REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
ICJ verdict: Implications for Thailand
Kavi Chongkittavorn

BANGKOK: -- A week has elapsed after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) announced its verdict. The good news is there is no war between Thailand and Cambodia. But the bad news is it could happen anytime. Meanwhile the only consolidation news comes from the paragraph 99 of the ICJ decision that both sides oblige to implement the ruling in "good faith" and avoid imposing a "unilateral" solution. That much was clear.

However, given historical enmity and nationalist extremism between them, their future ties are fraught with myriad of uncertainties that can directly impact on the overall efforts to fulfill the verdict.

First and foremost, their bilateral relations must be cordial and firm enough before any real negotiation could start. Even if this process gets started in the near future, it could be easily dragged on forever. Unless, both sides have stable governments and sufficient incentives to move forward and complete the implementation within a mutually agreed time-frame.

The ICJ ruled that Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole promontory of Preah Vihear or Pra Viharn in Thai. As such, the judgment also rejected the unilateral line drawn by the Thai Council of Minister in July 1962 to limit the temple's vicinity. The court also rejected Cambodia's use of the so-called Annex 1 map to define the limits of the promontory. The court admitted that it would be difficult to give a precise location of such area on the ground. Therefore, it is incumbent for both countries to work out a resolution regarding their border line. It would take the combined wisdoms of both nations and cultures at all levels to overcome this formidable task.

On the Thai part, the withdrawal of the Thai troops from the "promontory" would be the main focus. Before the decision can be implemented, officials from both sides have to sit down and work out the exact location — the bone of contention for the past 51 years. Before the ICJ decision, both countries pledged clearly that they would accept the ICJ ruling to further strengthen their bilateral ties. But there were no details.

However, without hours after the announcement, there were subtle changes in positions. Before the judgment day, Foreign Minister Surapong Tohvijakchaikul and his Cambodian counterpart Ho Nam Hong agreed they would abstain from any comment on the ICJ ruling to avoid stirring up public sentiments. However, the Cambodian government's spokesman, Khieu Kantharith, was first to declare victory over the ruling, drawing an immediate response from Thailand. With growing domestic pressure inside the country, the Thai senior officials, both civilians and uniformed, began to shift their positions whether to accept the outcome. Certain Thai quarters even came out with a strong rejection.

As days passed, domestic exigency in Cambodia and Thailand have forced their respective governments to come forth with their interpretations. For Cambodia, the Preah Vihear case does not carry explosive outcomes as its western neighbor. Prime Minister Hun Sen's comment after the ruling was viewed positively in Bangkok. Given his present political standing inside his country, he would not be able to capitalize on the ICJ ruling as much as he hopes for. If the Cambodian People's Party won the July election with a bigger margin and without charges of rigged-voting, his political aura would dramatically increase. After all, he brought the case to the ICJ in 2011 and challenged the Thais.

It is imperative that Thailand implements the decision to show the country's genuine adherence to international rule of law and good neighborliness. It does not matter how long the negotiating process would take as long as Thailand pursues this pacifist path. Some international law experts and diplomats have already commented that this would be time-consuming process and nearly an impossible task.

The stake is extremely high for the Yingluck government. In the past two years, the government put out frequent public relations campaigns to advertise Thailand as a democracy and a reliable member of the international community. Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore dutifully complied with the ICJ decisions to settle their overlapping claims of territorial sovereignty. From an Asean point of view, it is a good precedence.

Any delay or avoidance of implementation of the ICJ ruling would reflect badly on Thailand and stability in the region. It would also undermine Bangkok's bid for a non-permanent seat at the UN Security Council in 2016. Bangkok must learn from Phnom Penh, which failed to win the council's seat last October. One contributing factor was due to the country's dismal records of adhering to international rule of law.

For the time being, the status quo of contested but peaceful border must be maintained as both countries have serious domestic challenges at hand to settle. Hun Sen has not yet reconciled with the opposition party and his nemesis, Sam Rainsy, which has boycotted the National Assembly. In Thailand, the future of Yingluck government is also uncertain. Negotiation over border demarcation between countries, especially with an arch enemy, can only proceed with confident ruling governments in place!


-- The Nation 2013-11-18

Similar situation to some plastic chairs in front of shop house parking space in Pattaya.

The reality that the ruling has been reported everywhere except Thailand as a victory for Cambodia is slowly sinking in. The court confirmed that its 1962 ruling was based on the perception that Thailand had accepted the Annex 1 map that shows the temple in Cambodian territory. There was no ruling on the rest of the disputed 4.6 sq km because Cambodian didn't ask for one in 1959 and must hugely regret that now because the court would almost certainly have ruled that the entire 4.6 sq km was in Cambodia using the same principle of Thailand's acceptance of the Annex 1 map that shows all of it as in Cambodia. Thailand now has to give up the hill the temple stands on down to the valley on North and Northwest sides of the temple which could be up to 2 sq km and has to negotiate the rest from a position of weakness now that its historic acceptance of the Annex 1 map has been confirmed as the overarching legal principle. Methinks they will try to kick the can down the road and have endless border demarcation commission talks with Cambodia to try to perpetuate the myth that they won.

The strong argument of difficulties of pinpointing geographical features on 1907 map the Thai legal team used as the main basis of its case was rather pointless, since it is obvious that they didn't have modern survey and cartographical tools in those days. Nevertheless the Annex 1 map clearly assigned the vast majority of the disputed area to Cambodia.

I read the original IJC declaration in English.

Farang and instructed Thai gave a lot of different interpretations.

No way for me to clear.

I read the original IJC declaration in English.

Farang and instructed Thai gave a lot of different interpretations.

No way for me to clear.

I read the Thai version. It did say that the temple was Cambodia, but never rule on the land which the temple sat. The Siam-French agreement was using the watershed, hence Thailand win the land.

In this ruling, ICJ refuse to rule again, hence Thailand still own the land where the temple is situated.

That is the problem with a court decision, any court decision for that matter, they always speak in such a complicated jargon that nobody, including themselves, is able to understand what they actually decided.

Blow the thing up and be done with it. Take the toy away from the children who do not know how to share!