INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OFTHE JUDGMENT OF 15 JUNE
1962 IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
(CAMBODIAv.THAILAND)
(CAMBODIAv. THAILAND)
Annexes to the Further Written Explanations
of the Kingdom of Thailand
21 JUNE 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Annex1 Commandant Bernard, Letter to the Consul of France,
11 December 1904. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ▯. . . . . .1
An2nex French Legation to Siam, Letter to the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of France,
14 February 1930 ......................................... 11
Annex3 A Photograph of Prince Damrong’s Visit to the Temple of
Phra Viharn (circa 1930) .................................... 19
Annex4 Service des archives diplomatiques et de la documentation,
No. 390 ARD/ar, Note pour le Directeur général des affaires
politiques, 13 December 1958 ................................ 23
Annex 5 Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of Thailand
of 10 July 1962 (Declassified on 26 May 2011) .................. 31
Annex6 A Photograph of One of the Signs Indicating the Limit of the
Vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn Taken from a Far Distance
(circa 1962) .............................................. 41
Annex 7 Narasimhan, Cable to the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations,
10 August 1964........................................... 45
Annex 8 Intentionally blank ........................................ 51
Annex 9 The Christian Science Monitor, 28 July 1967,“Sihanouk jealous of
borders” ................................................. 53
Annex10 T.C. White, “Report on a trip to the Temple of Preah Vihear
undertaken from 14-18April 1968”, 25April1968 ................ 59
Annex11 French Embassy in Cambodia, Note to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of France, 17 June 1968 .............................. 65
Annex 12 United States Embassy in Bangkok,Airgram to the Department of
State, “Cambodian Chronology”, No.A-363, 3 July 1969 .......... 73
Annex 13 Washington Post, 11 July 1970, “Thai Troops Reported Guarding
Threatened Temple in Cambodia” ............................ 119
iii Annex 14 The Guardian, 6 November 1974, “Cambodia’s temple outpost” ... 123
Annex 15 New York Times, 23 May 1975, “Thais Report Cambodian Reds
Overrun a Cliff-Top Shrine” ................................ 127
Annex16 French Embassy in Thailand, Note No. 88/AS to the Minister of
ForeignAffairs of France, 28 January 1977 .................... 131
Annex 17 Bangkok Post, 30 March 1998, “Historic temple said to be under
govt hold” .............................................. 139
Annex 18 Bangkok Post, 1April 1998, “Hun Sen troops take Preah Vihear” ... 147
Annex 19 Bangkok Post, 26 July 1998, “Ancient Khmer temple to reopen to
visitors Aug 1”........................................... 153
Annex20 A Photograph of the Ceremony to mark the Trial Opening of the
Phra Viharn Promontory forArcheological Site Visits and Studies,
1 August 1998........................................... 157
Annex 21 Bangkok Post, 2August 1998, “Tourists flock to Preah Vihear” .... 161
Annex 22 Records of the Meeting on Cooperation on Tourism Development
of Khao Phra Viharn between H.E. Mr. Somsak Thepsutin,
Minister to the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the Board
of Directors of the Tourism Authority of Thailand, and H.E. Mr.
So Mara, Director General, Ministry of Tourism of Cambodia,
1 June 2001 ............................................. 167
Annex 23 Bangkok Post, 25 July 2001, “Minister erases proof of talks on
temple’s ‘lease’” ......................................... 177
Annex24 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, Note No. Kor Tor
0603/1165 to the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province: Solving the
Problems of Kiosks Selling Goods and Wastewater Disposal in the
Area of the Temple of Phra Viharn, dated 11 December B.E. 2544
(2001) (Declassified on 12 June 2012) ........................ 183
Annex 25 Photographs of the Iron Gate and the Iron Bridge at Takhop/Tani
stream, taken on 17 December 2001 .......................... 187
Annex 26 Si Sa Ket Province, Memorandum No. Sor Kor 0017.3/ : Closure
of the path leading up to the Temple of Phra Viharn, dated
20 December B.E. 2544 (2001) .............................. 191
ivAnnex 27 Bangkok Post, 23 December 2001, “Army closes stairway to old
temple” ................................................ 195
Annex 28 Bangkok Post, 24 December 2001, “Temple still blocked as settlers
stay” .................................................. 199
Annex 29 Bangkok Post, 14 January 2002, “Health concern leads to closure
of temple” .............................................. 203
Annex 30 Bangkok Post, 16 January 2002, “Vendors in clean-up drive at
Khmer ruins” ........................................... 209
Annex 31 Bangkok Post, 7 March 2002, “Landmines to be cleared” ......... 213
Annex 32 The Cambodia Daily, 30-31 March 2002, “Cambodia Determined
to Find Own Route to Development in Preah Vehear” [sic] ....... 217
Annex 33 Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Thailand, Telegram to the Royal Thai
Embassy in Phnom Penh, 5 April B.E. 2545 (2002) (Declassified
on 12 June 2012) ......................................... 225
Annex 34 Bangkok Post, 3 November 2002, “Chavalit backs new Preah
Vihear gateway” ......................................... 233
Annex 35 Bangkok Post, 13 November 2002, “Push to open temple, border
pass together” ........................................... 237
Annex 36 Bangkok Post, 9 December 2002, “Ruins still closed to all
visitors” ................................................ 243
Annex 37 Bangkok Post, 17 January 2003, “New border posts planned, hours
extended to boost trade” ................................... 247
Annex 38 KantharalakDistrictOffice,NoteNo.SorKor0318/36totheGovernor
of Si Sa Ket Province: Inquiry about the situation in the area of Pha
Mor I Dang, dated 5 February B.E. 2546 (2003) (Declassified on
15 June 2012) ........................................... 251
Annex 39 Bangkok Post, 18 February 2003, “Border Talks” ............... 257
Annex 40 Bangkok Post, 20 February 2003, “Clear borders would help end
temple row” ............................................. 261
v Annex 41 Bangkok Post, 22 February 2003, “Cambodians ‘encroach’on Thai
soil” ................................................... 267
Annex42 Photographs of the Opening Ceremony of the Phra Viharn
Promontory BorderArea Point of Entry for the Purpose of Tourism,
taken on 31 May 2003 ..................................... 271
Annex43 Department of East Asian Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Thailand, The Thai-Cambodian Joint Cabinet Retreat, 31 May –
1 June 2003, dated 4 June 2003 ............................. 275
Annex44 Photographs of the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, taken during
2006 – 2010 ............................................. 283
Annex45 A Photograph T aken at the International Court of Justice on
30 May 2012 of the Map on the Scale of 1:2,000 Prepared by the
International Training Centre for Aerial Survey, exhibited in the
Court room and submitted to the Court asAnnex No. 85 d in 1962 ..289
Annex46 International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University,
A review of maps presented in the period 1959 – 1962 and others
prepared in 2012, June 2012 ............................... 293
Annex47 Map sheet 1 attached to Annex No. 49 to Thailand’s Counter-
Memorial, 8 September 1961 ............................... 331
Annex48 Map sheet 2 attached to Annex No. 49 to Thailand’s Counter-
Memorial, 8 September 1961 ............................... 335
Annex49 Map sheet 3 attached to Annex No. 49 to Thailand’s Counter-
Memorial, 8 September 1961 ............................... 339
Annex50 Map sheet 4 attached to Annex No. 49 to Thailand’s Counter-
Memorial, 8 September 1961 ............................... 343
Annex51 Carte annexée au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo et
Ivey (Annexe 2), filed as Annex LXVI c to Cambodia’s Reply,
23 October 1961 ......................................... 347
Annex52 Annex No. 85 d (Partial Reproduction), Map on the Vcale of
1:2,000 Srepared by the International Training Centre for Aerial
Survey, 1962 ............................................ 351
Annex 53 Royal Thai Survey Department,Series L 7017 map, Ban Phum Saron
nd
(sheet 5937 IV), 2 Edition, October 1988 ..................... 355
vi Annex 1
Commandant Bernard, Letter to the Consul
of France, 11 December 1904
12Annex 1
3Annex 1
4Annex 1
5Annex 1
6Annex 1
7Annex 1
8 Annex 1
Excerpt from a letter from Commandant Bernard to the Consul, 11 December 1904
(…) Je me propose donc de lever au nord des Dang Reck un cheminement aussi précis que
possible, appuyé sur un grand nombre de points déterminés astronomiquement. Je partirai des
divers sommets de ce cheminement pour aller au moyen de simples itinéraires, aussi courts
que possible, jusqu’à la ligne de partage des eaux que doit former la frontière. Je déterminerai
ainsi la ligne frontière par points Les cartes dont je dispose ne me permettent pas de fixer
d’une façon plus certaine le programme de nos travaux. (…)
910 Annex 2
French Legation to Siam, Letter to
the Minister of ForeignAffairs of France,
14 February 1930
1112Annex 2
13Annex 2
14Annex 2
15Annex 2
16Annex 2
1718 Annex 3
APhotograph of Prince Damrong’s Visit to
the Temple of Phra Viharn (circa 1930)
1920Annex 3
2122 Annex 4
Service des archives diplomatiques et de la documentation,
No. 390 ARD/ar,Note pour le Directeur général
des affaires politiques, 13 December 1958
2324Annex 4
25Annex 4
26Annex 4
27Annex 4
28Annex 4
2930 Annex 5
Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of
Thailand of 10 July 1962 (Declassified on 26 May 2011)
3132 Annex 5
(Translation)
Confidential
VERY URGENT
No. Mor Tor 8176/2505 The Secretariat of the Cabinet
11 July B.E. 2505 (1962)
Subject Compliance with the Judgment of the World Court in the Case of the Temple of Phra
Viharn
To Minister of Interior
Reference Ministry of Interior’s Note No. 11467/2505 dated 6 July B.E. 2505 (1962)
Following the submission made to H.E. the Prime Minister for consideration of two
methods to determine the limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn in order to comply with
the Judgment of the World Court , H.E. the Prime Minister has considered the matter and ordered
that it be submitted to the Council of Ministers for consideration.
The Council of Ministers met on 10 July B.E. 2505 (1962) to deliberate the matter
and resolved that the second method shall be used for the determination of the limit of the vicinity
of the Temple o f Phra Viharn; that signs ind icating the limit shall be erected as suggested by the
Ministry of interior; and that in addition a barbed-wire fence shall be constructed.
It is hereby confirmed, so that the matter be executed.
Yours respectfully,
-signed-
(Mr. Manoon Borisudhi)
Secretary-General of the Cabinet
Legal Advisory Division
True Copy
-signed-
(Mr. Kittithatch Siriwat)
Legal Officer, Legal Advisory Bureau
Confidential
33Annex 5
(Translation)
Confidential -EMBLEM-
VERY URGENT
No. 11467/2505 Ministry of Interior
6 July B.E. 2505 (1962)
Subject Compliance with the Judgment of the World Court in the Case of the Temple of Phra
Viharn
To Prime Minister
Reference The Secretariat of the Cabinet’s Note No. Mor Tor 7949/2505 dated 4
JulyB.E. 2505 (1962)
Attachment Map determining the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn
Whereas in the meeting of the Council of Ministers of 3 July B.E. 2505 (1962) to
deliberate compliance with the Judgment of the World Court in the case of the Temple of Phra
Viharn, H.E. the Prime Minister deemed it appropriate that the Minister of Interior travel to the Phra
Viharn promontory to give guidelines for implementation to our officers on duty in the area as well
as to indicate to them the location of thelimit; and whereas the Council of Ministers resolved to
give its approval thereto; details of which have been stated in the Note under reference;
In order to ens ure that the matter is executed with due consideration and in
conformity with the Government’s policy to comply with the Judgment of the World Court in the
case of the Temple of Phra Viharn, the Ministry of Interior therefore invited representatives of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Director of the Royal Thai Survey Department, and the officers
concerned of the Ministry of Interior, to a consultation at the Ministry of Interior to determine the
location of the limit of the vicini ty of the Temple of Phra Viharn, from which Thailand has the
obligation to withdraw police forces, g uards or keepers, on the principle that Cambodia will only
obtain the ruins of the Temple of Phra Viharn and the ground on which the Temple stood.
The meeting considered the matter and was of the view that the determination of the
vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn, so as Cambodia will have sovereignty in accordance with the
Judgment of the World Court, may be done according to 2 methods, namely -
1. Determine a triangular-shaped area around the Temple of Phra Viharn, with a
limit that is drawn from the right wing of the Temple of Phra Viharn proper, starting
at the Broken Stairway (the Broken Stairway to be within the vicinity of the Temple
of Phra Viharn), and , relying principally on topographical features such as rocky
hills or streams, runs by and adjacent to the Naga Stairway, then continues along the
course of the top ographical features until it reaches the left side escarpment. This
will constitute an area of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn of approximately
½ square kilometre.
2. Determine a rectangular-shaped area around the Temple of Phra Viharn with
a limit that is drawn from the right wing of the Temple of Phra Viharn proper,
starting at the Broken Stairway (the Broken Stairway to be within the vicinity of the
Temple of Phra Viharn ), and follows a straight line running by and adjacent to the
Naga Stairway until reaching the Temple of Phra Viharn proper, then follows a
straight line parallel to the Temple of Phra Viharn proper and terminates at the edge
of the escarpment behind the Temple. This will constitute an area of the vicinity of
the Temple of Phra Viharn of approximately ¼ square kilometre.
Details are indicated on the map attached hereto for consideration
Confidential
34 Annex 5
Confidential
- 2 -
Also, in complying with the Judgment of the World Court in the case of the Temple of Phra
Viharn, the meeting deemed it appropriate, in addition to determining the limit of the Temple of
Phra Viharn according to either of the 2 methods above, to execute the following -
1. Erect wooden signs, with the characteristics and size of a train station sign, indicating
the limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn, which are to be placed: 1 at the
Broken Stairway; 1 at the foot of the Naga Stairway; 1 at the left wing corner of the
Temple; and 1 at the escarpment behind the Temple.
The sign, on the side facing Thailand, shall read “Beyond this points lies the vicinity
of the Temple of Phra Viharn” with English translation; and , on the side facing
Cambodia, shall read in Khmer “The vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn does not
extend beyond this limit” with French translation.
2. On the date that the Minister of Interior will be on site to determine and indicate the
location of the limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viha rn, the Thai national flag
will be lowered from the mast and the police forces and the officers safeguarding the
Temple of Phra Viharn will withdraw from the vicinity.
The Ministry of Interior hereby submits the matter for you r consideration. If it is deemed
appropriate to determine the limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn according to either
method, the Ministry of Interior will proceed with implementation accordingly. In this rega rd, the
Ministry of Interior has already assigned officers to carry out in advance survey and study of the
topography.
Yours respectfully,
-signed-
Minister of Interior
Office of the Permanent Secretary
True Copy
-signed-
(Mr. Kittithatch Siriwat)
Legal Officer, Legal Advisory Bureau
Confidential
35Annex 5
Attachment to Letter of Ministry of Interior 6July B.E. 2505 (1962)
36Annex 5
37Annex 5
38Annex 5
39Annex 5
เอกสารแนบหนังสือกระทรวงมหาดไทย ลงวันท่ี ๖ กรกฎาคม ๒๕๐๕
40 Annex 6
APhotograph of One of the Signs Indicating the Limit
of the Vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn
Taken from a Far Distance (circa 1962)
4142Annex 6
4344 Annex 7
Narasimhan, Cable to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations, 10August 1964
4546Annex 7
47Annex 7
48Annex 7
49Annex 7
50 Annex 8
Intentionally blank
5152 Annex 9
The Christian Science Monitor,
28 July 1967,“Sihanouk jealous of borders”
5354 Annex 9
By Mario Rossi Special correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
The Christian Science Monitor (1908-Current file); Jul 28, 1967;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Christian Science Monitor (1908-199▯7)
pg. 9
55Annex 9
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
56Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.58 Annex 10
T.C. White, “Report on a trip to the Temple of Preah Vihear
undertaken from 14-18April 1968”, 25April1968
5960Annex 10
61Annex 10
62Annex 10
63Annex 10
64 Annex 11
French Embassy in Cambodia, Note to the Minister
of ForeignAffairs of France, 17 June 1968
6566Annex 11
67Annex 11
68Annex 11
69Annex 11
70Annex 11
7172 Annex 12
United States Embassy in Bangkok,Airgram to the Department
of State, “Cambodian Chronology”, No.A-363, 3 July 1969
7374Annex 12
75Annex 12
76Annex 12
77Annex 12
78Annex 12
79Annex 12
80Annex 12
81Annex 12
82Annex 12
83Annex 12
84Annex 12
85Annex 12
86Annex 12
87Annex 12
88Annex 12
89Annex 12
90Annex 12
91Annex 12
92Annex 12
93Annex 12
94Annex 12
95Annex 12
96Annex 12
97Annex 12
98Annex 12
99Annex 12
100Annex 12
101Annex 12
102Annex 12
103Annex 12
104Annex 12
105Annex 12
106Annex 12
107Annex 12
108Annex 12
109Annex 12
110Annex 12
111Annex 12
112Annex 12
113Annex 12
114Annex 12
115Annex 12
116Annex 12
117Annex 12
118 Annex 13
Washington Post, 11 July 1970, “Thai Troops Reported
Guarding Threatened Temple in Cambodia”
119120 Annex 13
Thai Troops Reported Guarding Threatened Temple in Cambodia: Thai Troops▯ Reported At Site in Cambodi
The Washington Post, Times Herald (1959-1973); Jul 11, 1970;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Washington Post (1877-1994)
pg. A1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
121Annex 13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
122 Annex 14
The Guardian, 6 November 1974, “Cambodia’s temple outpost”
123124 Cambodia's temple outpost
Woollacott, Martin
The Guardian (1959-2003); Nov 6, 1974;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian (1821-2003) and The Obser▯ver (1791-2003)
pg. 4
Cambodia's temple outpost
Woollacott, Martin
The Guardian (1959-2003); Nov 6, 1974;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian (1821-2003) and The Obser▯ver (1791-2003)
pg. 4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.126 Annex 15
New York Times, 23 May 1975, “Thais Report
Cambodian Reds Overrun a Cliff-Top Shrine”
127128 Annex 15
Thais Report Cambodian Reds Overrun a Cliff-Top Shrine
ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The New York Times (1851-2007)
pg. 3
129 Annex 15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.
130 Annex 16
French Embassy in Thailand, Note No. 88/AS to
the Minister of ForeignAffairs of France, 28 January 1977
131132Annex 16
133Annex 16
134Annex 16
135Annex 16
136Annex 16
137138 Annex 17
Bangkok Post, 30 March 1998,
“Historic temple said to be under govt hold”
139140Annex 17
141Annex 17
142Annex 17
143Annex 17
144Annex 17
145Annex 17
146 Annex 18
Bangkok Post, 1April 1998, “Hun Sen troops take Preah Vihear”
147148Annex 18
149Annex 18
150Annex 18
151152 Annex 19
Bangkok Post, 26 July 1998, “Ancient Khmer
temple to reopen to visitorsAug 1”
153154Annex 19
155Annex 19
156 Annex 20
APhotograph of the Ceremony to mark the Trial Opening
of the Phra Viharn Promontory forArcheological
Site Visits and Studies, 1August 1998
157158 Annex 20
(Translation of the sign from the Thai language)
Royal Thai Army, by the Suranaree Task Force
Trial Opening of the Phra Viharn Promontory
for Archeological Site Visits and Studies
1 August B.E. 2541 (1998)
159160 Annex 21
Bangkok Post, 2August 1998, “Tourists flock to Preah Vihear”
161162Annex 21
163Annex 21
164Annex 21
165Annex 21
166 Annex 22
Records of the Meeting on Cooperation on Tourism Development of
Khao Phra Viharn between H.E. Mr. Somsak Thepsutin, Minister to
the Prime Minister’s Office and Chairman of the Board of Directors
of the TourismAuthority of Thailand, and H.E. Mr. So Mara,
Director General, Ministry of Tourism of Cambodia, 1 June 2001
167168Annex 22
169Annex 22
170Annex 22
171Annex 22
172Annex 22
173Annex 22
174Annex 22
175176 Annex 23
Bangkok Post, 25 July 2001, “Minister erases
proof of talks on temple’s ‘lease’”
177178Annex 23
179Annex 23
Publication: BANGKOKPOST Date:25-07-2001
Page:6 Sections:MAINSECTION
Label:CAMBODIA Keyword:Preah Vihear Temple
Keyword:WatPreah Vihear Keyword:KhaoPhra Viharn
Minister erases proof of talks on temple's `lease'
Sacked official had exceededmandate
Nusara Thaitawat
Phnom Penh
Cambodia saysithasannulledthe signed recordsofameeting betweenThaiand
Cambodianofficialsontheso-called``lease''ofPreah Vihear temple.
InaJuly17 letter toSomsakThepsutin,PM'sOfficeminister fortourism,Cambodia's
ministeroftourism,VengSereyvuth,said the Cambodianrepresentativeatthe June 1talksinSiSa
Ketexceeded hismandate.
Healsosigned recordsofthemeetingwithouttheMinistryofTourism'sconsent.
So Mara,aninfluentialdirector-generaloverseeingpromotion,discussed ``joint
management''and``profitsharing''inrelation tothehill-topsandstone temple straddlingthe Thai-
Cambodianborder.
``Asthecontentofthe meetingrecordsexceeded hisauthorityandsincetherewas noprior
approvalfrom theministry,Iwould liketoherebyexercisemyrightand prerogativetoannulsuch
records,''theletter said.
Mr Veng saidhe trusted hisThaicounterpartwould``understand thereason for our
decision''and reassuredhiscontinued co-operation ontourism.
180 Annex 23
Mr Marawassacked onJuly16 byPrime Minister HunSenattheurgingof39Cambodian
membersofparliament.KingNorodomSihanoukendorsedthe moveinaroyaldecree thenextday.
Mr Veng saidhe had yettoreceivearesponsefromhisThaicounterpart.
``Ihaveworked withThailandfor somanyyears,buildingagoodworkingrelationship
betweentheMinistryofTourismandtheTourismAuthorityofThailand,andthere'ssomuchmoreto
be done,''Mr Veng said,urging bothsidestolookatthebigger picture.
ThailandandCambodiahavebeenworkingtogether undera``onedestination-two
countries''promotion.
Preah Vihear temple,builtbetween themid-10thandearly12thcenturies,wasasensitive
historical issue.Located on theCambodianside,itisaccessibleonlyfrom theThaiside.Thailand
occupied the templein1949when Cambodia wasaprotectorateofFrance.King Sihanouktookthe
casetotheWorldCourtwhichvoted infavourofCambodiain1962.
181182 Annex 24
Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Thailand, Note No. Kor Tor
0603/1165 to the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province: Solving
the Problems of Kiosks Selling Goods and Wastewater Disposal
in theArea of the Temple of Phra Viharn, dated
11 December B.E. 2544 (2001) (Declassified on 12 June 2012)
183184 Annex 24
(Translation)
Copy
Confidential
VERY URGENT
No. Kor Tor 0603/1165 Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Sri Ayudhya Rd. Bangkok 10400
11 December B.E. 2544 (2001)
Subject: Solving the problems of kiosks selling goods and wastewater disposal in the
area of the Temple of Phra Viharn
To: Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
Reference: Ministry of Foreign Affair’s Note, Immediate, No. Kor Tor 0603/1006
dated 31 October B.E. 2544 (2001)
Following the Note under reference inviting you to join field inspection and
consultation between the Co-Chairmen of the Thai -Cambodian Joint Commission on
Demarcation for Land Boundary on 5 November B.E. 2544 (2001), details of which have
already been stated therein;
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to inform you that after the aforesaid
field inspection and consultation, a meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Technical Officers under
the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary was convened on
7-8 November B.E. 2544 (2001) in Bangkok where the Cambodian side confirmed that it will
arrange for the Governor of Phra Viharn Province to come and meet with the Governor of Si
Sa Ket Province at an early opportunity, in order to solve the problem s of the kiosks selling
goods at the market in t he area of the path leading up to the Temple of Phra Viharn, as well
as the problem of pollution caused by disposal of waste and wastewater into the stream
flowing into Sa Trao.
It is h ereby communicated for your consideration for further action and it
would be highly appreciated if the Ministry could be informed of the outcome thereof.
Yours respectfully,
-signed-
(Mr. Thana Duangratana)
Director-General of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs
Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs
Boundary Division
Tel. 0 2643 5036-7
Certified true copy
Fax. 0 2643 5035
-signed-
(Mr. Songchai Chaipatiyut)
Governor of Si Sa Ket Cambodia 13/44 Second Secretary
Confidential
185Annex 24
186 Annex 25
Photographs of the Iron Gate and the Iron Bridge at
Takhop/Tani stream, taken on 17 December 2001
187188 Annex 25
``
(Translation of the signs above the iron gate from the Thai Language)
All kinds of weapons strictly not allowed in
IN OUT
189190 Annex 26
Si Sa Ket Province, Memorandum No. Sor Kor
0017.3/ : Closure of the path leading up to the Temple
of Phra Viharn, dated 20 December B.E. 2544 (2001)
191192 Annex 26
(Translation)
Memorandum
AgencySi Sa KeP trovincial Governor’s OfficGeneral Service Subdivision-T45l6-2581
No. SorKor 0017.3/ Date 20 December B.E. 2544 (2001)
Subject Closure of thepath leadingup to the TempleofPhra Viharn
To Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
1. Origin
1.1 Whereas t he Suranaree Task Force informed us that, in
conjunction with the C ambodian military, it had operated a trial opening of the Phra
Viharn Promontory since 1 August B.E. 2541 (199 8); on 5 November B.E. 2544
(2001), the Suranaree Task Force and the Cambodian side held a meeting at Pha Mor
I Dang, Kantharalak District, Si Sa Ket Province, to resolve the problem of hardship
experienced by Thai citizens, which was caused by the settlement of Cambodian
citizens in the area in front of the path leading up to the Temple of Phra Viharnin
order to set up a market to sell Cambodian goods. This has resulted in littering, and
sewage and waste water have been dumped into the Ta Khop S tream. The Suranaree
Task Force gave the Cambodian side until 15 December B.E. 2544 (2001) to
permanently resolve the problem. However, at present, the Cambodian side has not
done anything concrete. Therefore, the Suranaree Task Force has suspended public
access to the Phra Viharn Promontory since 17 December B.E. 2544 (2001).
1.2 The Kantharalak District informed us that at present, some of the
Cambodian forces stationed on the Phra Viharn Promontory has occupied the area to
seek benefits from the opening of the Phra Viharn Promontory to visits. This may
affect the safety of Thai citizens and foreigners who go up to visit the Temple of Khao
Phra Viharn. Therefore, the Suranaree Task Force ordered a suspension of the access
to Khao Phra Viharn on 17 December B.E. 2544 (2001).
2. Matters for consideration
- The above-mentioned matter should be reported to the Ministry of
Interior for its information.
- It is hereby reported for consideration . If it is agreeable, please sign
the attached Note.
-signed -
(Mr. Chai Tamnakpothi)
Chief of Si Sa Ket Provincial Governor’s Office
Acknowledged
Submitted for your information -signed-
-signed- (Mr. Sucharit Nantamontri)
(Mr. Pramoon Sawetadharma)
Governor of Si Sa Ket
Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket 24 Dec B.E. 2544 (2001)
Acting For Governor of Si Sa Ket
22 Dec B.E. 2544 (2001)
193Annex 26
194 Annex 27
Bangkok Post, 23 December 2001,
“Army closes stairway to old temple”
195196Annex 27
197Annex 27
198 Annex 28
Bangkok Post, 24 December 2001,
“Temple still blocked as settlers stay”
199200Annex 28
201Annex 28
202 Annex 29
Bangkok Post, 14 January 2002,
“Health concern leads to closure of temple”
203204Annex 29
205Annex 29
206Annex 29
207Annex 29
208 Annex 30
Bangkok Post, 16 January 2002,
“Vendors in clean-up drive at Khmer ruins”
209210Annex 30
211Annex 30
212 Annex 31
Bangkok Post, 7 March 2002,
“Landmines to be cleared”
213214Annex 31
215Annex 31
216 Annex 32
The Cambodia Daily, 30-31 March 2002,
“Cambodia Determined to Find Own Route to
Development in Preah Vehear” [sic]
217218 Annex 32
The Cambodia Daily , WEEKEND Saturday, March 30-31, 2002
Cultural Frontiers
Cambodia Determined to Find Own Route to Development in Preah Vehear
By Jody McPhillips
and Phann Ana
The Cambodia Daily
Preah Vihear temple--It used to be easy to visit this spectacular
mountaintop temple on the border between Cambodia and
Thailand.
As many as 1,000 tourists a day boarded buses in Thailand,
traveled on smoothly paved Thai roads, walked up the steps and
started snapping pictures.
Until last Dec 17, when the Thai army closed the border at
Preah Vihear, claiming Cambodian vendors living near the The Cambodian flag flies over the gopura a
temple were polluting a stream that flows into Thailand. the first level of the Preah Vihear temple
complex
The border has stayed closed ever since.
Sure, tourists can get to the temple from the Cambodian side. But unless they rent a helicopter, they
face a couple days of spine-jolting rides through former Khmer Rouge battlefields followed by a
three-hour climb up a mine-infested mountain.
Now a road crew from Phnom Penh is building a new
highway north from the provincial capital of Tbeang
Meanchey so people can get to the temple from the
Cambodian side.
It may take as much as two years to finish the road, but
Cambodian officials say they don't care: they are fed up, and
they no longer want another country controlling access to
such an important symbol of Khmer heritage.
An aerial view of the Preah Vehear temple
complex, with the plains of CambodiaDirt-poor Preah Vihear province stands to lose thousands of
stretching into the distance tourist dollars for every month the temple remains closed,
but the Cambodian officials say it is worth the wait.
"The Cambodians and the Thais have argued over the Preah Vihear temple for years," says Long
Sovann, second deputy governor of Preah Vihear province.
"The Thais were very surprised that we did not care" about the border closure, he says with a grin.
"They are surprised that we are so strong and are working so hard on development.
219Annex 32
"But if we don't take care of the temple, we are afraid the Thais will look down on us and our
heritage."
Others are more blunt. "They are collecting money from our ancestors, and I don't like it," said
Phnom Penh Governor Chea Sophara, who is sending men, money and equipment to Preah Vihear to
build the new road.
Thai embassy officials declined to comment on the situation. PREAH VIHEAR is potentially a
money machine second only to Angkor Wat, and both countries know it.
Before the border closed, despite few development or promotion efforts, the Cambodians and Thais
were splitting annual ticket receipts of at least $130,000, with Cambodia getting 70 percent and the
Thais 30 percent.
But Thai interest in the temple has always been a sore spot with Cambodia. The countries have
feuded for years over who should control the site, which Thai soldiers occupied several times before
the World Court ordered it returned to Cambodia in 1962.
The issue arouses strong passions among many Cambodians, who consider Preah Vihear an
important symbol of Khmer sovereignty.
It doesn't help that most quarrels at Preah Vihear erupt between soldiers from each country posted at
the border, who rarely wait for diplomatic instructions before reacting. Since the border was closed,
gunfire has erupted at least once, although no one was hurt.
Twice during the past decade, the two countries have tried to cooperate to run the site as a tourist
destination. It seemed like a good idea: Cambodia had no money, and Thai tourists were eager to
visit.
The first attempt, in 1992, fell apart when the Khmer Rouge regained control of the mountain. The
second lasted from 1998 until last December, but the relationship was always volatile.
Cambodian officials who work too closely with the Thais do so at their peril. When former Ministry
of Tourism general director So Mara signed a joint-operation deal with Thailand last year, he was
denounced by parliamentarians and fired, and the deal was voided.
Oblivious to the tension, tourists flock to Preah Vihear whenever they can. When it reopened in 1998,
up to 30,000 people a day poured in. But unlike Siem Reap, which was initially developed by foreign
companies (including many from Thailand), it appears that Cambodian investors want to develop
Preah Vihear.
The Sokimex petroleum company is planning projects not only in Preah Vihear, but at the Sambor
Prei Kuk temples in Kompong Thom. The Preah Vihear project would include a hotel, golf course
and other facilities.
Sokimex president Sok Kong says his Preah Vihear proposal was submitted on Jan 15 to Prime
Minister Hun Sen. ÒThe prime minister has agreed and sent it on to the Cambodian Development
Council,Ó he says, declining to provide more details.
Cambodia is also seeking World Heritage status for Preah Vihear, which would typically involve
strict controls on how the area could be developed. But World Heritage approval is likely several
years away, and any development now would not be subject to such controls.
220 Annex 32
PREAH VIHEAR, which means sacred monastery in Khmer, was built over a span of about 300
years, starting in the late 9th century.
Unlike many Khmer temples, which were built by one king and then ignored by his successors, Preah
Vihear was maintained and enlarged by many kings.
The mountain site itself was believed to be holy, seemingly designed by the gods to support the
ascending series of stairs, walkways and structures which lie along a perfect north-south axis.
According to "Preah Vihear," a history of the temple by Vittorio Roveda, the temple complex was a
monastery, which explains why the top-most sanctuary, on the edge of a cliff overlooking Cambodia,
faces away from the view.
"The mountain was ascended because it offered spiritual rewards for pilgrims and provided the
solitude necessary for religious meditation, not because it afforded spectacular views from its
summit," Roveda writes.
He said that in 1018, the Khmer king Suryavarman I declared Preah Vihear to be the northernmost
point of his empire, which stretched from Phnom Chisor in the south to Jayakestra (near Battambang)
in the west to Isanathirtha (an unknown location that might have been on the Mekong River) in the
east.
Some restoration work was completed in the 1930s, but the temple suffered during the prolonged
years of war in Cambodia. The central tower of the main shrine collapsed long ago; the size of the
pieces lying on the ground inside the enclosure indicate it was very large.
THE DANGREK Mountains run east-west along Cambodia's northern border with Thailand, a chain
of steep hills that rise abruptly from a flat plain.
They form a rocky wall at Cambodia's northern edge. Preah Vihear is built on the edge of a 600-
meter drop to the plains below. On clear days, the view to the south stretches to Phnom Kulen.
To the north, the mountain descends in a long, gradual slope into Thailand. Preah Vihear is not one
temple but a series of elegant complexes linked by stone stairways and causeways. Its entrance is
halfway down the northern slope, where a massive flight of stone steps beckons pilgrims to begin a
climb towards the sacred summit.
The land around the temples is rugged. There are no real roads, just forest tracks, for about 20
kilometers on the Cambodian side. On the Thai side, a modern highway runs nearly to the temple
entrance.
A small stream 100 meters north of the entrance marks the official border, which writhes like a snake
through the mountains, prompting frequent arguments between the countries as to exactly where it
lies.
The current dispute involves the stream and a small Cambodian market community located in a small
area between the border crossing and the temple steps. The vendors, many of whom migrated to
Preah Vihear since peace returned to earn a living selling to the tourists, were in the habit of buying
food and water in Thailand, since the nearest Cambodian town was 20 kilometers away.
221Annex 32
"There is a problem with the sewage," Êsays a Thai border officer posted at Preah Vihear, who asks
that his name not be used. He stands at the chain-link gate through which tourists used to pass, but
which is now kept locked and has been newly surrounded with razor wire.
"Waste water [from the market] is getting into Thailand, and five Thai villages downstream are
upset," the Thai guard said. He claims the Thais want the market closed so the two countries can
plant a "friendship garden" at the temple entrance. He also says the Thais would like the Cambodians
to pick up the trash that blows around the entrance.
"We asked them to solve this problem. If they solve it, we will reopen the border," he say as he hands
a small Cambodian boy money to buy him cigarettes at the offending market.
Cambodian border police don't buy this story for a minute. They are convinced the Thais ultimately
want to reclaim the temple as their own, a charge the Thai officer rejects vehemently.
"No! No! It is a Khmer temple! The Thai people, everybody, knows this temple belongs to the Khmer
nation," the Thai guard says.
The Cambodians say the Thais had hoped they could starve out the vendors by cutting off their food
supply. They say they intercepted radio transmissions in which they heard Thai soldiers asking: ÒAre
those Khmers dead yet?"
"They are very tricky,"ÊUn Radin, a commander with the Cambodian border guard, says with a bitter
grimace. "You can't believe what they say."
PHNOM PENH Governor Chea Sophara says he was furious when he heard about the stranded
vendors. He won't say who issued the orders, but he swung into action, hounding wealthy contractors
and businessmen for contributions and convincing 66 city employees that they wanted to relocate to
Preah Vihear province for an unspecified period to build a new road.
He concedes it could take two years, maybe longer. "They are volunteers, doing this just for food and
5,000 riel (about $1.25) a day," he says. He claims all money to pay for the project is being raised
privately, and that he can't say how much it will cost.
Asked if Sokimex plans to contribute toward the building of the new road, Sok Kong says, "We must.
We have to cooperate with that." But he would not say how much he would donate.
Chea Sophara has personally promised to feed the mountain's 650 residents for up to five years, and
has already had drawn up elaborate plans for a new village, complete with market, school and
hospital, to be located about one kilometer from the temple entrance.
"It will all be Khmer style," he says proudly, right down to the trash cans.
The trapped villagers say Chea Sophara has saved their lives as well as their livelihoods. Oeun
Borith, 37, sells soft drinks in the marketplace. "Before the closing, I had between 400 and 500
customers a day on the weekends,"he says. "Now there is no business."
Choy Lim, 49, is one of the residents who says she heard the sneering radio transmissions about
"dead Khmers."
222 Annex 32
"We have not died yet," she says. "And we will not die, because our government is giving us rice and
fish and petrol. [The Thais] can come to see if they don't believe me.
"Life is a little bit harder than before, but we will not die."
THE JOB is huge. The Khmer Rouge occupied Preah Vihear from 1975 until the war's end, burying
thousands of landmines all over the mountain before defecting to the government in 1998.
Today more than 50 deminers from the Halo Trust are working to clear them away. In the past six
weeks, teams have found more than 100 mines close to trails and walkways at the temples.
Other deminers are examining the route for the planned new road, which will pass through scrublands
south of the mountains that remain littered with rusting tanks and military vehicles, the detritus of
heavy fighting between the Vietnamese-supported government forces and the Khmer Rouge.
Sra'em village lies about 30 kilometers south of the temple, just north of an area called the Death
Field because so many Vietnamese and Cambodian soldiers died there.
Thong Chan, a 60-year-old former government soldier, remembers it well. The houses in the village
are only a few years old, because the Khmer Rouge torched the entire village in the final days of the
war.
"We will be very happy to have the new road, because it will make it easier for us to get to the
provincial capital, to Anlong Veng, and to the temple," he says.
The road will extend 113 kilometers north from the provincial capital of Tbeang Meanchey to Preah
Vihear. At least 22 kilometers are believed to be mined. There are no roads over the last 20
kilometers to the mountain, just dirt trails.
The crews have completed about 10 kilometers of the new road, moving at a rate of about 200 meters
a day. They hope to reach the Sen River by Khmer New Year in mid-April, says Chea Sophara. A
100-meter bridge is currently being constructed over the river.
Ting Samon, deputy chief of the Phnom Penh municipality's road and bridge unit, doesn't know how
long the project will take, saying it depends on how much equipment and supplies are donated and
whether machines break down.
He brushes aside the idea that it could be difficult for his crew to leave their homes in Phnom Penh
for a long, hard, dangerous job, with no end in sight.
"We are lonely here without our families," he says, "but we are staying until the job is done."
Photo by Sok Sam Ath for the Ministry of Tourism
223224 Annex 33
Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Thailand, Telegram to
the Royal Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh,
5April B.E. 2545 (2002) (Declassified on 12 June 2012)
225226 Annex 33
(Translation)
Confidential
Telegram
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TL. 1103/369 Page 1 of 3 pages
Date 5 April B.E. 2545 (2002) Classification: Confidential Urgency:
Department of East Asia East Asian Division II cc. 0605
Subject : Differences over the closure of the path leading up to the Phra
Viharn Promontor y
Submitted
To: Royal Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh
No. 1103/154/2545
Replying to the Embassy’s Telegram No. PNH 196/2545 dated 1 April B.E. 2545
(2002) on the differences over the closure of the path leading up to the Phra Viharn
Promontory.
The Ministry took note of the information and the Embassy’s views contained in
Approved
the telegram under reference with thanks and wishes to inform the Embassy of
preliminary information and the status of the problem following an informal coordination
with the 2ndArmy Area and the relevant government agencies as follows:
1. The suspension of tourist access to the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn, Chom Ka
Saan District, Phra Viharn Province, from the Thai side since 17 December B.E. 254 4
(2001) results from 2 main reasons:
1.1 The construction of a wat, shops and a Cambodian community in an area
Record of where the boundary is still unclear; and
Communication 1.2 The environmental impacts resulting from sub-para. 1.1 causing hardship
Division
for the Thai population.
2. Depiction of the problem area appears in the attached sketch map.
3. With regard to the construction of a wat in the region of the Temple of Khao
Phra Viharn, which commenced in October B.E. 2544 (2001), the Thai side through the
nd
Sender 2 Army Area and the mechanisms at local levels have protested to Cambodia and
requested that it suspends construction in the said area until there is clarityboundary
delimitation, but Cambodia did not take notice and proceeded with the construction of the
wat until its completion in January B.E. 2545 (2002). AW present, there are more than 50
Cambodian military and police personnel residing in the wat enclosure and construction
of residential structures is expanding continuously.
4. With regard to the construction of shops and the community, this followed the
trial opening of the Phra Viharn Promontory for tourism purposes, which started in
August B.E. 2541 (1998). Since then, the Cambodian side has constructed structures and
shops in thendrea at the foot of the path leading up to the Phra Viharn Promontory, in
which the 2 Army Area considers that the boundary line is unclear. Subsequently, it
was reported that the Cambodian side encourages more people to settle in the said area
Confidential
227Annex 33
Confidential
Telegram
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TL. 1103/369 Page 2 of 3 pages
Date 5 April B.E. 2545 (2002) Classification: Confidential Urgency
Department of East Asia East Asian Division II cc. 0605
Subject : Differences over the closure of the path leading up to the Phra
Viharn Promontory
and named the community “Khao Phra Viharn Village” and that the Phra
Approved
Viharn Province campaigns for the population in the said village not to resettle
elsewhere. Also, incentives have been provided so that there are more
settlements. Any Cambodian family wish ing to settle in the said vil lage will
receive 500 baht and 50 kg of rice each. Furthermore, the Cambodian
authorities plan to construct 2 routes up to the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn
to avoid using the route to the Temple via Thailand.
Up to now , 40 shops, 68 families , 270 individuals, as well as 8
families of military and police personnel totaling more than 30 persons, have
settled in the said area.
5. Apart from the possible impacts on the watershed and land
boundary, Cambodia’s activities as specified in paras. 2 and 3 have caused
Sender
environmental impacts and hardship to the Thai population living in 5 villages
in Sao Thong Chai Sub-district, Kantharalak District, Si Sa Ket Province. This
results from the fact that the Cambodian community has been disposing
sewage and waste into the Tani and Ta Maria Streams which flow into Sa Trao
and Ta Khop Stream in Thailand , to the point that the water from these
sources cannot be used for consumption. In this regard, the said Thai
Communication communities have jointly filed a complain t letter throug h the provincial
authority, the Member of Parliament for Si Sa Ket Province, the Advisor to the
Division
Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Prime Minister.
6. As for the action taken by the Thai side, in addition to protests at
the local levels throughout this period, problems related to the matter have
also been raised and discussed with the Cambodian side at the JBC level. The
Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs as the responsible agency for this
matter will, for its part, keep the Embassy informed of the o utcome thereof at
the earliest opportunity.
It is hereby communicated for information.
Laxanachantorn
(attachment 1 page)
Confidential
228Annex 33
229Annex 33
230Annex 33
231Annex 33
232 Annex 34
Bangkok Post, 3 November 2002,
“Chavalit backs new Preah Vihear gateway”
233234Annex 34
235Annex 34
236 Annex 35
Bangkok Post, 13 November 2002,
“Push to open temple, border pass together”
237238Annex 35
239Annex 35
240Annex 35
241242 Annex 36
Bangkok Post, 9 December 2002,
“Ruins still closed to all visitors”
243244Annex 36
245Annex 36
246 Annex 37
Bangkok Post, 17 January 2003,
“New border posts planned, hours extended to boost trade”
247248Annex 37
249Annex 37
250 Annex 38
Kantharalak District Office, Note No. Sor Kor 0318/36
to the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province: Inquiry about
the situation in the area of Pha Mor I Dang, dated
5 February B.E. 2546 (2003) (Declassified on 15 June 2012)
251252 Annex 38
(Translation)
Confidential
No. Sor Kor 0318/36 Kantharalak District Office
Anantapakdi Road, Sor Kor 33110
5 February B.E. 2546 (2003)
Subject: Inquiry about the situation in the area of Pha Mor I Dang
To: Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
Reference: Si Sa Ket Province’s Note No. Sor Kor 0017.3/Wor 775 dated 13
January B.E. 2546 (2003)
Attachments: 1. One copy of news report in the Daily News newspaper dated 5
February B.E. 2546 (2003), page 32.
2. One copy of news report in the Matichon newspaper dated 8 January
B.E. 2546 (2003), page 17.
3. One copy of Kantharalak District Office’s Note, Very Urgent,
Confidential, No. Sor Kor 0318/2 dated 13 January B.E. 2546 (2003).
Following reports in the Matichon newspaper dated 8 January B.E.
2546 (2003) and the Daily News newspaper dated 5 February B.E. 2546 (2003) on
“Dissecting the 10 Billion Baht Project : Warriors – Members of P arliament Funded
from Abroad are Shaking Hands to Take over the Phra Viharn Promontory” and “the
Phra Viharn Promontor y Project Fails”, which claimed that the Cambodian
Government had already granted concession to a foreign company to build a laterite
road from Udon Meechai Province to Chom Ka Saan District, Khao Phra Viharn
Province, and another one to join Chong Ta T hao, Sao Thong Chai Sub-district,
Kantharalak District, Si Sa Ket Province, as well as another laterite road leading up to
the Phra Viharn Promontory; and referring to information that there will be a
construction project for a 5 -star hotel, a modern casino, as well as a cable car to
access the Phra Viharn Promontory; and that there has been coordination to request
the opening of a permanent point of entry between Thailand and Cambodia at Chong
Ta Thao; and the Si Sa Ket Province has assigned Kantharalak District to verify the
facts, details of which have been stated therein.
The Kantharalak District hereby reports for information that it had sent
notes to the relevant agencies asking for cooperation in verifying the facts of the
matter, and hereby reports preliminary findings as follows:
1. The Temple of Khao Phra Viharn has been opened and closed for
several times. The latest occasion was when the Suranaree Task Force which is
responsible for the area, agreed with Cambodian Army Area 4 on 1 August B.E. 2541
(1998) to operate a trial opening of the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn, which lasted
until 17 December B.E. 2544 (2001) when the Suranaree Task Force declared the
closure of the path leading up to the Phra Viharn Promontory, in the area of the Pha
Mor I Dang, Kantharalak District, invoking the fact that the Cambodian merchants
who had set up a market selling goods have been littering and releasing wastes and
waste water into the stream which flows down into Sa Trao, Sao Thong Chai Sub -
district, causing hardship for Thai citizens. Only when improvement of the
environment of the area including proper organization of the shops ha s taken place,
will there be a consideration to request an opening of the path for tourists to visit the
Temple of Khao Phra Viharn. At present, the concerned parties of Cambodia have not
done anything to solve the problem.
/2. At present…
Confidential
253Annex 38
Confidential
-2-
2. At present, investigation has been made and it was found that
Cambodian merchants have open up around 50 shops to sell goods in the area of the
path leading up to the Temple of Khao Phra Viharn. A wat has also been constructed
in the area of the Broken Stairway, where the junction of country limit is strdl unclear
and the definite apportioning of area has not yet been done. The 23 Ranger
Regiment has already reported the matter to the Suranaree Task Force.
3. In June B.E. 2545 (2002), Cambodia speeded up the improvement of
the laterite road into the Thai border area, bringing in machines to build a 6 -metre
wide laterite road from Udon Meechai Province into the Thai border area in the region
of the Phra Viharn Promontory: o ne road was built to join Chong Ta T hao and
another built next to the foot of the mountain behind the Phra Viharn Promontory. At
present, there has not yet bee n any construction of a cable car, a casino and a 5-star
hotel. As for future likelihood, no information has yet been found.
4. As for the iron staircase and the iron gate built across a limit canal,
they were built with the budget of the Si Sa Ket Provin cial Administrative
Organization and were formerly used to facilitate the flows of incoming and outgoing
tourists, with regular opening and closing time for tourists. Mr. Pakdi Ratanapol,
Inspector-General of the Ministry of Interior, who came to follow up on the
consideration of the request for the opening of the Phra Viharn Promontory for
tourism purposes, has been informed of the above -mentioned matter. He suggested
that the iron gate be dismantled so as to build a good image and bring about an
atmosphere of friendly relations between the two countries. However, at present, the
iron gate is shut and no one can enter or exit through it.
For you preliminary information. Any additional facts found shall be
reported accordingly.
Yours respectfully,
- signed -
(Mr. Payom Thareechan)
Chief District Officer of Kantharalak
District Administration Office
Confidential
254Annex 38
255Annex 38
256 Annex 39
Bangkok Post, 18 February 2003,
“Border Talks”
257258Annex 39
259Annex 39
Publication: BANGKOKPOST Date:18-02-2003
Page:1 Sections: MAINSECTION
Label: Inbr ief Column: InBrief
Border talks
SiSaKet_TheThaiandCambodian borderdemarcation committeewillsurveytheborder
areaatPreahVihear temple onThursday,totrytodefine theborder linefollowingcomplaintsof
encroachmentbyKhmer vendors.
HattachaiPengjaem,chairmanofthe provincialborder affairscoordination committee,said
trading stallsbuiltinThaiterritorybyCambodianvendorshad become anewproblem stallingtalks
toreopentheancientKhmer templetotourists.
ThelocalCambodian authoritywantsthe templeopenedsoonbutthishasbeen delayedby
the Cambodians'failuretobuildawastetreatmentfacilityattheruins.The hilltop templecanbe
accessed onlythroughThaiterritory.Thailandclosedthe entrancetothe Khmer templein2001
becauseuntreated wastewasbeingdischarged from the templeintoThailand.
260 Annex 40
Bangkok Post, 20 February 2003,
“Clear borders would help end temple row”
261262Annex 40
263Annex 40
264Annex 40
265Annex 40
266 Annex 41
Bangkok Post, 22 February 2003,
“Cambodians ‘encroach’on Thai soil”
267268Annex 41
269Annex 41
270 Annex 42
Photographs of the Opening Ceremony of the Phra
Viharn Promontory BorderArea Point of Entry for
the Purpose of Tourism, taken on 31 May 2003
271272 Annex 42
(Translation of the sign from the Thai language) (Translation of the sign from the Khmer language)
Opening Ceremony Ceremony
(Translation of the sign from the Thai language)anslation of the sign from the Khmer language)
Phra Viharn Promontory BOpening Ceremony of Entry Opening of tCeremony of Entry for Tourism
Phra Viharn Promontory Border Area Point of Entry Opening of the Point of Entry for Tourism
Si Sa Ket Province, the Kingdom of Thailand The Teand Chong Ta Thaorn
Phra Viharn Province, the Kingdom of Cambodiaf Thailand and Cho31 May 2003
Phra Viharn Province, the Kingdom of Cambodia 31 May 2003
31 May 31 May B.E. 2546 (2003)
273Annex 42
(Translation of the sign from the Khmer language)
The Kingdom of Cambodia
The Temple of Phra Viharn
274 Annex 43
Department of EastAsianAffairs, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Thailand, The Thai-Cambodian Joint Cabinet
Retreat, 31 May – 1 June 2003, dated 4 June 2003
275276Annex 43
277Annex 43
278Annex 43
279Annex 43
280Annex 43
281282 Annex 44
Photographs of the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara
Pagoda, taken during 2006 – 2010
283284 Annex 44
14 December 2006
285Annex 44
Circa2007
286 Annex 44
18 January 2010
287288 Annex 45
APhotograph Taken at the International Court of Justice on
30 May 2012 of the Map on the Scale of 1:2,000 Prepared by
the International Training Centre forAerial Survey, exhibited in
the Court room and submitted to the Court asAnnex No. 85 d
in 1962
289290Annex 45
291292 Annex 46
International Boundaries Research Unit,
Durham University, A review of maps presented in
the period 1959 – 1962 and others prepared in 2012,
June 2012
293294 Annex 46
A review of maps presented in the
period 1959-1962 and others
prepared in 2012
Report prepared for the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand
June 2012
Authors: Alastair Macdonald& Martin Pratt
295Annex 46
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................1
2. SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES...........................................................................1
3. THE MAPS OF THE 1959- 62 CASE – THE ITC MAP.............................................2.
4. THE MAPS OF THE 1959- 62 CASE – THE DAI REVISED ITC MAP...........................
5. THE MAPS OF THE 1959- 62 CASE – THE “BIG MAP”....................................3....1
6. THE MAPS OF THE 1959- 62 CASE – THE ITC/ANNEX I COMPARISON..................20
7. THE MAPS OF THE 1959- 62 CASE – THE ANNEX 61 MAP................................. 6
8. THE CABINET LINE MAP..............................................................................2.8
9. THE COMPARISON OF THE DAI REVISED ITC MAP AND THE CABINET LINE MA.P .29
10. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS...............................................................2.......3
296 Annex 46
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 In the 1959-62 Temple of Preah Vihear case, maps were
specially produced for the pleadings and were also
enlarged and/or reduced to support various arguments. In
some cases, spot heights appeared on some maps but
were removed from enlargements and substituted by
other heights obtained by different methods . A close
reading of the pleadings is necessary to find out the
reasons.
1.2 Now, in 2012, Cambodia has submitted as a singl e map 1
its own version of the 1962 overlay of the International 2
Training Centre (ITC) map and the Annex I map extract ,
apparently to try and define the section of boundary that it
wishes the Court to determine. Thailand has commissioned
a comparison of th e 1962 Cabinet Line map and the
Doeringsfeld, Amuedo and Ivey (DAI) “revised” ITC map
(see Section 9).
1.3 It is important that, in all this comparative work, one does
not lose sight of the limitations of the underlying maps
and it is important to establish fr om the available records
what those limitations might be. This review sets out to do
this.
2. SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES
2.1 In 1961 Thailand commissioned a 1:10,000 map of the
3
area from ITC in The Netherlands . The Centre produced
the map by photogrammetric proce sses which were then
fairly new. It may be useful to have a brief explanation of
the process.
2.2 The map is made from a pair of overlapping aerial
photographs taken at an altitude of 20,000 feet from
aircraft positions some 5 kms apart. Think of a giant, with
eyes 5 kms apart, looking down on the Temple from
20,000 feet. The photogrammetric plotting machine allows
a human being with eye s only 5 cms apart to access the
giant’s view and see the temple surroundings in 3D.
2.3 While it is simple enough to see the 3D m odel, that is not
sufficient. The operator cannot accurately estimate the
scale of the model nor whether it is level or not. To do this
he needs the coordinates of at least two plan positions
identified on the aerial photographs for scale and at least
three height points for levelling the model. It is usual to
1
2Response of Cambodia, 8 March 2012, map between pp 76 and 77.
3Map sheets 3 and 4 of Annex 49, Counter Memorial of Thailand.
This map is discussed in detail in Section 3.
1
297Annex 46
supply more so that there are some check points that will
show up any errors in the process.
2.4 When comparing maps made by photogrammetric
processes, there are four influences on quality that need
to be considered:
a. The quality of the photography;
b. The quality of the ground control used to
orientate the model;
c. The precision with which the ground control
points can be identified in the model (e.g. a
corner of the temple ruins would be easy to
identify whereas a small bush in a clearing in
rain forest much less so);
d. The skill of the operator , especially in
contouring. This will be influenced to a
considerable extent by the machine he is using.
2.5 Unfortunately, a lot of this information is probably now
unavailable. Professor Schermerhorn, the Dean of the ITC
who authored the report accompanying the map, seemed
satisfied with the quality of the ground control and its
identification on the photographs . Fifty years on, it is
difficult to find any other information on the quality of the
4
control. The aerial photographs used by Professor
Schermerhorn can still be viewed in the Court archive and
are in excellent condition even after 50 years – a tribute to
the archivist and the conditions in the archive. We do also
know that ITC used much superior equipment to DAI and
that becomes relevant when considering the “DAI revised
ITC map”.
3. THE MAPS OF THE 1959-62 CASE – THE ITC MAP
3.1 Thailand commissioned ITC to produce 1:10,000 mapping
of the area with a contour interval of 20 m in outlying
5
areas and 10 m closer to the temple . The aim was to
define the watershed.
3.2 Professor Schermerhorn prepared a report on his work
which was submitted as Annex 49 to Thailand’s Counter
4
The management of ITC has indicated in an email to the authors that the ITC
archive no longer contains any records relating to the production of the maps
used in the case. Any records that that might have been retained following the
Temple case were destroyed when the Institute moved from Delft to Enschede in
the 1970s.
5From inspection, it appears that the 10 m. area was defined as all that land
lying above the 500 m. ring contour around the temple. This definition would
produce a larger area than might be needed but would be a simple instruction to
give the photogrammetrist before he started work.
2
298 Annex 46
6
Memorial. In it, he described the method used and
identified the photographic scale and vintage. In the oral
hearings 7, he confirmed that he used US Army Map
Service photography taken on 4 Jan 1954 at a notional
scale of 1:40,000. T he area of the 3D overlap between
photograph numbers 9050 and 9051 covers the who le
width of Sheet 2 from east to west and from the
Cambodian plain to the old dam south to north.
Macdonald, in the company of the Ambassador of the
Kingdom of Thailand to the Netherlands and officials from
the Royal Thai Embassy at the Hague viewed the or iginal
photographs at the Court on 30 May 2012. The
photographs (identified in the 1962 hearings as S1 and
8
S2 ) were of good quality when taken and remain so. It is
therefore very easy to understand the difficulties caused
by heavy tree cover in parts of t he area as the different
types of vegetation are clearly visible. The photographs
also carry what appear to be the locations of the control
points provided by the Royal Thai Survey Department
(RTSD) inked up in red.
3.3 The maps carry a production date of April 1961. Under
cross-examination from Cambodian counsel Dean
Acheson, Schermerhorn explained that it represented the
month in which the initial plotting was carried out and that
Sheet 2 was not finalised until Ackermann had returned
from Thailand in August 1961. 9
3.4 ITC provided a number of photogrammetric spot heights in
a flat area where the 10 m contour interval did not provide
an adequate indication of the slope of the terrain. In
addition, part of the area was obscured by dense tree
cover. This is the area marked by the letter F and
immediately to the west of it. There was uncertainty over
the definition of precisely where the watershed crossed the
area before continuing on to point E. Because of the
uncertainty, Schermerhorn sen10out a young engineer
called Friedrich Ackermann to examine the area in detail
and to determine the precise course of the watershed in
the vicinity of F in July 1961.
6Counter Memorial of Thailand pp. 432-433. The ITC’s approach to the
production of the map was also pithily summarised in the Rejoinder of Sir Frank
Soskice in the oral hearings (p.612).
7
8Oral Hearings p. 348 and p.350.
9Oral Hearings, p.351-2.
Oral Hearings pp. 368-9. But see also paragraphs 3.5 and 4.5.
10Ackermann went on to revolutionise the photogrammetric process. He became
a monumental figure in th e profession and is now a retired and much respected
professor emeritus, living in Stuttgart.
3
299Annex 46
Figure 1: The ITC map, sheet 2
Note: The versions of the maps and photographs in this report are included primar ily
as aides memoires. Most are significantly reduced from their original scale, and detail
may be difficult to discern. More legible, larger scale versions of all the maps can be
supplied in digital format on request.
4
300 Annex 46
Figure 2: The 1954 aerial photography used in the production of the ITC map,
identified as S1 and S2 in the 1962 oral hearings (see paragraph 3.2)
5
301Annex 46
3.5 Sheet 2 itself contains very little evidence of Ackermann’s
work, which is quite surprising. He carried out some useful
survey work both t o provide the alignment of a stream
running down on the east side of the temple and
continuing to the north, and a series of heighted points in
the vicinity of F . This work appears to have definitively
solved the question of the alignment of the watershed in
this area by establishing the existence of a saddle at Point
F. His spot heights provided additional useful information
about the slope of the area down to the west from Point F.
3.6 As far as one can see, the only use of his work on Sheet 2
of the ITC map itself was in placing the alignment of the
watershed in the vicinity of F. In its Rejoinder, Thailand
did submit Annex 75b (see Figure 9) in overlay form. This
Annex depicted the course of Ackermann’s stream and
was intended to show how the stream related to other
detail on the map. The original spot heights to the west of
F were left undisturbed even though Ackermann had
provided additional and more reliable values from his field
work.11 His field work was, however, displayed on the “Big
Map” (see 5.3 and F igure 6) which was on view in the
Court during the oral hearings.
3.7 In spite of this, it must be emphasised that the main
purpose of the ITC maps was to depict the course of the
watershed in the vicinity of the Temple. T he maps do
indeed fulfil this purpose.
4. THE MAPS OF THE 1959 -62 CASE – THE DAI REVISED
ITC MAP
4.1 When Cambodia saw the ITC mapping, they commissioned
an American firm of photogeologists, Doeringsfeld,
Amuedo and Ivey, to comment on it. DAI made several
changes to the ITC map Sheet 2 and it s ve rsion,
annotated “REVISED EDITION”, together with it12report ,
were then submitted by Cambodia in its Reply . During
11For an explanation, see 4.5 below.
12Reply of Cambodia, Annexes LXVIa (report), LXVIc and d (maps). LXVIc was a
paper copy of the map, referred to as Annexe 1in the Report. LXVId was a
transparency intended for use as an overlay on the original ITC map and referred
to as Annexe 2 in the Report. This transparency is no longer present in the Court
archive. There are least two versions of Annexe LXVIc in the archi ve. Both have
an archive label with the number 29793 and the date 29 -11-61; one copy,
annotated during the oral hearings as S3, carries the annotation s “Annexe L XVI
(c)” in the northeast corner and “ANNEX 2 TO THE REPORT OF DOERINGSFELD,
AMUEDO and IVEY” in the southeast corner. It is this S3 version that we have
used as the basis of our remarks in this section.
6
302 Annex 46
the oral hearings, Counsel from both sides used the DAI
version of Sheet 2 as the basis for their examinations and
both sides referred to this DAI version of Sheet 2 as the
“DAI revised ITC map”. It contained the following changes
(See Figure 5 below):
a. A new 525 metre contour was inserted in the
dip to the west of point F, running up the south
side of the dip and returning towards F on the
north side. A second 525 m contour was
inserted further to the west around a ring
contour. This allowed DAI to claim that a
saddle lay between them in the vicinity of Point
2.
b. The 520 m contour on the escarpment was
deviated about 70 m to the west to intrude into
the gap at F.
c. A new watershed line was developed to run to
the west of the line of the temple ruins down to
cross the alleged saddle near Point 2 before
turning east to regain the watershed, thus
placing the Temple in Cambodia.
d. DAI stated , in their a ccompanying report 13,
that ”certain of the contour lines on the I.T.C.
map are in error. Such errors in the temple
area have been corrected on the revised map.
These corrections are all minor, except at the
location marked point 2 on the revised map
where t he 520-metre contour on the original
map is in error”.
e. A visual comparison of the ITC and DAI maps
has failed to reveal any of the minor changes
that DAI claimed to have made to contour lines
although the major change to the 520 m.
contour (already referred to in b. above) is
clearly visible. DAI introduced changes to the
watershed line from Pnom Trap eastwards but
these appear to have resulted from a re -
int14pretation of the existing ITC contours.
4.2 In their report , DAI stated:
“It is believed that the warshed line as shown on the
revised map is more accurate than is sh own on the I.T.C.
map because more emphasis was given to a study of the
natural factors of stream channelsand stream divides,
whereas the I.T.C. watershed line is based mainly on
deductions from the contour lines, as is stated in paragraph
4 (Procedure) of the I.T.C. Report.
13
14Reply of Cambodia, Annex LXVIa., p.541 footnote.
Reply of Cambodia, Annex LXVIa.
7
303Annex 46
The I.T.C. map is contoured at an interval of ten metres in
the temple area, which is not a small enough interval for
accurate definition of the watershed. The small magnitude of
the stream channels in this area would require a contour
interval of about one metre in order adequately to show al l
the details required for an accurate watershed determination
based on contour lines. It is possible that even a one -metre
interval would not be sufficient.”
Figure 3: The DAI revised ITC map, sheet 2
8
304 Annex 46
Figure 4: The 1958 aerial photography used in the production of the DAI revised
ITC map (Annex LXVIb to the Cambodian Reply; see paragraph 4.5)
9
305Annex 46
Figure 5: Extract of the DAI revised ITC Map on which we have highlighted in red
the contour adjustments described in paragraph 4.1 above. The circle drawn in
pencil is the “area of uncertainty” marked by Professor Schermerhorn during the
1962 oral hearings (see paragraph 4.12).
4.3 This is a reasonable criticism of the ITC map in the vicinity
of the valley west of Point F where the 10 m contour
interval could not indicate the lie of the land clearly (hence
the ITC spot heights). It is noteworthy, however, that DAI
displayed none of the streams they claim to have detected
on their version of the ITC map. Other than in the Point F
area, the ITC contour interval is adequate for the general
definition of the watershed line.
4.4 When DAI go on to make the following claim, they are on
much weaker ground:
“The contour lines and ground -control elevations on the
I.T.C. map are fully consistent with the fact, observed from
the aerial photographs, that a generally southeastward-
flowing stream channel is present at thelocation marked
point 3 on the revised map. To emphasize this consistency
an intermediate 525-metre contour line has been placed on
the revised map. This contour line is based on the actual
ground-control elevations indicated on the I.T.C. map.”
4.5 It is true that the 525 m contour is generally, though not
entirely, consistent with the ITC spot heights but there are
other ways of interpolating a 525 m contour line from
10
306 Annex 46
those heights . DAI offer no specific evidence for the
existence of a south east flowing stream and no such claim
can be made from the 1958 aerial photographs that they
used 15 because of the presence of a significant area of
dense forest where height determination and stream
detection would have been impossible without a field visit.
4.6 From the beginning, ITC were aware that ther e was a
difficulty in determining the watershed in this area and
sent Ackermann out to resolve it. Unfortunately, after
Ackermann’s work, although ITC now had additional
reliable height information, they did not modify their
original map sheet. Had Ackermann’s spot heights and his
stream been shown on the ITC map and additional
contours provided to indicate the saddle at Point F , DAI
would have found it much more difficult to have claimed
the existence of the 525 m contour and the south east
flowing stream. Schermerhorn explained his reasoning for
not revising the ITC map to the Court thus:
“Mr President, what I tried to explain a few words was
that, although we knew that the ground survey could cause,
and should cause also, some alterations of the existing map,
in particularin those areas which were a little doubtful
during the photogrammetric restitution, we decided to leave
the map just as it was and only do no more than to take
away from our first pencil manuscript the alternative [line of
watershed] which we considered as wrong; because if we
once would have started in one corner - well, changing a
little bit a contour line - well, then you come into difficulties
and then you don't know exactly how far it runs. There was
one additional point which was that we found that within the
precision of the twenty metres contours, there was no
important contradiction between the ground survey and the
photogrammetric restitution, ex16pt for that one point which
had misled us about the saddle.”
4.7 Schermerhorn was being strictly and professionally
correct. To have adjusted the contours to fit Ackermann’s
heights would have involved a degree of speculation in
their position which he felt – in contrast to DAI – was
unjustified. With hindsight, the ideal course would have
been for Ackermann to have taken a copy of the map
17
sheet with him to the field and corrected it on site.
4.8 In assessing the DAI map , w e are faced with making a
choice between Ackermann’s survey work and the claims
of DAI. During our own field visit in August 2011, we saw
15Reply of Cambodia, Annex LXVIb, p.540; copies obtained by the Royal Thai
Embassy in The Hague.
16
17ral Hearings p.373.
As the original edition of the map was available at the time of Ackermann’s
visit, it seems inconceivable that he would not have had the map with him in the
field. So the question might be: why did he not revise the map on the spot?
11
307Annex 46
Ackermann’s stream flowing in the direction that he
indicated in the vicinity of Points 2 and 3 and therefore
crossing the DAI 525 m. contour on more than one
occasion, a clear impossibility . From Macdonald’s personal
knowledge of Ackermann’s reputation, we believe his work
would have been correct. Thus, we believe that the 525 m.
contour is incorrectly placed on the DAI map.
4.9 In any case, DAI were using very simple equipment that
was simply not capable of detecting a 5m contour,
especially from aerial photography at such a small scale.
Schermerhorn ridiculed the inferiority of the DAI
equipment compared to his own 18 and, based on our
knowledge of the equipment in question, we feel he was
justified in doing so.
4.10 We are therefore left with the conclusion that the DAI
amendments to the ITC map are unsupportable and
incorrect. The watershed that DAI depicts is based on a
false and (in our personal opinion) an unprofessional
interpretation of the facts available.
4.11 Thailand’s counsel Sir Frank Soskice used the “DAI revised
ITC map ” as the basis of his questions to Prof essor
Schermerhorn during the oral hearings . With hindsight,
one might think that this would have given unnecessary
additional credibility to this map. Even the phrase used to
refer to it – the “DAI revised ITC map” – implied that it
was in some way superior to the ITC map. We would have
preferred the phrase “DAI degraded ITC map”!
4.12 Soskice even led Schermerhorn into drawing a “circle of
uncertainty” in the vicinity of Point F on this m ap which
19
was then deposited in the Court’s records as S3. It is
easy, when reading the transcript, to think that this was a
current area of uncertainty but, in fact, Schermerhorn was
only indicating an area which, at the start of his work, was
flagged up as needing more careful investigation.
Ackermann went out and resolved the uncertainty.
18
19Oral hearings, p.366.
Oral Hearings p. 354.
12
308 Annex 46
5. THE MAPS OF THE 1959-62 CASE – THE “BIG MAP”
20
5.1 The “big map” was introduced into the oral hearings by
Thailand’s counsel, James Hyde, and was presumably
intended to allow the Court to follow more easily the
arguments of counsel on both sides. It was a 5x
enlargement to 1:2000 scale of both sheets of the ITC
21
1:10,000 map . A 90 cm x 60 cm extract from the
eastern third of the map , representing 4% of the area of
the “big map”, is lodged as Annex 85d to the published
record of the 1962 oral hearings. The western two thirds
of the original map are also located in the Court archive
and were examined by Macdonald, in the company of the
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Thailand to the
Netherlands and officials from the Royal Thai Embassy at
the Court on 30 May 2012. 22 The original version of the
full eastern section is missing from the Court archive.
5.2 The map was made in three sections, each 3 m. north to
south a nd 1.5 m. east to west. Underlying the contour
detail is a faint pencil grid, in which each square is
equivalent to an area of 1000 m. x 1000 m. on the
ground. The squares are numbered sequentially from east
to west and south to north. We noted that the version of
ITC map sheet 2 archived as S3 (see footnote 12 above)
carried a similar 1000 m. grid and the same grid numbers.
A close inspection of the contours on the big map revealed
a regular spacing of very small discontinuities every 2 gri d
squares. From this information, we deduce that the most
probable method of production for this map, described by
Hyde in the oral hearings as an “optically made
enlargement” 23was as follows:
a. A transparent copy of Sheet 2 was cut into
smaller units of 4 grid squares.
b. A 4 grid square unit was then placed in an
enlarger and projected on to the base board to
produce a 5x enlargement.
c. The relevant section of the gridded pap er map
was laid onto the base board and adjusted until
the grid lines coincided. The contour lines were
traced from the pr ojected image with a pen of
3.5 mm. diameter. Stream detail was added in
20This was the term by which it was frequently referred to in Court by counsel on
both sides.
21The “big map” measures 3 m. by 4.5 m. and was constructed in three separate
sections each 1.5 m. wide.
22
23See Figure 7.
Oral hearings, p. 273.
13
309Annex 46
blue, ITC watershed detail in black and DAI
watershed detail in red.
d. The process was repeated for all 4 grid square
units until the whole map had been completed.
e. The course of the O Tasem and the Annex I
line were added by eye. First, a thin pencil line
was sketched in on the map following
alignments probably suggested by Map Sheets
24
3 and 4 to Annex 49. These lines were then
suitably enhanced by applying a green crayon
to produce a thick line approximately 1 cm
wide.
5.3 Counsel for Thailand, James Hyde introduced this map to
the Court with the following words . 25 We comment on the
text we have indicated in red in the paragraphs that
follow:
“Now I should like to turn to this la rge map which is behind
me, a map on the scale of 1: 2,000 prepared by the
International Training Centre for Aerial Survey . It plots on
this one sheet some of the information contained on the
maps which are annexes in this case. 26 This is an optically
made enlargement , reproducing with some precision the
information plotted. There is no new evidence presented by
this map; it is simply a visual aid, and if there was an issue
of some deviation between what the annexes before t he
Court show and this map, the argument shou ld of course be
addressed to the annexes. I should add that there is a slight
element of approximation in expanding by one hundred
times to th is scale th e information contained in Annex I.
And, Mr. President, M embers of the Court, I shall ask Mr.
Ackermann of the I nstitute to assist me by pointing out on
this map several elements I shall mention, and I shall ask
him to point them out as they are mention ed in the French
translation as well.
The basic sheet is an enlargement of T hailand's Annexes 49
(these two brown sheets, prepared by the Institute), and on
it, these two brown sheets being in fact the background of
the large map, are plotted first of all the frontier line as it
appears in Annex I , that is to say the line represented by
the crosses in Cambodi a's Annex I. Would you indicate the
Annex I frontier line? It is indicated in green and marked by
the legen d "A.1". It also contains the geographical
watershed line, prepared by Thailand's experts, which
appears on these two map sheets of the Institute. Will you
now please indicate the Instit ute's topographical watershed
line? And then it contains the line of Cambodia's experts,
24For further discussion of the Annex I line see Section 6.
25
26Oral hearings p. 273-4.
A footnote by Registry indicates that the map is located at Annex 85d.
14
310 Annex 46
Messrs. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo and Ivey, which, as you will
see, corresponds in part wit h the Institute's line and then
differs very substantially as it runs to the north.
It also shows where the contours indicate the cliff edge in
the area of the Temple; and finally it indicates some
streams of vital importance, and at this point I shall mention
just one. And that is a stream, a rive r, known as O Tasem.
Now this river O Tasem is indicated in green as it is plotted
on Annex I, and you will see how it comes all round that
mountain and then flows down through that saddle into
Cambodia. You will notice how there is a juncture between
that stream, as plotted on Annex I , and the watershed line
as both experts are agreed on it. Would you indicate where
O Tasem is plotted, crosses the watershed line as both
experts are agreed? That cross. And finally this map
indicates in blue the actual floof th is riverTasem as
Professor Schermerhorn's study shows that it really exists.
That, Mr. President and Members of the Court, is the
information drawn from the annexes which that map behind
me presents.
5.4 Hyde suggested that there was no new evidence presented
by this map. However, it does appear that there are some
significant new pieces of information on the map (See
Figure 8):
a. The stream that Ackermann surveyed is shown
as an integral part of the map . This is an
improvement on the overlay provided for use
27
with the original ITC map. The “big map”
makes it much easier to understand the
relationship between the stream and the
surrounding contours.
b. The inclusion of a number of spot heights
surveyed by Ackermann in the area of Point F
and immediately to the west of it. These
heights indicate that the ITC alignment of the
watershed is substantially correct. Later in the
hearings, Ackermann was taken through these
heights on this map by Soskice. 28
27
28See 3.6 above.
Oral Hearings, p. 388-9.
15
311Annex 46
Figure 6: The extract from the “Big Map” annexed to the published record of the
1962 oral hearings (Annex 85d)
16
312 Annex 46
Figure 7: Photograph of two of the three sheets comprising the “Big Map”
(viewed by Macdonald during a visit to the ICJ on 30 May 2012) (See paragraphs
5.1 and 5.2)
17
313Annex 46
Figure 8: Extract of the “Big Ma p” showing the spot heights included from
Ackermann’s work, the lower section of his stream in blue and a portion of the
Annex I boundary in green (which has reproduced with a bluey tone) (see
paragraph 5.5 and 5.6)
Figure 9: Annex 75b to Thailand’s Re joinder, an overlay which was designed to
add Ackermann’s survey work to the ITC map and the “DAI revised ITC map”
(see paragraphs 3.6 and 5.4a)
5.5 Two large numerals, “2” and “3”, in blue, have been added
to the map. Their purpose was to allow the Court to follow
a discussion of stream channels in the area to the west of
18
314 Annex 46
Point F.29In the vicinity of Point 2, symbols were added to
the stream running north. An examination of the aerial
photography and our own observations in the field suggest
that this was to represent a gorge.
5.6 We cannot find any evidence that an explanation was ever
given to the Court about how the Annex I map was
collocated with the “big map” to produce the Annex I line
that appears on the latter. In 5.2, we describe the process
by which we think the line was added. A careful
examination of the 1:50,000 overlay discussed in the next
section and a comparison with the “big map” suggests that
this overlay might have been the basis for locating the
Annex I line , in spite of the amount of enlargem ent
involved. It is important to remember that displaying the
Annex I line on the big map had only one purpose – to
display the way in which the presence of the imaginary O
Tasem had pushed the Annex I line well to the north of the
true watershed. It was never intended to be an accurate
positioning – this would require a more complex procedure
as set out in 6.9 below.
29
Oral Hearings, p. 363. A rather confusing discussion between Soskice and
Schermerhorn on the streams in the area and the uncertainty surrounding them
which is then superseded by a discussion of Ackermann’s work which provided
certainty.
19
315Annex 46
5.7
6. THE MAPS OF THE 19 59-62 CASE – THE ITC/ANNEX I
COMPARISON
6.1 Professor Schermerhorn was asked 30o compare his
mapping with the Annex I map of 1908. As with the “big
map”, the purpose of this exercise was to display the way
in which the presence of the imaginary O Tasem had
pushed the Annex I line well to the north of the true
watershed.
6.2 The scales of these two maps differed by a factor of 20 so
he supplied a 5X reduction of the whole area covered by
the two ITC map sheets on a transparency at a scale of
1:50,000 (see Figure 10) and a 4x enlargement of the
same area from the Annex I map printed on paper at the
same scale (see Figure 11) . The transparency was to be
overlaid onto the paper map using four registration
crosses provided on the transparency which were to
coincide with the corners of the bounding rectangle of the
Annex I extract (see Figure 12) . It is not clear from the
Report how the corners of the ITC area were defined nor
how the equivalent area of the Annex I extract was
chosen. He might have used the escarpment edge in the
vicinity of the temple , but not the temple symbols
themselves (as the temple symbol on the Annex I map
31
does not coincide with the detail on the ITC map ).
Alternatively, he might have converted the grid values of
his corner crosses on the ITC map to latitudes and
longitudes and, ignoring any errors arising from a change
of projection, used these values to define t he extract from
the Annex I map.
6.3 It should be remembered that Schermerhorn was not
interested in great accuracy for this comparison . The
purpose of comparing the two maps in the chosen area
was simply to demonstrate visually to the Court how
wrong the Anne x I line was and how that error had been
caused by the unjustified inclusion of the O Tasem , a
stream which was wholly imaginary. The map and the
overlay were fit for this purpose but not necessarily for
any further use such as de32rcation. As Macdonald an d
Pratt have already stated :
30
31Counter Memorial of Thailand, Annex 49, pp. 434-436.
This is as it should be – the temple symbol is crudely positioned on the Annex I
map and is too far west of the edge of the escarpment.
32 Assessment of the task of translating the Cambodia-Thailand boundary
depicted on the ‘Annex I’ map onto the ground , October 2011, p. 17 (reproduced
as Annex 96 to the Written Observations of the Kingdom of Thailand, 21
November 2011).
20
316 Annex 46
“… … there is a need to consider the technical limitations of
a small scale map such as the Annex I map. Even if the
map is accurate, the scale will define the precision with
which the position of any feature on the map can b e
determined. The arms of the cross symbols used to mark
the boundary on the Annex I map are about 0.6 millimetres
wide, which is 120 metres on the ground. The contours
which define the watershed are fairly crude and the choice
of location of the boundaryline within the ring contours of
the crest line (made most probably by a cartographer in
Paris) must have been fairly arbitrary, leading to further
uncertainty of position.”
6.4 Schermerhorn describes the error in the Annex I map as
follows:
“The relative agreement between both maps above referred
to does not apply to the western parts of the mapped area.
Apart from the fact that the Pnom Trap mountain is not very
well represented in the "annex I" map there is one very
striking difference concerning the headwaters of the
O'Tasem river. According to the "annex I" map there is a
valley going around the n orthern side of the Pnom Trap
mountain draining the water coming down from the western
side of Phra Viharn mountain. According to t he "annex I"
map the water fl ows around the Pnom Trap mountain and
empties itself into the C ambodian territory in the southern
direction. This representation does not agree with the actual
topography and must be pointed out to be in error.”
6.5 It is also worth pointing out that it is not just the O Tasem
that is in error on the Annex I map. Of the five other
streams flowing to the north, three are seriously in error.
In addition, errors of 500m in the plan position of contours
are not uncommon and errors of up to 1.5 kms exist.
6.6 Cambodia, in its Response in the present proceedings, has
included a composite printing of the ITC map overlay on
33
the Annex I extract . At 4.65, it suggests that the
purpose is to define an area of dispute:
“La carte qui suit cette page est une comparaison effectuée
par le Dr. Schermerhorn après superposition des deux
cartes. La ligne surlignée en vert est la ligne sur la carte de
l'annexe I ; la ligne surlignée en rouge montre le
positionnement de la ligne de partage des eaux selon la
Thaïlande. A l'est et à l'ouest du Temple, les deux lignes se
rejoignent. Cependant, dans la partie centrale, il y a une
zone délimitée où les deux lignes divergent. Cela correspond
aux 4,6 km² qui étaient au centre du litige dans l'affaire
initiale et qui demeurent litigieux aujourd'hui.”
6.7 In overprinting the ITC map on the Annex I extract,
Cambodia has not followed Schermerhorn’s procedure. As
mentioned in 6.2, Schermerhorn provided , on his
reduction of the 1:10,000 map, four registration crosses
with which to align the map to the Anne x I enlargement.
This results in the ITC detail of the temple buildings not
33
A facsimile of this map is presented at Figure 13.
21
317Annex 46
being coincident with the Annex I symbol, which is
perfectly justifiable as the positioning of the temple
symbol on the Annex I map is clearly rather crude.
Cambodia has nevertheless chosen to make the two
temple symbols coincident. This decision move s the
positions of the two points at which the ITC watershed and
the Annex I line intersect by about 500 m. in the west
and 300 m. in the east 34when compared to the positions
given by the correct application of Schermerhorn’s
method. This one effect exposes the Cambodian attempt
to define a zone “ qui étaient au centre du litige dans
l'affaire initiale et qui demeurent litigieux aujourd'hui” as
both crude and unreliable.
6.8 Cambodia’s decision also displaces the whole length of the
Annex I line as it would appear on the real world by some
300 m. – to Thailand’s disadvantage for most of its length.
We believe that a correct application of Schermerhorn’s
procedure would produce an area of 4.2 km² rather than
Cambodia’s claim of 4.6 km².
6.9 Furthermore, Cambodia has taken an arbitrary position on
the transformation of the Annex I watershed line onto the
real world by simply overprinting the ITC map onto the
Annex I map without any explanation of how it has
collocated the two maps. Macdonald and Pratt discussed
the options available for this purpose in their earlier
report.35 Looked at in a purely technical way, taking into
account the practical problems, the following processes
would be necessary be fore a relationship between the
erroneous Annex I line and the true watershed could be
established:
a. Agree between the parties how much of the
Annex I watershed line is to be accepted for
the delimitation of the boundary.
b. Agree on a mathematical transformat ion to be
used to transform this agreed section of
boundary.
c. Select common points (i.e. points on the Annex
I map that can be confidently identified on the
ITC map ). As Macdonald and Pratt have
already pointed out, there are not many points
that can be confidently identified and it is quite
likely that these points will lie oneto the west
34
The different values athe two points are accounted for by the different
35rections in which the lines are travelling at each end.
Assessment of the task of translating the Cambodia -Thailand boundary
depicted on the ‘Annex I’ map onto the ground, October 2011, pp19-42.
22
318 Annex 46
and the other to the east of the selected
section of the Annex I line.
d. Carry out a transformation.
6.10 Only then could field teams set about the demarcation.
However, even before attempting to agree this process, it
is necessary to consider the logic behind the Cambodian
approach to selecting this particular section of the Annex I
watershed. There appears to be no physical significance to
the two points of intersection. The ITC watershed line just
happens to intersect the Annex I line at these two points.
Thus, the proposal that the Annex I watershed should be
used to define a boundary between these two points
seems to be arbitrary. One might express the Cambodian
logic as foll ows: Where the Annex I watershed line
apportions more land to Cambodia, it is to be taken as the
authority for delimitation. Where it apportions more land
to Thailand, it is to be abandoned and the ITC watershed
(ie the true watershed) is to become the aut hority. This
would seem to be a logic designed simply to benefit
Cambodia.
23
319Annex 46
Figure 10: ITC’s 1:50,000 reduction of the ITC map (the original was provided on
transparent material)
Figure 11: ITC’s 1:50,000 enlargement of the Annex I map
24
320 Annex 46
Figure 12: Overlay of the reduced ITC map and enlarged Annex I map using the
registration crosses provided by ITC
Figure 13: Cambodia’s overlay of the two maps in its 2012 Response
(see paragraphs 6.6-6.7)
25
321Annex 46
7. THE MAPS OF THE 1959-62 CASE – THE ANNEX 61 MAP
7.1 This map, constructed in 1937 at a scale of 1:5, 000 (see
Figure 14), covers the immediate area of the temple and
was introduced into the 1962 Rejoinder with the following
text:
“60. The Cambodian Government is thus mistaken in
suggesting, in para. 69 of the Reply, that the Government of
Thailand "did not render public before 1958 a map which
affirmed or confirmed its territorial sovereignty". The
Government of Thailand made such a map public in 1935, as
soon as it could reasonably be expected to do so after the
completion of its survey of the area. For the purpose of the
production of another map of Phra Viharn, on a larger scale,
another field survey was carried out in December, 1937. The
original field sheet drawn as a result of this survey, on the
scale 1: 5,000, has been deposited in the Registry (Annex
No. 61). Like sheet No. 81/4-48 -9, it shows the frontier in
its proper place and the temple on the Thai side of it. This
1: 5,000 sheet was printed and made available to the public
in 1940.”6
7.2 It was referred to ag ain in the oral hearings by Soskice as
evidence of the local topography which pre-dated the case
and thus was untaintedby any arguments surroundingit. 37
7.3 After such a long time interval, it is difficult to be sure of its
method of production. It is very un likely that aerial
photography was available and the most likely method
would have involved a detailed survey on the ground. This
means that the streams shown would have been seen by the
surveyors and the necessary measurements taken to
position them on the map. One cannot form a view as to the
accuracy of these streams but it is worth noting that a
comparison with Ackermann’s stream shows good
agreement in the lower part where it flows to the north
west. However, there is weak agreement in the upper part
closer to the temple where the bed is much less clearly
defined.
7.4 Nevertheless, the professional appearance of the map
inspires some confidence that it was well made and is
reliable.
7.5 It is interesting to note that this map clearly depicts a
saddle in the vicinity of Point F on the ITC map in exactly
the same way that Ackermann claimed in evidence during
the oral hearings in 1961 (see Figure 15) . Considering all
the arguments about the saddle’s existence in the oral
hearings, it is surprising that the evidence of this map was
never brought into play.
36Rejoinder of Thailand, p. 574-5.
37Oral Hearings, p.622-3.
26
322 Annex 46
Figure 14: The Annex 61 map (English text added by RTSD)
Figure 15: Extract from the Annex 61 map with the
saddle described by Ackermann highlighted
27
323Annex 46
8. THE CABINET LINE MAP
8.1 This map covers the area immediate ly around the temple
site. It was submitted to the Court during oral hearings on
Provisional Measures in May 2011 (see Figure 16).
8.2 It was produced in the period 1960-1 at a scale of 1:5,000
and shows considerable similarity with the 1937 Annex 61
map. At least 80% of the contours are identical but there
have been changes along the top of the escarpment
running both east and west from the temple site. Much of
the stream detail is similar too. It is known that aerial
photography at 1:40,000 scale was used in its production
and the most likely explanation is that the
photogrammetrist used the existing 1937 map as a base
map and revised it from the aerial photography where he
felt it was necessary. As well as the contour changes,
there are minor changes to the d epiction of the temple
buildings. Other modern features were added at the same
time. Nevertheless, because of the significant areas of
agreement with the 1937 map, it is reasonable to argue
that the topography on this map is not tainted by any
arguments or bias arising from the 1962 case.
8.3 The map provides much more detail of stream channels than
the ITC map. This is not surprisinggiven the probability that
the original 1937 map involved surveyors going on the
ground.
Figure 16: The Cabinet Line (English text added by RTSD)
28
324 Annex 46
9. THE COMPARISON OF THE DAI REVISED ITC MAP AND
THE CABINET LINE MAP
9.1 An overlay of selected features from the Cabinet Line map
onto selected features from the “ DAI revised ITC map ”
was prepared by IBRU following a request from the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand in March 201 2
(see Figure 17).
9.2 The two maps were collocated and scaled using the length
of the Temple feature and the composite map is presented
at 1:10,000 scale (the scale of the original DAI revised
map). There remain discrepancies in the position of
intermediate features of the temple of up to 10 m. As the
ITC map displayed few streams and the Cabinet Line
many, no useful comparison of these features can be
made. There are discrepancies in the line of the
escarpment edge of up to 6 0 m but thi s could be due to
uncertainty about where the plateau ends and the
escarpment begins.
9.3 The most significant feature of the compari38n is the
variation between the two contour models. The Cabinet
Line contours are generally 10 m higher than the ITC
contours. The height difference is uniform over the whole
of the mapped area and suggests an error which requires
a “block shift” correction – that is to say, either all the
heights on the ITC model rise by 10 m or those on the
Cabinet Line model are reduced by 10 m. Differences
would still remain but they would be much smaller. The
reason for such a difference cannot be determined with
certainty so long after the event. However, if the Cabinet
Line map is in some way connected to the 1937 Annex 61
map, then the fact that an understanding of height above
mean sea level in this locality may have improved
significantly between 1937 and 1961 may explain the
difference. Many survey departments were improving their
control networks at this time and a change to height
values of 10 m is not impossible. The alternative is that all
the height control provided to Professor Schermerhorn was
in error by 10 m. There is no evidence to suggest that this
was the case, but it remains a possibility.
9.4 Also of note is the variation in the shape and gradients of
the slopes that the two models portray. The most likely
38
The five metre contour lines depicted on the Cabinet Line map were omitted
from the overlay to facilitate comparison (the DAI revised ITC map only depicts
contours at ten metre intervals except fotwo 525 m. contours which have
been left in).
29
325Annex 46
explanation is that the Cabinet Line map contours were
largely based on surveys in the field and the ITC and DAI
contours on the DAI map were based on aerial
photography which gave a restricted view of parts of the
area because of tree cover.
9.5 However, for the purposes of watershed definition, the
differences are largely minor and have little effect on its
location. The main exception is at Point F where the DAI
contours show a valley running eastwards from 2 to F and
over the escarpment into Cambodia whereas the Cabinet
Line map shows a higher saddle at Point F and a stream
running westwards. The 1937 Annex 61 map also shows
this saddle at Point F and that depiction was suppo rted by
Ackermann’s on-site observations in 1961. We ourselves
have seen a stream flowing across the DAI valley 525 m.
contour in two places . We therefore believe that the DAI
claim of an eastward flowing stream flowing from 2 to F is
unsupportable and tha t the DAI watershed line between
the Temple and Point 5 is incorrect.
30
326 Annex 46
Scale 1:10,000
I
I
I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
555 I I I
I I I Zone 58, Everest Spheroid
II I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5
I Universal Transverse Mercator Projection,
I
50
I I
I
F I
I I I I
I 529 I I
I I I
I II
I II
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I
I 525 523 II
I I
I II
I
I I I I
I I I
591 I I
I 524 I I
I
I I
524 I I
I
I 3 II
I I
587 I
I I I
I I I I
1 I I I
I I II
I I I
I I I
I I
I I
I I
524 581 II
I 2 573 I 466
I I I
I I I
I I I
I 640 I
524 I I I
II I
640 II
II
II
521 II
II
II
60 60 I I
I
605 I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I I I I I 0 I I
620 I I 500
I
4 60 I I I
10
595 II
II
II
90 610
II
580 II
400
0 II
590 I
594 I I
I
I
I I
80 I
560 I
570 I I 300
II
570 II
I
I
530 I metres
I I
I I
I
I I I 200
I I
I I I
I 550 I I
I I
I 560 I I
0 540 I I
20 I I I
510 I I
500 I 530 I I 100
I
520 I I
510 I 540 I I
500 I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I I 0
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I I
II I I I
I I II
I I
I D I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
465
1591
Figure 17: IBRU’s comparison of selected features from the DAI revised ITC
map (black) and selected features from the Cabinet line map (red)
31
327Annex 46
10. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
10.1 The ITC map appear s to be a reliable map from a
reputable organisation. However, it did give rise to
confusion in the area to the west of Point F because of a
decision not to revise it directly in the light of Ackermann’s
work.
10.2 The “DAI revised ITC map ” contains what appear to be
unjustified amendments to the original. The introduction of
the 525 m. contour was very speculative. The claim of an
eastwards flowing stream from Point 2 into Cambodia was
wrong. It is difficult to avoid a conclusion that DAI were
pushing themselves to achieve the outcome that their
client wanted viz. that the temple lay clearly to the south
of the watershed.
10.3 The “big map” displayed the results of Ackermann’s work ,
which is visible on the extract that survives as Annex 85 d.
An inspection of the two western sections of the map has
suggested that the Annex I line might have been inserted
on the “big map” by eye using Maps 3 and 4 of Annex 49
but there is still no clear understanding of how the
equivalent areas of Maps 3 and 4 were decided upon at
ITC.
10.4 The 1962 comparison between the reduced ITC map
overlay and the enlarged Annex I map extract as
presented in the Cambodian Response in the present case
has an error in procedure which moves the points of
intersection of the ITC watershed and the Annex I line by
600 m. and 300 m. respectively, sho wing up the
Cambodian presentation as crude and unreliable. The
Annex I line is itself moved some 300 m to the detriment
of Thailand. The purpose of providing these two maps in
ITC’s Report was to make it visually clear to the Court that
the imaginary O Ta sem stream had created a major error
of position in the depiction of the watershed on the Annex
I map. For Cambodia to use such a generalised
comparison to define the limits of a territorial dispute
appears to us unsatisfactory and inaccurate. Adjusting the
Annex I line to fit the real world would require other
decisions to be made first and we have suggested what
these might be. However, the logic behind the Cambodian
proposal seems to be arbitrary and designed to favour
Cambodia.
10.5 The Cabinet Line map appears to be based on the 1937
Annex 61 map of the same area with revisions to the
contours, some of the temple structures and the inclusion
of modern features being added from contemporary
32
328 Annex 46
1:40,000 aerial photography. The contours of the Cabinet
Line map differ from those of the ITC map. At this distance
in time, it is difficult to determine how, why and where the
differences have arisen. Nevertheless, these differences do
not affect the depiction of the true watershed on the ITC
map, following the edge of the escarpment from the west
to the Temple site, then north -eastwards along the edge
of the escarpment through Point F.
10.6 The contours on the Cabinet Line map and the Annex 61
map both provide additional evidence that the contouring
provided by DAI on the “DAI revised ITC map” in the
vicinity of Point F was wrong and unjustifiable.
33
329330 Annex 47
Map sheet 1 attached toAnnex No. 49 to
Thailand’s Counter-Memorial, 8 September 1961
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
331332Annex 47
333334 Annex 48
Map sheet 2 attached toAnnex No. 49 to
Thailand’s Counter-Memorial, 8 September 1961
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
335336Annex 48
337338 Annex 49
Map sheet 3 attached toAnnex No. 49 to
Thailand’s Counter-Memorial, 8 September 1961
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
339340Annex 49
341342 Annex 50
Map sheet 4 attached to Annex No. 49 to
Thailand’s Counter-Memorial, 8 September 1961
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
343344Annex 50
345346 Annex 51
Carte annexée au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld,
Amuedo et Ivey (Annexe 2), filed asAnnex LXVI c
to Cambodia’s Reply, 23 October 1961
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
347348Annex 51
349350 Annex 52
Annex No. 85 d (Partial Reproduction), Map on the Vcale of 1:2,000
prepared by the International Training Centre for
Aerial Survey, 1962
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
351352Annex 52
353354 Annex 53
Royal Thai Survey Department, Series L 7017 map,
nd
Ban Phum Saron (sheet 5937 IV), 2 Edition, October 1988
(Reproduced in the original size in the MapAnnexes)
355356Annex 53
357358
Volume II, annexes