Temple of Preah Vihear - Judgment (Preliminary Objections)

Communiqué No. 61/13
(Uno fioial)

me following information from the Registryof the International
Court of Justiceis communicated to the Presa:

The InternationaC lourtof Justioe to-day (26 May 1961) delivered
its Judeent in the case concerning the Templeof Preah Vihear (~rellmltnary
Objections b)etween Cmbadia and Thailmd,

Proceedings in this case, which relates to the territorias lovereignty
over the Templeof Preah Vihear, were instituted by m Application by the
Goverment of Cambodia dated 30 Septembsr 1959, The Goverment of:
Thailand raiaed.two preliminary objections to the Jurisdiction,

The Court held, unanirnoualy,that it had jmiadiction, Vioc-
Presiàent Alfaro and Juages Wellington Koo, Sir Gerald Etzmaurtoe, and

linaka appended declarations te the Judgment and Judges Sir Percy Spender
andMorelli appended ~ieparateopinions,

In its Sudgrnentthe Court noted that, in invoking the jurisdiotion
of the Court,Cambodia had based herselfprincipallg on the combined
effectof her own aoceptanos of the eompuisory jurisdictioo nf the
Court and of a declaration made by Thailand on 20 May 1950which wafiin
the following terrns:

"1 have the honour to inform you that by a declaration dated
'
September 20, 1929,His Majestyts Governent had aocepted the
oompulsory jurisdiction of the Pemanent Court of International
Justicein aonfomity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute
for a period of ten years and an condition of reciprooity. mat
declaration haa been renewedon May 3, 1940,for anotherperiod of
ten years.

In accordance with the provisions of Article 36, paragraph 4,
of the Statute of the International Courtof Justioe, f have now
the honoukto infom you that Hie Majestyfs kvernment hereby renew
the deolaration above mentioned for a further period of ten yeme
as from May 3, 1950,with the limits and subject to the same
conditions and rssemations as set forth in the first deolaration
of Sept. 20, 1929,17

Thailand had ralseda first preliminary objection on the gxomd
that that declaration did not constitute a valid acceptance on her part
She in no way denied
of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.,
that she had fully intended to accept the oornpulsory jurisdrction butg
according to her axgument, she had drafted her dec1asat;ion Sn tems
revealed by the decision of the Court of 25 pay 1959 in the oase coric~~
the AelniaT Inoidentof 27 Ju1y 1955 (Israel 1..Bulgaria) to have been
ineffectual. Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Court
pmvided that:the Secretary-Generao ïf the UnitedNations under paragraph 4 of
Article36 of the Statute, than to recognise the compul~lory jurisdiceion
of the present Court under paragraph 2 of thnt Article; nar indeed did
she pretend otherwise. The remainder of the declaration had to be

construed in the lightof that cardinal fact, and in the general con-bext
of the declaration; the reference to the 1929 and 1940 declarations
mustberegarded simply as beinga convenient method of indlcating,
witkout statingLhem In terms,whatwere the conditions upon which the
acceptame was made.

I?leCourt, therefore,consideredthat there could not remain any
doubt as to vrhat meaning and effect ought ta be sttributed to the 1950
declaration and it rejectedthe first preliminaryobjectionof Thailand.

The Court next found that thzt conclusion was sufficient to found
the Courtfs jurisdiction and that it became unnecessary to proceed to
a consLderation of the second basis of jurisdiction invoked by Garnbodia
(certain treaty pravisions for the judicialsetf lement of any disputes
of the land involved in the present case) and of Thailand l objeotion

to that basis of jurisdiction.

lfne Bague, 26 May 1963