Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASE CONCERNING THETEMPILE OFPREAHVIHEAR
(PRELIMINARY OBJE<:TIONS)
Judgment of 26 May 1961
Proceedingsin the casecoricerningthe Te:mpleoPreah ty's Government hereby renewthe declaration above
Vihear (Preliminary Objectil~ns)between Camtdia and mentionedforafurtherperiodoften yearsasfromMay3,
Thailand,whichrelatestotheterritorialsovereigntyoverthe 1950,with thelimitsand subjectto the sameconditions
TempleofPreahVihear,wereinstitutedbyanApplicationby andreservationsssetforthinthe firstdeclaratofSept.
theGovernmentofCambodiadated 30September1959 T.he 20, 1929."
Governmentof Thailandraisedtwopmliminaryobjections Thailandhad raised a first preliminaryjectionon the
tothejurisdiction. groundthatthatdeclaration didnotconstituteavalid accept-
The Court held, unanimously,that it had jurisdiction. anceonher part ofthe compulsoryjurisdictoftheCourt.
Vice-President AlfaroandJudgesWellingtonKoo, SirGer- Sheinnowaydeniedthatshehadfully intended toacceptthe
ald Fitzmaurice,and Tanakaappendeddeclarationsto the compulsoryjurisdictionbut, accordingtoher argument,she
Judgment and Judges Sir Percy Spender and Morelli haddraftedher declarationinterms revealedbythedecision
appendedseparateopinions. oftheCourtof26May 1959 inthecaseconcerningtheAerial
Incidentof27 July1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria) tohave been
ineffectual. Article36, paragraph5, of the Statuteof the
Court providedthat:
"Declarationsmadeunder Article 36of the Statuteof
thePermanentCourtofInternationalJusticeandwhichare
In itsJudgmentthe Courtnotedthat,ininvokingthejuris- stillinforceshallbedeemed,asbetweenthepartiesofthe
dictionoftheCourt,Cambodiahadbased herselfprincipally presentStatute,obeacceptancesofthecompulsoryjuris-
onthecombinedeffectofher,ownacceptanceofthecompul- dictionoftheInternationalCourtofJustice forthe period
sory jurisdictionof the Courl:andof a declarationmadeby whichthey stillhavetorunand in accordancewiththeir
Thailandon20May 1950whichwas inthefcdlowingterms: tern :*
"I havethehonourto inl'ormyouthatby a declaration The Court had heldthat that provision applied to the
dated September 20, 192!J,His Majesty's Government originalparties totheStatute,andthat, Bulgarianothaving
had accepted thecompulsluryjurisdictionof the Perma- becomea partyto the Statuteuntil 14ceinber1955,her
nent Court of InternationalJustice in conformity with declarationof acceptanceof the compulsoryjurisdictionof
Article36, paragraph2, of theStatutefora peiiodof ten the PerrnanentCourtmustbe regardedas having lapsedon
yearsandonconditionofrt:cipmity. Thatdeclarationhas 19 April 1946, the date when the Permanent Court had
been renewedon May 3, 1'940f,or anotherperiodof ten ceasedto exist.In thepresentcase,Thailandhadproceeded
years. on the basis thather positionwas the sameas that of Bul-
"In accordancewiththe jprovisioofArticle36, para- garia,since shehadbecomea partyto theStatuteonlyon 16
grap1havenowthehonoui:toinformyouhat His Majes-f Jus- December1946,someeightmonthsafterthe demiseof the
tice, PermanentCourt.Herdeclarationof acceptanceofthecom-
Continued on next pagepulsory jurisdictionof the Permanen.Co~rrtwouldaccord- The sole relevantquestionwasthereforewhether thelan-
inglynothavebeentransformedintoan acceptancerelating guageemployed irrThailand's 1950declaratiodidreveala
to the present Court, and all she actually would have clearintention,inthetermsofArticle36,paragraph2, ofthe
achievedwasa necessarilyinoperativerenewalof anaccep- Statute,'torecogniiseas compulsorythejurisdictionof the
tance of the compulsoryjurisdictionof a1tribunal thatno Court. If the Court applied itsnormalcanonsof interpreta-
longerexisted. tion, that declarationcouhavenoothermeaning thanasan
acceptanceof the compulsoryjurisdiction of the present
TheCourt didnotconsiderthatitsJudgment of 1959had Court,sincetherewas nootherCourttowhichitcould have
the consequenceswhichThailandclaimecl.Apart fromthe related. Thailand, which was fully aware of the non-
fact that thatJudgmenthad nobindingforceexcept between existenceof thefoimerCourt,couldhavehad nootherpur-
theparties,the CourttooktheviewthatThailand,byherdec- pose in addressing the Secretary-Generalof the United
larationof 20 May1950,had placed hemelfin a different Nations under paragraph4ofArticle36oftheStatutethanto
positionfrom Bulgaria.Atthatdate,not onlyhadThailand's recognise thecompulsoryjurisdictionof the present Court
declarationof 1940neverbeentransforme:dintoan accept- under paragraph2 c~that Article;nor indeed didshepretend
anceofthecompulsoryjurisdictionofthepizsentCourt,but, otherwise.The remainder of the declarationhad to be con-
indeed,ithadexpired, accordingtoitsown .terms,twoweeks struedinthelightofthatcardinalfact,andinthegeneralcon-
earlier(on6 May 1950).The declarationaf 20 May1950,a text of the declaration; the referenceto the 1929 and 1940
new and independentinstrument, had ncttthereforebeen declarationsmust ttregardedsimply asbeinga convenient
madeunderArticle 36,paragraph5, oftheStatute,theoper- methodof indicating,withoutstatingthem interms, what
ationofwhich,onanyview,waswhollyexhaustedsofaras weretheconditionsuponwhichtheacceptancewas made.
Thailandwasconcerned.
In thecourseof the proceedings therehadbeensomedis- The Court, therefore, considered that there couldnot
cussionastowhetheralapsedinstrumentcc~uld berenewed, remainanydoubtasto what meaning andeffect oughtto be
buttheCourtconsideredthattherealquestionwas,what was attributedtothe 1950declarationand itrejectedthe firstpre-
theeffectofthedeclarationof 1950.Ithadalsobeensaidthat liminaryobjectionIIThailand.
Thailandhadin 1950helda mistakenviewandfor that rea-
sonhad usedinher declarationlanguagew.hichthe decision
of 1959hadshownto be inadequate to achieveitspurpose,
but the Courtdid notconsider that theissuein the present
casewasreally oneoferror, Ithadalsobeenarguedthatthe
intentwithoutthe deeddid not sufficeto c:onstitutea valid TheCourtnext foundthatthatconclusionwassufficientto
legaltransaction,buttheCourtconsideredthat,inthecaseof foundtheCourt'sju.risdictionand that itbecamunnecessary
acceptancesofthecompulsoryjurisdiction,the onlyformal- to proceedto a considerationofthesecondbasisofjurisdic-
ityrsquiredwasthatofdepositwith theSecretary-Generalof tion invokedbyCzmbodia(certaintreatyprovisionsfor the
the United Nations,a formality which hiadbeen accom- judicial settlementofanydisputesofthekind involvedinthe
plishedbyThailandinaccordancewithArticle36,paragraph present case)and of Thailand's objectionto that basis of
4, ofthe Statute. jurisdiction.
Summary of the Judgment of 26 May 1961