On 30 May 2011 from 16.00-18.00 hrs., the Thai legal team pleaded before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague on the first day of the oral hearings on Cambodia’s request submitted on 28 April 2011 for indication of provisional measures, pending the Court’s consideration of the request for the interpretation of its 1962 judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Phra Viharn.

The presentation began with H.E. Mr. Virachai Plasai, Thailand’s Ambassador to the Netherlands in his capacity as Agent of the Kingdom of Thailand, providing an overview of Thailand’s policy and position as well as the political context pertaining to the Thai-Cambodian relations.  His presentation was followed by Thailand’s three legal counsels, namely: (1) Professor Alain Pellet, who pointed out that the Temple case of 1962 was not related to the issue of the boundary line, and that since Thailand had duly complied with the ICJ judgment, there would be no issue requiring interpretation; (2) Professor James Crawford, who discussed the issue of jurisdiction of the Court and observed that Cambodia’s requests for interpretation and for indication of provisional measures falls outside the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction; and (3) Professor Donald M. McRae, who examined why Cambodia’s request for indication of provisional measures does not satisfy the Court’s criteria, having no urgency or imminence to justify, pointing out also that Cambodia’s request was unbalanced and highlighted progress made on the ground, including on the issue of dispatch of Indonesian Observers Team to the Thai side of the border.

In his opening address, the Thai Ambassador to the Netherlands made the following key points:

1. Thailand, as a good member of the United Nations, has accepted and duly complied with the ICJ judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Phra Viharn since 1962, despite its disagreement and the traumatic and controversial nature of the said judgment in Thai society.   

2. The ICJ judgment of 1962 was about territorial sovereignty over the Temple, not the boundary line.  Over the years, Cambodia has accepted the line showing the limit of the vicinity of the Temple in accordance with the Thai Cabinet decision of 10 July 1962 to implement the Court’s judgment.  No protest from Cambodia had been registered for over 40 years.  It was only very recently that Cambodia has begun to challenge this limit when it started moving to have the Temple inscribed on the World Heritage List.  Furthermore, Cambodia has previously accepted that the boundary between the two countries must be jointly determined through bilateral negotiations, as the two countries signed the Memorandum of Understanding on Survey and Demarcation for Land Boundary on 14 June 2000 with a view to demarcating the entire stretch of the common land boundary, including the area of the Temple of Phra Viharn.

3. Thailand has always wished to live in peace with Cambodia and has made every effort to maintain good relations on the basis of cooperation and trust.  It has no reason to wage war with Cambodia.  Over the years, especially since the 1962 judgment, Thailand has played an active role in promoting peace in Cambodia, culminating in the Paris Peace Agreement of 1991.  It also supported Cambodia’s admission into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 1999 and has been promoting integration of Cambodia, as a new member, into the Association.  It has developed cooperation with Cambodia in various bilateral and sub-regional frameworks, including the Greater Mekong Sub-region (GMS) ad the Ayeyawady-Chao Phraya-Mekong Economic Cooperation Strategy (ACMECS).  Even after anti-Thai riots in Phnom Penh in January 2003, which resulted in the burning of the Royal Thai Embassy and looting of Thai companies in Phnom Penh, Thailand’s cooperation with and investment in Cambodia have continued to expand.

At the same time, Thailand has all along maintained a foreign policy seeking to resolve disputes peacefully through diplomatic means.  It was one of the first countries to join the League of Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1946, and has also participated in peacekeeping operations in 21 countries, including in Cambodia between 1991 and 1993.  Thailand, therefore, has no reason to break with its long held principle.

4. Thailand did not initiate any of the clashes – neither those which took place on 4-6 February 2011 in the area around the Temple of Phra Viharn, or those on 22 April to 3 May 2011 in the area near the Ta Muen and Ta Kwai Temples.  Rather, Thailand was unprovokedly attacked by Cambodia and had to respond by exercising its legitimate right of self defence to defend its sovereignty and protect its civilians who had become targets by Cambodian forces.  Its response has been with restraint and proportionality in accordance with international law.

Regarding the incidents around the Temple of Phra Viharn, Cambodia conducted military operations and carried out attacks from the Temple.  This was in violation of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 1954, to which Cambodia is a State Party.  An examination of the chronology of events shows that these armed incidents in February and April-May by Cambodia were premeditated and synchronized with a well prepared political, diplomatic and media campaign.

5.  Cambodia desperately needs this part of the Thai territory to serve as a “buffer zone” required for the management of the Temple and hence completion of the inscription of the Temple as World Heritage Site.  Earlier in 2003, both governments agreed to set up a joint ministerial committee to jointly develop the site of the Temple of Phra Viharn.  The committee met once to discuss the possibility of a joint nomination of the Temple.  However, in 2004, Cambodia unilaterally nominated the Temple to be listed on the World Heritage List, without consulting the Thai side.  Cambodia also promulgated a Royal Decree in 2006 to define the scope of the Temple area with zoning encroaching into Thai territory.  Meanwhile, on the ground, Cambodia has moved to encroach into Thai territory by constructing a road, a pagoda and a community.  This has not only violated Thailand’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, but also the MOU of 2000 between the two countries.  Thailand had made several attempts at negotiation to resolve these problems with no success.  Thailand has lodged formal protests against such acts by Cambodia.  

The Temple of Phra Viharn was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 2008.  The inscription is limited to the Temple proper and Cambodia is under the obligation to submit a management plan for the World Heritage Committee’s consideration.  Over the past two years, Cambodia has been unsuccessful in obtaining the Committee’s approval of the plan because Thailand cannot accept a management plan encroaching into its territorial integrity.  The part of Thai territory claimed by Cambodia is indispensable for the successful and complete inscription of the Temple – a fact well known to both countries.  This is why Thailand has proposed, on a number of occasions, joint nomination of the Temple – the offer which has been rejected by Cambodia.
Summaries of  the addresses made by other members of the Thai legal team will be released shortly.

Statement of Thai Delegation at the oral hearing at the International Court of Justice, 30 May 2011, at the International Court of Justice
*****************

30 May 2011