Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:28:39.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (I.C.J.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

David P. Riesenberg
David P. Riesenberg*
Affiliation:
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 2013, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in a dispute between Cambodia and Thailand (the 2013 Judgment)1 over the interpretation of the ICJ’s previous decision in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (the 1962 Judgment).2 The parties’ dispute arises from longstanding uncertainty over the location of the territorial boundary between Cambodia and Thailand in the region of the Dangrek Mountains. Neither the original judgment nor its interpretation fully resolves this uncertainty, although together they confirm Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear and the high promontory on which it stands.

Type
International Legal Materials
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2015 , pp. 53 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Court of Justice (visited February 24, 2015), http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/17704.pdf.

1 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), Judgment, 2013 I.C.J. 281 (Nov. 11) [hereinafter 2013 Judgment], available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/17704.pdf.

2 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), 1962 I.C.J. 6 (15 June) [hereinafter 1962 Judgment], available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/45/4871.pdf.

3 Statute of the International Court of Justice, art. 60, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055, T. S. No. 993. The use of the term, “interpretation,” for this remedy is found in Article 98 of the ICJ’s Rules of Court. See Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice, Apr. 14, 1978, reprinted in 73 Am. J. Int’l L. 748, 779 (1979)Google Scholar.

4 See, e.g., Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, art. 50(1), Mar. 18, 1965, 575 U.N.T.S. 159, 4 I.L.M. 532 (1965) (“[E]ither party may request interpretation of the award by an application in writing addressed to the Secretary-General.”);UNConvention on the Law of the Sea, Annex VII, art. 12(1), Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 397, 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982) (“Any controversy which may arise . . . as regards the interpretation or manner of implementation of the award may be submitted . . . to the arbitral tribunal which made the award.”); Rules of Court of the European Court of Human Rights, rule 79(1), amended July 1, 2014, (“A party may request the interpretation of a judgment within a period of one year following the delivery of that judgment.”), available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Rules_Court_ENG.pdf.

5 See, e.g., Wena Hotels Ltd. v. Arab Republic of Egypt, ICSID Case No. ARB/98/4, Decision on Application for Interpretation, ¶¶ 79, 103– 04 (Oct. 31, 2005), available at http://www.italaw.com/cases/documents/1165; Velásquez, Rodríguez v. Honduras, , Interpretation of the Judgment on Compensatory Damages, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) No. 9, ¶¶ 13, 26 (Aug. 17, 1990)Google Scholar.

6 See Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), Judgment, 2009 I.C.J. 3 (Jan. 19); Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.), Judgment, 1999 I.C.J. 31 (Mar. 25); Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colom.v. Peru), Judgment, 1950 I.C.J. 395 (Nov. 27).

7 See Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunis./Libya), Judgment, 1985 I.C.J. 192 (Dec. 10).

8 See 2013 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶¶ 45, 52, 56.

9 See Chester, Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication 173–75 (2007)Google Scholar.

10 International Council on Monuments and Sites, Évaluations des Biens Culturels, No. 1224: Preah Vihear (Cambodge) 1, WHC-08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add.2 (July 2–10, 2008) (“[C]e sanctuaire dédié à Shiva comprend des bâtiments qui furent construits durant la première moitié du XIe siècle et constitue le sanctuaire le plus important de ceux qui ont été bâtis sous le règne du roi Sûryavarman I (1002–1050), qui prit le pouvoir à Angkor vers 1006.”); Ronald, Bruce St. John, International Boundaries Research Unit, The Land Boundaries of Indochina: Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, 2(6) Boundary & Territory Briefing 40 (1998)Google Scholar.

11 1962 Judgment, supra note 2, at 15.

12 Id. at 16–21.

13 Id. at 23, 27, 30.

14 Id. at 31.

15 Id. at 8–9, 23 (“[I]t is clear that the circumstances were such as called for some reaction, within a reasonable period, on the part of the Siamese authorities, if they wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to raise in regard to it. They did not do so, either then or for many years, and thereby must be held to have acquiesced. Qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset.”).

16 Id. at 23–26.

17 Id. at 31.

18 Id. at 36–37.

19 Id. at 11.

20 Id. at 14.

21 See id. at 14, 36.

22 See Argument of Professor Henri, Rolin, Counsel for the Government of Thailand, Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), 1962 I.C.J. Pleadings, vol. 2, at 568–69 (Mar. 28)Google Scholar.

23 See Argument of Dean, Acheson Hon., Counsel for the Government of Cambodia, Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), 1962 I.C.J. Pleadings, vol. 2, at 457–58 (Mar. 21)Google Scholar.

24 2013 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 22.

25 Id. ¶¶ 24–25.

26 See id. ¶¶ 22, 26.

27 Id. ¶ 28.

28 Id. ¶ 29.

29 See id. ¶¶ 45, 52, 56.

30 Id. ¶ 52.

31 Id. ¶¶ 69, 75.

32 Id. ¶ 68.

33 Id. ¶¶ 56, 66.

34 Id. ¶¶ 76–77.

35 Id. ¶¶ 88–92.

36 Id. ¶ 95.

37 Id. ¶ 88.

38 Id. ¶¶ 81–98.

39 See id. ¶ 108.

40 Id. ¶ 99.

41 Brown, supra note 9, at 177.

42 See 2013 Judgment, supra note 1, ¶ 24.

43 Id. ¶¶ 99, 106.

1 In the original proceedings, and in the 1962 Judgment, the spelling used was “Pnom”. However, the spelling “Phnom” is the one generally used today. It has therefore been employed in the present Judgment.

2 Ackermann, indicated these locations on a map shown to the Court. A copy of the map, entitled “Annex 85 (d) ”, is enclosed at the end of Volume II of I.C.J. Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) Google Scholar.