Temple of Preah Vihear, ICJ 1962
the Temple itself.
 Kingdom of Cambodia is submitting to the Court a request for
interpretation of its Judgement of June 15, 1962 Pursuant to Art. 60
of statute of ICJ
Art. 60 The judgement is final & w/out appeal. In the event of dispute
as to the meaning/scope of the judgement, the court shall continue it
upon request of any party.
Historical Background: (BRIEF ONLY)
 The case was brought before the court in 1959 by the K. of
Cambodia who were provoked by the occupation of Thailand military
forces since 1954 in a Cambodian Territory in the area of Temple.
 K. Cambodia asked the court to judge in favor of them.
- that K. Thailand is under obligation to withdraw the detachments
of armed forces it has stationed since 1954 in the ruins of the
Temple.
- That the territorial sovereignity over the temple belongs to K.
Cambodia
 K. Thailand asked to adjudge in favor of them declaring that the
temple is in their territory.
 Court Ruled:
- that the temple is situated in territory under sovereignity of
Cambodia
- finds in consequence, that Thailand is under an obligation to
withdraw any military or police forces, or other guard
keepers, stationed at the temple, or vicinity of Cambodian
Territory.
 There were numerous events which justified Cambodia’s present
application such as:
- Oct 15, 1908 serious threats passed against Cambodia,
when Thailand troops caused the frontier & caused death of
2 Cambodian soldiers & 2 others injured.
- April 2009, in the immediate vicinity of the Temple, with the
use of heavy weapons which destroyed the office of Preah
Vihear authorities
- Also found a build-up of military forces near Temple.
- Feb. 4-7, 2011, Thailand provoked further incidents, using
heavy artillery & fragmentation shells which caused many
casualties with Cambodian forces & civilians, as well as to
 The basis of Thailand’s protest did not involve territorial claim,
(before 2007), but simply the assertion that steps taken by the
Cambodia & UNESCO were a violation of bilateral agreement
contained in the Memo of Understanding of June 14, 2000. But when
the temple was declared a world heritage site, then the territorial
claim of Thailand emerged.
 Thailand’s understanding:
- Case was limited solely to the region of temple
- Boundary line in the area adjacent to the temple is still to be
determined
- That this permits Thailand to occupy military troops that
area regardless of Judgement.
 Cambodia is only seeking for explanation of real significance of the
meaning & scope of its judgement.
 Faced with repeated attacks, Cambodia takes the view that only
authentic & blinding interpretation by court of its own judgement can
provide lasting peace & security in this region.
ICJ INTERPRETATION in Court’s Ruling:
That Judgement of June 15, 1962 was manifestly worded with intention
of producing consequences & implications to the K.of Thailand. The court did
not established different boundary from the one which already existed in the
map & did not draw it on the basis that the Temple belonged to the
Cambodia BUT attributed to the sovereignity to Cambodia over territory in
which Temple is situated, because Cambodia already hold sovereignity over
that territory.
 International law does not recognize nomadic frontiers. The territorial
integrity of states & legal security demand that boundaries be
precisely determined. To be sovereign means holding sovereignity
over a specific territory which cannot be defined in a unilateral way.
 In the 2nd paragraph of 1962 Judgement, to withdraw Thailand troops
from the vicinity of Temple illustrates a general & continuing
obligation borne by Thailand to respect Cambodia’s sovereignity &
territorial integrity up to the frontier.