On 17 April 2013 in The Hague, after the second day of public hearings in the Case Concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) at the International Court of Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, and the Minister of Defence, gave a press interview on Thailand’s oral pleadings to the Court.  Gist is as follows:

• Thailand believes that its oral arguments today could comprehensively and convincingly rebut Cambodia’s pleadings on 15 April 2013.
• Thailand’s foreign legal counsel and experts successfully emphasized the country’s arguments and provided additional evidence to convince the Court that Cambodia’s request for interpretation is in fact a disguised appeal, asking the Court to adjudicate that the Thai-Cambodian boundary line in the disputed area must follow the “Annex I map” line, a submission which the Court had expressly rejected in the 1962 Judgment.  Moreover, the legal counsel and experts underscored that there is indeed no dispute with regard to the scope and meaning of the 1962 Judgment and that Thailand has fulfilled all legal obligations prescribed by the Court in the original case.  In fact, Cambodia has officially accepted Thailand’s implementation of the Judgment on several occasions.  The recent conflict is a boundary dispute which both Parties should settle through their Joint Border Committee (JBC).
• Judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, a member of the Court, asked both Thailand and Cambodia to indicate the precise territorial extent that each of the Parties considers to be the “vicinity” of the Temple. Each party should answer the question by providing a set of geographical coordinates or by referring to one of the maps which were produced before the Court in the original proceedings.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister said that Thailand was not worried about Judge Yusuf’s request because its position had always been clear. 

The Ambassador to the Hague and Thailand’s Agent said that Judge Yusuf’s question to the Parties was not on behalf of the Court. He noted that it was quite common in international dispute settlement bodies for judges to request additional information from the parties.  While waiting for the question to be submitted in writing through the Court’s Registrar, the legal team would hold consultations to prepare Thailand’s response.

************************************