ICJ begins reading verdict of Preah Vihear dispute

[diehard60]

"The President would read 20 minutes in French and later 40 minutes in English, the conclusion that all of us like to hear would made at the end only one paragraph, perhaps, in French and English."

This person that wrote this for The Nation really needs to go back to school and learn how to write.

But anyway getting back to the real meat of this, it looks like there might be more conflicts in that area soon.

[LUSHGOAT]

Hi sorry to post here but my friend is getting married in Cambodia and he hasn't got a clue as to what to do so can someone please give me some information how much does it cost in the registry office and what he requires like document etc.

[Sing_Sling]

Outrage!

European imperialists created this problem, and now their kangaroo court attempts to rob Thailand of what is clearly its own.

It is absurd that the massive plateau and promontory on which Preah Vihar rests is everywhere part of Thailand except somehow for just this tiny sliver of land on which the temple sits. How long could,say, a similar Laotian claim to land south of the Mekong endure similar ridicule? Well, the topographical features at Preah Vihar are arguably even more pronounced than those of the mighty Mekong.

The high plateau is everywhere Thailand and must remain so. The Thais make no claim to the land beneath the plateau, and nor would Kampuchea be making its absurd claims to the land above if it hadnt been for European interference in local affairs.

Nor is there no logic to the argument that some put forward that because the Khmer built the temple it should belong to them. Is the beautiful Khmer temple at Panom Rung, kilometers not meters inside Thai territory, now also to be given to Kampuchea because it was built by the Khmer? Nor is the fact that the temple faces north an argument for Thai sovereignty. Topography alone is the historical basis of the frontier, and this dispute is the result of a cartographical sleight of hand made by the French imperialists.

Let us hope that Thailand will immediately reject this outrage from the Europeans and remind them that the dispute has its origins in French colonial mischief. Then we might hope that Thailand would invite Kampuchea to negotiations on allowing its citizens access to the temple.

My sympathies go to the Thai people and government who are forced to suffer this unwarranted affront to their national dignity. Let us hope that this outrage brings together all elements of Thai society in unified opposition to meddling by outsiders.

Outsiders are not meddling. The ICJ was asked by both Thailand and Cambidia to rule on their territorial dispute.

Only Cambodia asked.

Point remains . . . or do you advocate taking matters in to their own hands rather than have an international court handle it?

Thais are good at that

[harrry]

European imperialists created this problem, and now their kangaroo court attempts to rob Thailand of what is clearly its own.

Troll nonsense. Had a few Changs, have you?

The judgment of the Court was unanimous. So, to choose one of the numerous non-Europeans judges who might have dissented, Judge Xue Hanqin of China is a European imperialist lackey.

If it was unanimous how come there were three disenting judgements attached

[whybother]

Point remains . . . or do you advocate taking matters in to their own hands rather than have an international court handle it?

Thais are good at that

I am not advocating anything. I am just pointing out that Thailand didn't ask the ICJ to rule on the dispute. That doesn't mean that Thailand shouldn't accept the ruling.

[whybother]

European imperialists created this problem, and now their kangaroo court attempts to rob Thailand of what is clearly its own.

Troll nonsense. Had a few Changs, have you?

The judgment of the Court was unanimous. So, to choose one of the numerous non-Europeans judges who might have dissented, Judge Xue Hanqin of China is a European imperialist lackey.

If it was unanimous how come there were three disenting judgements attached

I think this ruling was unanimous. The 1962 ruling wasn't and had three dissenting judges.

[harrry]

European imperialists created this problem, and now their kangaroo court attempts to rob Thailand of what is clearly its own.

Troll nonsense. Had a few Changs, have you?

The judgment of the Court was unanimous. So, to choose one of the numerous non-Europeans judges who might have dissented, Judge Xue Hanqin of China is a European imperialist lackey.

If it was unanimous how come there were three disenting judgements attached

I think this ruling was unanimous. The 1962 ruling wasn't and had three dissenting judges.

Sorry you are correct.

[Sing_Sling]

If it was unanimous how come there were three disenting judgements attached

I think this ruling was unanimous. The 1962 ruling wasn't and had three dissenting judges.

It was unanimous, Harrry - check any sources you like (but please confine yourself to this millenium:

In a unanimous decision, the International Court of Justice said that a 1962 ruling by its judges gave Cambodia sovereignty over the Preah Vihear promontory. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1353343/cambodia-thailand-await-ruling-preah-vihear-temple-row

The unanimous ruling by the 17 judges of the world court says all of the raised land on which the ancient Khmer Hindu temple sits belongs to Cambodia. http://www.voanews.com/content/un-awards-disputed-temple-site-to-cambodia/1787655.html

[Sing_Sling]

Oops, a bit late - sorry, Harrrrry

[harrry]

It was unanimous, Harrry - check any sources you like (but please confine yourself to this millenium:

In a unanimous decision, the International Court of Justice said that a 1962 ruling by its judges gave Cambodia sovereignty over the Preah Vihear promontory. http://www.scmp.com/news/asia/article/1353343/cambodia-thailand-await-ruling-preah-vihear-temple-row

The unanimous ruling by the 17 judges of the world court says all of the raised land on which the ancient Khmer Hindu temple sits belongs to Cambodia. http://www.voanews.com/content/un-awards-disputed-temple-site-to-cambodia/1787655.html

Judges OWADA, BENNOUNA and GAJA append a joint declaration to the Judgment of the

Court; Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;

Judges ad hoc GUILLAUME and COT append declarations to the Judgment of the Court.

[Time Traveller]

2 countries having a stand-off about a promontory rock with a few old buildings......... how primitive! Just a minute! Doesn't that ring a bell? Well at least here the 2 countries are neighbours.......

No that was decided 50 years ago. The temple belongs to Cambodia. They were just disputing the land nearby the temple which is what is decision by the ICJ was about.

[jybkk]

Judges OWADA, BENNOUNA and GAJA append a joint declaration to the Judgment of the

Court; Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;

Judges ad hoc GUILLAUME and COT append declarations to the Judgment of the Court.

If you read these declarations, they give their personal perspective and explain why they agree with the decision of the court.

[SuwadeeS]

I bet, Thailand makes trouble, again.

[dighambara]

No surprise - just Eurpoeans ruling in favor of Europeans without regard to the reality that nearly half of present day Cambodia was Siam until 1909 and Angkor was inside Siam for five and a half centuries before the French gave it to Cambodia, OFFICIALLY, in 1953.

[dighambara]

I was living in Phnom Penh in 2003 when a Thai actress (can't remember her name) publicly said that Thailand should own the temple because at least they know how to exploit it for tourism.

That night, every business identifiable as Thai, was burnt to the ground, with the exception of the Bangkok Bakery. It was in an out of the way location so was spared. Tanks were on the street, and gunfire went on right throughout the night.

Just reflects Cambodian ignorance, because France held those provinces as Protectorate of Siam untim 1953, when they were given to Cambodia - OFFICIALLY.

Until 1909, Siam Reap and Siam Pang were Siamese border posts.

The French and Anamese forced Cambodian to flee from their homes at the mouth of the Mekong and they moved into Siam around Talay Sap and Prah Tabong (Battambang), eventually coming to believe they were living in Cambodia and not Siam.

This was just anothe win for French lies about the area and it's history.

[whybother]

No surprise - just Eurpoeans ruling in favor of Europeans without regard to the reality that nearly half of present day Cambodia was Siam until 1909 and Angkor was inside Siam for five and a half centuries before the French gave it to Cambodia, OFFICIALLY, in 1953.

The current border was agreed upon between the French and Thai in 1904. Well, mostly agreed, anyway.

[Sing_Sling]

It was unanimous, Harrry - check any sources you like (but please confine yourself to this millenium:

The unanimous ruling by the 17 judges of the world court says all of the raised land on which the ancient Khmer Hindu temple sits belongs to Cambodia. http://www.voanews.com/content/un-awards-disputed-temple-site-to-cambodia/1787655.html

Judges OWADA, BENNOUNA and GAJA append a joint declaration to the Judgment of the

Court; Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;

Judges ad hoc GUILLAUME and COT append declarations to the Judgment of the Court.

You're saying that it wasn't a unanimous ruling?

[Sing_Sling]

No surprise - just Eurpoeans ruling in favor of Europeans without regard to the reality that nearly half of present day Cambodia was Siam until 1909 and Angkor was inside Siam for five and a half centuries before the French gave it to Cambodia, OFFICIALLY, in 1953.

dam_n those European judges like Tanaka (Poland) and Owada (Germany), Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Sweden) and others

Outrage!

European imperialists created this problem, and now their kangaroo court attempts to rob Thailand of what is clearly its own.

What grotesque racist nonsense.

It is the international Court of Justice - got that i-n-t-e-r-n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l - not European.

A give away can be seen in the names of the judges - Hisashi Owada , Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf .

Of the 13 current judges only 3 (three) are European.

A country has no 'right' to all of any particular geological feature - Switzerland has no 'right' to the Alps.

You're related to earthpig?

Edited November 12, 2013 by Sing_Sling

[harrry]

It was unanimous, Harrry - check any sources you like (but please confine yourself to this millenium:

The unanimous ruling by the 17 judges of the world court says all of the raised land on which the ancient Khmer Hindu temple sits belongs to Cambodia. http://www.voanews.com/content/un-awards-disputed-temple-site-to-cambodia/1787655.html

Judges OWADA, BENNOUNA and GAJA append a joint declaration to the Judgment of the

Court; Judge CANÇADO TRINDADE appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court;

Judges ad hoc GUILLAUME and COT append declarations to the Judgment of the Court.

You're saying that it wasn't a unanimous ruling?

No...the ruling was unanimous...the reasons for it were not.

No matter...the ruling is by now the fact just as the ruling of the earlier court is now fact and the law even though it was probably a flawed one. Once a ruling becomes law that is what we have to live with. Just as we have to live with it when a court declares a person who killed someone not guilty of murder. The fact then is he is not a murderer.

That is the reason for courts..to draw a line.

[Lakegeneve]

OK... so this is really good... I've now read the entire six pages of this thread thus far, and have yet to see anything more than speculation about just how much territory of the disputed 4.6 kilometer area that was before the court has been awarded to Cambodia, and how much was left out of the ruling.

It's clear the court limited its ruling for Cambodia to the temple itself and the "promontory" area where the temple is located, as defined by the court in various descriptive terms. But was all of that promontory area part of the disputed 4.6 kilometers, and if so, how much area in kilometers did that definition represent?

As best as I can tell from reading this, the court didn't award Thailand anything -- just awarded the temple and its promontory area to Cambodia, and left the remaining areas out of its ruling. So presumably that leaves some part of the border area still as an unresolved dispute between the two countries.

I see the BKK Post is saying "most" of the 4.6 square kilo area originally under dispute was left unresolved by the court. After subtracting the temple and its promontory, I wonder just how much is left unresolved.

An not unreasonable query to ask though it is one that cannot be answered at all until the implementation of the ICJ decision upon final demarcation of the border. I think that Sheryl answered the question most appropriately in post #116;

Not correct. (1) The temple was not in contention at all. The court clearly rules in 1962 that it belonged to Cambodia, case closed. (2) The land around it - some has been adjucated as belonging to to Cambodia, using the natural features of the mountain promontory as the deciding factor, and the rest was not ruled on as the IJC confined themselves to an interpretation of the original 1962 ruling. (Thailand had tried to claim the ruling referred solely to the temple buildings and not to any land around it). The IJC ruled that the initial ruling extended to the entire promontory on which the temple sits but does nto cover the surrounding valleys nor an adjacent hill.

So basically neither side scored a total victory. The ruling was nuanced and, to my eyes, quite reasonable.

On the territorial boundary part of the decision the ICJ asked to give some clarity and meaning to the use of the term "vicinity" in the 1962 judgement and to what extent that determined the territorial boundary. (Remember, the main issue here for Cambodia is the stationing of armed Thai personnel near or adjacent to the Temple and whether they are within Cambodian territory).

This BBC map gives an outline of the overlapping claims by both states (there is a better Post one but I can't post it)

This map is of a more appropriate scale of the main area of the promontory with contours which is more useful

The court has articulated the main geophysical features that confine the territorial boundary, in essence the whole of the promontory that the temple is built upon as Sherly has succinctly stated. The court didn't accept Cambodias assertion claiming the area west and north of the hill Phanom Trap. Thus the border will be in an area in the small inclined valley between these two main geophysical features. (read para 98)

As one TV member stated it essentially gives Cambodia suitable access to the promontory and temple. Which ideally it should in order to manage this World Heritage site.

It is important to understand that the court has not definitely established the demarcation boundary, that is for both states to determine in accordance with the courts decision. The implementation of the the demarcation should be via the JBC process but I note that the PM stated last night that a special inter governmental forum will be established to implement this decision.

As such, it would be both problematic and foolish to guess exactly how much of the disputed 4.6sq km has been awarded to either state until implementation of the decision is conducted via demarcation. I note one poster thought it was about 1 sqkm but it is sort of needless to guess at this stage.

I'm loath to post a map which has no official status but this may give some approximation of the area where the border may be fixed (ignore actual markings on the map and don't use them as any definitive representation of the decision, they are only a general guide - though useful as they show the contours of the area between the promontory and the hill to the west;

Again none of these maps are official,don't interpret the black line in the right map above as being the outcome of the courts decision. That outcome awaits the states to demarcate the border.

The main point is that both states can now progress this issue, hopefully get beyond the unfortunate politics and nationalist stupidity that has been allowed to divert a technical process of demarcation. Given the established Joint Border Committee framework the process of demarcating the border will hopefully continue

I think that it is very important to note that the ICJ reminded the parties of their obligations, "Once a dispute

regarding territorial sovereignty has been resolved and uncertainty removed, each party must fulfil

in good faith the obligation which all States have to respect the territorial integrity of all other

States. Likewise, the Parties have a duty to settle any dispute between them by peaceful means." (Para 105)

Likewsie the court made reference to both states obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

[kannot]

On the other hand..................

The whole decision is based on a french Colonial Map of 1902.

Knowing the French (and British) colonial doings in Asia, Africa and he Middle East one can not escape getting the idea the French did a bummer for Thailand.

Moreover, looking at the map, one can not escape the second idea the border line as drawn on that French map indicates something fishy going on.

At least the French and Brits can read a map.....................ask a Thai directions

[jpinx]

......................

The court has articulated the main geophysical features that confine the territorial boundary, in essence the whole of the promontory that the temple is built upon as Sherly has succinctly stated. The court didn't accept Cambodias assertion claiming the area west and north of the hill Phanom Trap. Thus the border will be in an area in the small inclined valley between these two main geophysical features. (read para 98)

As one TV member stated it essentially gives Cambodia suitable access to the promontory and temple. Which ideally it should in order to manage this World Heritage site.

It is important to understand that the court has not definitely established the demarcation boundary, that is for both states to determine in accordance with the courts decision. The implementation of the the demarcation should be via the JBC process but I note that the PM stated last night that a special inter governmental forum will be established to implement this decision.

As such, it would be both problematic and foolish to guess exactly how much of the disputed 4.6sq km has been awarded to either state until implementation of the decision is conducted via demarcation. I note one poster thought it was about 1 sqkm but it is sort of needless to guess at this stage.

I'm loath to post a map which has no official status but this may give some approximation of the area where the border may be fixed (ignore actual markings on the map and don't use them as any definitive representation of the decision, they are only a general guide - though useful as they show the contours of the area between the promontory and the hill to the west;

Again none of these maps are official,don't interpret the black line in the right map above as being the outcome of the courts decision. That outcome awaits the states to demarcate the border.

The main point is that both states can now progress this issue, hopefully get beyond the unfortunate politics and nationalist stupidity that has been allowed to divert a technical process of demarcation. Given the established Joint Border Committee framework the process of demarcating the border will hopefully continue

I think that it is very important to note that the ICJ reminded the parties of their obligations, "Once a dispute

regarding territorial sovereignty has been resolved and uncertainty removed, each party must fulfil

in good faith the obligation which all States have to respect the territorial integrity of all other

States. Likewise, the Parties have a duty to settle any dispute between them by peaceful means." (Para 105)

Likewsie the court made reference to both states obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

OK -- Here's my take - based on the ruling and the topography

The promontory is the land above a certain contour surrounding the temple, and the line then drops down into the valley before the next hill, as per the ICJ description

Edited November 13, 2013 by jpinx

[JosteinSetsaas]

Kun Suthep and Abhisit, how long is it since Thailan has Ben involved in a real war?

The "temple war" against Cambodia, only being ment as a minor test of power, and this before conducting their real war, and up against a huge majority of their "fellow" country men.

[Jip99]

Kun Suthep and Abhisit, how long is it since Thailan has Ben involved in a real war?

The "temple war" against Cambodia, only being ment as a minor test of power, and this before conducting their real war, and up against a huge majority of their "fellow" country men.

You dragged up a 2 month old thread just to spout that bullsh!t...... you have chosen any number of current threads on which to have your pointless and inaccurate rant.

[theslime]

Kun Suthep and Abhisit, how long is it since Thailan has Ben involved in a real war?

The "temple war" against Cambodia, only being ment as a minor test of power, and this before conducting their real war, and up against a huge majority of their "fellow" country men.

You dragged up a 2 month old thread just to spout that bullsh!t...... you have chosen any number of current threads on which to have your pointless and inaccurate rant.

Harsh but true

[JoeLing]

Kun Suthep and Abhisit, how long is it since Thailan has Ben involved in a real war?

The "temple war" against Cambodia, only being ment as a minor test of power, and this before conducting their real war, and up against a huge majority of their "fellow" country men.

Who the <deleted> is "Ben" ?

This is the second thread you mentioned this 'Ben"

So who is he? Thai? Norwegian?

[bigbamboo]

Kun Suthep and Abhisit, how long is it since Thailan has Ben involved in a real war?

The "temple war" against Cambodia, only being ment as a minor test of power, and this before conducting their real war, and up against a huge majority of their "fellow" country men.

Who the <deleted> is "Ben" ?

This is the second thread you mentioned this 'Ben"

So who is he? Thai? Norwegian?

The only Ben I know about in Thailand is Jinger Ben but we only ever hear from him at Christmas.