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
2012/36 No.
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)
(Cambodia v. Thailand)
Court to hold public hearings from Monday 15 to Friday 19 April 2013
THE HAGUE, 29 November 2012. The Internati onal Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold pub lic hearings in the case concerning the Request
for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of
PreahVihear (Cambodiav. Thailand) (Cambodi av. Thailand) from Monday 15 to Friday
19 April 2013, at the Peace Palace in The Hague, the seat of the Court.
Schedule for the hearings
First round of oral argument
Monday 15 April 10 a.m.-1 p.m.: Cambodia
3 p.m.-4.30 p.m.: Cambodia
Wednesday 17 April 10 a.m.-1 p.m.: Thailand
3 p.m.-4.30 p.m.: Thailand
Second round of oral argument
Thursday 18 April 3 p.m.-5 p.m.: Cambodia
Friday 19 April 3 p.m.-5 p.m.: Thailand
History of the proceedings
On 28 April 2011, the Kingdom of Cambodia submitted to the Court, by an Application filed
in the Registry, a request for interpretation of the Judgment rendered by the Court on 15 June 1962
in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand).
In its Application, Cambodia seeks to base th e jurisdiction of the Court on Article 60 of the
Statute of the Court, which provides: “In the even t of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the
judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.” Cambodia also invokes
Article 98 of the Rules of Court (see Press Release No. 2011/14). - 2 -
With reference to those provisions, Cambodia indicates in its Application the “points in
dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment” at issue. 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 map which enables the Court to find that Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple
is a direct and automatic consequence of its sove reignty over the territory on which the Temple is
situated...; (3)according to [Cambodia], Thailand is under an obligation [pursuant to the
Judgment] to withdraw any military or other personnel from the vicinity of the Temple on
Cambodian territory . . . [T]his is a general a nd continuing obligation deriving from the statements
concerning Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty recogn ized by the Court in that region.” Cambodia
asserts that “Thailand disagrees with all of these points.”
On the same day that it filed its Application, Cambodia, stressing the urgency and the risk of
irreparable damage, also filed a request for th e indication of provisional measures, whereby it
“respectfully request[ed] the Court to indicat e 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 action which could interfere with the rights of Cambodia
or aggravate the dispute in the principal proceedings.”
Public hearings on that request for the indi cation of provisional measures were held on
Monday 30 and Tuesday 31 May 2011.
During those hearings, Thailand maintained, inte ralia, that there was no dispute as to the
meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment; that it did not dispute the fact that the Temple of Preah
Vihear was situated in Cambodian territory, as recognized in the first paragraph of the operative
clause of that Judgment; it clai med furthermore not to dispute th e fact that Thailand was under an
obligation, pursuant to the second paragraph of the operative clause of the said Judgment, to
withdraw its military forces from the Temple or from its vicinity in so far as those forces were
situated in Cambodian territory; it asserted that th is “instantaneous” obligation had been fully met
by Thailand and could not give rise to an inte rpretative judgment; and Thailand maintained, in
consequence, that the Court manifestly lacked jurisdiction “to rule on Cambodia’s Request for
interpretation” and, therefore, to indicate the provisional measures requested by the Applicant.
At the end of its second round of oral observa tions, Cambodia reiterated its request for the
indication of provisional measures. The Agent of Thailand, for his part, made the following
submissions on behalf of his Government: “In a ccordance with Article60 of the Rules of Court
and having regard to the Request for the indication of provisional measures of the Kingdom of
Cambodia and its oral pleadings, the Kingdom of Thailand respectfully requests the Court to
remove the case introduced by the Kingdom of Cambodia on 28 April 2011 from the General List.”
On 18July2011, the Court made its Order on the request for the indication of provisional
measures submitted by Cambodia. It first noted th at “there appear[ed] prima facie to exist a
‘dispute’” between the Parties as to the meaning or scope of the 1962 Judgment, and concluded that
it could not accede to Thailand’s request that th e case introduced by Cambodia be removed from
the General List. It then indicated various provisional measures. The Court also decided that each
Party should inform the Court as to its complian ce with those provisional measures and that, until
the Court had rendered its judgment on the request fo r interpretation, it would remain seised of the
matters which formed the subject of the Order (see the Court’s 2010-2011 Annual Report). - 3 -
In accordance with Article98, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court, the Court fixed
21 November 2011 as the time-limit for the presentation of written observations by Thailand on the
request for interpretation submitted by Cambodia. Those observations were filed within the
time-limit thus prescribed.
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 98, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, the Court decided to
afford the Parties the opportunity of furnis hing further written explanations, and fixed
8March2012 and 21June2012 as the respective time-limits for the filing by Cambodia and
Thailand of such explanations. Those pleadings we re filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.
In accordance with the same provision, the Court al so decided to afford the Parties the opportunity
of furnishing further oral explanations. The sch edule of the public hearings organized for that
purpose is reproduced above.
*
Further information concerning the accred itation and admission procedures for those
hearings will be communicated in due course.
___________
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Char ter in June1945 and began its activities in
April1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with in ternational law, legal disputes submitted to it by
States (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,
second, to give advisory opinions on legal questi ons referred to it by duly authorized United
Nations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15judges elected for a
nine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own international
secretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.
The ICJ, a court open only to States for cont entious proceedings, and to certain organs and
institutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with the
other ⎯ mostly criminal ⎯ judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yu goslavia (ICTY, an adhoc court created by the
Security Council), the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent international criminal
court, established by treaty, which does not bel ong to the United Nations system), the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon (STL, an independent judicial body composed of Lebanese and international
judges, which is not a United Nations tribunal an d does not form part of the Lebanese judicial
system), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA, an independent institution which assists in
the establishment of arbitral tribunals and fac ilitates their work, in acco rdance with the Hague
Convention of 1899).
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)
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) - Court to hold public hearings from Monday 15 to Friday 19 April 2013