COURT OF JUSTICE
R EQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 15 JUNE 1962 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (CAMBODIA V . THAILAND )
(C AMBODIA V . HAILAND )
R EQUEST BY THE KINGDOM OF C AMBODIA FOR THE INDICATION
OF PROVISIONAL MEASURES
[Translation by the Registry]
1. By an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on 28April2011 submitting a
Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15June1962 in the Case concerning tTemple of
Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), the Kingdom of Cambodia asked
the Court to adjudge and declare that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 must be interpreted as meaning
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” (second paragraph of the operative clause) is a particular
consequence of the general and continuing obligation to respect the integrity of the
territory of Cambodia, that territory having been delimited in the area of the Temple
and its vicinity by the line on the Annex I map, on which the Judgment of the Court is
based.
2. Since 22April2011, serious incidents have occurred in the area of the Temple of Preah
Vihear, the site of the Request for interpretation recently submitted by Cambodia, as well as at
several locations along that boundary between the two States, causing fatalities, injuries and the
evacuation of local inhabitants.
3. Cambodia thus notes that its willingnessreach a peaceful settlement of the dispute in
the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear now submitted to the Court has accentuated Thailand’s
desire to respond with armed attacks on the territory of Cambodia. These incidents are linked, and
while Cambodia only asks the Court to interpret its Judgment of 15June1962, it wishes that the
distinguished Court may, through the measures indicated, cause these incursions onto its territory
to cease, so that the interpretati on requested in its principal claim may be settled calmly in an
atmosphere of peace and security for both States.
4. Serious 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 Article 41 of the Statute and Article 73 of the
Rules of Court.
5. Cambodia considers that the Court is comp etent to indicate such measures on the basis of
its jurisdiction in the principal proceedings, na mely the Request for interpretation submitted by
Cambodia in respect of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah
Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). In its Order of 16July2008 ( Request for Interpretation of the - 2 -
Judgment of 31March2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals
(Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America) , Order for the
indication of provisional measures), the Court stated in this regard:
“44. Whereas the Court’s jurisdiction on th e basis of Article 60 of the Statute is
not preconditioned by the existence of any other basis of jurisdiction as between the
parties to the original case; and whereas it follows that, even if the basis of jurisdiction
in the original case lapses, the Court, neve rtheless, by virtue of Article60 of the
Statute, may entertain a request for interpretation;
45. Whereas in the case of a request for the indication of provisional measures
made in the context of a request for interpre tation under Article 60 of the Statute, the
Court has to consider whether the conditions laid down by that Article for the Court to
entertain a request for interpretation app ear to be satisfied; whereas Article60
provides that: ‘The judgment is final and without appeal. 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’; and whereas this provision is s upplemented by Article98 of the Rules of
Court, paragraph 1 of which reads: ‘In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope
of a judgment any party may make a request for its interpretation . . .’”
In that case, the Court concluded that provisional measures were justified and necessary in the
context of an application for interpretation.
6. In accordance with the provisions of Article73, paragraph2, of the Rules of Court,
Cambodia would make it clear that, in the unfortunate event that its request were to be rejected, and
if Thailand persisted in its c onduct, 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.
7. Measures 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.
8. In consequence, and without prejudice to the Court’s interpretation on t he merits of the
dispute, Cambodia respectfully requests the Court to indicate the following provisional measures,
pending the delivery of its judgment:
⎯ an immediate and uncondit ional 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. - 3 -
9. Because of the gravity of the situati on, and for the reasons expressed above, Cambodia
respectfully requests the Court to indicate these meas ures as a matter of urgency, and to fix a date
as soon as possible for the subsequent proceedings.
28 April 2011
(Signed) H OR Namhong,
Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs and
International Co-operation,
Agent of the Kingdom of Cambodia.
___________
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures