Cambodia files an Application requesting interpretation of the Judgment rendered by the Court on 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) and also asks for

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
Unofficial

No. 2011/14
2 May 2011

Cambodia files an Application requesting interpretation of the Judgment rendered by the
Court on 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) and also asks for the urgent indication
of provisional measures

THE HAGUE, 2May2011. On 28April, the Kingdom of Cambodia filed an Application
requesting interpretation of the Judgment rendered on 15June1962 by the International Court of
Justice(ICJ) in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). The

filing of such an application gives rise to the opening of a new case. Together with that
Application, Cambodia submitted an urgent request for the indication of provisional measures. The
latter opens incidental proceedings within the new case.

Request for interpretation

In support of its Request for interpretation, Cambodia invokes Article 60 of the Statute of the
Court, which provides: “In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the
Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.” It also invokes Article98 of the Rules of
Court.

In its Application, Cambodia indicates the “points in dispute as to the meaning or scope of
the Judgment”, as stipulated by Article 98 of the Rules of Court. It states in particular that:

“(1) according to Cambodia, the Judgment [rendered by the Court in 1962] is based on
the prior existence of an international boundary established and recognized by

both States;

(2) according to Cambodia, that boundary is defined by the map to which the Court
refers on page21 of its Judgment …, a ma p which enables the Court to find that
Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple is a direct and automatic consequence of

its sovereignty over the territory on which the Temple is situated …;

(3)according to the Judgment, Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any
military or other personnel from the vi cinity of the Temple on Cambodian
territory. Cambodia believes that this is a general and continuing obligation

deriving from the statements concerning Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty
recognized by the Court in that region.”

Cambodia asserts that “Thailand disagrees with all of these points.” - 2 -

In regard to the Court’s jurisdiction, the A pplicant relies on Article 60 of the Statute of the
Court, as cited above. Cambodia states inter alia that, in its view, “[a]s long as the dispute remains

a matter of interpretation regarding the meaning and scope of the Judgment, the consent of the
opposing Party is consubstan tial with the initial consent given to the Court’s jurisdiction to settle
the dispute in the present proceed ings, as was established by [the initial Judgment rendered by the
Court on its jurisdiction in] 1961.”

The Applicant explains that, while “Thaila nd does not dispute Cambodia’s sovereignty over
the Temple— and only over the Temple itself”, on the other hand, it calls into question the
1962 Judgment in its entirety.

Cambodia contends that “in 1962, the Court placed the Temple under Cambodian
sovereignty, because the territory on which it is situated is on the Cambodian side of the
boundary”, and that “[t]o refuse Cambodia’s sovereignty over the area beyond the Temple as far as

its ‘vicinity’ is to say to the Court that the boundary line which it recognized [in 1962] is wholly
erroneous, including in respect of the Temple itself”.

Cambodia emphasizes that the purpose of its Re quest is to seek an explanation from the

Court regarding the “meaning and… scope of its Judgment, within the limit laid down by
Article 60 of the Statute”. It adds that such an explanation, “which would be binding on Cambodia
and Thailand, …could then serve as a basis for a final resolution of this dispute through
negotiation or any other peaceful means”.

Regarding the facts underlying its Applica tion, Cambodia recalls that it instituted
proceedings against Thailand in 1959, and that certain problems arose after the Court had given
Judgment on the merits in 1962. It goes on to d escribe the more recent events which directly

motivated the present Application (failure of endeavours aimed at achieving agreement between the
two States on a joint interpretation of the 1962 Judgment; deterioration in relations following
“discussions within UNESCO to have the Temple declared a World Heritage Site”; armed
incidents between the two States in April 2011).

At the close of its Application, Cambodia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that

“The obligation incumbent upon Thailand to ‘withdraw any military or police

forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on
Cambodian territory’ (point 2 of the operative clause [of the Judgment rendered by the
Court in 1962]) is a particular consequence of the general and continuing obligation to
respect the integrity of the territory of Ca mbodia, that territory having been delimited

in the area of the Temple and its vicinity by the line on the map [referred to on page
21 of the Judgment], on which [the latter] is based.”

Request for the indication of provisional measures

On the same day, Cambodia also filed a request for the urgent indication of provisional
measures, pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute. That Article provides that “[t]he Court shall have

the power to indicate, if it considers that circum stances so require, any provisional measures which
ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party”.

The Applicant explains that “[s]ince 22Apr il2011, serious incidents have occurred in the

area of the Temple of Preah Vihear, …as well as at several locations along that boundary between
the two States, causing fatalities, injuries and the evacuation of local inhabitants”. - 3 -

Cambodia states that

“[s]erious armed incidents are continuing at the time of filing of the present request,
for which Thailand is entirely responsible. Cambodia accordingly asks the Court to
indicate such provisional measures as may be required pursuant to Article41 of the
Statute and Article 73 of the Rules of Court.”

According to the Applicant,

“[m]easures are urgently required, both to safeguard the rights of Cambodia pending

the Court’s decision ⎯ rights relating to its sovereignty, its territorial integrity and to
the duty of non-interference incumbent upon Thailand ⎯ and to avoid aggravation of
the dispute”.

Cambodia further explains that,

“in the unfortunate event that its request were to be rejected, and if Thailand persisted
in its conduct, the damage to the Temple of Preah Vihear, as well as irremediable

losses of life and human suffering as a result of these armed clashes, would become
worse”.

In conclusion, Cambodia

“respectfully requests the Court to i ndicate the following provisional measures,
pending the delivery of its judgment:

⎯ an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all Thai forces from those parts of
Cambodian territory situated in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

⎯ a ban on all military activity by Thailand in the area of the Temple of Preah

Vihear;

⎯ that Thailand refrain from any act or acti on which could interfere with the rights
of Cambodia or aggravate the dispute in the principal proceedings”.

Furthermore, “[b]ecause of the gravity of the situation, and for the reasons expressed above,
Cambodia respectfully requests the Court to indicat e these measures as a matter of urgency, and to
fix a date as soon as possible for the subsequent proceedings”.

___________

The text of Cambodia’s Application requesting interpretation, as well as its request for the
indication of provisional measures, will be available shortly on the Court’s website
(www.icj-cij.org), under “Cases”. The Statute and the Rules of Court can be found under “Basic

Documents”. - 4 -

All the documents in the contentious proceedings relating to the case concerning the Temple
of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), instituted in 1959 and concluded in 1962, are available on

the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org), under “Cases”. Go to “Contentious cases”, then select 1959
(date of introduction) or 1962 (date of culmination). A detailed summary of the Judgment
rendered by the Court in 1962 can be found at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/45/4873.pdf.

___________

Information Department:

Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)

Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)