Comments of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the reply provided by the Kingdom of Thailand to the question put to the Parties by Judge Cançado Trindade (translation)

Letter to the Registrar dated 13 June 2011 from

the Agent of Cambodia

[Translation]

Please find below some comments on the reply provided by Thailand to the question put by
Judge Cançado Trindade.

Firstly, Cambodia notes that Thailand gives very little information on the area of the Temple

of Preah Vihear, which is the sole subject of th e dispute brought before the Court, and indicates
that there was no population displacement. This is in keeping with the fact that the area of the
Temple under Cambodian sovereignty does not cont ain any Thai settlements or populations. And
this also shows that, until the recent incursions, the situation did indeed comply with the Court’s

1962 Judgment regarding Cambodia’s sovereignty a nd control over the area of the Temple of
Preah Vihear.

Furthermore, Thailand’s reply confirms the existence of incidents in the area of the Temple

of Preah Vihear and at other sites, at the time the Application and the request for the indication of
provisional measures were filed. This highlight s the need for the provisional measures the Court
may pronounce in order to preserve the rights of the Parties and prevent irreparable prejudice.
While calm was restored (and populations retu rned) as early as 2 May, therefore after the

Application was filed by Cambodia on 28April 2011, it should be recalled, as Cambodia did
during the oral pleadings, that the calm is fragile and that there is nothing to indicate that fighting
will not break out again (as it did in July20 08, October 2008, April 2009, February2011 and
April 2011), as the two armies stand face to face night and day.

In its reply, Thailand acknowledges that popul ations were displaced mainly in the area
150 km west of the Temple. The aim of such an account, which focuses on an area far away from
the Temple of Preah Vihear, is to reinforce the idea that the incidents did not take place in the area

of the Temple of Preah Vihear, that this same area is not the “origin” of the conflict, and that there
is no need for measures in respect of this area far away from the Temple of Preah Vihear, since the
incidents involve places which are not covered by the 1962 Judgment on the basis of which the
Court has jurisdiction. On all these points, Ca mbodia already had occasion to make it clear in the

oral pleadings that only the incidents in the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear should be taken into
account and that the incidents in the area 150 km away from the Temple of Preah Vihear should not
enter into consideration for the measures the Cour t might pronounce, although they illustrate the
spread of tensions between the two States whose epicentre and origin is indeed the area of the

Temple of Preah Vihear.

As regards its wanting to move, in the eyes of the Court, the dispute in this area to 150 km
west of the Temple of Preah Vihear, Cambodia can only protest strongly against the manner in

which Thailand claims sovereignty over the Temples of Ta Mone and Ta Krabey by placing them
in Surin Province under its sovereignty. This is erroneous and stems, once again, from Thailand’s
unilateral interpretation regarding the frontier in this area, which Cambodia could easily contest
with ample supporting evidence. Nevertheless, the area of the Temple of Preah Vihear is the

starting point and symbol of this unilateral inte rpretation and it is this matter which forms the
subject of Cambodia’s Application.

___________