Rangsit University Communiqué

Dispute over the Temple of Phra Viharn

Pursuant to Rangsit University Communiqués dated 29 th July and 3rd August

2553 on Thailand’s opposition to the unilateral listing of the Temple of Phra Viharn
as a World Cultural Heritage by Kampuchea, confirming Thailand’s objection to the
listing of the Temple which remains the subject of an ongoing dispute between
Thailand and Kampuchea. Regardless of the decision of the International Court of
Justice declaring that the ground upon which the Temple is situated is under the
sovereignty of Kampuchea, Thailand sent a letter of protest to the Secretary General
of the United Nations, contesting Thailand’s sovereignty over the Temple, while
permitting Kampuchean nationals to cross the borderline which is the watershed line
in the Dangrek Range to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn through the broken stairs.
Such being the case as there is no other way to gain access to the Temple except
passing through Thai territory. Should Kampuchea decide to visit the Temple by air,
it would have to gain access through Thailand’s territorial airspace. In the year B.E.
2505, Kampuchea once entered Thailand’s airspace without permission, and after due
warning the intruding Kampuchean helicopter was shot down without any word of
protest from Kampuchea. Indeed, for years after the incident, no Kampuchean
official ever dared come to recuperate the remnants of the ill-fated helicopter.

As the World Cultural Heritage Committee of UNESCO has decided to

postpone consideration of the item on the listing of the Temple of Phra Viharn as the
World Cultural Heritage for another year to be considered in its annual session in B.E.
2554, this unresolved conflict will continue to occupy the attention of the Thai
Government during the coming session of the Committee in the year B.E. 2554.
Thailand will continue to face the problem of continuing to provide necessary
clarifications.

To avoid or at least to abate the risk of further loss of Thai territory which is
cherished by all peace-loving Thais whose primary duty it is to protect and defend the
national interests of the realm, Rangsit University has conducted intensive researches
and studies to examine every issue involved in the problem in each and every minute
detail, and has approved the position taken and suggestions made by the Faculty of
Law of Rangsit University, both in principle and in the additional practical
recommendations, as follows :

1. His Thai Majesty’s Government is fully entitled as it is under an

international law obligation to defend itself under the Charter of the United
Nations under Treaties and under International Law.

2. As a peace-loving nation, Thailand has displayed utmost patience and self-

restraint to maintain peace and friendship with all its neighbors at all times.
Nonetheless, should any country uses force or armed force by perpetrating
an intrusion into Thai territory, Thailand would first politely use diplomatic
means to negotiate its withdrawal. However, should negotiations failed,
 the intruders would deserve to be met with proportionate measures of
forcible repulse for purposes of self-defence in proportional manner to
produce timely expulsion of the intruders, in order to protect and preserve
the territorial integrity of the Thai Kingdom and to maintain the peace and
happiness of the people of the realm.

3. In the case3 of the Temple of Phra Viharn, His Thai Majesty’s Government
still; adheres to the bilateral treaty commitments between Thailand and
France under the Convention of 1904 and the Treaty and Protocol of 1907,
which reaffirmed the watershed line of the Dangrek Range to be the
boundary line in the area under consideration in accordance with principles
of International Law and justice.

4. The Watershed line in the region of the Dangrek Range was defined As the
boundary line between France and Thailand in the Convention of 1904 over
one hundred years ago, Kampuchea being merely France’s successor in
title, and as such could not be heard to complain unilaterally or to have any
say by way of objection or protest or revision in any way whatsoever
tending to alter the definition of the boundary line, as fixed bilaterally
between France and Thailand.

5. Furthermore, the decision of the International Court of Justice in the

Temple of Phra Viharn Case was confined to the ground on which the
Temple is situated, which from any perspective still lies within the
territory of the Kingdom of Thailand, as the ground in question is
indubitably on the Thai side of the watershed line, which constitutes the
frontier line.

6. For the foregoing reasons, Kampuchea could not have availed itself of the
use of the decision of the International Court of Justice as it would have
liked because of its limited utility, and the Court had no jurisdiction ultra
petita. Kampuchea fully realized this limitation, and after decades of
attempts to expand the effect of the decision, Kampuchea decided to take
the risk of sending its nationals by infiltrating over the boundary line in the
vicinity of the Temple over the hill top on the Thai side of the watershed
line, which is the boundary line.

7. Thailand and the Thai people are entitled to take whatever action necessary
to ensure respect of Thai law by illegal aliens, the Thai Government having
the fullest sovereign authority to administer the territory. It is imperative in
the circumstances that the Thai Government should display its sovereign
authority under international law, for instance, by enforcing its
immigration regulations, allowing or disallowing aliens to enter the
Kingdom, registration of any buildings, temple, school or superstructure,
making a list of aliens and immigrants, as well as collecting taxes, dues and
all kinds of customs duties.

8. Should the Thai Government continue to permit free entry and sojourn of
aliens in the Kingdom without expelling undesirable aliens under Thai law
or failing to implement Thai immigration legislation, the Thai Government
 should adopt whatever measures it deems appropriate to punish the illegal
aliens or immigrants or else to expel them from the Kingdom as soon as
possible.

9. In accordance with Thailand’s adherence to the watershed line as the

boundary line under bilateral treaties and under international law as well as
principles of justice, Thailand should not acknowledge or accept the line
unilaterally drawn by the French Members of the Franco-Siamese Mixed
Commission on the map 1/200,000 or Annex I map, despite the fact that the
Court had already examined and noted several errors on the line
unilaterally drawn by the French Members of the Mixed Commission,
deviating at several points from the actual watershed line as defined by the
Treaties, and against the findings and decisions of the Mixed Franco-
Siamese Delimitation Commission.

10. Therefore, it is urgent that the Thai Government should reiterate its
position to the effect that in the Temple area, the boundary line is the
watershed line, and not the line shown on the Annex I map, which was
drawn unilaterally by the French Members of the Mixed Commission,
without any approval by the Thai Members and inconsistent with the
Convention of 1904 and the Treaty and Protocol of 1907.

11. For better and more thorough understanding, it is necessary for the Thai
Government to re-emphasize and publicize the errors contained in the
Annex I map 1/2000,000 scale, to avoid any further misunderstanding,
which may entail the risk of misconception., mistaking hundreds of square
kilometers of Thai territory for foreign land, thereby alienating Thailand’s
own motherland. Failure to protest or to open up or to acquiesce or solely
to rely on pacific means and letting Kampuchean intruders into our
fatherland without the display of Thailand’s sovereign authority over Thai
territory may be tantamount to tacit consent to cede portions of Thai soil to
Kampuchean poachers.

12. For the preceding reasons and to reduce the risk of ceding Thailand’s
territorial sovereign rights to Kampuchea, it has become imperative that the
Thai Government should stand up and reconfirm its resolute and crystal
clear position for the rest of the outside world above and beyond the people
of Thailand and the alien intruders. Finally, it is urgently necessary that
the Government of Thailand should revoke MOU 2543 after dozens of
repeated violations by Kampuchea, followed by appropriate warnings and
timely notifications by Thailand which thus far have yielded no concrete
result.

RANGSIT UNIVERSITY

19 August 2010