Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASECONCERNING THETEMPLEOFPlREAH VIHEAR
(MERITS)
Judgment of15June1962
Proceedingsin the case concerning theTempleof Preah ment a Joint Declaration.Vice-PresidentAlfaroand Judge
Vihear, between Cambodia andThailand, were instituted SirGeraldFitzmauriceappendedSeparateOpinions;Judges
on 6 October 1959by anApplicationof the Governmentof MorenoQuintana,'Wellington Koo and Sir Percy Spender
Cambodia;the Governmentof Thailandhalvingraisedtwo appendedDissentingOpinions.
preliminary objections, the Court, by its Judgment of
26 May 1961,foundthatithadjurisdiction.
In itsJudgmenton themerits theCourt,'byninevotesto
k, foundthat theTemple ofPreah Vihearwassituatedin
territoryunderthe sovereigntyof Cambodiaand, in conse-
quence, that Thailandwasunderan obligatitowithdraw InitsJudgment,theCourtfound that thesubjectofthedis-
anymilitaryorpoliceforces,orotherguardsorkeepers, sta-putewassovereigntyovertheregionoftheTempleofPreah
tionedbyherat the Temple,or initsvicinity onbodian Vihear.This ancient sanctuary,partinruins, stoodona
territory. promontoryoftheD#anangrrekgeofmountainswhichconsti-
Bysevenvotes tofive, theCourt found that Thaiwasd tuted the boundary between Cambodiaand Thailand. The
underan obligationto restoreto Cambodiaany sculptures,disputehaditsonsetorigintheboundarysettlementsmade
stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and in the period904-1908betweenFrance, then conducting
ancientpotterywhichmight, sincethedateoftheoccupation tion of the Treaty 13February 1904was, in particular,
oftheTemplebyThailandin 1954,have beenremoved from involved.That'lkeaestablishedthegeneralcharacterofthe
theTempleortheTempleareabythe Thai au~thorities. frontiertheexacboundar yfwhich wastobedelimitedbya
Judge Tanakaand Judge Morelli appendedto the Judg- Fmco-Siamese MixedCommission.
Continued on next page In theeastern sectoroftheDmgrekrange,iinwhichPreah Siamese Ministerof the Interior, Prince Damrong,who
Vihearwassituated,thefrontierwastofollowthewatershed thankedtheFrenchMinisterinBangkokforthem,andtothe
line. For the purpose of delimiting that frontier, it was Siamese]provinciaglovernors,someofwhom knewofPreah
agreed, at a meetingheld on 2 December 1906, that the Vihear.IftheSiameseauthoritiesacceptedtheAnnexI map
Mixed Commission should travelalongthe Dangek range withoutinvestigation,they could not now plead any error
carryingoutallthenecessaryreconnaissance,andthatasur- vitiatingthe realityoftheir consent.
veyofficerof the Frenchsectionof theComniission should The SiameseGovernment andlaterthe ThaiGovernment
surveythewholeof the eastennpart of the range. Ithadnot had raisednoqueryabout theAnnexImappriortoitsnegoti-
beencontestedthatthePresidentsoftheFrench andSiamese ationswithCambodiainBangkokin 1958.But in1934-1935
sectionsdulymadethisjourney,inthe courseof which they a surveyhadestablisheda divergencebetweenthe mapline
visited theTempleof Preah Vihear. In January-February andthe hue lineof the watershed,andother rnapshadbeen
1907,the PresidentoftheFrenchsectionhadieportedto his produced showing theTempleasbeinginThailand:Thailand
Governmentthat the frontier-linehadbeendefinitelyestab- hadneverthelesscontinuedalsotouse andindeed to publish
lished. It thereforeseemedleixthata frontierhadbeen sur- maps showing PreahVihearas lying in Cambodia. More-
veyed andfixed, although theirewasno recordof my deci- over,inthe courseof thenegotiationsforthe 1925and 1937
sionandnoreferencetotheDangrekregioninanyminutesof Franco-SiameseTreaties,whichconfirmedtheexistingfron-
the meetingsof the Commissionafter 2 December 1906. tiers,andin 1947in Washingtonbefore the Franco-Siamese
Moreover, atthetimewhen theCommissionmight have met Conciliation Commission,it would have been natural for
forthepurposeofwindingupitswork, attentionwasdirected Thailandto raisethe matter:shedid notdo so. The natural
towards the conclusionof a furtherFranco-Si.amesbound- inferencewas that she had acceptedthe frontierat Preah
arytreaty,theTreatyof23Maxh 1907. Vihearasit wasdrawn onthe map, irrespectiveof its corre-
Thefinalstageof thedelimitationwasthe ]preparatioof spondencewiththewatershedline. Thailandhadstated that
maps. The SiameseGovernmc:nt,whichdid not dispose of havingbeen, at all materialtimes, in possessionof Preah
adequatetechnicalmeans,hadrequestedthatFrenclhofficers Vihear, she had had noneed to raise the matter; shehad
shouldmap the frontier region. Thesmaps wlzrecompleted indeed instancedthe actsofheradministrativeauthorition
intheautumnof 1907bya teamofFrenchofficers,someof the ground as evidencethat she had never accepted the
whom hadbeen membersof the MixedConlmission,and AnnexI lineat PreahVihear.Butthe Courtfounditdifficult
they were communicated tothe SiameseGovernmentin toregard suchlocal acts as negativingtheconsistentattitude
1908.Amongst themwasamapoftheDangrekrange show- of the central authorities.Moreover,when in 1930Prince
ingPreah Vihear onthe Cambodianside. Itwtlsonthatmap Damrong, ona visitto the Temple,was officially received
(filedasAnnexI to itsMemorial)thatCambodiahadprinci- there by the FrenchResidentfor the adjoining Cambodian
pally reliedin supportof her claimto sovereiigntyover the province,Siamfailedtoreact.
Temple.Thailand,ontheotherhand,hadcontendedthat the Fromthesefacts, the court concludedthat Thailandhad
map, not beingtheworkof theMixedCommissio~ih ,adno acceptedthe AnnexI map. Evenif therewere anydoubtin
bindingcharacter;thatthefrontieirndicatedoitwasnotthe this connection, Thailandwas notprecluded fromasserting
true watershedline and thattlnietrue watersh~dline would that shehadnotacceptedit sinceFranceandCambodiahad
place theTemple inThailand; that themaphad neverbeen relieduponher acceptanceand shehadforfiftyyearsenjoyed
acceptedby Thailandor, alternatively, thatif Thailandhad suchbenefitsastheTreaty of1904hasconferredonher. Fur-
accepted itshehaddonesoonlybecauseofamistakenbelief thermore, the acceptanceof the AnnexI map caused it to
that the frontierindicatedrn:spondedwith thewatershed enter the treaty settlement; the Partieshad at that time
line. adopted m interpretationofthat settlementwhichcausedthe
The AnnexI map wasnever formally approvedby the maplinetoprevail overtheprovisionsof theTreatyand, as
Mixed Commission,which hd ceased to function some therewasnoreasontothinkthat thePartieshadattachedany
months beforeits production.Whilethere couldbe norea- special importanceto the lineof the watershedas such,as
sonabledoubtthatitwas baseclon theworkofthe surveying comparedwiththe overridingimportanceof a final regula-
officersin the Dangreksector, the Court neverthelecon- tion oftheir own frontiers, the Court considered that the
cludedthat, in its inception,it had no bindingcharacter.Itinterpretationtobegivennowwouldbethe same.
wasclearfromtherecord,howc:vert,hatthemiipswere com- The Court thereforefeltboundto pronounceinfavourof
municated totheSiameseGovt:rnmentaspqmrting torep thefrontierindicated ontheAnnexImapinthe disputed area
resentthe outcomeof the workof delimitation; sincethere and it became unnecessaryto consider whetherthe line as
wasno reactiononthepartofthe Siameseauthioritiese,ither mappeddidinfactcorrespond to thetruewatershedline.
thenorformanyyears,they mustbeheldtohaireacquiesced.
membersoftheMixedCommission,whosaidnothing,totheiamese For these reasons,the Court upheld the submissionsof
CambodiaconcerningsovereigntyoverPreahVihear.
Summary of the Judgment of 15 June 1962