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 Written Observations
of the Kingdom of Thailand
21 NOVEMBER 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Annex 1 Photographs of Prince Damrong's visit to the Temple of Phra Viharn 1
(1930), filed as Annex VIIIbis of Cambodia’s 1959 Application
Annex 2 Note de l'ambassade de France à Bangkok en date du 3 juillet 1950, 5
filed as Annex XVII of Cambodia's 1959 Application
Annex 3 Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations, Note on 9
the Question of Preah Vihear, circa 1958
Annex 4 United Nations, Letter dated 29 November 1958 from the Permanent 27
Representative of Cambodia Addressed to the Secretary-General,
U.N. Doc. No. S/4121, 2 December 1958
Annex 5 Dean Acheson, Letter to United States Secretary of State, 33
31 October 1960
Annex 6 News report, 18 June 1962, “Populace rejoices over border decision” 37
Annex 7 Le Monde, 19 June 1962, “La Thaїlande ne paraît pas prête à accepter 43
la décision de la Cour internationale”
Annex 8 United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Telegram to 47
United States Secretary of State, No. 4053, 19 June 1962
Annex 9 Le Monde, 20 June 1962, “La Thaïlande récuse la décision de la Cour 51
internationale”
Annex 10 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Airgram to United States Secretary 55
of State, “Full Text of Bangkok Postarticle of June 21, 1962 concerning
Prime Minister Sarit’s Announcement Thailand will Comply with ICJ
Decision on Phra Wiharn Case”, No. A-425, 23 June 1963
Annex 11 The Prime Minister’s Office of Thailand, Communiqué 61
of the Government, 3 July 1962
Annex 12 Prime Minister of Thailand, Public Address on The Temple 65
of Phra Viharn Case, 4 July 1962
Annex 13 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary 73
of State, No. 24, 5 July 1962
Annex 14 Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Note to 77
Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. (0601)22239/2505,
6 July 1962
Annex 15 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary 81
of State, No. 43, 6 July 1962
iii Annex 16 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department 85
of State, “Preah Vihear: Cambodian Reaction to Thai Announcement
of Compliance with ICJ Ruling”, No. A-32, 12 July 1962
Annex 17 Chao Thai Newspaper, 13 July 1962, “Flag Lowering Ceremony: 89
United Nations and Cambodia informed”
Annex 18 Intentionally blank 95
Annex 19 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary 97
of State, No. 103, 16 July 1962
Annex 20 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department 101
of State, “Réalités Discusses Problems of Preah Vihear Turnover”,
No. A-37, 16 July 1962
Annex 21 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 17 July 1962, “Terrible weather as Thailand 105
loses territory to thief at the last minute”
Annex 22 New York Times, 17 July 1962, “Thailand yields sovereignty over Temple 109
to Cambodia”
Annex 23 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States 113
Secretary of State, No. 68, 2 August 1962
Annex 24 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary 117
of State, No. 236, 13 August 1962
Annex 25 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States 121
Secretary of State, No. 106, 14 August 1962
Annex 26 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department 125
of State, “Sihanouk Charges Thai Aggression in Statement to Press.”,
No. A-88, 16 August 1962
Annex 27 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme, No. 773/777, 137
25 August 1962
Annex 28 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Speech by 141
Mr. Huot Sambath, Seventeenth Session, Plenary Meetings,
th
1134 Meeting, pages 173-177
Annex 29 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, 149
No. 479-AS, 27 September 1962
Annex 30 Office of Public Information of the United Nations, “U Thant Appoints 157
Personal Representative to Inquire into Cambodia-Thailand Problems”,
Press Release SG/1339, 9 October 1962
Annex 31 Cambodian Head of State, Press Conference, 5 November 1962 161
ivAnnex 31bis United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States 167
Secretary of State, No. 438, 11 November 1962
Annex 32 Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, First Report by the personal 171
representative of the Secretary-General, PL/111 Confidential Report
No. 1, 25 November 1962
Annex 33 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, 189
No. 636/AS, 29 November 1962
Annex 34 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Cambodia, 195
Aide-mémoire sur les relations khméro-thaїlandaises,
circa November 1962
Annex 35 United Nations, Letter dated 18 December 1962 from the Secretary- 215
General Addressed to the President of the Security Council,
U.N. Doc. No. S/5220, 18 December 1962
Annex 36 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Foreign Affair221
Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6, June - July 1962, pages 128-130
Annex 37 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge d'aujourd'hui, 229
No. 45, June - July 1962
Annex 38 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge d'aujourd'hui, 237
Nos. 48-49-50-51, September - December 1962
Annex 39 Photographs of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with 251
the 1962 Judgment, 1962-1963
Annex 40 Photographs of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment, 255
1962-1963
Annex 41 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme, No. 3, 2 January 1963 259
Annex 42 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme, No. 5, 2 January 1963 263
Annex 43 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department 267
of State, No. 520, 2 January 1963
Annex 44 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme, No. 14.15, 271
5 January 1963
Annex 45 Bangkok Post, 5 January 1963, “Cambodians, Europeans Get Up To 275
Khao Phra Viharn”
Annex 46 Bangkok World, 6 January 1963, “Sihanouk Arrives. Calm Prevails At 279
Phra Viharn”
Annex 47 Bangkok Post, 7 January 1963, “Sihanouk Leaves Guard At Temple; 283
'Thai Visit' Offer”
v Annex 48 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States 287
Secretary of State, No. 528, 7 January 1963
Annex 49 New York Times, 8 January 1963, “Peaceful Overture Held in Cambodia 291
At Disputed Shrine”
Annex 50 J.F. Engers, Note to Mr. Gussing, 9 January 1963 and Second report by 295
the personal representative of the Secretary-General, 2 January 1963
Annex 51 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of 309
State, “Cambodian Official Reoccupation of Preah Vihear”, No. A-325,
10 January 1963
Annex 52 New York Times, 10 January 1963, “Take over Disputed Temple” 319
Annex 53 Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, Third Report by the Personal 323
Representative of the Secretary-General, 18 January 1963
Annex 54 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 19 January 1963, “Sihanouk told Hong Kong 331
newspaper that he has come to good terms with Thai people”
Annex 55 La Vérité, 5 June 1963, “Interview du Prince Sihanouk 335
par un journaliste indien”
Annex 56 Le Bulletin de l'Agence Khmère de Presse, Interview du Prince 339
Norodom Sihanouk, Chef de l'Etat du Cambodge, accordée
à "Far Eastern Economic Review", 11 July 1963
Annex 57 N. Gussing, Note to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, 347
“Mission to Thailand and Cambodia”, 14 September 1963
Annex 58 J.F. Engers, Aide-Mémoire on the Secretary-General's Five Points 355
of 3 September 1963, 19 September 1963
Annex 59 United Nations, Letter dated 9 November 1966 from the Secretary- 361
General to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/6040,
9 November 1964
Annex 60 Réalités Cambodgiennes, 18 December 1964, “Les ruades de Thanat 365
Khoman”
Annex 61 Gauthereau,Cable to David Owen, No. CAM 228, 24 December 1964 371
Annex 62 Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations, 375
Notes to the Secretary-General, No. 1442 and 1449, 11 April 1966
(French in the original)
Annex 63 Acting Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations, 381
Note to the Secretary-General, No. 335/2509, 22 April 1966
Annex 64 Intentionally blank 389
viAnnex 65 United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from Minister for Foreign 395
Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security
Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279, 3 May 1966
Annex 66 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Note to Foreign 401
Office, No. 954, 5 May 1966
Annex 67 United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from the Minister for 405
Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security
Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279/Corr.1, 5 May 1966
Annex 68 British Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cable to Foreign Office, 9 May 1966 409
Annex 69 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Cable to Foreign 413
Office, 14 July 1966
Annex 70 United Nations, Letter dated 16 August 1966 from the Secretary- 417
General to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7462,
16 August 1966
Annex 71 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Memorandum 421
of Conversation between the Foreign Minister and Ambassador
de Ribbing, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General
on 6 September 1966, Annex 10 of “Report by the Special
Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and
First Contact with their High Authorities”, 13 September 1966
Annex 72 Herbert de Ribbing, Note to the Secretary-General, “Report by 429
the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand
and First Contact with their High Authorities”, 13 September 1966
Annex 73 French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 686/688, 447
2 November 1966
Annex 74 United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1966, 451
pages 162-163, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/unyearbook.
html?name=1966index.html
Annex 75 Chao Thai Newspaper, 24 July 1967, “Should seek future benefit. 455
Quarrel is detrimental to both sides”
Annex 76 French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 382/84, 27 July 1967 459
Annex 77 French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 400/402, 4 August 1967 463
Annex 78 Herbert de Ribbing, Cable to the Secretary-General, 16 October 1967 467
Annex 79 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Declaration 471
Commune entre La Thailande et le Cambodge of 13 May 1970,
Foreign Affairs Bulletin1970 Vol. IX, Nos. 1-6 (August 1966-July 1970),
pages 436-437
vii Annex 80 Chao Thai Newspaper, 14 May 1970, “Ambassadors will be exchanged 477
soon. Cambodia is attacked and its domestic affairs interfered”
Annex 81 Daily News, 14 May 1970, “Thailand and Cambodia issued 481
a joint communiqué to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks”
Annex 82 Daily News, 12 July 1970, “[…] but sends border police to Phra Viharn” 487
Annex 83 Daily News, 24 March 1971, “Revealing conditions of Khmer soldiers 491
on Khao Phra Viharn 'Cut off'. Thai side has to assist.”
Annex 84 Chao Thai Newspaper, 27 October 1971, “Thai and Khmer 497
joined forces”
Annex 85 Daily News, 30 October 1971, “The Day Viet-Cong attacks” 501
Annex 86 Daily News, 3 November 1971, “Khao Phra Viharn Front is Not 505
Serious”
Annex 87 Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist 509
site between Thai side and Cambodian side, 7 November 1991
Annex 88 A photograph of the iron gate at Tani stream, circa 1992 527
Annex 89 Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint 531
Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 30 June - 2 July 1999
Annex 90 Agreed Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint 537
Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 5-7 June 2000
Annex 91 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government 543
of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Kingdom
of Cambodia on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary,
14 June 2000
Annex 92 Record of joint meeting between Delegation of the Governor 561
of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy Governor
of Phra Viharn Province, 22 February 2001
Annex 93 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman 577
of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission,
Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge
of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand
Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/1015, 25 November 2004
Annex 94 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman 587
of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission,
Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge
of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand
Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/192, 8 March 2005
viiiAnnex 95 The Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO, A Challenge to 593
Thailand's denunciation of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee,
2009, pages 1-23
Annex 96 International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University, 621
Assessment of the Task of Translating the Cambodia-Thailand boundary
depicted on the 'Annex I' map onto the Ground, October 2011
(omitting Appendices 1-6)
Annex 97 Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran, 671
9 November 2011
Annex 98 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch showing the location 679
of the French flag pole in 1930, 17 November 2011
Annex 99 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch of 1991 arrangements 683
for tourism, 17 November 2011
Annex 100 Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, History of the Negotiations 687
for the Inscription of the Temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List,
November 2011
Annex 101 Carte annexée au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo et Ivey 725
(Annexe I), filed as Annex LXVIc of Cambodia's Reply
Annex 102 Map showing strips of Cambodian territory attributed to Thailand 729
if Annex I were declared valid, filed as Annex No. 76bis of Thailand's
Rejoinder
Annex 103 Oxford University Press, Oxford English Dictionary, online version 733
September 2011, available at:
http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177;
accessed 15 November 2011
Annex 104 Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 739
Eleventh Edition, 2003, page 1393
Annex 105 Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn 743
and aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn
Annex 106 List of members of Cambodian Cabinet in 1962-1964 747
Annex 107 Dangrek map of a 1:200,000 scale held at the Department 755
of Treaties and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of the Kingdom of Thailand
ix Annex 1
Photographs of Prince Damrong’s visit to the Temple of
Phra Viharn (1930), filed as Annex VIIIbis of Cambodia’s
1959 Application
1Annex 1
2Annex 1
3Annex 1
4 Annex 2
Note de l’ambassade de France à Bangkok en date du 3 juillet
1950, filed as Annex XVII of Cambodia’s 1959 Application
5Annex 2
6Annex 2
78 Annex 3
Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations,
Note on the Question of Preah Vihear, circa 1958
9Annex 3
10Annex 3
11Annex 3
12Annex 3
13Annex 3
14Annex 3
15Annex 3
16Annex 3
17Annex 3
18Annex 3
19Annex 3
20Annex 3
21Annex 3
22Annex 3
23Annex 3
24Annex 3
2526 Annex 4
United Nations, Letter dated 29 November 1958 from
the Permanent Representative of Cambodia Addressed to
the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. No. S/4121,
2 December 1958
27Annex 4
28Annex 4
29Annex 4
30Annex 4
31Annex 4
32 Annex 5
Dean Acheson, Letter to United States Secretary of State,
31 October 1960
33Annex 5
34Annex 5
3536 Annex 6
News report, 18 June 1962, “Populace rejoices over border
decision”
37Annex 6
38Annex 6
39Annex 6
40Annex 6
4142 Annex 7
Le Monde, 19 June 1962, “La Thaїlande ne paraît pas prête à
accepter la décision de la Cour internationale”
43Annex 7
44Annex 7
4546 Annex 8
United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations,
Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 4053,
19 June 1962
47Annex 8
48Annex 8
4950 Annex 9
Le Monde, 20 June 1962, “La Thaïlande récuse la décision
de la Cour internationale”
51Annex 9
52Annex 9
5354 Annex 10
United States Embassy in Bangkok, Airgram to United States
Secretary of State, “Full Text of Bangkok Postarticle of
June 21, 1962 concerning Prime Minister Sarit’s
Announcement Thailand will Comply with ICJ Decision
on Phra Wiharn Case”, No. A-425, 23 June 1963
55Annex 10
56Annex 10
57Annex 10
58Annex 10
5960 Annex 11
The Prime Minister’s Office of Thailand, Communiqué of
the Government, 3 July 1962
61Annex 11
62Annex 11
6364 Annex 12
Prime Minister of Thailand, Public Address on The Temple
of Phra Viharn Case, 4 July 1962
65Annex 12
66Annex 12
67Annex 12
68Annex 12
69Annex 12
70Annex 12
71Annex 12
72 Annex 13
United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States
Secretary of State, No. 24, 5 July 1962
73Annex 13
74Annex 13
75Annex 13
76 Annex 14
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand,
Note to Secretary-General of the United Nations,
No. (0601)22239/2505, 6 July 1962
77Annex 14
78Annex 14
79Annex 14
80 Annex 15
United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States
Secretary of State, No. 43, 6 July 1962
81Annex 15
82Annex 15
8384 Annex 16
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to
Department of State, “Preah Vihear: Cambodian Reaction
to Thai Announcement of Compliance with ICJ Ruling”,
No. A-32, 12 July 1962
85Annex 16
86Annex 16
87Annex 16
88 Annex 17
Chao Thai Newspaper, 13 July 1962, “Flag Lowering
Ceremony: United Nations and Cambodia informed”
89Annex 17
90 Annex 17
(Translation)
Chao Thai 13 July 1962
(Excerpt)
Flag lowering ceremony: UN and Cambodia informed.
Deputy Prime Minister said that, on 15th of this month, Thai officials will travel to mark the
limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn that will be given to Cambodia and will lower
the flag from the Temple.
Before the meeting of the Parliament yesterday (12) morning, General Thanom Kittikachorn,
Deputy Prime Minister, gave an interview to the newspaper representative about the marking of
the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn which is to be given to Cambodia that the marking of
the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn would be done by the Royal Thai Government
unilaterally and the Government had already decided the limit which was 20 metres from the
Temple’s naga staircase toward the main road, two roads paralleling the Temple’s stairs at 100
metres each. At the back, 30 metres from the broken staircase at the steep cliff. The area is a
trapezium with an area of approximately 150 rais. The officials would be led by General Praphas
Charusathien, Minister of Interior, in their travel to mark the limit, build up a fence and lower the
th
national flag from the flag pole and out of the Temple area on 15 of this month.
When asked how Cambodia would access the Temple, General Thanom said there is only one
way which is the broken staircase on the cliff which can be repaired or done otherwise by
Cambodia. Concerning the news that Cambodia would let France to be caretaker of the Temple,
it is up to Cambodia. We have also informed the UN and Cambodia of our undertakings which
have taken into account of the ICJ decision.
[…]
91Annex 17
92Annex 17
9394 Annex 18
Intentionally blank
9596 Annex 19
United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States
Secretary of State, No. 103, 16 July 1962
97Annex 19
98Annex 19
99100 Annex 20
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to
Department of State, “Réalités Discusses Problems of
Preah Vihear Turnover”, No. A-37, 16 July 1962
101Annex 20
102Annex 20
103Annex 20
104 Annex 21
Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 17 July 1962, “Terrible weather
as Thailand loses territory to thief at the last minute”
105Annex 21
106 Annex 21
(Translation)
Thai Rai Wan 17 July 1962
(Excerpt)
General Praphas Charusathien, Minister of Interior, saluted by a police officer at the ceremony to erect fence around
the Temple of Phra Viharn and lower Thai national flag to place inside Thai territory.
Terrible weather as Thailand loses territory to thief at the last minute
The elderly cry in sorrow “Sihanouk will meet his fate”
Sad day of 15 July 1962 when Thailand had to cut 166.5 rais of land in order to once
again comply with international obligations. Minister of Interior travelled there to give order in a
sad and angry atmosphere among all saddened faces. "Today is one of Thailand's historic days
that we have to surrender the sovereignty over the Temple of Phra Viharn...I mark this time from
12pm", said the Minister. The Minister said we have to remove everything. The Thai flag will
not be lowered. Rather, the flag pole will be moved with the flag flying at its top and to be placed
in Thai territory. “One day we may have to return the flag to its former place”. He ordered that
any intruders crossing into Thai territory will be pushed back, and if resisted force can be used
without the need of prior authorization.
[…]
107Annex 21
108 Annex 22
New York Times, 17 July 1962, “Thailand yields sovereignty
over Temple to Cambodia”
109Annex 22
110 Annex 22
Published: July 17, 1962
Copyright © The New York Times
111112 Annex 23
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to
United States Secretary of State, No. 68, 2 August 1962
113Annex 23
114Annex 23
115Annex 23
116 Annex 24
United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States
Secretary of State, No. 236, 13 August 1962
117Annex 24
118Annex 24
119120 Annex 25
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to
United States Secretary of State, No. 106, 14 August 1962
121Annex 25
122Annex 25
123Annex 25
124 Annex 26
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to
Department of State, “Sihanouk Charges Thai Aggression
in Statement to Press.”, No. A-88, 16 August 1962
125Annex 26
126Annex 26
127Annex 26
128Annex 26
129Annex 26
130Annex 26
131Annex 26
132Annex 26
133Annex 26
134Annex 26
135Annex 26
136 Annex 27
French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme, No. 773/777,
25 August 1962
137Annex 27
138Annex 27
139Annex 27
140 Annex 28
United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly,
Speech by Mr. Huot Sambath, Seventeenth Session,
Plenary Meetings, 1134 Meeting, pages 173-177
141Annex 28
142Annex 28
143Annex 28
144Annex 28
145Annex 28
146Annex 28
147Annex 28
148 Annex 29
French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister
of Foreign Affairs, No. 479-AS, 27 September 1962
149Annex 29
150Annex 29
151Annex 29
152Annex 29
153Annex 29
154Annex 29
155156 Annex 30
Office of Public Information of the United Nations,
“U Thant Appoints Personal Representative to Inquire into
Cambodia-Thailand Problems”, Press Release SG/1339,
9 October 1962
157Annex 30
158Annex 30
159160 Annex 31
Cambodian Head of State, Press Conference,
5 November 1962
161Annex 31
162Annex 31
163Annex 31
164Annex 31
165Annex 31
166 Annex 31bis
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to
United States Secretary of State, No. 438,
11 November 1962
167Annex 31bis
168Annex 31bis
169170 Annex 32
Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, First Report by
the personal representative of the Secretary-General,
PL/111 Confidential Report No. 1, 25 November 1962
171Annex 32
172Annex 32
173Annex 32
174Annex 32
175Annex 32
176Annex 32
177Annex 32
178Annex 32
179Annex 32
180Annex 32
181Annex 32
182Annex 32
183Annex 32
184Annex 32
185Annex 32
186Annex 32
187Annex 32
188 Annex 33
French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister
of Foreign Affairs, No. 636/AS, 29 November 1962
189Annex 33
190Annex 33
191Annex 33
192Annex 33
193Annex 33
194 Annex 34
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Cambodia,
Aide-mémoire sur les relations khméro-thaїlandaises,
circa November 1962
195Annex 34
196Annex 34
197Annex 34
198Annex 34
199Annex 34
200Annex 34
201Annex 34
202Annex 34
203Annex 34
204Annex 34
205Annex 34
206Annex 34
207Annex 34
208Annex 34
209Annex 34
210Annex 34
211Annex 34
212Annex 34
213Annex 34
214 Annex 35
United Nations, Letter dated 18 December 1962 from
the Secretary-General Addressed to the President
of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/5220,
18 December 1962
215Annex 35
216Annex 35
217Annex 35
218Annex 35
219220 Annex 36
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand,
Foreign Affairs Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6, June - July 1962,
pages 128-130
221Annex 36
222Annex 36
223Annex 36
224Annex 36
225Annex 36
226Annex 36
227228 Annex 37
Ministry of Information of Cambodia,
Cambodge d’aujourd’hui , No. 45, June - July 1962
229Annex 37
230Annex 37
231Annex 37
232Annex 37
233Annex 37
234Annex 37
235Annex 37
236 Annex 38
Ministry of Information of Cambodia,
Cambodge d’aujourd’hui , Nos. 48-49-50-51,
September - December 1962
237Annex 38
238Annex 38
239Annex 38
240Annex 38
241Annex 38
242Annex 38
243Annex 38
244Annex 38
245Annex 38
246Annex 38
247Annex 38
248Annex 38
249250 Annex 39
Photographs of the barbed-wire fence erected
to comply with the 1962 Judgment, 1962-1963
251Annex 39
252 Annex 39
A. Photograph of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the 1962 J▯udgment taken
from the Thai side (circa 1962)
253Annex 39
B. Photograph of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the 1962 J▯udgment taken from
Cambodian side published in Cambodge d’aujourd’hui, Nos. 48-49-50-5 ▯ 1, September-December 1962
254 Annex 40
Photographs of the sign erected to comply with
the 1962 Judgment, 1962-1963
255Annex 40
256 Annex 40
A. Photograph of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken▯ from the Thai side
(circa 1962)
257Annex 40
B. Photograph of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken▯ from the Cambodian
side, published in Cambodge d’aujourd’hui, Nos. 48-49-50-51, Septe▯mber-December 1962
258 Annex 41
French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme,
No. 3, 2 January 1963
259Annex 41
260Annex 41
261262 Annex 42
French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme,
No. 5, 2 January 1963
263Annex 42
264Annex 42
265Annex 42
266 Annex 43
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram
to Department of State, No. 520, 2 January 1963
267Annex 43
268Annex 43
269270 Annex 44
French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Télégramme,
No. 14.15, 5 January 1963
271Annex 44
272Annex 44
273274 Annex 45
Bangkok Post, 5 January 1963, “Cambodians, Europeans
Get Up To Khao Phra Viharn”
275Annex 45
276Annex 45
277278 Annex 46
Bangkok World, 6 January 1963, “Sihanouk Arrives.
Calm Prevails At Phra Viharn”
279Annex 46
280Annex 46
281282 Annex 47
Bangkok Post, 7 January 1963, “Sihanouk Leaves Guard
At Temple; ‘Thai Visit’ Offer”
283Annex 47
284Annex 47
285286 Annex 48
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram
to United States Secretary of State, No. 528, 7 January 1963
287Annex 48
288Annex 48
289290 Annex 49
New York Times, 8 January 1963, “Peaceful Overture
Held in Cambodia At Disputed Shrine”
291Annex 49
292 Annex 49
Published: January 8, 1963
Copyright © The New York Times
293294 Annex 50
J.F. Engers, Note to Mr. Gussing, 9 January 1963
and Second report by the personal representative
of the Secretary-General, 2 January 1963
295Annex 50
296Annex 50
297Annex 50
298Annex 50
299Annex 50
300Annex 50
301Annex 50
302Annex 50
303Annex 50
304Annex 50
305Annex 50
306Annex 50
307308 Annex 51
United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to
Department of State, “Cambodian Official Reoccupation
of Preah Vihear”, No. A-325, 10 January 1963
309Annex 51
310Annex 51
311Annex 51
312Annex 51
313Annex 51
314Annex 51
315Annex 51
316Annex 51
317318 Annex 52
New York Times, 10 January 1963,
“Take Over Disputed Temple”
319Annex 52
320 Annex 52
Published: January 10, 1963
Copyright © The New York Times
321322 Annex 53
Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, Third Report by
the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General,
18 January 1963
323Annex 53
324Annex 53
325Annex 53
326Annex 53
327Annex 53
328Annex 53
329Annex 53
330 Annex 54
Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 19 January 1963, “Sihanouk told
Hong Kong newspaper that he has come to good terms
with Thai people”
331Annex 54
332 Annex 54
(Translation)
Thai Rai Wan 19 January 1963
Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspaper that he has come to good terms with Thai people.
Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspapers that Thailand and Cambodia are now on good terms. On
the date that he brought his entourage to the Temple of Phra Viharn, he gave brandy to Thai
border police. In fact the border police had never touched it.
Yesterday morning, General Praphas Charusathien, Minister of Interior, gave an interview to
newpaper journalists at the Ministry of Interior about the story that Hong Kong Standard
newspaper published a news article that Sihanouk gave an interview that Thailand and Cambodia
are now on good terms and that, on the day that he took his entourage to the Temple of Phra
Viharn, he gave brandy to Thai border police who stationed at Khao Phra Viharn in Thai
territory.
When asked by journalists whether the story was true, the Minister joked that we do not know
who drank it and we will have to investigate. If anyone drank it, he will be given laxative to take
the drink out. General Praphas further said that Sihanouk gave such news just to please Thai
people.
333Annex 54
334 Annex 55
La Vérité, 5 June 1963, “Interview du Prince Sihanouk
par un journaliste indien”
335Annex 55
336Annex 55
337Annex 55
338 Annex 56
Le Bulletin de l’Agence Khmère de Presse, Interview du
Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Chef de l’Etat du Cambodge,
accordée à “Far Eastern Economic Review”, 11 July 1963
339Annex 56
340Annex 56
341Annex 56
342Annex 56
343Annex 56
344Annex 56
345346 Annex 57
N. Gussing, Note to the Secretary-General
of the United Nations, “Mission to Thailand
and Cambodia”, 14 September 1963
347Annex 57
348Annex 57
349Annex 57
350Annex 57
351Annex 57
352Annex 57
353Annex 57
354 Annex 58
J.F. Engers, Aide-Mémoire on the Secretary-General’s
Five Points of 3 September 1963, 19 September 1963
355Annex 58
356Annex 58
357Annex 58
358Annex 58
359360 Annex 59
United Nations, Letter dated 9 November 1966 from
the Secretary-General to the President of the Security
Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/6040, 9 November 1964
361Annex 59
362Annex 59
363Annex 59
364 Annex 60
Réalités Cambodgiennes, 18 December 1964,
“Les ruades de Thanat Khoman”
365Annex 60
366Annex 60
367Annex 60
368Annex 60
369370 Annex 61
Gauthereau,Cable to David Owen, No. CAM 228,
24 December 1964
371Annex 61
372Annex 61
373374 Annex 62
Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United
Nations, Notes to the Secretary-General, No. 1442 and 1449,
11 April 1966 (French in the original)
375Annex 62
376Annex 62
377Annex 62
378Annex 62
379380 Annex 63
Acting Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United
Nations, Note to the Secretary-General, No. 335/2509,
22 April 1966
381Annex 63
382Annex 63
383Annex 63
384Annex 63
385Annex 63
386Annex 63
387388 Annex 64
Intentionally blank
389Annex 64
390 Annex 64
Intentionally blank
391Annex 64
Intentionally blank
392 Annex 64
Intentionally blank
393394 Annex 65
United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of
the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279, 3 May 1966
395Annex 65
396Annex 65
397Annex 65
398Annex 65
399400 Annex 66
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations,
Note to Foreign Office, No. 954, 5 May 1966
401Annex 66
402Annex 66
403404 Annex 67
United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President
of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279/Corr.1,
5 May 1966
405Annex 67
406Annex 67
407408 Annex 68
British Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cable to Foreign Office,
9 May 1966
409Annex 68
410Annex 68
411Annex 68
412 Annex 69
United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations,
Cable to Foreign Office, 14 July 1966
413Annex 69
414Annex 69
415416 Annex 70
United Nations, Letter dated 16 August 1966 from
the Secretary-General to the President of the Security
Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7462, 16 August 1966
417Annex 70
418Annex 70
419420 Annex 71
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand,
Memorandum of Conversation between the Foreign Minister
and Ambassador de Ribbing, Special Representative of
the UN Secretary-General on 6 September 1966,
Annex 10 of “Report by the Special Representative on his
First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and First Contact with
their High Authorities”, 13 September 1966
421Annex 71
422Annex 71
423Annex 71
424Annex 71
425Annex 71
426Annex 71
427Annex 71
428 Annex 72
Herbert de Ribbing, Note to the Secretary-General, “Report
by the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia
and Thailand and First Contact with their High Authorities”,
13 September 1966
429Annex 72
430Annex 72
431Annex 72
432Annex 72
433Annex 72
434Annex 72
435Annex 72
436Annex 72
437Annex 72
438Annex 72
439Annex 72
440Annex 72
441Annex 72
442Annex 72
443Annex 72
444Annex 72
445446 Annex 73
French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 686/688,
2 November 1966
447Annex 73
448Annex 73
449Annex 73
450 Annex 74
United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1966,
pages 162-163, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/
unyearbook.html?name=1966index.html
451Annex 74
452 Annex 74
162 POLITICAL AND S ECURITY QUESTIONS
S/7662, S/7667, S/7678, S/7695, S/7707, S/7738, from Cambodia.
S/7782, S/7801. Letters of 3, 5, 12, 19 and 30 A/6302. Report of Security Council to General A ssem-
January, 14 and 23 February and 2 March 1967 bly (16 July 1 965-15 July 1966), Chapter 18.
COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING RELATIONS BETWEEN
CAMBODIA AND THAILAND
During 1966, a series of charges and counter- subversion by "Free Khmer" traitors established
charges concerning alleged frontier incidents in Thailand which, Cambodia alleged, was one
were addressed by Cambodia and Thailand in of the military bases of United States imperial-
letters to the President of the Security Council ism waging a colonialist war against the Viet-
and in communications to the Secretary-General. Namese people and threatening the peace and
Most charges brought categorical denials from security of other countries in the region.
the other party; neither party requested con- A number of Thailand's complaints charged
sideration of the situation by the Security Coun- Cambodia with firing across the frontier at Thai
cil. In August 1966, the Secretary-General desig- military elements and villages. Other charges
nated a Special Representative to examine the were that Cambodian soldiers had crossed the
situation with the parties concerned. frontier and opened fire, set mines and perpe-
The most frequent Cambo dian charges re- trated acts of aggression against Thai fishing
ferred to Thai firing across the border, to armed craft in Thai waters. Occasional casualties were
Thai elements penetrating into Cambodian ter- reported.
ritory and attacking military posts and border In reply to Cambodian charges, T hailand as-
villages, and to mines being laid by Thai armed serted that careful investigation had failed to
forces, exploding under Cambodian patrols, vil- find evidence that Thai elements had crossed
lagers, carts and cattle. There were also charges the Cambodian frontier to attack posts or lay
of Thai fishing junks entering Cambodian terri- mines at the all eged places or dates. Thailand
torial waters. Villagers and military personnel categorically rejected Cambodia's charges as
were stated to have been killed or wou nded on false and groundless. Thai border police, it was
numerous occasions. said, were under strict instructions not to shoot
In various letters replying to Thai charges, unless for purposes of se lf-defence.
Cambodia stated that no Cambodian elements In denyingvarious Cambodian charges, Thai-
had taken part in the alleged mine-laying or land also complained of terroristic Cambodian
other operations on their territory and that the acts to disrupt the peaceful existence of Thai,
border incidents had been initiated by Thai border inhabitants. Thailand denied active sup-
armed elements. port to the "Free Khmer" movement; it also
In addition to its protests and demands that stated that Cambodia had allowed its territory
Thailand cease its provocative acts of incursion to be used as a sanctuary and passage for the
and aggression, Cambodia drew attention to communist Viet-Cong and North Viet-Namese
what it described as the extremely serious situa- forces in their campaign against the free people
tion created on its western border by the warlike of South Viet-Nam and also for communist
and expansionist policies of Thailand, stating agents to enter Thailand in order to carry out
that this constituted a threat to the peace. Cam- the communist plan to subvert and subjugate the
bodia, it was said, remained fai thful to its policy freedom-loving people of Thailand.
of non-interference in the affairs of other coun- The area of the temple of Preah Vihear was
tries and did not possess the military m eans to the subject of several charges and counter-
pursue a policy other than that of defending its charges.
independence and its territorial integrity. Cam- Cambodia, for instance, complained of a
bodia could not be held responsible for activities series of attacks between 3 April and 5 May 1966
of anti-Government rebels in certain frontier by elements of the Thai Armed Forces, in one
zones in Thailand. The Thai authorities, Cam- case in battalion strength, in another by an esti-
bodia charged, were encouraging attempts at mated 2,000 soldiers. It complained of mortar
453Annex 74
QUESTIONS RELATING TO ASIA AND THE FAR EAST 163
and automatic weapon fire, as well as the use of On 16 August, the Secretary-General informed
armoured vehicles. W hen, on 6 April, Khmer the President of the Security Council that he had
forces recaptured the temple occupied on 3 designated Herbert de Ribbing as his Special
April, it was stated that the withdrawing ag- Representative to examine the situation, en-
gressors killed five captured Cambodian guards deavour to find ways and means of reducing
on the spot. In a letter dated 23 April, Cambodia tension in the area and explore the possibilities
complained of these attacks and a previous of resolving whatever problems might exist be-
series of provocative incursions, all of which, it tween Cambodiaand Thailand. This action, he
said, constituted violations of the United Nations wrote, had been taken in consultation with the
Charter and the judgement of the International two Governments, which had signified their
Court of Justice of 15 June 1962, confirming willingness to share on an equal basis all costs
that the temple of Prea17Vihear was situated in involved.
Cambodian territory. The letter also said that With reference to this letter, the USSR
the recurrence of these provocations seemed emphasized on 27 August to the President of the
likely, as in September 1940, to be the prelude Council that, under the Charter, decisions con-
to a large-scale attack on Cambodia. nected with the maintenance of international
In reply, Thailand said that thorough investi- peace and security could only be taken by the
gations had found no evidence of Thai soldiers Security Council. The USSR stated that it would
having crossed the border into Cambodia at or have no objection when the Council took a deci-
around the alleged times and places so as to sion on the particular candidate put forward.
attack or occupy the temple; the charges were Argentina and Uruguay, however, considered
false and malicious. On the contrary, Cambodian
that the action by the Secretary-General was
soldiers near the temple had fired with heavy fully justified. In letters dated 30 September and
weapons at the Thai border police on the days 12 October 1966, respectively, they said that the
the incidents were alleged to have taken place Secretary-General had the authority to keep
to provoke the Thai police into taking drastic himself informed on all matters which might
action. Thailand also pointed out that the Cam- threaten international peace and security and
bodian Government had deliberately distorted to exert the utmost effort to relieve situations
Thailand's position vis-a-vis the 1962 decision which might become threats.
of the International Court of Justice in stating
that Thailand had refused to r ecognize its
judgement. 17See Y.U.N., 1962, pp. 467-9.
DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES
S/7097, S/ 7098. Letters of 22 and 24 January 1966 23 and 28 September 1966 from Cambodia.
from Thailand. S/7522. Letter of 30 September 1966 from Argentina.
S/7126. L etter of 7 February 1966 from Cambodia. S/7530. Letter of 5 O ctober 1966 from Thailand.
S/7147, S/7166. Letters of 16 and 25 February 1966 S/7548. Letter of 14 O ctober 1966 from Cambodia.
from Thailand. S/7550. Letter of 12 October 1966 from Uruguay.
S/7279 and Corr.1, S/7305, S/7309, S/7319, S/7344, S/7555, S/7557. Letters of 17 and 18 O ctober 1966
S/7348, S/7353, S/7356, S/7364. Letters of 23 from Cambodia.
April, 17, 19, 24 May, 6, 8, 14, 15 and 17 June S/7560. L etter of 21 October 1966 from Thailand.
1966 from Cambodia. S/7567, S/7582, S/ 7618. Letters of 24 O ctober, 11
S/7366. Letter of 17 June 1966 from Thailand. November and 6 December 1966 from Cambodia.
S/7381. Letter of 27 June 1966 from Cam bodia. S/7627. Letter of 9 December 1966 from Thailand.
S/7384, S/7393, S/7454. Letters of 28 June, 1 July S/7651, S/7665, S/7666, S/7677, S/ 7694, S/7708,
and 8 August 1966 from Thailand. S/7724. Letters of 28 December 1966, and 4, 5,
S/7461. Letter of 10 August 1966 from Cam bodia. 12, 19, 30 January and 6 February 1967, respective-
S/7462. Letter of 16 August 1966 from Secretary- ly, from Cambodia.
General. A/6302. Report of Security Council to General Assem-
S/7478. Letter of 27 August 1966 from USSR. bly, Chapter 19.
S/7492. Letter of 12 September 1966 from Thailand. S/7787. Letter of 24 February 1967 from Thailand.
S/7493, S/ 7496, S/7510, S/7516. Letters of 12, 14,
454 Annex 75
Chao Thai Newspaper, 24 July 1967, “Should seek
future benefit. Quarrel is detrimental to both sides”
455Annex 75
456 Annex 75
(Translation)
Chao Thai 24 July 1967
(Excerpt)
Should seek future benefit. Quarrel is detrimental to both sides.
Colonel Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave a television interview and reaffirmed
that Thailand, the Government of Thailand and the Thai people have good intention and wish to
have fraternal relations with the people of Cambodia and Cambodia
On a television interview broadcast on 26 of this month, Minister Thanat reaffirmed that
Thailand does not want Cambodian territory and does not have any boundary dispute with
Cambodia as alleged by some Cambodians. On the reservation made by Thailand on the
sovereignty over the territory of Khao Phra Viharn, Minister Thanat clarified that the reservation
is a legal one which Thailand has the right to do so under the provisions of the UN charter. He
said “the reservation does not mean a threat to use force to occupy the territory which had been
decided to be belonging to Cambodia by the ICJ. The reservation is only a legal one in
accordance with existing rights and it can be withdrawn only through peaceful measures”.
[…]
457Annex 75
458 Annex 76
French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 382/84,
27 July 1967
459Annex 76
460Annex 76
461Annex 76
462 Annex 77
French Embassy in Bangkok, Télégramme, No. 400/402,
4 August 1967
463Annex 77
464Annex 77
465Annex 77
466 Annex 78
Herbert de Ribbing, Cable to the Secretary-General,
16 October 1967
467Annex 78
468Annex 78
469Annex 78
470 Annex 79
Ministry of ForeignAffairs of the Kingdom of Thailand,
Declaration Commune entre La Thailande et le Cambodge
of 13 May 1970, Foreign Affairs Bulletin 1970 Vol. IX,
Nos. 1-6 (August 1966-July 1970), pages 436-437
471Annex 79
472Annex 79
473Annex 79
474Annex 79
475476 Annex 80
Chao Thai Newspaper, 14 May 1970, “Ambassadors will
be exchanged soon. Cambodia is attacked and its domestic
affairs interfered”
477Annex 80
478 Annex 80
(Translation)
Chao Thai 14 May B.E. 2513 (1970)
Ambassadors will be exchanged soon
Cambodia is attacked and its domestic affairs interfered
The negotiations to restore friendly relations between Thailand and Cambodia ended with the
heads of delegations of both sides signed the communiqué in the late morning of 13 of this
month. The content of the communiqué is as follows:
1. Upon the invitation of H.E. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, H.E.
Yem Sambaur, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia, made an official visit to the Kingdom
of Thailand. He was accompanied by H.E. Prom Tos, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry,
General Saray Saman, Chief of Staff of the Royal Cambodian Army, Mr. Dong Rasee, Member
of Parliament, Mr. Plek Chat, Cambodian Permanent Representative to the Mekong River
Commission, and other Cambodian officials.
2. During the stay in Thailand, Cambodian Minister of Foreign Affairs and his delegation were
warmly welcomed, as brothers, by the Government and the people of Thailand.
3. The two Ministers exchanged views openly and constructively on the resolution of the
problems which concerned both, and on the international affairs situation, in particular, the
various problems in the South East Asia. The exchange of views proceeded in the atmosphere of
cordiality and greatly helped to build better understanding between each other.
4. On the consideration of the review of relations between Thailand and Cambodia, both
Ministers mutually agreed that it was necessary to promote better relations between the two
countries, and agreed that such relations should be firmly based on trust, friendship and
fraternity.
5. Both Ministers reaffirmed the intention to vigorously uphold the objects and principles of the
UN Charter. In accordance to such resolve, both Ministers reaffirmed the respect of present
common boundary between the two countries. Both Ministers affirmed the intention to adopt the
policies of good neighbourliness, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the other country,
and declared that both countries will closely and effectively cooperate with other countries, for
the mutual benefits of the international community, and for peace and progress of the South East
Asian region.
6. Both Ministers, for each respective government, agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations
between Thailand and Cambodia, and to exchange diplomatic agents in the near future.
7. Both Ministers expressed concern over the widespread interference and attack on Cambodia
by Viet-Cong and North Viet Nam soldiers, which constituted flagrant violation of international
law and the Geneva Convention of 1954.
8. Cambodian Minister expressed thanks to Thailand for extending sympathy to Cambodia for its
ideology of justice and righteous campaign to expel the aggressors from Cambodian territory.
9. Before his departure, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia expressed satisfaction and
thanks to the government and the people of Thailand for warmly welcoming him and the
Cambodian delegation during their sojourn in Thailand.
479Annex 80
480 Annex 81
Daily News, 14 May 1970, “Thailand and Cambodia issued
a joint communiqué to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks”
481Annex 81
482 Annex 81
(Translation)
Daily News 14 May B.E. 2513 (1970)
Thailand and Cambodia issued a joint communiqué to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks.
The Royal Thai Government and the Cambodian government signed a joint
communiqué to resume diplomatic ties within 2 weeks. Each government reaffirmed its
intention to adhere to the principles of the UN charter and respect present common
boundary between the two countries, to adopt a policy of good neighbourliness, and to
refrain from interference in the domestic affairs of the other country. This is for the mutual
benefits of the international community.
The signing ceremony took place yesterday (13th) at 10.15 hours, inside the
meeting room of the Department of Information, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The joint
communiqué was signed by Col. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs, for
Thailand, and by Mr. Yem Sambaur, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Cambodia, for Cambodia.
The details of the 9 articles of the joint communiqué, translated from English to
Thai, as announced by the Department of Information are as follows:
1. Upon the invitation of H.E. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, H.E.
Yem Sambaur, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia, made an official visit to the Kingdom
of Thailand. He was accompanied by H.E. Prom Tos, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry,
General Saray Saman, Chief of Staff of the Royal Cambodian Army, Mr. Dong Rasee, Member
of Parliament, Mr. Plek Chat, Cambodian Permanent Representative to the Mekong River
Commission, and other Cambodian officials.
2. During the stay in Thailand, Cambodian Minister of Foreign Affairs and his delegation were
warmly welcomed, as brothers, by the Government and the people of Thailand.
3. The two Ministers exchanged views openly and constructively on the resolution of the
problems which concerned both, and on the international affairs situation, in particular, the
various problems in the South East Asia. The exchange of views proceeded in the atmosphere of
cordiality and greatly helped to build better understanding between each other.
4. On the consideration of the review of relations between Thailand and Cambodia, both
Ministers mutually agreed that it was necessary to promote better relations between the two
countries, and agreed that such relations should be firmly based on trust, friendship and
fraternity.
5. Both Ministers reaffirmed the intention to vigorously uphold the objects and principles of the
UN Charter. In accordance to such resolve, both Ministers reaffirmed the respect of present
common boundary between the two countries. Both Ministers affirmed the intention to adopt the
policies of good neighbourliness, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the other country,
and declared that both countries will closely and effectively cooperate with other countries, for
the mutual benefits of the international community, and for peace and progress of the South East
Asian region.
6. Both Ministers, for each respective government, agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations
between Thailand and Cambodia, and to exchange diplomatic agents in the near future.
483Annex 81
7. Both Ministers expressed concern over the widespread interference and attack on Cambodia
by Viet-Cong and North Viet Nam soldiers, which constituted flagrant violation of international
law and the Geneva Convention of 1954.
8. Cambodian Minister expressed thanks to Thailand for extending sympathy to Cambodia for its
ideology of justice and righteous campaign to expel the aggressors from Cambodian territory.
9. Before his departure, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia expressed satisfaction and
thanks to the government and the people of Thailand for warmly welcoming him and the
Cambodian delegation during their sojourn in Thailand.
After the signing ceremony of the joint communiqué, Col. Thanat Khoman gave
an interview with the press stating it was a good thing that there would be an exchange
of officials of the rank of ambassador within 1 or 2 weeks from now, and that Thailand
and Cambodia are close neighbours, not only geographically but also historically and
culturally.
Col. Thanat Khoman also stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia
had mentioned that the dissatisfaction between Thailand and Cambodia in the past was solely
caused by Prince Sihanouk. “He used the terms which I do not want to repeat…”
Minister Col. Thanat spoke with a grin to indicate to the reporters that Prince Sihanouk
was strongly condemned and the Cambodian side hoped for smooth relations. This was
because, in recent time, Thailand had proceeded in many ways but was impeded by
only one person, namely that person. Therefore, when that person was no longer
around, the various problems gradually improved.
In response to a question concerning the identity of the officials with the rank of
ambassador from both sides, Col. Thanat said that the names have been chosen, but
could not yet be revealed, pending the agrément of the respective governments. As for
the embassy officials of each side, Col. Thanat said that they might be sent in advance,
even though diplomatic relations as yet was not yet resumed.
As for the negotiations concerning the receipt of assistance from the government
of Thailand, Col. Thanat said that the Cambodian side had not asked Thailand for help in
sending troops since it had been agreed that the negotiations for assistance would be
proceeded in stages.
On the movement of the Cambodian delegation, after the signing ceremony of
the joint communiqué, in the same afternoon at 14.00 hours, the Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia and the delegation travelled by helicopter
from the accommodation in Bangkok to the Klai-Kangwon Palace, Hua Hin, where Col.
Thanat led the delegation to have a royal audience with Their Majesties the King and
Queen. After that, the delegation on the restoration of diplomatic relations of Cambodia
returned to Bangkok for the reception at the residence of Col. Thanat where official
businesses were also discussed.
Mr. Yem Sambaur, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of
Cambodia would be the head of the delegation of 5, travelling out of Thailand today
(14th) for Jakarta, Indonesia, to attend the meeting of the Group of Asian Countries next
week. Col. Thanat Khoman will travel at the end of this week to join the said meeting too.
484Annex 81
485Annex 81
486 Annex 82
Daily News, 12 July 1970, “[…] but sends border police
to Phra Viharn”
487Annex 82
488 Annex 82
(Translation)
Daily News 12 July 1970
(Excerpt)
But send border police to Khao Phra Viharn
[…]
Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn, Prime Minister, gave an interview that the news of the
movement of Thai armed forces into the area of Khao Phra Viharn is not true. The Thai soldiers
carried out their duty along the Thai border only.
He revealed further that Cambodia asked Thailand to help protecting Khao Phra Viharn and
Thailand has sent border police as requested without encroaching into Cambodian territory
[…]
489Annex 82
490 Annex 83
Daily News, 24 March 1971, “Revealing conditions
of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn ‘Cut off’.
Thai side has to assist.”
491Annex 83
492 Annex 83
(Translation)
Daily News 24 March 1971
Revealing conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn
‘Cut off’. Thai side has to assist
-----------------------------------
The conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn are revealed. They are in the state
of being “marooned”, cut off from their main forces, as Viet-Cong has cut their supply route.
The Khmer soldiers have to help themselves mostly. The conditions are poor. Foods are
occasionally given by the Thai authorities. Once in a while, plane from Phnom Penh would fly
over to drop supplies. But they do not meet the demands of the soldiers who have moved their
families up with them. Khmer currency that they have, are not accepted at the market and needs
to be exchanged into US dollar at the US Consulate in Ubonratchatani. The worst of all is the
soldiers’ children, who are suffering from smallpox.
A reporter reported on 22 March that at around 10.30 am of 20 March, Special Pol. Col.
Chaiyasit Seksit, Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police, Nakorn Ratchasima Province
together with Pol. Lt. Col. Sompas Kumprapan, Superintendent of Si Sa Ket Provincial Police, ,
Capt. Manit Nitsayan, Inspector of Provincial Police, Kantharalak district, travelled by car to
inspect the defence line at Kantharalak district to find ways to strengthen the preventive strategy
against infiltration of the opposition. Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police visited Phum
Srol camp, which is the location of Border Patrol Police Division 2, Sub-Division of 3rd Area
Provincial Police, and had a confidential meeting with Pol. Lt. Poon Pochan, Border Patrol
Police Captain, in order to deploy reinforcement in the ten areas prone to infiltration. The
meeting lasted about 1 hour. Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police then travelled to the
location of special force unit and border patrol police at the Thai-Khmer coordination point,
Khao Phra Viharn, and went up Khao Phra Viharn to meet Maj. Kim SaKol, chief of the Khao
Phra Viharn Khmer guards, then returned on the same day.
“Dailynews” met up with Maj. Kim Sakol, who revealed to our reporter that, at present,
his unit is in a very bad situation since they are completely cut off from the main forces after
Viet-Cong had attacked Chom Ksan district. Maj. Duangsak, district sheriff and commander of
battalion 35 died in last July. This had led to the forces on Khao Phra Viharn being cut off from
this battalion. Later, the last stronghold at Pa Pai district, 4 km. from Khao Phra Viharn, was lost
to Viet-Cong. Every route of connecting with Phnom Penh was cut off. Being completely cut off
like this has caused the Khmer soliders on Khao Phra Viharn to be marooned since then. Every
soldier has to rely on himself.
On the issue of supplies, sometimes help is brought up by the Thai authorities or plane
from Phnom Penh dropped food supplies, however it was infrequent and with no set schedule.
Soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn have brought up their families. So when faced with scarcity, it
affects women and children too. And there is another problem looming, as the soldiers’ children
are suffering from smallpox and it is spreading fast.
493Annex 83
Maj. Kim Sakol said that the soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn have some coins in Khmer
currency with them, but cannot be used to buy goods from the Thai market to relieve scarcity.
Merchants did not accept their money claiming that they do not a place to exchange it and do not
know of the rate. The situation is grave as if their money is worthless. Some were sent to Ubon
Ratchatani to negotiate with American consul to exchange money, with unsatisfactory result.
494Annex 83
495496 Annex 84
Chao Thai Newspaper, 27 October 1971,
“Thai and Khmer joined forces”
497Annex 84
498 Annex 84
(Translation)
Chao Thai 27 October 1971
Thai and Khmer joined forces
Viet Cong sent troops to the border to seize Khao Phra Viharn and clashed heavily with
Thai forces. The fighting continues until now.
On the morning of 26 this month, Mr. Puang Suwanarat, Permanent Secretary for Interior
gave an interview with newspaper representative that he received an urgent radio call from Si Sa
Ket Province reporting that on the night of 25 this month, at 9pm, Viet Cong forces attempted to
invade into Thai territory on Si Sa Ket front. They want to go up Khao Phra Viharn to fight
against Khmer soldiers guarding it.
Mr. Puang said that the paths up to Khao Phra Vihran are inside Thai territory. There are
2 paths namely, the Broken Staircase pass and Chong Kra-bue pass. Viet-Cong tried to enter
through both paths. The exact number of Viet-Cong soldiers which clashed with Thai forces,
comprising defence volunteers and border police guarding the two paths, are not known. The
fighting continues until 11am of 26 Oct. Si Sa Ket Province has sent reinforcement. “I am on
standby waiting for updates through the radio.”
499Annex 84
500 Annex 85
Daily News, 30 October 1971, “The Day Viet-Cong attacks”
501Annex 85
502 Annex 85
(Translation)
Daily News 30 October 1971
The Day Viet-Cong Attacks
A report from Si Sa Ket Province reveals the story and events before the invasion of Viet-
Cong into the area of Khao Phra Viharn on the night of 25 October. During 11-18 Oct, there was
a sign in Khmer territory at Chom Ksan district bordering Thailand, indicating of things to come.
A group of Viet-Cong and Khmer Rouge at Baan Sra Am had mobilized into the forest near
Baan Huay Somboon, between the route from Baan Sa Tiang Kwong and Baan Pai, using 2
wagons carrying arms and food supplies including 2 4-inch bazookas, 4 crates of ammunition.
The troops patrolled up to Baan Sra Am.
Previously, between 7-8 Oct, Viet-Cong and Khmer Rouge from Baan Tabaeng Mee
Chai had mobilized to Chom Ksan district. The location of this group of Viet-Cong had 30 bags
of rice and civilians in the area of Chom Ksan district were ordered to stock up food, in order to
attack and capture Khao Phra Viharn area.
At present, Khmer Rouge at Chom Ksan district comprises women and men, well trained
in arms combat. These men and women had been home guards during day time in the past. It is
expected that Viet-Cong will use this group of Khmer Rouge to fight because civilians are
prohibited to leave home at night, between 8pm – 6am, claiming that traps have been placed
around. It is also prohibited to light a fire except lighting a torch.
Troops deployed along the whole stretch
As for the Thai side’s preparation, Air Chief Marshal Tavee Jullasap, Minister of
Transport, as Chief of Staff of the military, said to reporters on the morning of 28 Oct that
although the fighting is over, as a precaution, provincial border patrol police and defence
volunteers are deployed along the whole stretch, especially in at the broken staircase pass as it is
considered to be a dangerous point.
503Annex 85
504 Annex 86
Daily News, 3 November 1971,
“Khao Phra Viharn Front is Not Serious”
505Annex 86
506 Annex 86
(Translation)
Daily News 3 November 1971
(Excerpt)
[…]
Khao Phra Viharn Front is not serious
Concerning the event on Khao Phra Viharn front, which intensified again last week because of
Viet Cong attack, Police Major General Chanastated that from meeting and enquiring with Mr.
Phuang Suwannarat, Permanent Secretary for Interior, the situation is not so serious as to require
sending military reinforcement. Because the forces of provincial border police and defence
volunteers are still able to halt Viet Cong attack.
The Thai Ambassador to Phnom Penh said that he will meet the Foreign Minister in 2-3 days
after the meeting of the Cabinet and National Security Council to receive assignments to be
implemented.
507Annex 86
508 Annex 87
Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn
as tourist site between Thai side and Cambodian side,
7 November 1991
509Annex 87
510 Annex 87
(Translation)
Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site
between
Thai side and Cambodian side
7 November B.E. 2534 (1991)
at Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall
…………………………
The meeting begins at 08.30 hrs.
Second Lieutenant Somjit Junlapong, Governor of Si Sa Ket Province, is the head of the
Thai delegation.
Mr. Suk Sum-eng, Governor of Phra Viharn Province, is the head of the Cambodian
delegation.
The summary of the meeting is as follows:
Item 1 – Opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site
1. Day and time of the opening
1.1 Tourists may visit the Temple of Phra Viharn every day from 8.00 to 16.00
hrs. from December 1991 onward. The Thai side shall fix the opening date and inform the
Cambodian side at least 3 days in advance.
2. Tourists
2.1 Tourists whose visits are permitted include Thai, Cambodian and foreign
citizens.
2.2 Cambodian tourists who wish to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn must have a
certifying note from the Cambodian government permitting their lawful entry into Thailand and
travel in and out through designated temporary pass points or border checkpoints in accordance
with the laws.
3. Means of access
3.1 A tourist who wishes to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn from Thailand shall
obtain prior permission from Si Sa Ket Province. The Province shall issue 2 types of permits as
follows:
511Annex 87
3.1.1 Three types of permit badges for affixing on tourist’s chest to
prevent unauthorised entry:
1) Official badge (white)
2) Tour guide badge (blue)
3) Tourist badge (yellow)
For special guests of the Thai side, the Cambodian side shall provide a number of
special badges as required. The Thai side shall send a note notifying the date and time of the visit
in advance and the Cambodian side shall have an on-duty official who is empowered to authorize
the visit and shall be available to facilitate the visit on a daily basis.
3.1.2 There are 4 types of entry tickets for the access of the Temple of
Phra Viharn:
1) Foreign tourists (blue)
2) General tourists
- adult (yellow)
- child (green)
(not exceeding 120 cm in height)
3) Students in uniform (pink)
3.1.3 The entry tickets shall be printed in 2 parts and in 3 languages –
Thai, Khmer, English – and shall bear the phrase “Permit to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn”
and the price of the ticket.
4. Tour company or juristic person that provides guide tour services
[They] shall be authorized by Si Sa Ket Province only. This is in order to
verify whether or not they operate legally and whether they are willing to comply with the
conditions of the Agreement between Thailand and Cambodia. The Province will facilitate and
ensure order and safety, and coordinate with the Cambodian side. The Province shall inform the
Cambodian side of the list of authorized companies.
5. Entry ticket price
The price for the visit of the Temple of Phra Viharn is as follows:
5.1 Foreign tourists
512 Annex 87
- adult 200 baht per person
- child 100 baht per person
5.2 General tourists
- adult 60 baht per person
- child 20 baht per person
- students in uniform 5 baht per person
5.3 The price of the visit of Khao Phra Viharn above does not include tour
services of juristic person which provides guide tours.
5.4 The proceeds obtained from the entry tickets shall be shared equally.
6. Security measures in the area of Khao Phra Viharn
6.1 Each side shall provide security personnel to provide security to the
tourists at all time in its respective area.
7. Provision of other facilities
7.1 The Thai side shall construct restrooms for tourists in the area on Khao
Phra Viharn.
7.2 The Thai side shall provide cement pillars and barbed wires for the
Cambodian side to clear landmines and build fences around the area of the Temple of Phra
Viharn in order to indicate the areas and limits that tourists can visit.
7.3 The Thai side shall appoint a committee to jointly inspect the area with
the Cambodian side and indicate limits of construction zone in accordance with articles 7.1 and
7.2 giving consideration to appropriateness and necessity of such construction.
7.4 The tour companies shall provide food and drinks to their clients in 2
locations.
7.5 The Cambodian side shall arrange sales of food and drinks for the
tourists on Khao Phra Viharn. Consideration should be given to hygiene. Thai citizens may sell
food and drinks to tourists and there is no objection if the Cambodian side comes down to buy
products in order to sell them on Khao Phra Viharn.
8. Coordinating officers
513Annex 87
There shall be a joint coordination post with coordinating officers of both
sides stationed at the post in the area of Temple pond on Khao Phra Viharn from 8.00 to 16.00
hours daily in order to provide services or resolve any problem which may occur to the tourists.
All Thai officers shall not be subject to entry fee.
9. Tour guide
9.1 The Thai side may have a tour guide to guide tourists through their
visit of Khao Phra Viharn. The tour guide shall not be subject to entry fee.
9.2 Tourists may take photographs and record videos in the area of the
Temple of Phra Viharn except in places where there is a sign prohibiting such activities.
10. Closure of Khao Phra Viharn
10.1 If the Cambodian side has a necessary reason to close Khao Phra
Viharn, it shall notify the Thai side at least 15 days in advance. If there is no advance notice and
there is a legal omplaint for damages, the Cambodian side shall be liable to damages except in
cases of force majeure e.g. there is a war or fighting in the area adjacent to Khao Phra Viharn
which may endanger the tourists.
10.2 If the Thai side has a reason to terminate tourism in the Temple of
Phra Viharn, it shall notify the Cambodian side immediately.
Item 2 – Opening of temporary border pass point
The Cambodian side proposed that the Thai side open a temporary pass point for trade at
one of the following areas:
1. Chong Poi Pass, Ban Dan, Sao Thongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district.
2. Chong Dumpaka Pass, Ban Nong Wa, Sao Thongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district.
The Thai side proposed in principle that since the matter involves many authorities and
takes time to consider, therefore, both sides should establish a joint committee to study which
pass points are possible then submit the information to their respective governments to consider.
When a policy on the matter is set by the governments, there shall be another meeting to
negotiate the matter.
Item 3 – Border security
Both sides agreed to cooperate to prevent and suppress sales of illegal goods and arms
along the border. Both side will prevent and suppress such activities in the area under their
respective responsibility.
514 Annex 87
The meeting ends at 18.30 hrs.
Both sides agreed as stated above and, therefore, record report of the meeting in 2
languages –Thai and Khmer. Both texts have identical meaning.
(Signed) (signed)
(Somjit Junlapong) (Mr. Suk Sum-eng)
Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Governor of Phra Viharn
Province
515Annex 87
Negotiation meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn
7 November B.E. 2534 (1991) 9.30hrs.
at meeting hall, Si Sa Ket provincial authority
List of Thai delegation
1. Second Lieutenant Somjit Junlapong Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
2. Colonel Wiroj Chanasit Chief of Staff, Suranaree Task Force
3. Mr. Siva Saengmanee Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
4. Mr. Poj Jaimun Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province absent
5. Mr. Virasak Pornpiboon Vice Governor of Si Sa Ket Province
6. Colonel Amnuay Paojinda (ineligible)
7. Colonel Surapol Ruek Commander -in-Chief of 23th Paramilitary Ranger Unit
8. Lieutenant Colonel Sura Homchit Chief of 9thIntelligence Operation Unit
9. Police Colonel Peerasak Preawpanich Deputy Commander
10. Mr. Warong Siripanich Sheriff of Kantaraluck district
11. Pol. Lt. Col. Sophon Nakabordee Immigration Police, Ubon Ratchathani Province
12. (Ineligible)
13. Mr. Anurak Eimla-or Provincial commerce officer
14. Mr. Sompong Pattani Provincial information officer
15. (Ineligible)
16. Pol. Lt. Col. Pinit Srisaranukrom (ineligible)
17. Mr. Pring Petchluan Provincial education officer Translator
516Annex 87
517Annex 87
518Annex 87
519Annex 87
520Annex 87
521Annex 87
522Annex 87
523Annex 87
524Annex 87
525Annex 87
526 Annex 88
Aphotograph of the iron gate at Tani stream, circa 1992
527Annex 88
528 Annex 88
Photograph of Iron Gate across Takhop/Tani Stream, taken circa 1992
529530 Annex 89
Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian
Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary,
30 June - 2 July 1999
531Annex 89
532Annex 89
533Annex 89
534Annex 89
535Annex 89
536 Annex 90
Agreed Minutes of the Second Meeting of
the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation
for Land Boundary, 5-7 June 2000
537Annex 90
538Annex 90
539Annex 90
540Annex 90
541542 Annex 91
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government
of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government
of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the Survey and Demarcation
of Land Boundary, 14 June 2000
543Annex 91
544Annex 91
545Annex 91
546Annex 91
547Annex 91
548Annex 91
549Annex 91
550Annex 91
551Annex 91
552Annex 91
553Annex 91
554Annex 91
555Annex 91
556Annex 91
557Annex 91
558Annex 91
559Annex 91
560 Annex 92
Record of joint meeting between Delegation of the Governor
of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy
Governor of Phra Viharn Province, 22 February 2001
561Annex 92
562 Annex 92
(Translation)
Record of a joint meeting
Between
Delegation of the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy Governor of
Phra Viharn Province
Re: Opening of Khao Phra Viharn Pass Point for Tourism
On 22 February B.E. 2544 (2001)
At Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall, Si Sa Ket Province, Thailand
………………………………….
The meeting was attended by Mr. Kosin Kedtong, Governor of Si Sa Ket Province, Head
of the Thai delegation and Mr. Boon Suwann, Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province, Head
of Cambodian delegation.
The meeting discussed and exchanged views. Both sides agreed to strengthen relations by
opening a temporary pass point at Khao Phra Viharn as international tourist site. The result of the
meeting is annexed as ANNEX A.
The record of the meeting is done in the Thai and Khmer languages with identical
meaning and substance and may be modified according to the circumstances and appropriateness
by mutual agreement.
(Mr. Kosin Kedtong) (Mr. Boon Suwann)
Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province
The Kingdom of Thailand The Kingdom of Cambodia
Police Colonel
(Mr. Wanich Ritdech) (Jia San)
Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Chief of Tourism police, Phra Viharn Province
Major General
(Pinit Srisaranukrom) (Mr. Gao Long)
563Annex 92
Command of Si Sa Ket Provincial Police Sheriff of Chom Ksan district
(Mr. Songsak Satupak)
Sheriff of Kantharalak district
564 Annex 92
Annex A
No. Matters Proposal Principles and Reasons Ageement
1 Measures to 1. Appoint a 1. to maintain order at Agreed
maintain order and committee to the Pass point:
security at the Pha coordinate resolutions
(1) to prevent people
Mo I Daeng of problems at the Pha
temporary pass Mo I Daeng temporary under its administrative
control from
point, Thailand/ pass point for tourism, committing crimes
Khao Phra Viharn, Sao Tongchai
Cambodia subdistrict, against the people of
the other side e.g.
Kantharalak district,
Si Sa Ket Province, battery, robbery,
Thailand and the pickpocketing and
abduction for ransom.
Temple of Phra
Viharn, Chom Ksan If such crime occurs, it
shall prosecute the
district, Phra Viharn wrongdoer in
Province, Cambodia
accordance with the
law of the place that the
crime takes place
(2) Strictly and
continuously prevent
arms trade, prostitution,
drugs sale, and illegal
casino
(3) prevent illegal
smuggling of good or
prohibited items in
accordance with the
laws of the respective
sides
(4) prevent illegal
immigration whether
for tourism or
employment
(5) prevent the people
of each side from
565Annex 92
making sales of goods
in the pass point area of
the other side. If found,
legal action must be
immediately carried out
in accordance with the
laws
(6) Both sides of the
Committee must
cooperate to prevent
and suppress theft of
property, animals,
vehicles, motorcycles
and archeological
artifacts and shall
return the stolen goods
when there is clear
evidence.
(7) Each side of the
Committee shall
prevent homeless
persons, disabled
persons, beggars and
prostitutes from
entering into the
territory of the other
side. If one side deports
such person, the other
shall take him/her back
and proceed in
accordance with the
laws.
2 The area of the Khao 2. Pha Mo I Daeng, Agreed
Phra Viharn Sao Tongchai
Temporary Pass subdistrict,
Point for tourism Kantharalak district,
Si Sa Ket Province,
Thailand and the
566 Annex 92
Temple of Phra
Viharn, Chom Ksan
district, Phra Viharn
Province, Cambodia.
3 Duration of the Phra 3. Daily from 8.00 to 3. To prevent illegal Agreed
Viharn Temporary 16.00 hrs from the immigration of person
Pass Point for date of the official from the other side and
tourism opening of the to provide security for
temporary pass point tourists who visit the
Temple of Phra Viharn
4. Regulations on the 4. Only consumer Agreed
goods sold at the products deemed
Phra Viharn necessary for daily life
Temporary Pass and souvenirs which
Point worth not more than
500,000 baht are
allowed to be sold.
(signed) (signed)
(Mr. Kosin Kedtong) (Mr. Boon Suwann)
Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province
567Annex 92
568Annex 92
569Annex 92
570Annex 92
571Annex 92
572Annex 92
573Annex 92
574Annex 92
575576 Annex 93
Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman
of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission,
Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia
in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman
of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission,
No. 0803/1015, 25 November 2004
577Annex 93
578Annex 93
579Annex 93
580Annex 93
581Annex 93
582Annex 93
583Annex 93
584Annex 93
585Annex 93
586 Annex 94
Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman
of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission,
Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia
in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman
of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission,
No. 0803/192, 8 March 2005
587Annex 94
588Annex 94
589Annex 94
590Annex 94
591592 Annex 95
The Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO,
A Challenge to Thailand’s denunciation of UNESCO
and the World Heritage Committee, 2009, pages 1-23
593Annex 95
594 Annex 95
HEAR
OF
OF PR
THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA AWORLD HERITAGE SITE, 2008
THE TEMMPLE OFF PREAHH VIHEAR
A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION
UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
2009
Published by Penh
the Cambodian
National Commission
A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION OF UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
595Annex 95
23
1-8-10 i-vvii-x xxxxxxxxxxxiii
11-13-17-21-22 xixivxvi-xxii
PAGES xxixxviii-xxix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Appendix IexIeVedexdIdIxdIdixdix XI
1-2-J3-ER-EI-AELTNAOCIEDPEYVTSCCNPOF1C6M:TITIrIILIEcsonPOST-LAMOSIDRAAONVFHHEAI
596 Annex 95
th 1
ization , the 11
ed as a World
an-made structures.
scription.
Preah Vihear is an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture. It is very ‘pure’
the Temple of Preah Vihear, Cambodia, on the World Heritage List under criterion (i);
DeIcscrb: s32 COM 8B.102in the detail of its decoration.
Every year, delegates from all over Aendosritcomseitouel,e2r0f0o8rheettngWoftCemW etriln
1. A JOYOUS TIME CLOUDED BY THAILAND’S HOSTI dedIitciadjtbiantptmse,astioffarnntcotaitrelseomvilatpeeeitrf tst alurd’steasutnsottespite last minute strong objection by the State Party of Thailand to derail the in
597Annex 95
2
ription as
sentatives of the
The Gopura II and the Gopura I
TheKhTemeriarefiPgttG0oriJels,rvtti.sftppeastiouthttfdtmoashcarpneent.
The Gopura IV and the Gopura III
The Gopura V, to the farthest
Noand the frontier line with Thailand appropriate to recall that the Royal Thai Government had committed to lend active support for the insc
evideNncSdCOy. numerous declarations, joint press releases, culminating with the 18 June 2008 Joint Communique witnessed by repre
598 Annex 95
3
f the WHC atmal
or inscription.
Samdech Akka Moha
initially made the official request to have the
The road to Quebec City had been a long and bumpy one. Although it was the year 2001 when
SenTePteLeitrurhryrmugeiCoessP,iIteookr6iferrifprferltttiitmuonengnun,htoitirctnrsonsoscaiiioomlfsrnctireriah,NlatrlitHerio
Even so when Cambodia nominated the Temple of Preah Vihear for the inscription on the World Heritage list at the 31st Session o
Chiiscrhptih,NaewdeZaayanda(2earw),heeaCdotimniatlteie
599Annex 95
4
st
masterpiece of
Session of the WHC
nd
.
ge of the Council of Ministers, at Christchurch, New Zealand, during the 3
Session of the WHC, July 2007 at Christchurch having been met, on 7 July 2008 the 32
st
Session of the World Heritage Committee, Jue-July 2007. (Photos Office of the Council of Ministers/Royal Government of Cambodia)
Activities of the delegation of the Royal Goverment of Cambodia led by H.E. Dr. Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in char
With the requirements of the 31
in QKuhmbercarctyi,ctaune.a unanimously decided to have the famous Temple of Preah Vihear inscribed as it represents “an outstanding
600 Annex 95
5
Minister,
en often t the indoor
patience and
the kind of heartfeltened the
Session of the World
nd
century and beyond.
st
Heritage Committee, Quebec, Canada.
of Ministers and the delegation to the 32
Thexpression of joy and appreciation in welcoming home H.E. Dr. Sok Anuncil
Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of
re-asserted the pride of the whole nation for the achievements of the Cambodian delegation led by H.E. Dr. Sok An Deputy Prime
Upon hearAweek later, on 14 July 2008, a celebration organized by the municipality of Phnom Penh in collaboration with Bayon TV channel aommittee, Quebec, Canada.
H. E. Dr. Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Office of the
recensttvetesnriterhtttiatrohibmcolntipiourthheatnfuatisntltedliisolisufheeCiostiiptrntareltiasionferoeonitolt,aaniity,Cningpga.Tereiyvw
601Annex 95
6
and the Cambodian civil administrative post. (Photos:OCM/RGC)
Thai army units crossed the Cambodian border and moved deeply inside Cambodia.........
occupied Keo Sikkha Kiri Svara pagoda.......
The next day, 15 July 2008, defying the United Nations Charter and fundamental international law, the Thai army crossed the
Caomnbodaanbboianet,mriory"dinepydinsgKeeoamibkodiaKtiiSvdarhepnewdlyinncrisesuTroupdleof Preas. Vihear, and occupied "its vicinity
602 Annex 95
7
h may, since the
urprisCity was beyond
The Hague's 15 Juneu the Temple, or in its
City.sonably patient to leave
Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime
(Photo and caption by a couple of foreign tourists)
“The Cambod6an soldiers are highly motivated in the defense of their country.”
CamliwshTewiiodiicmOcoferron8rerotoh
Above a"THEtbyCniUeRvo,tes to three,elby seven votes to five,ccupation is duefinitely and unequiuvocally in flagrant uviolations of
1962 Internatifindsfhat tnethat Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her atubmission whic
603Annex 95
8
eafter will
nicated to the
ut four months on laced under French5 e of Preah Vihear”
r (roughly east of thep.20
French conditions, under countries,” p 16 and
I of said Treaty, and underof the Treaty of March
and that they accepted it, p.26. It must
Annex I map
Appendix IV
(Note: Siam and currently Thailand cannot claim ownership of Cambodia under vicious maneuvering to force
(Note: Up to this date, even Siam exercised domination over the Kingdom of Cambodia, there had not been any treaty
A Treaty between Siam and Cambodia, of which article 1 stated that “Cambodia is a vassal state of Siam.”ng an act of war starting with thereaty. With regard to Cambodia
ATreaty of Friendship, Commerce and Protection (or the Treaty placing the Kingdom of Cambodia under French Protectorate)
ATreaty between Siam and France was concluded in Paris, of which article 2 stated that the December 1863 Treaty between Siam
The history of Cambodia, the border issues be3 October 1893:13 February 1904: events of 1962 and the Temple of Preah Viher ther
2. THERE enlightenwtae coandcusedtattteeulandCambodia to sign a Treatytuehithe“sopfaTsaTfhSri(ineregiviteemaenhairaaSiani.uaeotout by Mixed Commissions composed of officers appointed by the two contract
604 Annex 95
9
r ‘Cambodia v.
ANNEX I MAP
by the International Court of Justice, 15 June 1962)
Area of the Temple of Preah Vihear in the Dangrek range of mountains (extrapolation from the map recognized
190(I,nerThbeonelat,sttp-edJixtill;ton1oamtbodfa.6S2,pente,snsvttoerefnrdioale)aupoOnrdihser–Caasceptooreenict tthhe.ep.2e of Preah Vihea
605Annex 95
ve 10
issioners, een the
d by Siam
ai and Kratt in r ‘Cambodia v.
f the territories. The three-fourths of the
the Siamhom, (2) from Phnom Temple
m the pass of Sa Met to ween their territories by
6
ante was restored, meaning that the Indochinese territories covered by the Tokyo Convention of 9
status quo
A Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between France and Siam, valid for a period of ten years from the datey 1941 repudiated by the
The 1941 Tokyo Convention returned much of French Indochina to Thai control. France and Siam concluded a treaty under the
23 March 1907: A Treaty for the final14 February 19 9M5:ay 1941: 17 November 1946:e common boundary line between Indochina and Siam,e ideal of the United Nations and in the interest of world peace, that betw
fomeenxtnewegftAeteasanre,I3eevrhenPitleionetpentnxmediation of Japan, signed inKincgertmntyfrCncefnoaltit.ndechessKri,ges the section of Laos province west of the Mekong River,
606 Annex 95
11
came into
a Settlement
lement Agreement, only give a decision
he issue to the International
is situated in territory under the sovereignty of
or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
”
(Printed in Netherlands)
Published by the International Court of Justice
The Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear,
The ancient Angkorian Temple of Preah Vihear has belonged to Cambodia since it Tecidingwhasrbaitnis oer hetCocurtt’d.ecisonevw
1962: A Year of Decision
3. THE TEMPLE temAporarmilaosweinhinuaefcpsrthliiaydaacbcept,ditaledenrgothvtaihitysoftndqThmepne, 1fa,c.utiegsehlteSeselndlenCotlntremirea
607Annex 95
12
agrseries of 11 that it wreaty which
pleted in late itsbsequent mapy had thence with the
rning the map’s
he line indicated on amous for helping
een France and Siam. Vihear in Cambodian
cumstances. The Court
doubt about the origins of n it a binding character.” ”
” 6
Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work
it was certainly within the powers of the Governments to adopt such departures.
the acceptance of the Annex I map by the Parties caused the map to enter the treaty settlement and to become an
”
What is certain is that the map must have had a basis of some sort, and the Court thinks that there can be no reasonable doubt
The Court foThe map concerningEven so, the fact that it was produced after the CommissBased on all of the evidence, the ICJ concluded that “ext of the 1904 TI map, and trder. In
surveayanwdeauabofsrcbased on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector.ofteriiterg”lTpaertCoofuirtt. concluded that “ on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah
608 Annex 95
13
dated the
in Bangkok er the U.N.
t year’s meet-
ent protests and s, it was clear at from Thailand,
had been cserved all rights that, “itovernment officials
Preah Vihear at a later pHeritage Site in 2007, the border
m. This refusal to lower iled a map which was atnnex Iistchurch
Session of the World Heritage Committee at Christchurch, New
st
The consequeB ncyeslf lJoie,ut,TI,aicnas’EdernitrnmlatsBferttilstaade.niClmwiaoi,osThe World Heritage Committee and the two Parties agreed to postpone the inscription on the Temple of Preah Vihear until the nex
4. THAILAa vdieulaonedrtsairhartairn.”ithHhTrtr.ilTitauhredait’tgbomplriyrnZealand, Thailand raised objections to the listing and asked that the inscription be postponed. At the same time, Thailand unve
609Annex 95
14
an Deputy Prime
Temple.
MeMetiniie.tnr.nreseadeecfmatiaHae,d.rnratercienoIVeIinyeraoirfs8sstib
Session of the World Heritage Committee in Quebec City approached, Thailand reaffirmed its support of inscription of the Temple (Photo: OCM/RGC)
nd
As the 32
of Preah Vihear. In a Joint Communiqué signed on June 18, 2008 by the then Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, and Cambodithe
610 Annex 95
15
e Thai
er substantially
ted political debate
Government position
drawn represents the long-standing
unilaterally
Unfortunately, immediately prior to the 2008 World Heritage Committee meeting in Canada, political turmoil in Bangkok caused th
govieriasintotteprotiigaitywricrlrvzieetaehppRcttifltlnaiomitiatothertviuriooitresstontagthmethveelnpprrsactherth.amnapinhticehvreerwoyal Thai
611Annex 95
16
of the treaty settlement
an intergral part as unveiled in Christchurch
The border depicted on the map that
Marpin its judgment of 15 June 1962sed on the MaptSaiecembonhtaelrnvoeetatiiA
prepared and
unilaterally
Repreaserenateidndimobhhian.. he yellow colored
RouwgaTiihisaeearuieratasutmearaefbtoas1u90esratycotntry.
by the Royal Thai Government, it had not been promoted in the years following the
out of public view was underscored by the recent revelation of a map produced by the
unilaterally
regaroInJetecisirdlrtahtrrtaiisdereaitstdoarthe,italcotgoytditiuteltthrattdrbtoroerCtimeefdit’ttatcisdhapskoyptfithhughmer
612 Annex 95
17
taken back therialhe World
ads in full in the legation stormed
they could control the. And this
6
“Reminder: This map is a secret document. Map user should keep it very carefully for the safety of Thailand.”)
It must have beneamgrmatndarpiveidmitehnoithseThtainffifaleteat,pehoefreaceVihaefiinnlyachciveiyinnCJulybo,i0,0t8y ihth
warTnaigltnemeaepestonaotunewi.orftlfwoadhtnft.(TodjheretiortpreaeobetehIfhealpetbtecsaeaiaveeiirstby“stmettea,ihKtamhrashheea
613Annex 95
18
, which is
dvance the
The Thai armed
In fact, the Thai soldiers
(Photos:OCM/RGC)
and the Cambodian civil administrative post.
Thai army units crossed the Cambodian border and moved deeply inside Cambodia.........
occupied Keo Sikkha Kiri Svara pagoda.......
While emoOn July 15,Tt2he8T–hjistiliaryetrooaftrntteeidstrieteo–sSikhaimiirlarvyaroopsoednawedichalocal aaneabrotanieesire to a
15 Jhlyia0nd8Uses the Pretext of the Inscription to Invade Cambodia
5. THAILAND’S INVASION OF CAMBODIAenitietroebmxato.diht0imiatsrsnigaiaetatmibriliabierftleehei0mmlekr,snfoantdhlaymmanlw.ho had illegally entered the area.
614 Annex 95
19
titute a
avily armed
ge that it had entered
icles. Thailand also has nd, announced that the
(Photo: Thai Military)
and long-range howitzers.
1
”
Thailand flexed its military’s muscle including tanks
Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime
(Photo AFP)
Thai soldiers set-up heavy artillery on the Thai-Cambodian border.
(Photo: Thai Military - Wing I Korat)
power flying F16’s and other military aircrafts.
On the same day of ground invasion, Thailand displayed its air
After the initial incursion, the Thai military forces engaged in the deployment of more troops to the area, with hundreds of he
“The presence of this Pagoda and other structures as well as that of Cambodian settlers and military personnel in the area, cons
1etter from Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen, July 18, 2008. Appendix x
solredrespoythe jaefinetxetoirhretetoptle,arnatheoaurstasordore. just behindththrepTghaiasstirleesiaetilergaeTriaoiintfetero.mIeatiae,nH
615Annex 95
20
oximately908
e ICJ very
e basis of the to do with the
gntllegation that Thai
Thai diplomatic notes
on growth of the vmillage and
2
6
Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen replied,
“…according to the “ANNEX I MAP” used by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, (the pagoda) is legally located apprs of Thai sovereis have as much
Letter from Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen to Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, July 19, 2008. Appendix xi
In response, subsecterefigyeanrrtetrotttrifeunteasirsTiyuisabeyerraoBattuifhappose,iritoctttree1wtesrtrJlatne violation of sovereignty.
616 Annex 95
21
acking
inevitable
th military and
5, 2008 fighting
territory it controls admit that the Thai
mer Rouge control. As But
Thai troops started att
14:15
1,120undaetylittSoefhCooffneeaaolninanamiotai.pby.ildofey.e70
On theisidAbrodiaamtAtrdrol.tArtrtee.3fegrlotfPid),iyppfKpap,atel00KiriStv
In the time As the Thai militMarosftocrouhslvehattebepeedtho extlnsdttatiraeacressltntofoammTbodiiasotlergh mttitapingatrolx,ptah
6. THE CONandnas-mrtitnryiamtbsrn.tmlteldrhhsltilliwiirnslehtemlieeaielbsrvhaeeseyaCrilodtheliyftmmilierfvtutlttieedteainettohtnethhba
617Annex 95
22
near the
the Temple of
includes not only
(Photos: OCM/RGC) 6
319 Cambodian families were made destitute by Thai military hostilities
The market-village burned and completely destroyed by Thai’s shelling. (Photos: OCM/RGC)
Subsequently, fighting erupted again on April 3, 2009 with Thai rockIn addition to these military actions, Thailand has warned that anyone traveling to the Temple must have Thai permission. This
Temple, and seriously affecting the livelihood of 319 Cambodian famiCaPreahinihofisls,eblntehatiaailne
618 Annex 95
23
ich had bless, upon their
have the Temple
he World Heritage temple and ruled by
They wanted a review er Machiavellian and and
ry.
ple delisted.
he meeting in Spain, Thai officials
Session of the World Heritage Committee in Seville - Spain, indicate that it
rd
6
The recent actions tTheir pleadiIt is clear that the Royal Thai Government, frustrated in exerting control over the territory and sovereignty where stands the
7. THE FUwililcltdofgttteQtrebtrtoritoclfiigioia,stischtvt,ainotj,ittltnieeie,ltelotnveieierirortjhtetijdtsavredTa.Petafilf,stbmic
619 2009
Annex 95 Pthe Cambodianenh
National Commission
A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION OF UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Published by
Phnom Penh, Cambodia
the Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO
620 Annex 96
International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University,
Assessment of the Task of Translating the Cambodia-
Thailand boundary depicted on the ‘Annex I’map onto the
Ground, October 2011 (omittingAppendices 1-6)
621Annex 96
622 Annex 96
Assessment of the task
of translating the
Cambodia-Thailand boundary
depicted on the ‘Annex I’ map
onto the ground
Report prepared for the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand
October 2011
Authors: Alastair Macdonald & Martin Pratt
623Annex 96
Assessment of the task
of translating the
Cambodia-Thailand boundary
depicted on the ‘Annex I’ map
onto the ground
Report prepared for the
Government of the Kingdom of Thailand
October 2011
Authors: Alastair Macdonald & Martin Pratt
International Boundaries Research Unit
Department of Geography
Durham University
DH1 3LE
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 191 334 1961
Fax: +44 191 334 1962
[email protected]
www.durham.ac.uk/ibru
Disclaimer
Every effort has been made to ensure that the inforin this report is
accurate. However, the InternaBoundaries Research Unit cannot accept
responsibility for the consequences of any action undertaken on the basis of the
material contained herein.
624 Annex 96
Contents
About the authors........................................................................▯........................ iv
A. Introduction ........................................................................▯............................ 1
B. Description of the Dangrek sheet ................................................................. 2
C. Three versions of the Dangrek sheet ........................................................... 5
D. Constraints on production methods .......................................................... 10
E. Significant errors on the Annex I Map........................................................ 12
F. Technical limitations of the Annex I Map ..................................................... 17
F. Determining the extent of the line to be examined ................................... 19
G. Transfer of the Annex I boundary to real world: method ......................... 19
H. Transfer of Annex I boundary to real world: results ................................. 24
Single point transformations..................................................................................... 24
End point transformations ........................................................................................ 29
Segmented end point transformations ...................................................................... 34
Comparison of all transformations ............................................................................ 34
I. Concluding comments........................................................................▯........ 43
Appendices
Appendix 1: The 1:50000 scale enlargement of a section of the ‘Annex I’ map
(actually the revised version of the Dangrek sheet) accompanying the report of
Professor Schermerhorn submitted as Annex 49 of the Thai Counter -Memorial
in the Temple case.......................................................................................................... 45
Appendix 2: Temple case – Thailand Counter-Memorial pp 194-196 and Annex 49 ....... 46
Appendix 3: Temple case – Cambodia Reply p 472 and Annex LXVIa and c .................. 58
Appendix 4: Temple case Thailand Rejoinder pp 45- 53 and Annexes 75a-b................... 65
Appendix 5: Temple case – Documents submitted to the Court after the closure of
the Written Proceedings - Supplemental report of Doeringsfeld Amuedo & Ivey ............. 83
Appendix 6: Temple case – Expert witness cross-examinations ..................................... 87
International Boundaries Research Uniiii
625Annex 96
About the authors
The International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University works
to minimise conflict associated with international boundaries on land and at sea
around the world. IBRU’s work is interdisciplinary in approach and global in
scope, integrating theory and practice in order to provide: (i) practical expertise
in boundary-making, border management and territorial dispute resolution; and
(ii) academic leadership in the study of boundaries and their impact on
international relations and borderland development. It was the world’s first
boundary research centre and it remains a unique resource for scholars and
practitioners.
Alastair Macdonald spent his whole career as a professional surveyor in the
service of the UK g overnment. For 15 years he worked in the field in Africa and
Southeast Asia before r eturning to UK to work for the Ministry of Defence. His
final posting before retirement in 1992 was as Director of Surveys and Production
at the Ordnance Survey, the national mapping agency of Great Britain. Since
retirement he has advised the governments of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan and the
Palestinian Authority on boundary-related matters. In 2009 Alastair was awarded
an MBE for services to mapping and the resolution of boundary disputes in
Africa. He is also an Honorary Research Fellow of the International Boundaries
Research Unit.
Martin Pratt is IBRU’s Director of Research. He has two decades’ experience
advising governments, commercial organisations and NGOs on land and
maritime boundary issues around the world. Recent projects in which he has
served as a geographical expert include the maritime boundary arbitration
between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, the Abyei arbitration between
northern and southern Sudan and research in preparation for boundary
negotiations in the Middle East. In 2010 Martin was made an Honorary Professor
in Geography for his contribution to boundary studies in Durham, and he also
received the Michael Barrett Award of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, awarded annually to the person whom in the opinion of the RICS has
contributed most to the understanding of the subjects of l and transfer,
registration and administration, encroachments, cadastre and boundary issues.
International Boundaries Researchivnit
626 Annex 96
A. Introduction
1. The map sheet which came to be known as the ‘Annex I map’ in the Temple of
Preah Vihear cas e of 1959-62 is officially titled “Dangrek: Commission de
Delimitation Entre L’Indo -Chine et Le Siam” . It is one of eleven sheets in a
1:200000 map series which depict the boundary between Thailand (then Siam)
and Cambodia and L aos (then French Indochina ) determined by a Franco-
1
Siamese mixed commission between 1905 and 1907 , although its status as an
official map reflecting the work of the commission has always been contested
by Thailand. The sheet shows the line of the boundary following the
watershed in the Dangrek range between a point just to the west of the Pass
of Kel (Chong Samrong/Choam) at Greenwich longitude 104 °E , and the
eastern edge of the sheet at 104 ⁰ 44’E. Unfortunately, the map contains a
number of errors which distort the line of the watershed and hence the
boundary.
2. The International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) has been a sked to assess
how one might transfer the boundary depicted on the Annex I map to the real
world, whose topography is now much better understood and mapped than
it was at the beginning of the twentieth century.
3. We are aware of the exchanges between the parties concerning the Annex I
map during the Temple case, and the expert reports that were submitted
4
concerning the alignment of the watershed in the vicinity of the temple.
We do not intend to retread the ground covered during the case – although
we note in passing that we agree with the findings of the reports of Professor
Schermerhorn submitted by Thailand, and disagree with the contradictory
findings of Messrs Doeringsfeld, Amuedo and Ivey submitted by Cambodia.
The aim of this report is to move beyond the debate in the Temple case, which
focused almost entirely on a very s mall section of the Annex I map, and
examine the map as a whole, with particular reference to the relationship
between the boundary and the topography and drainage system depicted in
the Dangrek range.
1 The commission in question is sometimes referred to as the ‘first commissA second
commission (set up under a boundary treaty of 1907) revised the boundary from the Pass of
Kel westwards and three of the first commission’s sheets to the southwest of the Dangrek
range became redundant, at least in terms of boundary depiction.
2 We define a watershed as the line dividing the areas drained by two separate river systems
such that rain falling on one side of the line runs into one system and on the other side of
the line into the other system. Between any two river systems the watershed is a unique
and unambiguous linear feature of the landscape, although it is not always easy to identify
on the ground.
3 The longitude grid on the map refers to the Paris Meridian which is approximately 2° 20’
east of the now universally-used Greenwich Meridian. Except where stated otherwise, the
longitudes of positions read from the Dangrek sheet mentioned in this report are referred to
the Greenwich Meridian.
4 Relevant extracts from the Temple case pleadings are reproduced in appendices to this
report.
International Boundaries Research Un1t
627Annex 96
4. In addition to examining the Annex I map in relation to modern mapping
and satellite imagery of the boundary area, the authors visited a number of
sites along the Dangrek escarpment during a field visit to Thailand on 15-18
August 2011. This visit helped us to appreciate the challenges that would
have been faced in surveying the area in 1907, producing errors which led to
the creation a map which is unfit for purpose as a basis for boundary
recovery and demarcation.
B. Description of the Dangrek sheet
5. The map sheet “Dangrek”, submitted by Cambodia as Annex I to its
Application to the International Court of Justice in the Temple case and
reproduced at reduced scale (1:450000) as Figure 1, is a printed map
assembled under the supervision of H enry Barrère, a Paris -based
cartographer , from a series of field sketch es and measurements by Captains
Kerler (who surveyed the area from the Great Lake to the western end of
Dangrek range ) and Oum (who was tasked with surveying the Dangrek
6
range itself). The map is one of a series of 11 sheets. It is undated but we
understand from the records of the Temple case that it was completed in
November 1907 and published in June 1908. 7It is drawn at a scale of 1:200000
(1 centimetre on the map = 2 kilometres on the ground) on a sinusoidal
projection with a central meridian at 101⁰ 40’E (Paris). Tracks, villages and
other man -made detail appear in black, drainage networks in blue and
contours in brown. There is a green colour wash indicating areas of
forest/jungle. The contours, at an interval of 50 m etres, are confined to the
area covered by the Dangrek mountains.
6. The Dangrek map sheet presented as Annex I contains a significant
registration error of the brown (contour) printing plate. This can be detected
by looking at the contours in any valley not running in the same direction as
the displacement and noting that the stream is not in sympathy with the
contours (see Figure 2 for examples) . Once this error is understood, it can be
seen that the line of the watershed is displaced from the ridges along which it
should run. The error varies across the sheet but is of the order of 1 -2.5
millimetres (200-500 metres on the ground) . The contours need to be moved
in a roughly northeast direction to come into sympathy with the rest of the
map.
5 The publisher is not named on the map but Barrère worked for Maison Andriveau-Goujon.
6 This is the implication of the final paragraph on p. 12 6 of the Dissenting Opinion of Judge
Spender in the Templecase, and we concur with his interpretation.
7
Dissenting Opinion of Sir Percy Spender, pp. 125-26.
International Boundaries Research 2nit
628Annex 96
3
International Boundaries Research Unit
(scale reduced to 1:450,000)
Figure 1: The Annex I map
629Annex 96
Figure 2: Examples of the registration error with the brown printing plate on the
Annex Imap. Examples of areas where the error leaves the boundary off ridges and
hilltops which form the watershed are highlighted in yellow. Examples of are as
where the error leaves streams not running along the bottom of valleys are
highlighted in red.
International Boundaries Research4Unit
630 Annex 96
C. Three versions of the Dangrek sheet
7. During our visit to Bangkok, we disc overed that the record copy of the
Dangrek sheet held by the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs (DTLA)
is a different version of the sheet to that submitted by Cambodia to the Court
in 1959. To avoid confusion we refer to this second version as the ‘revised’
version of the sheet. It is reproduced at reduced scale (1:450000) as Figure 3.
Although it is essentially the same map as the Annex I map, the contours are
shown by a finer line, some contours have been added to enhance hill
features, while other contours have been smoothed to give a more elegant
appearance. Place names and contour heights are in a more elegant style, and
a small index map has been added in the top right hand corner of the sheet.
Overall, the revised version is much easier to read than the Annex I map.
Most significantly, the registration displacement apparent on the Annex I
map is no longer present, meaning that the boundary on the revised version
crosses the tops of hills and follows ri dge lines, as one would expect from a
watershed boundary.
8. Among the contour adjustments, there is a significant change to the contours
at and around the hill at Phra Viharn. The contours on the Annex I map are
difficult to follow. Some of them are in terrupted, perhaps because of a lack of
space, and some are obscured by other symbols. However, it does seem that
the ring contour indicating the highest part of the hill lies at the northern end
of the temple symbol with a lower in complete contour running off to the
southwest. On the revised Dangrek sheet, there is much greater clarity, the
contours are continuous and there are now two ring contours on top of the
hill. The northern ring is a revised version of the one shown on the Annex I
map and the boundary line now passes over it; the second one is new and
contains the temple. It has changed the shape of the lower contour on the
Annex I map into a much squarer presentation and the northern side of this
square has a kink in it which might well represent an acknowledgment of the
presence of the ‘Ackermann stream’ wh ich was central to arguments about
the location of the watershed at Phra Viharn in the Temple case. 8On the Ph
Sethisom mountain at the eastern edge of the sheet, contours have been made
more parallel and the corners of th e mountain more right-angled. The
differences between the two versions of the sheet in this area are illustrated in
Figure 4. It is interesting to note that the contours on the rest of the sheet, to
the west of the extract, show little de viation from those on the Annex I map,
although they are not precise copies.
8 We use the term ‘Ackermann stream’ to refer to the stream that Friedrich Ackermann of the
International Training Centre for Aeriarvey surveyed before the 1962 hearings and
which was the main subject of his lengthyoss-examination. Ackermann said that this
stream flowed northwest into Thailand. Cambodian counsel Dean Acheson strongly
criticised this view and claimed it ranheast into Cambodia. We visited the area in
August 2011, saw the stream and can confirm that Ackermann’s claim is correct.
International Boundaries Research U5it
631Annex 96
6
International Boundaries Research Unit
(scale reduced to 1:450000)
Figure 3: The revised version of the Dangrek sheet
632 Annex 96
Figure 4: A comparison of extracts from the Annex I map (top)
and the revised Dangrek sheet viewed at the Thai Department of
Treaties and Legal Affairs .9 Superimposed arrows h ighlight
examples where the boundary misses hilltops on the Annex 1
map but passes over them on the revised version of the sheet.
9 The ‘cleaner’ look of the Annex I map reflects the fact that the paper version of the Dangrek
sheet viewed at the DTLA was in quite poor condition. We are not concerned with any
differences in colouring or brightness between the two sheets; only differences in lines and
text are significant.
International Boundaries Research Uni7
633Annex 96
9. Since we returned from Bangkok, rese archers for the Thai legal team have
viewed the copies of the sheet held in the archives of the French Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, the archives of the French Ministry of Colonies, the
Bibliothèque Nationale de France, the Institut Géographique National (IGN)
in Paris and the Royal Geographical Society in London. All copies viewed
were the revised version of the sheet, with the exception of the IGN copy. The
latter is similar to the revised version but it contains a few noticeable
differences. Most of the changes appear on the blue plate containing the
stream information. The names of streams are drawn in a different style and
their placement has been modified. In contrast to the other two versions,
there are now no streams classified as “Rivière non levée” and the size of
‘peck’ used to denote streams dry for part of the year has changed. On the
contour plate, changes have been made to some contours to give a more
rounded effect. A good example is at the hill southeast of Ph Sethisom on the
eastern edge of the sheet, shown on the original revised version as a square
regular shape like a pyramid but rendered more natural in the third version.
There are also minor changes to the area covered by the green (forest) colour
wash. These are largely cosmetic changes which, to an observer today, hardly
justify the work involved to produce a further edition of this map.
10. Looking at the changes between the thr ee versions that we have discovered,
the most likely order of production would seem to be:
(i) The Annex I map: this has the appearance of a first edition, less elegant
than the revised Dangrek sheet and with a large registration error on the
brown contour plate.
(ii) The revised Dangrek sheet found in Bangkok and four out of five
collections in Europe: contours have been properly aligned and their
appearance improved. A better type st yle has been introduced. The map
is easier to read, particularly the drainage detail. The classification
“Rivière non levée” continues to be used.
(iii) The version found at IGN in Paris: th e classification “Rivière non levée”
is no longer used. Cosmetic changes have been made to the blue and
brown plates and some changes to the extent of forest cover.
11. It is clear from Annex XLIVa of Cambodia’s Reply in the Temple case that the
copies for the French ministries of colo nies and foreign affairs and that of the
Royal Geographical Society were to come out of the 1000 print run ordered by
the Ministry of Colonies in May 1908. It seems reasonable to assume therefore
that this print run was of the revised Dangrek sheet and not of the version
found at IGN in Paris. We have not been able to determine how and when
this third version of the sheet was printed. It seems reasonable to assume that
the Annex I version was a draft, and the revised version (with correctly
aligned topographic detail) held by the DTLA was the original published
International Boundaries Research U8it
634 Annex 96
version of 1000 copies. 10Either way, the existence of two versions of the same
sheet showing different relationships between the topography and the
boundary, with a third version containing further ‘improvements’ raises
interesting questions about which version of the map and which depiction of
the boundary the Court considered Thailand to have accepted.
12. Although it is not possible today to discover the reasons for the revised
editions, they did not appear by chance. It might have been that the Annex I
map was produced in a hurry, the editor decided that a print run of 1000
copies justified a more elegant production and the cartographer had more
time to re-interpret the field notes du ring the redrawing process. Whatever
the reason, it does seem that the publishing house had some discretion in
interpreting the information received from Captain Oum, leaving the
unanswerable question: was the publisher’s interpretation correct?
13. Neither the registration error on the Annex I sheet nor the existence of revised
versions of the sheet appears to have been discussed at any point during the
original Temple case. That is not altogether surprising since:
the displacement of the contours, while immediately obvious to an
experienced map user, may not stand out to a casual observer;
we understand that the ICJ archive contains only the Annex I version;
since both the temple and the boundary are printed in black, the
geographical relationship between the two is the same on all three sheets.
14. Professor Schermerhorn’s report on the determination of the watershed in the
vicinity of the temple that was subm itted as Annex 49 to the Thai Counter-
Memorial in the Temple case included a 1:50000 scale map of the temple area
which Professor Schermerhorn describe d as an enlargement of the Annex I
map. An examination of the contours and drainage channels on that map
(reproduced in Appendix 1) makes it clear that Professor Schermerhorn was
working with the revised version of the map rather than the Annex I map,
presumably because he was supplied with a copy of the version held by the
Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs when he was commissioned to undertake his
study. This would explain why Professor Schermerhorn made no comment
about the registration error on the Annex I map – he simply would not have
been aware of the error.
15. It seems highly likely that the Annex I map was the version used in the oral
hearings in the Temple case. In his examination of Professor Schermerhorn 11,
10Another possibility is that the initial print run involved a registration error, and that a
second printing took place at a later date to correct the error. However, the revised version
is far more than just a reprint, and it is difficult to understand why a commercial publishing
house would have expended time and money to make so many non-essential amendments
to the content of a map, such as re-styling place names, if just a reprint was required.
11 ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 381.
International Boundaries Research U9it
635Annex 96
Cambodia’s Counsel Dean Acheson drew attention to the existence of a
stream flowing southeast down the escarpment from the vicinity of Phra
Viharn which required the careful use of his “little microscope” to see clearly.
In his closing speech 1, Acheson again referred to the use of a magnifying
glass to see this stream. This stream is very difficult to pick out on the Annex
I map but easily visible to the naked eye on the revised Dangrek sheet.
Presumably Professor Schermerhorn, standing several metres from the map
on display in the court, would not have been able to see that he was looking
at a slightly diff erent version of the map to the one that he had used when
preparing his report: the differences are only visible on close inspection.
16. The reason for the existence of three versions of the Dangrek sheet may never
be known. Whatever the reason, if the course of the boundary needs to be
determined with reference to the topography depicted on the Dangrek sheet,
the existence of three versions of the sheet, with slightly different contour
patterns in places and a 200- 500 metre difference in the location of conto ur
lines across the whole sheet becomes significant , complicating an already
challenging task still further.
D. Constraints on production methods
17. The Dangrek would not have been an easy area to map in 1907, and the forest
cover meant that, generally, there w ere no dominant open summits from
which to get a clear view of the mountainous area sloping down to the north
13
of the escarpment. The plane tabling survey technique commonly in use at
that time, in which summits, ridges and height points for contouring ar e
positioned by intersection from sites with an open view of the terrain, would
be a very difficult process. Summits along the escarpment could be
intersected from the Cambodian plain and some of the more northerly
summits might have been intersected from Thai farmland to the north.
Stream courses and their associated dividing ridges in the mountains would
have been difficult and sometimes impossible to map in this way. In isolated
cases, use could have been made of rock platforms outcropping from the
sides of some ridges to view individual valleys.
18. Another method would be to walk the tracks and record distance and bearing
as one went along. Distance could have been measured by a wheel or by time
and walking speed. Intersections could have been made from sui table
locations on the tracks. However, once in the mountains, the density of
vegetation meant that visibility could have been very limited indeed and an
understanding of stream patterns difficult to gain.
12 Ibid., p. 467.
13 This is confirmed by the later RTSD survey report (1928 -29) at Annex XXXVIII of the Reply
of Cambodia, p. 488.
International Boundaries Research U10t
636 Annex 96
19. There is no evidence on the Dangrek sheet, in contrast to sheets further east,
of any form of survey control point established either by triangulation or
astronomical observations. 14This partly explains why the latitude and/or
longitude of many of the features depicted on the map is significantly wrong.
However, we would expect that some known positions in latitude and
longitude were available. 15The other possibility is that the surveyors were
provided with a base map of settlements and tracks in the Cambodian plains
on which to construct their map of the mountainous area.
20. An inspection of the legend and the map itself leads us to the conclusion that
the method used was indeed one of follo wing tracks. These are classified on
16
the map into four categories: cart tr acks, footpaths, difficult footpaths and
“routes not followed”. The latter implies that the other routes were followed,
and an inspection of the map reveals a number of heights along the cross-
mountain routes; this suggests that Captain Oum took an aneroid barometer
along those routes.
21. Although there appears to be no record of any comment on the way in which
the work was done by Oum and Ke rler, Lieutenant Malandain (who
surveyed the area to the southwest of the Dangrek for the second mixed
commission) has left a record of his style of working and there is no reason to
suppose that the former’s method was any different. It was quoted in the oral
argument of M. Rolin thus:
“La détermination exacte de la ligne de partage des eaux a été rendue fort
difficile par la nature couverte du te rrain. La forêt y est continue et très
épaisse vers le pied de la pente, et principalement au sommet du plateau.
Les vues y sont limitées à cent mètres au maximum et tout fait
insuffisantes, il fut donc nécessaire de se chercher d'autres moyens
d'opérer que ceux employés habituellement. Le procédé qui a paru le plus
pratique consiste, chaque fois qu'un point de relèvement est nécessaire, à
rechercher l'arbre le plus élevé aux environs et à construire à son sommet
une plate-forme en rondins permettant d’y placer la planchette en station
(la planchette de vigie), et d’opérer en haut de cet observatoire comme on
l'aurait dû faire à terre, avec cettdifférence et cet inconvénient que la
mobilité de ce support rendait les visées très longues et très difficiles.
Le moindre mouvement de l'opérateur, la moindre brise, rendaient
nécessaire un nouveau réglage des niveaux et de la ligne de visée.
14 Other sheets (e.g. the adjacent Khong) carry a triangle symbol on some hill tops. While this
symbol is not explained in the legend, it was in widespread use in that era as the symbol for
a triangulation point or an astronomical point, e.g. on 1912 maps of the Anglo-Egyptian
Sudan. It continues to be in such use today.
15
A survey station description for a Cambodian primary triangulation point at Phra Viharn in
1910 refers to an astronomical station on the south monument in 1907.
16 No path in this category occurs on the Dangrek sheet.
International Boundaries Research Uni11
637Annex 96
Il n'a pas été construit pour la levée de ce secteur moins de cent douze de
ces observatoires, qui ont permis, par de s recoupements nombreux, de
fixer exactement tous les détails topographiques de larégion.
22. Although Malandain claims to have fixed exactly “all the topographic
features of the region”, this would depend entirely on the dedication, ability
and experience of the surveyor. It is cl ear from a visual inspection that, for
whatever reason, the Dangrek sheet did not meet Malandain ’s claim.
The second commission confined its mapping to a narrower strip along the
watershed, whereas Oum and Kerler ranged much wider. The lack of
concentration on the area of significance along the watershed may explain the
lower standard.
23. It is not essential to understand how the map was made to carry out our task.
An understanding of the possibilities does, however, help to explain the
many significant errors in the Annex I map.
E. Significant errors on the Annex I Map
24. We have used the sheets of the Royal Thai Survey Department (RTSD)
1:50000 L7018 series, printed in the period 2001-09, as provided to us by
DTLA, as the representation of the real world, with which to compare the
Annex I map. Although there is no indication in the legend that the RTSD
maps were prepared from satellite imagery, confirmation has been received
that this was the case . Two of the sheets do state that revision has been
carried out usingSPOT 5 satellite imagery which confirms this approach.
25. The fact that the Annex I map carries several significant errors is obvious
even from an initial visual comparison with the RTSD sheets. The
relationship between the boundary depicted on the Annex I map and the
watershed line depicted on the RTSD maps is shown in Figure 5 .
This comparison has been made by transforming the Annex I map to the
World Geodetic System 1984 ( WGS 84) and then overlaying it on the RTSD
maps, also on WGS 84. No other transformation has been applied.
17
ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 253
International Boundaries Research 12it
638 Annex 96
13
International Boundaries Research Unit
hic mapping (red) after transforming the Annex I map to WGS 84
Figure 5: The boundary line on the Annex I map (highlighted in green) in relation to the boundary line on current RTSD topograplometre by 1 kilometre.
639Annex 96
26. Among the most obvious errors concerning the boundary line are these:
(i) At 104º 13’ E (101º 53’ Paris ) there is a significant valley penetrating the
escarpment, some 10 kilometres long and ending on the slopes of a hill
named Ph. Sruong. The map shows a stream flowing s outh into
Cambodia from this hill whereas, in reality, the valley contains two
streams. One is 2.5 kilometres long and flows south from the boundary
watershed into Cambodia; the other flows north from this watershed into
Thailand and, after 7.5 kilometres, passes to the east of a hill given a
height of 463 metres on the RTSD map and probably the hill labelled Ph.
Sruong on the Annex I map. Thus, on the Annex I map, the boundary
line reaches a point 7.5 kilometres north of the true position of th e
watershed.
(ii) At around 104º 20’E (102º Paris) there is a major deviation of around 4
kilometres to the north of the correct line of watershed, which continues
for around 7’ longitude.
(iii) At 104º 35’ (102º 15’ Paris) the boundary follows a contorted route
between Ph. Don Peang and Ph. Sruach whereas in reality the watershed
follows a much simpler line.
(iv) At 104º 40’ E (102º 20’ Paris), there is the error of theO Tasemstream which
was highlighted in the Temple case and which led the cartographer in 1907to
showthe watershed running to the north of the templ.e
(v) At the eastern edge of the Annex I map, the boundary line strikes off
northeast rather than following the watershed to the summit of Ph.
Sethisom.
F our of these errors disadvantage Thailand.
27. The first error above, at 104º 13’ E, is worth further consideration. Thailand, in
18
its Rejoinder in the Temple case , discussed the correction of an error made by
the second commission in the vicinity of the Pass of Kel where a stream
flowing into Cambodia was wrongly s hown as extending further into
Thailand. In general, the Sector 5 map , produced by the second commission
surveyors, does seem to be of a much better quality than the Dangrek sheet of
Captain Oum. It is reasonably easy to see a clear correlation between the
shape of the escarpment west of the Pass of Kel and the line on the modern
19
RTSD maps. It would seem to be in character that Lieutenant Malandain
discovered the error quickly and then put it right.
28. The error and its correction are well illustrated in Figure 6 which is a black
and white version of the Sector 5 map from the DTLA archives and may even
have been the field sketch which was the basis of the colour version which is
18 Rejoinder of Thailand p. 591
19 Unfortunately, the Sector 5 map has no latitude/longitude graticule nor any scale bar, so it
is difficult to make comparisons of actual position.
International Boundaries Research 14it
640 Annex 96
also available in the DTLA archives . Acheson in his oral Reply
misunderstood the m i plications of this error. He said:
“Both Commissions had believed (showing that these mistakes are not
unusual and are not horrendous) that a stream near the pass, which
flowed south into Cambodia, rose much further to the north and flowed
through into Cambodia. As a result, both Commissions drew the
watershed as moving sharply to the north around the headwaters of this
20
supposed stream.”
Figure 6: Extract from an annotated copy of the second
commission’s Sector 5 map showing the commission’s error
in defining the boundary in the vicinity of the Pass of Kel
and the correction of the error
29. The mistake is in fact confined to the second c ommission map. In the area of
the Pass of Kel, the Annex I map is correct. The error on the Annex I map is a
second, separate and much greater one, lying about 10 kilometres further to
the east . Here a stream, flowing more directly to Anlong Veng than the
stream corrected on the second c ommission map, is wrongly extended 7
kilometres further north into Thailand.
30. While the second commission error is understandable given the contours of
the ground, the first commission err or (i.e. the error on the Annex I map) is
less easy to understand. It would appear that the footpath running
northwards to the west of the problem stream was followed. We too have
followed a track in a southerly direction in a similar location passing Hill 463
and walking the last 500 m etres towards the watershed. There was no doubt
20 ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p.462
International Boundaries Research U15t
641Annex 96
we were following rising ground and it is diffic ult to understand how a
competent surveyor walking the track in 1907 would think otherwise. He
might at least have been concerned enough to cut his way down to the stream
to check its direction before inserting on the map the longest incursion by a ny
stream through the escarpment in the Dangrek.
31. The Sector 5 map is continued east of the Pass of Kel into the area of the
Annex I map error and once again its interpretation of the line of the
escarpment appears to be reasonably accurate . However, it does not provide
any information about the extent to which the Cambodian streams go beyond
(i.e. north of) the escarpment and therefore no information about the location
of the watershed and of the boundary itself. In effect, the Sector 5 map is
saying that the gap in the escarpment shown on the Annex I map is incorrect
but it offers no help on where the boundary should correctly run. Without
any longitude reference it is difficult to be precise but, using a distance from
the Pass of Kel to Anlong Veng as a scale reference, it would appear that the
Sector 5 escarpment ends in the vicinity of Ph Key on the Annex I map. The
alignment and extent of the mapped escarpment is shown on Figure 7.
Figure 7: Approximate alignment and extent of the
escarpment mapped by the second commission in
March 1908 east of the Pass of Kel , superimposed
on the Annex I map
32. Annex 15 to the Thailand Counter -Memorial in the Temple case contains a
map that purports to be “Malandain 's sketch attached to the Minutes of the
Meeting of the 22nd March, 1908 of the Mixed Commissions of Delimitation
set up under the Treaty of the 23rd March 1907” and appears to be a certified
copy of the Sector 5 map referred to in paragraph 28.
International Boundaries Research16nit
642 Annex 96
33. The Mixed Commission appears to have approved this correction on 22nd
March 1908. As explained above, Malandain’s map does not provide enough
information to correct the Annex I map error so it is not entirely clear whether
the commission realised it was correcting two errors or only the one near the
Pass of Kel. It seems more likely that it only corrected the error for which it
had clear information about the correct alternative, i.e. the Sector 5 error, but
one cannot be sure.
34. Whichever it was, the Annex I map was never amended to show any
correction, even though it must have been realised at the time of the Mixed
Commission meeting that there was some doubt about its depiction of the
boundary in this area. The second commission mapping was in clear
contradiction of the work of Captain Oum.
35. While the errors discussed so far may be the most glaring, when a more
detailed comparison is ma de, it becomes obvious that the Annex I map is
riddled with positional errors and gives a poor impression of the topography.
It is not easy to show the differences with the real topography in a
comparative illustration. We have attempted to show this by co mparing the
drainage pattern on the Annex I map with the drainage pattern on one of the
RTSD 1:50000 sheets. This seems particularly useful because it is the drainage
pattern that determines the watershed and hence the boundary line. We have
done this in Figure 8 which, although cluttered, does show how distorted and
displaced a view of the drainage was presented in the Annex I map.
F. Technical limitations of the Annex I Map
36. Finally, 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 be
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 1 20 metres on the
ground. The contours which define the watershed are fairly crude and the
choice of location of the boundary line within the ring contours of the crest
line (made most probably by a cartographer in Paris) must have be en fairly
arbitrary, leading to further uncertainty of position. If a mathematical
transformation is to be used, the coordinates of common points must be taken
off the Annex I map and, as well as the errors of uncertainty discussed above,
it is not possible to measure coordinates to better than 0.2 millimetres, or even
0.4 millimetres, leading to uncertainties of 40 to 80 metres on the ground.
37. These are small uncertainties when compared to the size of some of the
positional errors we have found in the Annex I map. However, if it were to be
decided that the boundary had to follow the Annex I map line with all its
positional errors, there would still be a significant degree of uncertaintyof the
order of up to ±100 metres in the position of the boundary due to the
technical limitations of the map.
International Boundaries Research 17it
643Annex 96
Figure 8: Comparison of drainage depicted on the Annex I map and
current 1:50,000 RTSD mapping (area selected = RTSD sheet 5937 -IV)
International Boundaries Researc18Unit
644 Annex 96
F. Determining the extent of the line to be examined
38. Before assessing the translation of the Annex I map boundary to the ground,
we had first to decide on the extent of the line to be examined. There was no
difficulty at the western end where there was an agreement between the first
and second commissions that the changeover between their two surveys
would be at the Pass of Kel. A boundary pillar was erected at the exact point
(BP1) in 1908. It still exists today and its position is depicted on theRTSD
1:50000 sheet 5837-IV.
39. The obvious eastern end is the eastern edge of the sheet , but it should be
borne in mind that any boundary arising from the use of the Dangrek sheet
will have to merge with the boundary to the east, however the latter may be
defined. It is worth noting that the adjacent sheet (Khong) carries a small
index map which shows that Capt Oum, who was principally responsible for
the Dangrek sheet, continued his work as far east as the Col d’An Sen in
longitude (Paris) 102º 38’ E. If demarcation has not already taken place in this
part of the Khong sheet, then a surveyor’s view would be that Capt. Oum’s
work from BP1 right through to the Col d’An Sen should be considered as a
whole rather than being cut off at the Dangrek sheet edge. However, for this
report, we have accepted the eastern edge of the Dangrek sheet as our limit.
G. Transfer of the Annex I boundary to real world: method
40. Although it is now evident that the errors in the Annex I map mean that the
watershed is incorrectly depicted in places, most famously around Phra
Viharn, in our opinion it is clear that the intention ofthe cartographer who
produced the map was to depict a boundary which followed the watershed
along the Dangrek range. If we were given nothing but the map and asked to
say where the boundary should run on the ground, our recommendation
would be to set the map aside , identify the watershed in the field using
modern surveying techniques, and define the boundary along the line of the
surveyed watershed.
41. We recognise that identifying the watershed on the ground would not be a
trivial task in some parts of the d ensely forested Dangrek range.
Nevertheless, a watershed is by definition a precise linear feature of the
landscape which, given sufficient time, expertise and resources, can be
determined scientifically. The decision of the International Court of Justice in
1962 that the temple of Phra Viharn is under Cambodian sovereignty means
that the boundary would have to depart from the watershed in the vicinity of
the temple. Elsewhere, however, ou r view is that the most reasonable and
practical approach to translating the boundary from the map to the ground
would be to locate the boundary along the watershed. The poor quality of
the Annex I map and the many errors it contains mean that mathematical
methods for transferring the boundary line into the real world will always be
compromised by the amount of error present.
International Boundaries Research19nit
645Annex 96
42. If a ‘best fit’ mathematical approach must be used, the obvious method is that
of transformation. Transformation is the term given to the adjustment of the
size, shape and position of one map so that points of detail (or a linear feature
such as a boundary line) on it can be directly compared to equivalent points
of detail on another map produced on a different projection and datum.
In the case we are dealing with, the Annex I map is on a sinusoidal projection
21
and its datum is not stated and is treated as unknown. The RTSD mapping
is on a Transverse Mercator projection and WGS 84 datum.
43. Transformations from one well-used datum such as Indian Datum to WGS 84
have been calculated and are widely available. They can be applied without
further work. In our case, with an unknown datum, we have to establish our
own transformation and this is done as follows: (i) c ommon points on the
Annex I map and the RTSD 1:50000 maps are selected; (ii) the graticule on the
Annex I map is transformed in a Geographic Information System to WGS 84;
(iii) the Annex I points are made to fit the coordinate positions of the points
as they are known today.
44. Two points must be emphasised about this procedure:
• the method depends enti rely on the choice of common points and on the
two positions of each common point representing the same feature.
• these transformations only force the chosen common points to the correct
positions. Significant errors can remain on the boundary line between the
common points.
21 The datum of theAnnex I map very probably results from astronomical observations.
International Boundaries Research20nit
646 Annex 96
45. We have selected fifteen common points which are listed in the table below
and illustrated inFigures 9a and 9b.
Name on Annex I WGS 84 position WGS 84 position on Differences
map on Annex I map RTSD map
after graticule
transformation 22
Lat Long Lat Long Lat Long Distance
apart(km)
1. Konkok 14.408 103.730 14.412 103.678 0.004 -0.052 5.58
2. Ph Sruogh 14.391 103.748 14.386 103.678 -0.004 -0.070 7.56
3. Chring village 14.299 103.830 14.295 103.798 -0.004 -0.032 3.52
4. Outlier, end of 14.330 104.020 14.326 103.980 -0.004 -0.040 4.29
boundary
5. Ph N Trakuon 14.332 104.070 14.331 104.059 -0.001 -0.012 1.27
6. Ph Srouch 14.437 104.114 14.432 104.115 -0.004 0.001 0.49
7. Ph Key 14.363 104.177 14.361 104.175 -0.002 -0.003 0.34
8. Rossey/Sreng 14.289 104.202 14.284 104.161 -0.005 -0.041 4.40
junction
9. Hill W of Ph Swai 14.414 104.274 14.400 104.260 -0.014 -0.014 2.14
10. Boundary at Roy 14.410 104.382 14.371 104.419 -0.039 0.037 5.93
headwater
11. Ph Don Peang 14.416 104.518 14.372 104.513 -0.044 -0.005 4.95
12. Outlier 14.413 104.620 14.387 104.620 -0.025 0.000 2.83
13. Temple (S. end) 14.421 104.680 14.392 104.680 -0.029 -0.001 3.24
14. Sq. Outlier 14.422 104.731 14.394 104.736 -0.028 0.005 3.16
15. Ph Tchal 14.425 104.807 14.394 104.844 -0.031 0.037 5.30
MEAN 3.93
46. Even a quick visual comparison of the positions of the common points on the
two maps makes it immediately obvious that not only significant positioning
errors exist in the Annex I map, but that the errors vary across the map. In the
western Dangrek, the latitude is reasonably accurate but points are located
several kilometres east of their true position, while in the east the longitude is
more accurate but points are located 2-3 kilometres south of t heir true
position.
47. We have used three transformations as follows:
(i) Single Point co -location: This has little merit scientifically but has been
included because of an argument that developed in the 1962 oral
hearings over Annex 76 of the Thai Rejoinder (see paragraph 49) .
We wanted to see what the merits of the arguments were.
(ii) End Point co -location (linear transformation): Two points are used for the
transformation, one at each end of the line. The intervening common
points will not collocate and because of the poor quality of the 1907 map,
the displacements are large.
22 Coordinates are listed as decimal degree s rounded to three decimal places. Coordinates of
hilltop points on the Annex I map with italicised names were derived from the revised
Dangrek sheet held by the Thai DTLA to correct the registration error on the Annex I map.
International Boundaries Research Unit 21
647Annex 96
22
International Boundaries Research Unit
c maps
cale reduced to 1:250,000)
Fig(RrTea:sheotsp5a8r3V,5837-4Ilaoncdat5i9coams-IoVfb
648Annex 96
23
International Boundaries Research Unit
cale reduced to 1:250,000)
(Annex I map backdrop, s
c maps
Figure 9b: Comparison WGS4 locations of common points on the Annex I map and their actual locations from modern RTSD topographi
649Annex 96
(iii) Segmented End Point co -location: To reduce the displacements, one would,
if the errors were small, use a polynomial transformation which takes
into account all common points and achieves a “best mean fit”, but we
rejected this approach because of the size of the errors. We think that the
simplest solution is to break the line down into segments and to carry out
successive transformations along the line. Where a common point does
not lie on the line, it will transform into different positions for the two
transformations it is involved in. The disparity will depend on the
distance from the line and the angle between the two lines connecti ng it
to adjacent common points.
H. Transfer of Annex I boundary to real world: results
Single point transformations
48. As one might expect, the three single point transformations each produce a
degree of coincidence in the vicinity of the point chosen but deviate more and
more as one moves along the watershed away from the chosen point.
Thus, the Temple transformation produces a displacement of 3 kilometres
into Cambodia at the western end of the sheet while the Ph Sruogh
transformation produces a similar displ acement into Thailand at the eastern
end. The central point (Ph Swai) produces, as one would expect, roughly half
the displacement at each end of the sheet (see Figures 10a to 10d).
49. Single point transformations such as these have no real standing
mathematically and our three transformations should serve to indicate the
reason – their dependence on the choice of collocated point. We present them
primarily because the method seems to have been used by Cambodia during
the oral hearings of the Temple case when it was claimed that, by overlaying
the Annex I map onto a 1951 edition of the RTSD 1:200000 map so that the
locations of the temple itself coincided, then the Annex I line coincided with
the watershed for the whole of its length .23 This was in response to a
24
submission by Thailand by which it claimed to show the gains and losses
that would arise for both Parties if the Annex I boundary line was enforced. If
the line on the map at Annex 76 is compared with the blue line on Figure 10a,
it will be seen that th ere is close agreement, so the method used by Thailand
was almost certainly that of our single point transformation. If the blue line is
compared with the red line of the correct watershed in Fig ure 10a, it will be
seen how different in shape the two lines are, and it is difficult to see how
Acheson was able to make them match. However, we must emphasise that
this is not an important technical point as we do not recommend this
simplistic method of transformation.
23 Reply of Mr. Acheson,ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 457.
24 Annex 76 to the Rejoinder of Thailand.
International Boundaries Research 24it
650 Annex 96
25
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
Figure 10a: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary – overview
651Annex 96
26
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 10b: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary
652Annex 96
27
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 10c: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary
653Annex 96
28
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 10d: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary
654 Annex 96
End point transformations
50. We carried out tw o end point transformations, using two different points at
the western end, one at Konkok ( well into the second commission area,) and
one at Ph. Sruogh close to the point of change between the two commissions.
Again, the differences between the two transfo rmations are what one would
expect. There is some displacement up to 1 kilometre at the western end
which would arise from an error in the relative positions of the two chosen
points. The effect diminishes as one travels east , and is negligible as one
approaches the eastern common point (see Figures 11a to 11d).
51. Whichever line is chosen, the displacement between the Annex I map line
and the RTSD line is reduced by about half from that in Fig ure 5 .
The transformed line remains generally to the north of the RTSD line with a
particularly large displacement of around 5 k ilometres at the 102º Paris
meridian.
International Boundaries Research29nit
655Annex 96
30
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
Figure 11a: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary – overview
656Annex 96
31
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 11b: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
657Annex 96
32
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:10,000)
Figure 11c: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
658Annex 96
33
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 11d: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
659Annex 96
Segmented end point transformations
52. Simply adjusting the Annex I line using only two end points does nothing to
remove the errors in the map along the line itself. Some fur ther errors can be
removed if the line is split into several parts and each section adjusted
independently. 25This requires further common points to be found , although
there is a limit on how many can be confidently identified. We have chosen to
split the line into five sections and the resulsredisplayed in Fig ures 12a to 12d.
53. The result is, as expected, much closer to the RTSD watershed line. Starting
from the temple in the east, there are 25 k ilometres of fairly close agreement
(within 1 kilometre), then 25 kilometres of displacements to south and north
of the RTSD line, followed (if one ignores the incorrect valley running to the
north) by fairly good agreement for the final 25 kilometres to BP1.
54. A significant displacement also starts just to the east of the temple and runs
off the sheet. We have examined the adjacent sheet and the Annex I line does
return towards the RTSD line after another 3 kilometres or so.
55. When we talk of “fairly close agreement”, we do not imply that the solution
has any merit. The variation from the true watershed is up to 1 kilometre and,
if adopted, the line would oscillate to and fro across the watershed in an
illogical manner. In some instances it might even find itself half way down
the escarpment cliff.
Comparison of all transformations
56. We have shown all the transformations together in Fig ures 13 a to 13d .
The intention is not to confuse but to indicate the variations that arise from
the choice of transformation.
57. Transformations are usually carried out between two sets of reliable data or,
at the very least, data that contains errors that are sufficiently small to be
handled by statistical methods. This is not the case here. The Annex I map
contains a multitude of errors that cannot be represented mathematically and
so there is no perfect solution.
25 It should be noted that there will be small discontinuities at the junctions between the
segments. The end point in one segment will transform to one position and the same point
in the adjacent segment will transform to a different position. In view of the other errors
present in the Annex I map, this discrepancy can reasonably be ignored.
International Boundaries Research U34t
660 Annex 96
35
International Boundaries Research Unit
IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
(RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-
ansformations on the Annex I boundary – overview
Figure 12a: Impact of segmented end point tr
661Annex 96
36
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 12b: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
662Annex 96
37
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 12c: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
663Annex 96
38
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
Figure 12d: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary
664 Annex 96
39
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
rmations discussed in this report – overview
Figure 13a: Comparative depiction of all transfo
665Annex 96
40
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
ansformations discussed in this report
Figure 13b: Comparative depiction of all tr
666Annex 96
41
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
ansformations discussed in this report
Figure 13c: Comparative depiction of all tr
667Annex 96
42
International Boundaries Research Unit
(RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
ansformations discussed in this report
Figure 13d: Comparative depiction of all tr
668 Annex 96
I. Concluding comments
58. We have attempted to transfer the Annex I map boundary line onto the real
landscape of the Dangrek mountains as best we can. In the course of our
work, it became clear that the map may have been a worthy attempt to record
the features of the landscape in the circumstances of the time it was made, but
its many errors are now evident from maps made from satellite imagery.
59. We have used the latest editions of the RTSD 1:50000 maps of the area to
provide the model with which to compare the Annex I map.
60. It is clear from our examination of the Annex I map that, although the
Judgment in the Temple case referred to the parties’ expressed desire in 1907
26
to achieve ‘finality’ in th e definition of the boundary , the Court was over-
optimistic if it expected this map to deliver it. The dense forest and the
mountainous terrain of the Dangrek meant that, until aerial photography
became available in the second half of the twentieth century, it required a
great deal of skill, dedication and hard work to produce a reliable map of the
area. From the evidence of the Sector 5 map of the second commission, it is
clear that Lieutenant Malandain po ssessed these qualities and his map
reflects that in its conformity with present day knowledge. From the evidence
of the Annex I map, it is probable that Captain Oum did not and, without
them, his map failed to reflect the ‘fina lity’ in its depiction of the landscape
that the parties might have wished for.
61. In its Judgment in the Temple case, the Court stated:
“… … the Parties at that time [1908] adopted an interpretation of the
treaty settlement which caused the ma p line, in so far as it may have
departed from the line of the wate rshed, to prevail over the relevant
clause of the treaty.”
The evidence before the Court mainly concerned the 7 kilometres by 12
kilometres area mapped by Professor Sc hermerhorn in the vicinity of the
temple, a small part of the roughly 100 kilometres of boundary covered by the
Annex I map. Outside the temple area, there were arguments about whether
the line of the escarpment further west was accurately represented on the
Annex I map and there was some discussi on of the error at the Pass of Kel.
We have shown that the escarpment and hence the watershed are poorly
depicted on the Annex I map, and that the errors at and to the east of the Pass
of Kel were not fully understood by co unsel to the extent that an undefined
gap may exist in the boundary line in this area. We have further suggested
that the boundary does not end on the eastern edge of the Annex I map and
that there are implications for the bo undary line as it continues on the
adjacent Khong sheet.
26 Temple case Merits Judgment of 15 June 1962 p. 34-35.
27 Temple case Merits Judgment of 15 June 1962 p. 34.
International Boundaries Research U43t
669Annex 96
62. Because of the unreliable nature of the Annex I map, we feel that to use its
depiction of the boundary line for delimitation and/or demarcation would be
misguided. The map is unfit for this purpose. We believe that a new on -the-
ground definition of the watershed would be the best solution even though it
would be a very difficult task in some sections. We accept that there would
have to be negotiations over how to leave and rejoin the watershed in the
vicinity of the temple. We did not think it would be useful for us to make
suggestions on this point at this stage.
63. However, if it transpires that the Annex I boundary line has to be
transformed onto the landscape, then we would – reluctantly – recommend
that a segmented transformation method be used. To achieve this, agreement
would have to be reached with Cambodia over the common points to be
used. The result would probably be a search by each side for the most
advantageous points to produce the greatest territorial gain , and there would
be no scientific grounds for determining who was right. No matter which
common points are chosen, the boundary would only coincide with the
watershed in a handful of places – and in some areas it would lie several
kilometres from the watershed.
64. We have chosen what we believe to be the best available common points in
terms of reliability and the division of the line into as equal sections as
possible.
65. Finally, we would like to thank the officials of the Department of Treaties
and Legal Affairs and the Royal Thai Survey Department as well as all those
who looked after our security during our v isit to the border area for their
kindness and the care they showed for our well -being. It was an invaluable
experience and a great help in the writing of this report.
International Boundaries Research44nit
670 Annex 97
Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran,
9 November 2011
671Annex 97
672 Annex 97
(Translation)
Suranaree Task Force, 2nd Area Army
Affidavit
No. 3013
Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran
Written at Headquarters of Suranaree Task Force
9 November B.E. 2554 (2011)
Before the Chief of Staff of Suranaree Taskforce
I, Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran, of Thai race and Thai nationality;
Occupation, civil servant on pension; Born on 8 October B.E. 2492 (1949); Age 62; Residing at
Suranaree Taskforce’s residential house, Piboonla-iad Road, Nong Pai [lom] Subdistrict,
Mueang District, NakornRatchasima Province Tel: 081-6846305
I truthfully make the following statement:
1. I entered military service at the 6th Regimental Combat Team
,Supprasitprasong Camp, Ubon Ratchathani Province in B.E. 2516 (1973). In B.E. 2534 (1991), I
was the Commander-in-Chief of the 23rd Paramilitary Unit, 2nd Area Army, Ministry of
Defense at Kantharalak District, Si Sa KetProvince. I retired in B.E. 2552 (2009).
2. In B.E. 2534 (1991), there was a meeting at Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall between
Si Sa Ket Province of Thailand and Phra Viharn Province of Cambodia on the opening of Khao
Phra Viharn as a tourist site. I, as the Commander-in-Chief of the local military unit, was
assigned to attend the meeting as a Thai delegate and I attended the aforesaid meeting.
In the meeting, both sides agreed to open Khao Phra Viharn as a joint tourist site.
The Thai side would allow Thai, Cambodian and foreign tourists to access the Temple of Phra
Viharn from the Thai side through the iron gate at the Tani stream which had been built by Si Sa
Ket Province. The Thai side would issue entry tickets for each type of tourists. Any proceeds
from the ticket sales would be shared equally and both sides would assign personnel to provide
673Annex 97
security for the tourists. However, there was a point of disagreement, which was extensively
discussed by the two sides, which almost prevented the agreement from being concluded. That
was the issue of cost sharing of the preparation for the visits of the tourists. At first, it was
proposed that each side would bear the cost in its own area on the respective side of the existing
fence. However, the Cambodian side claimed that it did not have enough budgets and asked the
Thai side to provide construction materials and to build restrooms for the tourists in the Temple
of Phra Viharn. The Thai side hesitated to accept the request because sucharea was beyond Thai
territory but it eventually accepted the request.
3. In November 1991, after the two sides jointly agreed to open the Temple of
Phra Viharn as a tourist site, the Thai side constructed restrooms for the tourists in the Temple of
Phra Viharn at Lan Phya Nakarat, between the Temple staircaseand the first Gopura, on the west
side of the Temple, slightly opposite the Temple Pond (Sra Song). Later, the Thai side
considered it necessary to construct another set of restrooms north of the Temple staircase,
approximately 30 metres from the barbed-wire fence. In addition, the Thai side constructed
barbed wires fence to mark the pathway from the iron gate to the foot of the Temple staircase in
order to prevent tourists from entering mined area. The Thai side also provided Cambodia with
cement pillars and barbed wires for the construction of fences marking the limits of tourists’
access. The marking of such limits was in accordance with the opinion of the joint committee
which was jointly set up by the two sides.
4. To access the Temple, Cambodian tourists who came from other areas must
carry a certifyingnote from the Cambodian Government allowing their travel into Thailand
legally and must travel in and out through authorized temporary pass points or checkpoints in
accordance with the laws. Cambodiancitizens who lived in the Temple could come down to buy
goods in the Thai side and re-sell them at the Temple of Phra Viharn through the iron gate at
Tani stream, the same route as the one used by thetourists. Prior permission must be sought from
the Thai officers who stationed with Cambodian officers at the joint coordination post situated at
the Temple Pond (Sra Song). The access was permitted from08.00 to 16.00 hours daily.
674 Annex 97
5. Both sides would prevent and suppress unlawful activities in accordance with
their laws within the areas under their respective responsibilities.
Has been read and found to be correct.
(Signed) Lt. General Surapon Rueksumran
Maker of the statement
(Signed) Col. Sorachat Sutthison
Interrogator
I, Lieutenant Colonel Kumpanat Wapunsu, Chief of Intelligence Section,
Suranaree Task Force,recorded and read back to him this affidavit which is hereby found to be
correct.
(Signed) Kumpanat Wapunsu
Chief of Intelligence Section
Suranaree Task Force
675Annex 97
676Annex 97
677Annex 97
678 Annex 98
Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch showing the location
of the French flag pole in 1930, 17 November 2011
679Annex 98
680 Annex 98
To Cambodia
Brostaircase
.
20
Gopura
. Song (Temple Pond)
m Foot of the staircase Sra
20 Second
. Pei Ta Di
m
100
the Temple
Centre line of
and French flag pole in 1930
Location of Temporary shed of attap
Barbed wire fence
Sketch showing location of the French Flag Pole
N
681682 Annex 99
Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch of 1991 arrangements
for tourism, 17 November 2011
683Annex 99
684 Annex 99
To Cambodia
staircase
Broken
Barbed wires to protect
Iron gate
Cambodian gate Song (Temple Pond)
Naga staircase of stone waSraayint Coordination Post
Pei Ta Di
Gopura Gopura
First Second
Restrooms
Thai milticketing office
1991 arrangementsThai control post and
Foot of the staircase
Sketch of
N
685686 Annex 100
Department of Treaties and LegalAffairs, History of
the Negotiations for the Inscription of the Temple on the
UNESCO World Heritage List, November 2011
687Annex 100
688 Annex 100
Non-paper
History of Negotiations for the Inscription of the Temple
on the UNESCO World Heritage List
1. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, i n the process of inscription of the
Temple of Phra Viharn on the World Heritage list, Cambodia has progressively
recognized that its sovereignty does not extend to Thai territory on the Phra Viharn
promontory. It will show in particular that after some initial attempts in 2008 to leave
doubt about the extent of the buffer zone or management zone f or the Temple –
indispensable for a complete inscription – Cambodia has since 2010 officially
recognized that Thai territory on the promontory is to be excluded from such zone.
2. Prior to her formal submission of the inscription of the Temple on the World
Heritage List in 2008, Cambodia had already submitted to the World Heritage
Committee during its 31 session (2007) a proposal for the inscription of the Temple.
The proposed inscription in 2007 would cover the area of the property of 154.70 ha
with the area of the buffer zone of 2,642.50 ha. 1 The “Schema Directeur pour le
Zonage de Preah Vihear” – a map attached to the Cambodia’s proposed nomination –
describe the three areas , designated as Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3a/3b, as “Zone
monumentale de protection ma ximale”, “Zone tampon de protection et de cône de
vue” and “Zone de développement”, respectively. 2 These three zones encroach on
Thai territory.
nd
3. At the 32 session of the World Heritage Committee in July 2008 , Cambodia
agreed to reduce the surface of the nominated property which would now comprise
“only the Temple of Phra Viharn and not the wider promontory with its cliffs and
3
caves”. This nominated property, covering the area of 11 ha ., is described in
Cambodia’s Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World
1See UNESCO, Document No. WHC -07/31.COM/8B Paris, 11 May 2007, pp.16-17 and 30-
31; and ATTACHMENT 1: “The Temple of Preah Vihear Inscribed on the World Heritage
List (UNESCO) since 2008”, edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh,
May 2010, p. 24.
2ATTACHMENT 2: “Schema Directeur pour Le Zonage de Preah Vihear” submitted by
Cambodia at WHC 31.
3UNESCO, Decisions adopted at the 32 Session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec
City, 2008), Document No. 32 Com 8B.102, para. 9.
689Annex 100
2
Heritage Committee in th e same session as Zone 1 “Périmètre du Temple de Preah
Vihear”. 4 The RGPP also describe s two other zones, roughly marked by number 2
5
and number 3, as “Zone tampon” and “Zone exclue de la zone tampon”, respectively.
The RGPP thus confirms Cambodia’s recognition of Thai land’s right to the disputed
area (marked by number 3 ), which was henceforth excluded from the buffer zone ,
although the confines of “zone 2” and “zone 3” are not clearly marked.
4. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), one of the three
nd
Advisory Bodies of UNESCO, stated in its evaluation report during the 32 session
(2008) of the World Heritage Committee regard ing the inscription of the Temple of
Pra Viharn that:
“ICOMOS noted in its 2007 evaluation that, according to information
provided to it by the World Heritage Centre, the precise location of the frontier
between Cambodia and Thailand to the north of the nominated site is currently
the subject of a dispute between the two States Parties. The property
nominated in 2007 and parts of its buffer zone lay partly within the disputed
area.
The property now nominated lies entirely within territory in Cambodia over
which there is no dispute with Thailand....” 6
and
“In its 2007 evaluation, ICOMOS noted that, the boundary of the nominated
property coincided on the north with the existing frontier between Cambodia
and Thailand. The area beyond this segment of t he boundary lies entirely
within what is currently the territory of Thailand.
The nominated area has now been revised so that it falls entirely within land in
Cambodia not disputed by Thailand. The core zone includes the temple and a
small area immediately surrounding it.” 7
5. The RPPG was subsequently reproduced in Cambodia’s “Management Plan of the
8
Temple of Preah Vihear” dated January 2010 on page 52. Interestingly, an
4 ATTACHMENT 3: “Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World
Heritage Committee” submitted by Cambodia at WHC 32, reproduced in ATTACHMENT 4:
5ambodia’s “Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear” dated January 2010, p. 52
6 Ibid.
ATTACHMENT5: WHC.08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add2 , Addendum 2: ICOMOS Evaluations of
nominations of cultural and mixed properties to the World Heritage L-treah Vihear
(Cambodia)No. 1224 (p. 6) as appeared in http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/32COM/documents/
7
Ibid.
690 Annex 100
3
“Archaeological Potential Map of the Site” was also produced on page 93 which
defines more clearly the extent of the area identified in the RGPP as “Zone tampon”
(i.e. area marked by number 2). 9
6. After some initial attempts to leave doubt about the extent of the buffer zone for
the Temple in the RGPP produced in 2008 , Cambodia in 2010 thus officially
recognized that Thai territory on the promontory is to be excluded from such zone.
7. This is clearly seen from a nother map officially published in May 2010 by the
Office of the Council of Ministers of Cambodia to illustrate the property and its buffer
10
zone for inscription on the World Heritage List. The map clearly shows the intended
buffer zone in green. Thai territory on the promontory, marked in yellow, is
excluded.
8. The May 2010 map has been confirmed by the “Plan de Zonage Délimitant la Zone
Tampon” submitted by Cambodia to the World Heritage Committee for consideration
at its 34th Session in Brasilia in July -August 2010. 11 Here again, zone 3, roughly
representing Thai territory on the promontory, is “exclue de la zone tampon”.
9. Although the World Heritage Committee does not have mandate or jurisdiction
over State boundaries, these official maps are nonetheless evidence of the acceptance
by Cambodia that, pending delimitation of the area, the geographical extent of
Cambodia’s sovereignty does not extend to Thai territory on the Phra Viharn
promontory.
***
8ATTACHMENT 4 : Cambodia’s “Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear” dated
January 2010, p. 52
9
10TTACHMENT 6: “Archaeological Potential Map of the Site”, i bid., p. 93
ATTACHMENT 1: “The Temple of Preah Vihear inscribed on the World Heritage List
(UNESCO) since 2008”, edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, May
2010, p. 27
11
UNESCO, Documents No. WHC -10/34.COM 7B.Add.3, 27 July 2010, p. 7
691Annex 100
4
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
1. “The Temple of Preah Vihear Inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO) since 2008”,
edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, May 2010
2. “Schema Directeur pour Le Zonage de Preah Vihear” submitted by Cambodia at WHC 31.
3. “Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World Heritage Committee”
submitted by Cambodia at WHC 32
4. Cambodia’s “Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear” dated January 2010, p. 52
5. WHC.08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add2, Addendum 2: ICOMOS Evaluations of nominations of
cultural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List - Preah Vihear (Cambodia) No. 1224
6. “Archaeological Potential Map of the Site”
692 Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 1
SINCE 2008
KINGDOM OF CAMBODIcA
THE TEMPLE
OF PREAH VIHEAR
INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (UNESCO)
Edited MAY 2010
byof thPHNOM PENH
693Annex 100
23
Decision 32 COM
including: is of great international significance and
. (Christchurch, New Zealand, July 2007, which
Operational Guidelines,
Decision 31 COM 8B.24
Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear
that the that the process for inscription is in progress…”
in principle that it should be inscribed on the World Heritage List;”
notes
identified thetfiePPinteviedPP;raphichas Outstanding Universal Value on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv);”(provisional
a) A prb)aic)plmodfimratoirtiattiistel-“tripr-“zr- “andihtsprapnatyetilitm
THE KnINonforrMteOeiloblMhedapDtmeeStrahetDeeWsirdfOheitFMe8Ce1tr2OthePayIgdoD, ofFCamritage Centre, with the application of its
11
694 Annex 100
” has a .
excluded from the
sesSacred Site of the
st
TEMPORARILY
the Temple of Peah Vihear ” of the international Court of Justice
unilaterally made by the Kingdom of
.
644.113 ha (six hundred forty four hectares and
session of the Committee in Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June-
session of the Committee, “ Committee at its 31dred forty two hectares
nd st
session covers only
154.70 ha (nde hundred fifty four hectarebeing integral part of the Judgment
, seeing that the proposed property for inscription has been reduced and that the
” covering
11 (eleven) hectares
(see maps and drawings on pages 6,7 and 8)
, but the buffer zone identified in the RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property) as what has been
the borborrlnelneettuentoathebmdiapa“nd Thailand, in the north of the temple;
a. the b. ansithtedzbetwineththwaestenfdtncytemthle,hsairiad
Consequently, as it wasonpehrmnItrehisrhirrds,pissdm)pnortnrt oscointtnuh,sgaine,nratsed.followings have been
695Annex 100
25
it would be
agrees that
”
31 COM 8B.24
session (2007) recognized the validity of the criteria (i) (ii) and (iv) for the inscription on
st
session (2008) inscribed the Temple of Preah Vihear on the List on the basis of criteria (i) alone.
nd
The CommitteBut the Decision 32 COM 8B.102 indicates in its paragraph 11 that the Committee “Committee, however, at
696 Annex 100
ai
do
d b
a ma
i C
h o
T m
gd
Ki
26
THEAKINviOedMorNonacMPpOnDhetUeperyTiIrtieTO1VISIOIdAoHthRWGFPdHerOaMeNitTION AND A
12
697Annex 100
27
i
d
b
d m
a a
li C
ha f
T o
m
do
ing
K
The map of the buffer zone (identified 2) of the property inscribed on the World Heritage List
698 Annex 100
session
st Decision
perimeter of the proposed ’, on the basis of the
154.70 ha (one hundred fifty
” covering
(eleven) hectares only, but the Decision of theundred
11
covering
644.113 ha (six hundred forty four hectares and one
THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR
OF PREAH VIHEAR
THE SACRED SITE OF THE TEMPLE , when the World Heritage Committee made the Decision announcing the
for inscriptio. has been reduced and that the
session covers only
this propertyndzone 1)
identified in the RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property) as what has been accept-
, instead of the initial buffer zone covering
has beesession, announcing the process for inscription in progress, was based on the proposition of
st
zone 2) (Quebec, Canada, July 2008).
session of the World Heritage Committee, the conciliation efforts, conducted in cooperation with the
nd
updated property prbuffer zone (
THCEHANNGEnomMAatEnTfeMTBvODatdubyfour Thetares and seventy are28n in progress. te
13
699Annex 100
29
Gopura III
Gopura II Gopura I
Aerial view South North: Gopura I, Gopura II and Gopura III are clearly visible
700 Annex 100
odia,
etween ear in
stice (15
session of the World Heritage Committee
nd
and not the wider promontory with its cliffs and
Explanatory Note
on the zoning presented in the provisional Map
hereafter) and the line indicated in the map unilaterally made by the Kingdom of Thailand and presented
NB. .
covers only the Temple of PREAH VIHEAR
session of the Committee (Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June-02 July 2007).
st
in the Judgment of 15 June 1962 (See the International Court of Justice, Reports of Judgments, Case concerning the Temple
NB.o:f P“rdelimitation, and hence recognizes the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vih
In ptrecaves.ewshiihit of conciliation, the Cambodian Delegation accepted to redu spirit of 3c0e the surface of the nominateder of the Kingdom of Cambon of the Joint Boundary Commission b
701Annex 100
. 31
on the basis of a
under the title TRACÉ
session of the World Heritage
st
).
THE INSCRIBED PROPERTY
Schéma directeur pour le zonage de Preah Vihear’
and submitted only, for the first time, at the 31
see the map on page 33
lies on a higher part of the plateau located above 250 metres. The perimeter of the prop-
Onuopneosde,lhheioDiaCommittee (Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June to 2 July 2007) [see maps and drawings on page 6, 7 and 8]
� � buffer zone, �ndic�ted as zone No 2, covers at the east, the south and the west of the Temple, an area of
Theertyitrixelppssdtefrtyenimear,itexclreeteteadingirlytheiteosumrenntdngt.he east side as well as its landscape setting.
702 Annex 100
a
id
ob
n ma
l C
a f
Th o
dm
ing
K
TraIétàrtterinnonaeitreolfX.otctim”Cassiongi,it
32
703Annex 100
33
in preparation for the inscription
Initial Map (January and May 2008),
THERKTThepKiinNiFheClEboHa,asROttEwIyyrrNTnodsEhoUtatdruZGtfthITcaZe.of
14
704 Annex 100
ZoVihea,e2e:imspiuffpropeerty
Inscription (7 July 2008)
id
o
dn m
l a
ai C
Th o
m
do
ing
K
As requeiediidesntteWeorrlHP)riitageCpropeitye,=thonRoy1alGtovernemeplt ofParmaho3iaearnfindstteabttferm
705Annex 100
of
CAMBODIA 2010
Printed in Phnom P▯ nh
The Office of the Council of Ministers
The Royal Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia
706 Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 2
707Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 3
708 Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 4
709Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 5
710Annex 100
711Annex 100
712Annex 100
713Annex 100
714Annex 100
715Annex 100
716Annex 100
717Annex 100
718Annex 100
719Annex 100
720Annex 100
721Annex 100
722 Annex 100
ATTACHMENT 6
723724 Annex 101
Carte annexée au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo
et Ivey (Annexe I), filed as Annex LXVIc of Cambodia’s Reply
(enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)
725Annex 101
726Annex 101
727728 Annex 102
Map showing strips of Cambodian territory attributed to
Thailand ifAnnex I were declared valid, filed asAnnex
No. 76bis of Thailand’s Rejoinder
(enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)
729Annex 102
730Annex 102
731732 Annex 103
Oxford University Press, Oxford English Dictionary, online
version September 2011, available at:
http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177;
accessed 15 November 2011
733Annex 103
734 Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionar y http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...
Pronunciation: /vɪˈsɪnɪtɪ/
Etymology: < Latin vīcīnitās , < vīcīn-us : seeICINE adj.and -ITY suffix. So Italian ...
1.
a. The state, character, or quality of being near in space; propinquity,
proximity.
1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentariesf. xij , For the Frenchmen come of the same offspringe
that we do‥: And for the vicinitie therof are very necessary for the Italians and vs.
1604 T. WRIGHT Passions of Minde (new ed.) v. §4. 275 The vicinitie also of the evill moveth
much, for dangers afarre off we little esteeme.
1641 J. JACKSON True Evang. Temper II. 169 The third is ‘to feed, and eate together’. Another
degree of vicinity, and neerenesse.
1698 J. FYER New Acct. E.-India & Persia 226 The most unhealthy of these [winds] are the
South-East, for that then the Air is thicker, by reason of the Seas Vicinity.
1727–8 S WIFT Short View State Ireland11 The abundance and vicinity of Country-Seats.
1774 O. GOLDSMITH Grecian Hist. I. v. 105 But the Athenians were not to be intimidated by any
vicinity of danger.
1825 SCOTT Betrothediii, in Tales CrusadersII. 85 The Constable alleged the vicinity of the
Welch, as what might possibly again render the abode of his betrothed brid‥perilous.
1849 T. B. MACAULAY Hist. Eng.II. vi. 102 He had forgotten that vicinity operates in more ways
than one.
1892 Photogr. Ann. II. 247 Under these conditions all vicinity of watercourses, unless bridged,
should be avoided.
b. Const. to, with.
v
1651 R. B AXTER Plain Script. ProofPref. sig. bi , That we may enjoy the comfort of
unity‥according to our vicinity with you on Earth.
1681 P. RYCAUT tr. B. Gracián y Morales Critick 23 All those Epithets of changeable,
defective,‥and the like, are‥derived from her too near vicinity with the Earth.
1781 W. C OWPER Heroism52 Ill-fated race! how deeply must they rue Their only crime, vicinity to
you!
1836 D ICKENSSketches by Boz1st Ser. I. 108 How much more awful is it to reflect on this near
vicinity to the dying.
1858 J. MARTINEAU Stud. Christianity 206 This vicinity to the great capital drew him, however,
into a wider circle of duties.
†2. Nearness in degree or quality; close relationship or connection;
resemblance, likeness. Obs.
1 of 3 15/11/2011 10:24
735Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionar y http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...
1594 W. W EST Symbolæogr.: 2nd Pt. I. Chancerie §145 Unto whom your said Oratrices husband,
for the vicinity of bloud, and abilitie of substance, was bolder to make his mone for helpe.
1599 Master Broughtons Lett.xii. 42 Speeches farre more differing from any vicinitie to
prophanenes then this of yours.
1614 W. B. tr.Philosophers Banquet(ed. 2) . xxv. 51 The vicinity with mans nature it hath.
1642 BP. J. AYLOR Of Sacred Order Episcopacy(1647) 281 An honorary, and extraordinary
priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountaine of
all benison to us.
a1676 M. H ALE Primitive Originat. Mankind (1677) I. iii. 83 There is a vicinity between Agents
and Patients.
3. = VICINAGE n. 1.
1781 T. JEFFERSON Corr. in Wks. (1859) I. 293 Lord Cornwallis had advanced to the vicinities of
the Moravian towns.
1789 T. JFFERSON Corr.in Wks. (1859) III. 26 The progress of light ‥has equalled expectation in
Paris only and its vicinities.
1835 I. TYLOR Spiritual Despotism iv. 173 That‥tendency of things, which places the clergy of a
vicinity in opposition the one to the other.
1843 E. BULWER -LYTTON Last of BaronsI. . viii. 129 It commanded a full view of the vicinity
without.
1860 J. TNDALL Glaciers of AlpsI. xi. 75 We were glad ‥to escape the vicinity of that ugly
crevasse.
1875 A. HELPS Social Pressure iii. 41 That might gradually have the effect of removing all noxious
trades from London and its vicinity.
4.
a. in the vicinity (of), in the neighbourhood (of), near or close (to).
(Cf. VICINAGE n. 1b, 3.)
(a)
1796 H. HUNTER tr. J. H. B. de Saint-PierreStud. Nature (1799) II. 229 It would most probably
have in it's vicinity, the tree which Nature designed should contrast with it in the same site.
1820 W. IRVING Sketch Bk. I. 121 The merchant has his snug retreat in the vicinity of the
metropolis.
1840 T. HOOD Up Rhine149 The extraordinary transparency of the atmosphere in the vicinity of
the Rhine.
1864 G. O. TREVELYAN Competition Wallah (1866) 185 Amidst the park-like undulating scenery in
the vicinity of the town.
1891 Hardwicke's Sci.-gossip27 14/1 During a severe storm in that year the Port Glasgow ship
‘Marseilles’ capsized in the vicinity of Portpatrick.
(b)
1827 M. FARADAY Chem. Manip. xviii. 469 The minute hole‥may be obliterated by a little
pressure towards it upon the lute in the immediate vicinity.
1843 E. BULWER -LYTTON Last of BaronsI. II. v. 249 A young man of low stature ‥slowly
approaching towards the arch, and every cap in the vicinity was off, and every knee bowed.
2 of 3 15/11/2011 10:24
736 Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionar http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...
b. With similar sense in other constructions. Also transf., something
near to (a specified amount, etc.).
1817 J. MILL Hist. Brit. India IIIV. iv. 145 A detachment of grenadiers were very expeditiously
quitting the vicinity of danger.
1901 Proc. New-Eng. Hist. Geneal. Soc.9 Jan. p. xvi, Raising the extra cost of that number of the
Annual Proceedings to the vicinity of one hundred dollars.
vicinity, n.
Second edition, 1989; online version September 2011. <http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr
/view/Entry/223177>; accessed 15 November 2011. Earlier version first published inNew English
Dictionary, 1917.
Oxford University Press
Copyright © 2011 Oxford University Press . All rights reserved.
Your access is brought to you by:
University of Paris-X-Nanterre
3 of 3 15/11/2011 10:24
737738 Annex 104
Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary,
Eleventh Edition, 2003, page 1393
739Annex 104
740Annex 104
741Annex 104
742 Annex 105
Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn
and aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn
743Annex 105
744 Annex 105
Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn
Aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn (circa 1930)
745746 Annex 106
List of members of Cambodian Cabinet in 1962-1964
747Annex 106
748 Annex 106
(Unofficial Translation)
List of the Cabinet Members of the Government of Cambodia
Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum’s Government (6 August – 6 October 1962)
1 Prime Minister, 1 Senior Minister, 13 Secretary of State, 2 DeputySecretary of State
• Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum Prime Minister
• Lon Nol Senior Minister in charge of National Defence
• Yem Sambor Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture
• Phlek Phen Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and Telecommunication
• Huot Sambath Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tourism
• Ung Hong Sath Secretary of State, Ministry of Health
• Trinh Vanh Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs
• Sing Poeuk Thor Secretary of State, Ministry of Planning
• Hou Yun Secretary of State, Ministry of Finance
• Hou Nim Secretary of State, Ministry of Commerce
• Phy Theanlay Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
• Oub Kim Ang Secretary of State, Ministry of Interior
• Man Chhum Secretary of State, Ministry of Youth Training and Fine Arts
• Yung Yun Secretary of State, Ministry of Industry
• Hel Sumpha Secretary of State, Ministry of Social and Labour Affairs
• Kuy Puv Deputy Secretary of State, Ministry of Education and
Parliamentary Affairs
• Sak Sudsakhorn Deputy Secretary of State, the Office of Council of Ministers
in charge of Security and National Defence Affairs
749Annex 106
Prince Norodom Kantol’s Government (6 October 1962 – 25 December 1964
1 Prime Minister, 1 Senior Minister, 14 Secretary of State, 3 Deputy Secretary of State
• Prince Norodom Kantol Prime Minister and Minister of Interior
• Lon Nol Senior Minister in charge of National Defence and Sport
• Long Boreth Secretary of State, Ministry of Finance
• Chao Seng Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture
• Sak Sudsakhorn Secretary of State, the Office of Council of Ministers
in charge of National Peace Affairs and National Defence
• Huot Sambath Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
• Hou Yun Secretary of State, Ministry of Planning
• Tim Dong Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Relations Affairs and Tourism
• Prince Norodom Phurisara Secretary of State, Ministry of Interior and Education
• Phy Theanlay Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice
• Thor Peng Theung Secretary of State, Ministry of Health
• Wan Moliwan Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and
Telecommunication
• Khieu Samphan Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture
• Phou Si Uy Secretary of State, Ministry of National Training and Fine Arts
• Ung Keat Secretary of State, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour
• Chhut Chhoeur Secretary of State, Ministry of Industry
• Ung Kropumm Phka Deputy Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and
Telecommunication
• Man Chhum Deputy Secretary of State in charge of Education and
Parliamentary Affairs
• Chao Sao Deputy Secretary of State in charge of Finance
750Annex 106
751Annex 106
752Annex 106
753754 Annex 107
Dangrek map of a 1:200,000 scale held at
the Department of Treaties and LegalAffairs,
Ministry of ForeignAffairs of the Kingdom of Thailand
(enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)
755Annex 107
756Annex 107
757758
Volume II, annexes