Thailand Trying To Block Cambodia's Appeal for 1962 ICJ Ruling Reinterpretation

1 June 2011 -- Cambodia Express News
Original in Khmer by Panhavoan

 During the two-day hearing at the International Court of Justice [ICJ] in The Hague, Thailand attempted to block the process so that the court would reject Cambodia's appeal for the reinterpretation of the 1962 ruling on Preah Vihear Temple. Following the 30 May hearing, the first day when both sides presented their arguments, during the hearing on 31 May, the second day of the hearing, the two sides were responding to each other's arguments.

Yesterday Cambodia was given one hour to answer to the arguments made by the Thai side on 30 May. Thailand also had one hour in the afternoon to answer to Cambodia's arguments.

In its arguments, Thailand said that Cambodia was the one who attacked Thailand first and that it was a peace-lover who did not want to bully Cambodia. On this point Cambodia retorted that if Thailand was a peace-loving country or a victim of Cambodia's aggression, why did Thailand always refuse to accept the mechanisms to resolve the problem peacefully? Thailand has rejected the UN Security Council, ASEAN or the ICJ as a mechanism for resolving the dispute. It has rejected even the Indonesian observers meant to monitor the cease-fire. Is this the position of a peace-lover and victim? As for Cambodia, it has sought all mechanisms in order to resolve the problem peacefully with the participation of a third party whereas Thailand has rejected them.

In the second point, Thailand argued that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was proof showing that Cambodia also had the same position as Thailand that the 1962 verdict dealt with the temple only and did not determine the border line. It was because the court ruling did not determine the border line that Cambodia and Thailand signed the 2000 MOU to demarcate the border. Therefore, Cambodia and Thailand have no dispute over the meaning of the 1962 verdict and, therefore, the ICJ has no jurisdiction to judge Cambodia's appeal for reinterpretation.

On this point Cambodia responded that the 2000 MOU was signed not to demarcate the border. It was signed to plant the border posts, meaning that the border already existed or was already on the maps, but not yet marked with border posts. It was for this reason that Cambodia signed the agreement with Thailand to plant the posts. Cambodia also submitted a copy of the 2000 MOU to the judges so that they could examine the content of the MOU themselves.

On another point, Thailand said that Cambodia invented the dispute over the meaning and extent of the 1962 ruling. In reality, there is no dispute that needs court reinterpretation. Thailand further said that the court order for Thailand to pull all its troops and armed forces from Preah Vihear Temple and its surrounding area was implemented at the time when the verdict was issued only; it is not Thailand's duty to implement this order consistently until the present.

On this point Cambodia appeared to have the easiest answer ready because what Thailand said sufficiently meant that Thailand and Cambodia have had a difference of opinion over the meaning of the 1962 Hague ICJ verdict. In other words, Cambodia holds that this verdict remains valid to these days while Thailand thinks that it was valid only at the time when this ruling was made. This is sufficient reason for the court to reinterpret the verdict.

Concerning the appeal for urgent measures, Thailand also attempted to claim that there was no situation that warranted the court to take immediate measures because there were no more clashes at Preah Vihear Temple. There were some clashes at the temples of Ta Krabei and Ta Moan, a long distant from Preah Vihear Temple. Therefore, Cambodia's request for urgent measures is groundless.

On this point Cambodia responded that when Cambodia filed a complaint to the ICJ in The Hague in April and May armed clashes were reported in the Preah Vihear Temple region with Thailand sending jet fighters to overfly Cambodian airspace and firing artillery shells into the Preah Vihear Temple region. Therefore, Cambodia's request for urgent measures to protect the Preah Vihear Temple region fully falls under the jurisdiction of the ICJ, which must take action.

It should be noted that this is a complaint requesting urgent measures but the Thai side had very few arguments against this issue. It instead spent a lot of time talking about the request for reinterpreting the verdict. Therefore, Thailand's objective is to block the reinterpretation of the 1962 verdict because this is a very sensitive and dangerous issue for it. Now, we are waiting to see how the court will decide on this issue.