International law of treaties icj case preah vihear 1961, 1962, 2013

DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM INTERNATIONAL LAW FACULTY o0o INTERNATIONAL LAW OF TREATIES ICJ CASE: PREAH VIHEAR 1961, 1962, 2013 Members Nguyen Thi Minh Chau Nguyen Thanh Dat Luong Quang Duc Tran Bao Ngoc Tran Huyen Trang Hanoi, 01, December, 2019 Contents: Overview .2 Preliminary Objections of the Government of Thailand .2 Judgement of 26 May 1961 Judgement of 15 June 1962 Judgement of 11 November 2013 1 Overview:  Fact: Preah Vihear temple was an ancient and significant temple because of its cultural and historical value It was located on the border of Thailand and Cambodia  Cambodia complained that Thailand had occupied a piece of its territory surrounding the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear  Issue: Whether Cambodia had sovereignty over the territory of preah Vihear?  Decision: Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear and that, in consequence, Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces  Treaty involved: o The Franco-Siamese Treaty of 13 February 1904 o The Franco-Siamese Treaty of 23 March 1907 o The Franco-Siamese Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of December 1937 Preliminary Objections of the Government of Thailand: Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, between Cambodia and Thailand, were instituted on October 1959 by an Application of the Government of Cambodia; the Government of Thailand halving raised two preliminary objections On behalf of the Government of Thailand, in the Preliminary Objections, ICJ, 26 May 1961 "The Government of Thailand respectfully asks the Court to declare and pronounce that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Cambodian Application of the 6th October, 1959, for the following reasons: A (i) that the Siamese declaration of the 20th September, 1929 lapsed on the dissolution of the Permanent Court of International Justice on the 19th April, 1946, and thereafter could not be renewed; (ii) that the Thai declaration of the 20th May, 1950 purported to no more than renew the said declaration of the 20th September, 1929, and so was ineffective ab initio; (iii) that consequently Thailand has never accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute B (i) that neither Thailand nor Cambodia has ever been a party to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the 26th September, 1928; (ii) that consequently the said Act does not constitute an agreement of the parties to submit the said dispute to the jurisdiction of the Court 21 TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (JUDGMENT OF 26 v 61) (iii) that Cambodia has not sought to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon the Franco-Siamese Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of the 7th December, 1937; C (i) that Cambodia is not a party to the said Treaty, nor has she succeeded to any of the rights of France thereunder; (ii) that consequently the said Treaty does not constitute an agreement of the parties to submit the said dispute to the jurisdiction of the Court." First Objection: The first objection of the Government of Thailand is that the Thai declaration of the 20th May, 1950, purporting to renew for a further period of ten years the declaration of the 20th September, 1929, by which the Siamese Government recognized as compulsory and without any special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International justice, was wholly ineffective Because the declaration of the 20th September, 1929 lapsed on the dissolution of the Permanent Court on the 19th April, 1946 and thereafter was incapable of renewal; and that, in consequence, the Government of Cambodia, when it filed its application on the 6th October, 1959, was not entitled to invoke against Thailand the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36, paragraph of the Statute Specificly, the Thai declaration of the 20th May, 1950 were based-reasoning fully set out in the Court's decision in the Israel v Bulgaria case  Bulgaria, through its admission to the United Nations, become a party to the Statute until 14 December 1955 The Declaration which Bulgana had made in 1920 accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the former Permanent Court, for an indefinite period of time, must be regarded as having lapsed on 19 April 1946, and as not having been transformed by the operation of Article 36, paragraph 5, into an acceptance relative to the present Court  So that, Bulgaria having never at any time made a declaration independently accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, it followed, on this view, that she was not bound by that jurisdiction  Thailand's first preliminary objection proceeds on the basis that position is the same as that of Bulgaria The fact that, Thailand became a Member of the United Nations, and thus a party to the Statute, on 16 December 1946 Thailand become a party to the Statute until after the demise of the former Permanent Court on 19 April 1946-namely not until16 December 1946 However, the demise of the Permanent Court earlier months, on the basis of the Court's conclusion in the Israel v Bulgaria case, have caused the lapse of Thailand's Declaration of May 1940  Thus, the document of the 20th May, 1950 could not operate to renew the declaration Second Objection The jurisdiction of the Court in the present case can only rest upon the consent of the Government of Thailand The second objection of the Government of Thailand is that such consent cannot be derived or inferred from the invocation by the Government of Cambodia (Application, para 2) of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of the 26th September, 1928  Because neither Thailand nor Cambodia has ever been a party to the Pacific Settlernent of International Disputes of the 26th September, 1928, jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Cambodian Application cannot be based on that Act  Cambodia relied on the alleged validity of several treaty provisions signed between France Cambodia claimed that it has the right to request benefits from some of these provisions, specificly judicial settlement of any disputes related to the current case (including the terms to appeal to ICJ)  Cambodia is not a party to the Franco-Siamese Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of the 7th December, 1937 Cambodia has not succeeded to any of the rights of France under that Treaty  Therefore, the Treaty does not constitute an agreement of the parties to submit the said dispute to the jurisdiction of the Court Judgement of 26 May 1961 20 May 1950, Thailand made a declaration which is attempting to renew an expired declaration to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice a) In the judgement, it is related that in the Case of Bulgaria v Israel, on 19 April 1946, the Permanent Court has been demised => The Court concluded all declaration in acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court which has been transformed to the acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Present Court were no longer in force  In the present case, Thailand's first preliminary objection proceeds on the basis that her position is substantially the same as that of Bulgaria  The Court's decision in the Israel v Bulgaria case does not exclude the validity of Thailand's 1950 Declaration, this decision has nevertheless to be taken into account in determining what the effect of that Declaration was and for the decision is invoked by Thailand to argue that her previous (1940) Declaration had become lacking in an object Recommandé pour toi Suite du document ci-dessous ĐỀ MINH HỌA SỐ - About a mathematics exercises international trade Unit Listening CN tự học Học viện ngoại giao international trade 62 100% (1) Best memo - Best memo of 2018 International Communication 90 100% (4) 100% (5) Practical-Statistics-for-Data-Scientists -50-EssentialConcepts-PDFDrive International Communication 100% (2)  It was incapable of renewal or else related to the compulsory jurisdiction of the old and defunct Court, not of the existing Court b)  There are many discussions and arguments as to whether a lapsed instrument can either renew or revive The Court confirmed: Evidently no error could be more fundamental than to renew a declaration lacking in an object Reaching to an immediate conclusion on that basis would be considered bad idea, for in the light of the reasoning that has been set out above, the effect of the 1950 Declaration can only be established by an independent examination of that Declaration, considered as a whole and in the light of its known purpose  There was also discussion about questions of errors and its possible effects o Thailand had a mistaken view of the status of her 1940 Declaration, and for that reason she used in her Declaration of 1950 language which the decision of the Court in the Israel v Bulgaria case showed to be inadequate to achieve the purpose for which that Declaration was made o Any error of this kind would evidently have been an error of law, but in any event the Court does not consider that the issue in the present case is really one of the error The Court cannot however see in the present case any factor which could, as it were ex post and retroactively, impair the reality of the consent Thailand admits and affirms she fully intended to give in 1950 c) Conclusion: For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, rejects the First Preliminary Objection of Thailand, and finds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it on October 1959 by the Application of Cambodia Since the above conclusion is sufficient to found the Court’s jurisdiction, it becomes unnecessary to proceed to a consideration of the second basis of jurisdiction invoked by Cambodia, and Thailand’s objection to that basis Judgement of 15 June 1962:  In the 15th June 1962 Judgement, the Court, which had jurisdictions, found that the Temple of Preah Vihear was under the sovereignty of Cambodia Consequently, Thailand had an obligation to withdraw all military force as well as police, keepers, guards or stations from Cambodia territory  Also, the Court found that Thailand was under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date of the occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thailand authorities  In its Judgment, the Court found that the subject of the dispute was sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear This ancient sanctuary, partially in ruins, stood on a promontory of the Dangrek range of mountains which constituted the boundary between Cambodia and Thailand The origins of the dispute were boundary settlement in the period 1904-1908 between France, then conducting the foreign relations of Indo-China, and Siam The application of the Treaty of 13 February 1904 was, in particular,involved That treaty established the general character of the frontier the exact boundary of which was to be delimited by a FrancoSiamese Mixed Commission  In the Northern region where the Temple of Preah Vihear located, the frontiers were follow the watershed On a meeting held on December 1906, a mixedCommission between the French officers and the Siamese Section (later were Thailand) decided to create a journey to deliminate the frontiers of these locations Due to the Franco-Siamese boundary treaty, the Treaty of 23 March 1907 and the final conclusion as a map which show that the Temple of Preah Vihear was under the Cambodia territory It was clear from the record, however, that the maps were communicated to the Siamese Government as purporting to represent the outcome of the work of delimitation; since there was no reaction on the part of the Siamese authorities, either then or for many years, they must be held to have acquiesced Other facts also appear in the course of the negotiations for the 1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers, and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, this proved that Thailand had accepted the frontier of Preah Vihear From these facts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map  For these reasons, the Court upheld the submissions of Cambodia concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear Judgement of 11 November 2013:  28 April 2011, Cambodia filed a request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgement  Request for interpretation of 1962 Judgement o The meaning and the scope of the term ‘territory’ in the first paragraph, which is related to the Court’s decision concerning with the legal status of the Annex I map as representing the frontier between Parties finds that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia; o The meaning and the scope of the term ‘vicinity’ and ‘territory in the second paragraph that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory; o The dispute link between the two paragraph: the second paragraph must be understand in the light of the first paragraph o All dispute area lies on the Cambodian side of the line of Annex I fall under Cambodian sovereignty as have been interpreted under the first paragraph o The second paragraph must be understood as Thailand must intermediately withdraw its military and police force stationed and not to send those force back to the Temple or to nearby site of the Temple area a) Jurisdiction of the Court The court has jurisdiction over the request to interpretation the 1962Judgment:  The jurisdiction of the court pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute The judgment is final and without appeal In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party is not preconditioned by the existence of any other basis of jurisdiction to the original case and the Court may entertain a request for interpretation provided that there is a ‘dispute as to the meaning or scope’ of any judgment rendered by it  There is a different between the English text (“dispute”) and the French text (“contestation”): the latter one has boarder meaning The term ‘dispute’ should be understood as: a difference of opinion or views between the parties as to the meaning or scope of a judgment rendered by the Court  In the case at hand, the Court found out that there exit a difference opinion of views as to the meaning of the scope 1962 Judgment and it related to the aspect of the Judgment  The court observed that there is a need for the interpretation of the second operative paragraph of the 1962 Judgment and of the legal effect of what the Court said regarding the Annex I map line b) The interpretation of the 1962 Judgment  There are feature of the 1962 Judment o First, the Court considered that it was dealing with a dispute regarding territorial sovereignty over the area in which the Temple was located and that it was not engaged in delimiting the frontier o Secondly, however, the Annex I map played a central role in the reasoning of the Court