thai at Heart, on 16 Apr 2013 - 14:06, said:

vi·cin·i·ty

/vəˈsinətē/

Noun

The area near or surrounding a particular place.

Hmmmm. Not easy to get round that one I think

Given that the disputed area is about 4 times as big as the temple area, and is not actually surrounding it, I don't think this definition makes it very clear.

[soi41]

Where have we heard that one before ? You can own the building, but not the land it is sitting on!!

[whybother]

Where have we heard that one before ? You can own the building, but not the land it is sitting on!!

Except that this isn't about the land that temple is sitting on.

[webfact]

Thailand targets 4-point strategy in ICJ defence
By Digital Media



BANGKOK, April 16 – Thailand will defend its national integrity tomorrow at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague in the ongoing dispute over territory at historic Phra Viharn (Preah Vihear) temple. Thailand will emphasise its position that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) lacks jurisdiction to give a verdict on the dispute, which has been ruled upon previously, a senior Thai Foreign Ministry official said today.

Krairawee Sirikul, Treaties and Legal Affairs Department deputy director general, said the Thai legal team will also base its defence on its contention that Cambodia has no right to appeal the earlier ICJ ruling and that Thailand has completely abided by the ICJ verdict.

Another point to be raised in tomorrow’s oral statement by Thailand is a reference to the ICJ’s 1962 ruling which decided that Phra Viharn (Preah Vihear) temple belonged to Cambodia without any mention of the border demarcation.


Thailand and Cambodia have engaged in a bitter dispute on the ownership over a plot of land, covering 4.6 sq km, surrounding the 11th century temple.

Cambodia said in its oral statement on Monday that it wanted the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling so as to end the long-standing conflict. Thailand, however, insisted that the ICJ is not authorised to do so. (MCOT online news)


-- TNA 2013-04-16

[Sing_Sling]

Where have we heard that one before ? You can own the building, but not the land it is sitting on!!

[Thait Spot]

Namhong- the Thais don't know how to defend this.

Surapong- we have all the right answers.

Someone's mush will be going south methinks.

[Thai at Heart]

Cambodia said in its oral statement on Monday that it wanted the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling so as to end the long-standing conflict. Thailand, however, insisted that the ICJ is not authorised to do so. (MCOT online news)

The ICJ can't interpret it's own ruling. Interesting idea.

[hellodolly]

Cambodia said in its oral statement on Monday that it wanted the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling so as to end the long-standing conflict. Thailand, however, insisted that the ICJ is not authorised to do so. (MCOT online news)

The ICJ can't interpret it's own ruling. Interesting idea.

Thai logic

[Thai at Heart]

Cambodia said in its oral statement on Monday that it wanted the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling so as to end the long-standing conflict. Thailand, however, insisted that the ICJ is not authorised to do so. (MCOT online news)

The ICJ can't interpret it's own ruling. Interesting idea.

Thai logic

Amazing legal logic. Interpreting what was meant should clarify any misunderstanding, but the Thai case stands that they aren't able to interpret their own decision?

That doesn't sound like a strong legal argument to me, IMHO.

[Sing_Sling]

Cambodia said in its oral statement on Monday that it wanted the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling so as to end the long-standing conflict. Thailand, however, insisted that the ICJ is not authorised to do so. (MCOT online news)

The ICJ can't interpret it's own ruling. Interesting idea.

Thai logic

Amazing legal logic. Interpreting what was meant should clarify any misunderstanding, but the Thai case stands that they aren't able to interpret their own decision?

That doesn't sound like a strong legal argument to me, IMHO.

You falang, no understand Thai way