No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The International Court of Justice: Order on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- International Legal Documents
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011
References
End notes
* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the International Court of Justice website (visited Dec. 1, 2011) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/16564.pdf.
1 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), Judgment, 1962 I.C.J. 6 (June 15), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/45/4873.pdf [hereinafter 1962 Judgment].
2 Article 60 of the Statute of the Court states that ‘‘[t]he 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.’’ Statute of the International Court of Justice, June 26, 1945, 3 Bevans 1179 (entered into force Oct. 24, 1945) [hereinafter ICJ Statute].
3 Article 98 of the Rules of the Court provides that
-
In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of a judgment any party may make a request for its interpretation, whether the original proceedings were begun by an application or by the notification of a special agreement;
-
A request for the interpretation of a judgment may be made either by an application or by the notification of a special agreement to that effect between the parties; the precise point or points in dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment shall be indicated;
-
If the request for interpretation is made by an application, the requesting party’s contentions shall be set out therein, and the other party shall be entitled to file written observations thereon within a time-limit fixed by the Court, or by the President if the Court is not sitting;
-
Whether the request is made by an application or by notification of a special agreement, the Court may, if necessary, afford the parties the opportunity of furnishing further written or oral explanations.
ICJ Rules of the Court, Apr. 14, 1978 (entered into force July 1, 1978).
4 Article 41 of the Statute provides that ‘‘[t]he Court shall have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party.’’ Article 73 of the Rules of the Court provides that
-
A written request for the indication of provisional measures may be made by a party at any time during the course of the proceedings in the case in connection with which the request is made.
-
The request shall specify the reasons therefore, the possible consequences if it is not granted, and the measures requested. A certified copy shall forthwith be transmitted by the Registrar to the other party.
5 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thai.), Request for Indication of Provisional Measures, Order, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/151/16584.pdf [hereinafter Order].
6 Since the creation of the Court, only four requests for interpretation have been filed, and this also included a request for preliminary measures. See Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), Order (July 16, 2008), 47 I.L.M. 726 (2008); see also Chiara Giorgetti, the International Court of Justice, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment on the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (July 16, 2008), 47 I.L.M. 723 (2008).
7 Only four request for interpretation have been filed since the establishment of the Court and only one has been declared admissible, namely the 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) (finding that that matters raised by Mexico could not give rise to an interpretation of the Judgment); 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. 1 (Mar. 25) (declaring the request inadmissible); 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) (finding the request admissible granting an Interpretation of the Judgment); 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) (unanimously finding the request inadmissible).
8 1962 Judgment, supra note 1, at 34.
9 Id. at 35.
10 Order, supra note 5, ¶ 3.
11 Id. ¶ 8.
12 Id. ¶ 6.
13 Id. ¶¶ 16, 18.
14 Id. ¶ 22.
15 Id. ¶ 21.
16 Id. ¶ 23.
17 Id. ¶ 31; see also id. ¶¶ 25-28.
18 Id. ¶ 33.
19 Id. ¶ 34.
20 Id. ¶ 35.
21 Id. ¶ 36.
22 Id. ¶ 39.
23 Id. ¶¶ 37-38.
24 Id. ¶¶ 42-45.
25 Id. ¶ 53.
26 Id. ¶ 56.
27 Id. ¶ 58.
28 Id. ¶ 61.
29 Id. ¶ 69.