September 6, 2010
Letter to The Nation
Regarding Guy Baker's letter on September 2 about Preah Vihear, I think the 1962 International Court of Justice decision is neither as ambiguous as Songdej Praditsmanont would have it, nor as cut and dried as Mr Baker suggests. Rather, it is limited in scope and, as such, not fully satisfactory to either side.
To start with, the court found in May 1961 that it had jurisdiction concerning the "Temple of Preah Vihear". The following year in June it found, by 9 votes to 3, that the temple was "situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia" and that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any forces stationed "at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory". The court apparently did not see fit to define exactly what it meant by "vicinity" or, in relation to artefacts removed by the Thai authorities since 1954, "the Temple area".
Although not required to rule on the border, the court could hardly decide one thing without considering the other. It "therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex 1 map" - the 1907 French map that ignored the watershed line - on the basis that Thailand, or Siam, had for many years "acquiesced" in that map's use.
However, it made no explicit order in this respect.
In short, it is the inconclusive nature of the ruling that has kept the issue alive up to the present. As it is, both parties to the dispute face an uphill struggle to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Chris Jeffery
Bangkok
Letter to The Nation
Regarding Guy Baker's letter on September 2 about Preah Vihear, I think the 1962 International Court of Justice decision is neither as ambiguous as Songdej Praditsmanont would have it, nor as cut and dried as Mr Baker suggests. Rather, it is limited in scope and, as such, not fully satisfactory to either side.
To start with, the court found in May 1961 that it had jurisdiction concerning the "Temple of Preah Vihear". The following year in June it found, by 9 votes to 3, that the temple was "situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia" and that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any forces stationed "at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory". The court apparently did not see fit to define exactly what it meant by "vicinity" or, in relation to artefacts removed by the Thai authorities since 1954, "the Temple area".
Although not required to rule on the border, the court could hardly decide one thing without considering the other. It "therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex 1 map" - the 1907 French map that ignored the watershed line - on the basis that Thailand, or Siam, had for many years "acquiesced" in that map's use.
However, it made no explicit order in this respect.
In short, it is the inconclusive nature of the ruling that has kept the issue alive up to the present. As it is, both parties to the dispute face an uphill struggle to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Chris Jeffery
Bangkok
No comments:
Post a Comment