In pleading Thailand’s case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) during the oral hearing held pursuant to Cambodia’s request for provisional measures on 30 May 2011, Professor James Crawford, one of Thailand’s international legal counsels, described why the Court lacks jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures in this case.  Citing references to other cases the Court has considered, he stated that the Court should not order provisional measures to protect the rights in any dispute other than that related to the judgment earlier made by the Court in the principal case, which in this case means the interpretation of the judgment that has become final.  The Court has no jurisdiction to engage in an examination of the situation whether the parties had implemented the judgment as enforcement of the judgment is under the purview of the United Nations Security Council.

Professor Crawford further recalled that the 1962 judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Phra Viharn relates only to the Temple proper. The Court rejected Cambodia’s submission for the Court to rule on the legal status of the Annex I map and the frontier line between Thailand and Cambodia in the disputed area.  The Court decided that the case pertained only to the sovereignty over the Temple and not to the boundary.

Professor Crawford, referring to precedents in other cases, said that in an interpretation case, the Court would usually refrain from interpreting any facts other than those stated in the existing case.  It would also refrain from examining new facts arising subsequent to its judgment.  He added that Cambodia’s claim on the issue of urgency in requesting for indication of provisional measures seeks to adjudicate incidents taking place far away from the Temple of Phra Viharn and after the judgment of 1962.  It therefore falls outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction to indicate the provisional measures as requested by Cambodia. In addition, Professor Crawford stressed that the Court’s power in making interpretations does not include examination of a situation whether the parties concerned have acted in accordance with its order.  However, Cambodia’s submission in actuality intends to claim that Thailand has not complied with the judgment on the basis of the incidents that occurred several decades after the judgment was passed.  The said submission therefore falls outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.

****************
30 May 2011