Royal Thaï Embassy
No. 35001/ 230 The Hague
3 May B.E. 2556 (2013)
Sir,
With reference to the case conceming the Request for Interpretation of the
Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia
v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) and to your letter No. 141840 dated 26 April 2013
transmitting the written response of the Kingdom of Cambodia to the question put to the
Parties by Judge Yusuf at the end of the public sitting on 17 April 2013, I have the honour
to hereby submit the comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the Kingdmn of
Cambodia's written response as attached.
Accept, Sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration.
(Virachai Plasai)
Ambassador
Agent of the Kingdom of Thailand
His Excellency
Mr. Philippe Couvreur
Registrar,
International Court of Justice,
THE HAGUE. Comments of the Kingd.om of Thailall1d Oll1 the Kil!1rgdomof Cambodia's
Written Response to Judge Yusurs Question
1. In accordance with A1iicle 72 of the Rules of Comi and the direction of the Court
of 19 April 2013, Thailand hereby provides comments on Cambodia's "Response to
Judge Yusufs Question".
2. Judge Yusuf asked the Patiies to identify "the precise territorial extent that each
of the Patiies considers to be the 'vicinity' of the Temple ofPreah Vihear 'on Cambodian
teiTitory' referred to in the second paragraph of the dispositif of the Court's Judgment of
1962" and to do so by reference to "a set of geographical coordinates" or to "one of the
maps produced before the Court in the original proceedings." Cambodia has done
neither, but instead has taken the opportunity to engage in a fmiher round of irrelevant
1
and unauthorized written pleadings.
3. Cambodia has not provided any "geographical coordinates" for its identification
of the "vicinity" of the Temple. lnstead, it has chosen to provide the Court once again
with the same "map" that it prepared for the written pleadings, which consists of its own
superimposition of two sketches prepared by Thailand's expe1i Professor Schermerhorn
in the original proceedings.
4. There are a number ofproblems with this.
First, in paragraph 4 of its Response, Cambodia refers to "the overlap between the Annex
I map line and the watershed line proposed by the Thaï experts in the original
proceedings" and states that this overlap is illustrated by the superimposition of Map
Sheets 3 and 4. Once again, Cambodia is thus replacing the Annex I map by Map Sheet 3,
assuming that they only differ in scale, and are otherwise identical. Now, as Thailand has
repeatedly pointed out, Map Sheet 3 is not the Annex 1 map. First, it is a unilateral map
produced by Thailand. Second, it is an enlarged, but also a simplified re-creation of a
portion of one of the versions of the Annex 1 map, a re-creation made by Professor
1ln particular, paragraph 3 but also throughout Cambodia's Response to Judge Yusurs Question.
"CR 2013/3, p. 36, paras. 7-8 and CR 2013/6, p.27, para. 16 (Miron). See also Further Written
Explanationsf the Kingdom ofThailand (hereafter "FWE"), para. 1.37Schermerhorn in order to assess the accuracy of the topography ofthe Annex I map. The
numerous stylistic differences between the Annex I rnap and Map Sheet 3 - for example
in toponymy and the labelling of heights - are manifest even to a layman's eye. Perhaps
Iessobvious is the fact that the relationship between the line and the topography, and thus
the location of the line, is different on the two maps submitted by Cambodia. A couple of
examples of these significant differences are highlighted in the attached visual
comparison. (See Attachment) On the ground the differences would equate to 200-300
metres.
Second, Cambodia illegitimately distorts and misrepresents the pm·pose of the
comparison between Map Sheet 3 and Map Sheet 4 intended by Professor Schermerhorn,
as part of his expeti testimony. That testimony was for purposes of establishing the true
course of the watershed on that pmi ofthe promontory ofPhra Viharn where the Temple
was situated. It was not to transpose the Annex I map line, for the pm·posesof identifying
3
a disputed area. The futility of superimposing the sketch maps in order to define a
disputed area is ali the more evident, when it is recalled that the correct method of
superimposition would leave part of the Temple itself outside the "disputed area." This 5
was pointed out by Thailand in the oral pleadings, and explains why Cambodia, after
having accepted the method of overlay recommended in the IBRU's Repmi, has now 7
reve1ied to the superimposition it presented in the Response, where the Temple signs
were made to coïncide.
Third, in any event, the superimposition ofthese sketch maps to constitute a single sketch
map was never shown to the Court in 1962, nor actually referred to during the futiher
written and oral pleadings. Thus such a superimposition today cannot be regarded as "one
8
of the maps produced before the Court in the original proceedings".
3 See also FWE, paras. 2.47- 2.50; CR 2013/3, p. 20, para. 32 (Plasai) and p. 37, para. 12 (Miron); CR
2013/6, pp. 22- 24, paras. 6- 7 (Miron).
4 !BRU Report, "A review of maps presented in the period 1959-1962 and others prepared in 2012" [FWE,
5nnex 46, pp. 317-318, para. 6.7).
6See aIso ibid. [FWE, Annex 46, p. 321).
CR 2013/6, p. 24, para. (tertio(Miron).
7CR 2013/5, pp. 20-21, paras. 47-49 (Bundy).
8CR 2013/6, p. 23, para. 7 (Miron).
2 Fourth, Cambodia's response does not identify the "precise territorial extent" of the
"vicinity" of the Temple, as it understands it. The superimposition of Map Sheet 4 over
Map Sheet 3 does not result in a clear indication of the topography of the area. Indeed,
the result is unreadable 9.Moreover, this "map" does not carry either a coordinate grid or
a latitude/longitude graticule. It is not surprising, then, that Cambodia fails to provide any
"geographical coordinates" for its notion of "vicinity" .10 On the basis of the "map" it has
provided with its Response, it is simply impossible to provide geographical coordinates
for Cambodia's preferred area, and impossible to determine the "precise territorial
extent" as requested by Judge Yusuf.
5. Since the superimposed sketch map provided by Cambodia does not on its face
identify any "vicinity" of the Temple, Cambodia supplements this with its written
comments, indicating that "the Court's use of the term 'vicinity' is best appreciated by
the overlap between the Annex I map line and the watershed line proposed by the Thai
11
expetis in the original proceedings". The citation for this is to Cambodia's own written
12
pleadings in the present proceedings. Nowhere does Cambodia cite to the Judgment of
the Court or the pleadings of the Parties in the original proceedings to supp01i this the01·y.
Cambodia's notion of "vicinity" bears no relationship to what the Couli decided; it
remains pure conjecture.
6. Cambodia also seeks to support its view of the "vicinity" of the Temple by
reference to what the IBRU experts said in their report filed by Thailand with its Written
13
·Observations. First, it is absurd to suggest that a report prepared by technical, non-legal
expetis in 2011 should be treated as a legal interpretation of what the Court meant in its
Judgment in 1962. Second, it is rather strange that Cambodia now would seek to suppoti
its case by reference to an expetis' repoti, the principal findings of which it has refused to
address. Third, by insisting that the use of a term in passing in the experts' report has
9CR 2013/6, pp. 27-28, paras. 15-18 (Miron). See also !BRU Report, "A review ofmaps presented in the
10riod 1959-1962 and others prepared in 2012" [FWE, Annex 46, pp. 316-3 19, paras. 6.1-6.10].
The technical challenges of a transposition of the Annex 1 line were recalled in CR 2013/6, pp. 27- 30,
11ras. 17- 28 (Miron).
Cambodia's Response to Judge Yusufs Question, para. 4.
12Cambodia's Response of 8 March 2012, para. 4.61.
13Written Observations ofthe Kingdom ofThailand (hereafter "WO"), Annex 96, p. 669, para. 61.
~· 3probative value, 14Cambodia only draws attention once again to the absence of any proof
to substantiate its own concept of "vicinity".
7. The IBRU expe1is were concerned with the reliability of the Annex I map as a
whole, right across to the Pass of Kel in the west. In the context of this large area, they
used the term "vicinity of the Temple" to describe the limited area contained in Professer
Schermerhorn' s sketch maps. However, not ali the area mapped by Professer
Schennerhorn was in dispute in the initial proceedings 15• That area was much more
restricted and is illustrated on Annex 85 d (Partial Reproduction) 16.
8. Thus, in seeking to link the idea of the "vicinity" of the Temple with the area of
4.6 square kilometres to the west of the Temple, Cambodia continues to ignore the
evidence in the 1962 proceedings that the area to the west of the Temple was simply not
in issue.17 Cambodia's argument continues to rest on the assumption that the Comi in
1962 decided something that it had not been requested to decide.
9. But, as Thailand has pointed out, none of the evidence contained in Professer
Schermerhorn's sketch maps related to the second paragraph of the dispositif,which was
concerned with the withdrawal of troops "at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian
18
ten·itory". The purpose of the present proceedings (assuming there were jurisdiction
and that they were admissible) would be to determine the meaning of the 1962 Judgment,
not to define the meaning of "vicinity" in sorne abstract sense. The link between the
notion of "vicinity" of the Temple in the second paragraph of the dispositif and Professer
Schermerhorn' s sketch maps is in the mind of Cambodia only; it cannet be found in the
1962 Judgment.
1O. Thailand further notes that Cambodia continues to play its "cat and mouse" game
with the Annex 1 map. For no apparent reason, Cambodia attaches a copy of an Annex 1
map to its Response to Judge Yusufs Question. lt describes this in footnote 2 of its
Response as the "map attached to Cambodia's Application lnstituting Proceedings in
14See also CR 2013/5, p. 18, para. 38 (Bundy).
15
16CR 2013/6, pp. 24-25, paras. 7-9 (Miron).
CR 2013/3, pp. 40-42, paras. 19-29 and CR 2013/6, pp. 25-26, paras. 10-13 (Miron).
17WO, paras. 2.44-2.45; FWE, paras. 4.46-4.49 and CR 2013/3, pp. 39-40, para. 18 (Miron).
18CR 2013/6, pp.35-37, paras. 17-21 (McRae).
41959". But it is not the map attached to Cambodia's application instituting these
interpretation proceedings. Cambodia fails once again to explain the inconsistency in the
maps it has produced before this Comi, and fails to respond to the implications for this
case, repeatedly pointed out by Thailand, 19 of the existence of these various versions of
the Annex I map. In any event, whatever version of the Annex I map Cambodia would
rely on, it does not explain how the map can be used to identify the "vicinity" of the
Temple, and thus to provide an answer to the question asked by Judge Yusuf.
11. In the result, in order to define "vicinity", Cambodia presents two pieces of
cmiographic material, one as unreliable as the other. Cambodia's attempt to identify an
area constituting the vicinity of the Temple within the meaning of the second paragraph
of the dispositif of the 1962 Judgment continues to confuse the question of (1) the area
that the Court had in mind when it referred to the disputed area and (2) the area that the
Court had in mind when it was ordering the withdrawal ofThai troops "at the Temple, or
in its vicinity on Cambodian territory". 20 The only evidence in the Judgment of the
meaning of "vicinity" in respect of the second paragraph is to be found in the request of
Cambodia for the removal of troops from the "ruins of the Temple"? 1 Moreover, once
the relevant "military or police forces, or other guards or keepers stationed by ber at the
Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory" were identified and had withdrawn, the
idea of "vicinity" bad and bas no further role to play.
19WO, paras. 6.18-6.24; FWE, paras. 1.22-1.25; CR 2013/3, pp. 20-21, para. 34 (Piasai); and CR 2013/6, p.
49, para. 7 (Piasai).
2°CR 2013/6, pp. 35-37, paras. 17-21 (McRae).
21Ibid.
5 ATTACHMENT
Examples of substantive differences between Map Sheet 3 and the
Annex 1map submitted by Cambodia in 1959
/
,/'
// '
1
1
''1--- .........._ _ /
1 1
1 11
11 11
1 //
~//
1
1
1
1
Map shee t 3 att ach ed to annex 49 1
Map Sheet 3 (reduc ed for comparative purposes)
1
. .Ronr..
." \
.. \
Extract from Annex 1 map (enlarged for comparative purposes)
3 May 2013
Comments of the Kingdom of Thailand on the written reply of Cambodia to the question put by Judge Yusuf at the end of the public sitting held on Wednesday 17 April 2013, at 3 p.m.