Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v.

Thailand, 1962, ICJ)

Brief Facts: Preah temple was an ancient and significant temple due
to its cultural and historical value. It was situated on the border of
Thailand and Cambodia. Though Thailand was the historical owner of
that area in 1904 when Cambodia was a colony of French they came
to an agreement with Thailand; they agreed to divide the border
according to the watershed.
After that, A French – Siamiz (now known as Thailand) commission
they drew a detailed map of the border where thought by mistake but
very clearly marked the Preah Vihear in the territory of Cambodia,
Thai Government never object after officially receiving that map.
Later, after several years when Thai Prince went to visit that Temple,
he saw the French Flag over the temple but did not raise any
objection.
The main objection came by Thailand when UNESCO declared The
Preah Vihear as a world heritage and thus take million dollar project
to save it, they demanded it as their land and put some military
personnel, on the other hand, Cambodia rejected that claim. On
gradual dispute, it went to International Court of Justice.
Issue: Whether Cambodia had sovereignty over the territory of Preah
Vihear?
Decision: Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the
promontory of Preah Vihear and that, in consequence, Thailand was
under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military
or police forces.
Reasoning: The commission that marked the map finally was a joint
commission from both party and both of the party adopted the same
without any objection, therefore, Cambodia had sovereignty over that
area according to their treaty.
Historical background of temple 
The temple of Preah Vihear, a superb example of Khmer architecture dating
from the 11th Century, is composed of a series of sanctuaries, dedicated to the
Hindu god Shiva, linked by a system of pavements and staircases over an 800-
meter axis. Though not as extensive as the better-known temple at Angkor, the
temple at Preah Vihear shares some common hallmarks of Khmer architecture,
including serving as a stylized representation of Mount Meru, the home of the
gods, and a depiction of the Churning of the Sea of Milk.  

According to its designation by UNESCO as a World Heritage site, the temple

is “exceptional for the quality of its architecture, which is adapted to the natural
environment and the religious function of the temple, as well as the exceptional
quality of its carved stone ornamentation.”  

The temple is situated atop a 1,700-foot cliff in the Dangrek Mountains on the
border between Cambodia and Thailand, providing a panoramic view of the
plains below. The temple was not always thought to lie on an interstate border
and the story of how it came to receive that designation forms the basis for
conflict that has continued until this day. Due to Article 1 of the 1904 treaty the
temple came into controversy.

The dispute originated from agreements made of 1904–1908. In 1904, Indo

China (present-day Cambodia), an Asian country (present-day Thailand) signed
an agreement that established that a boundary was to be delimited by a Mixed
Commission. The treaty established that the boundary ought to be in accordance
with the truth watershed line. 

In December 1906, a gathering was controlled within which it was united that
the Commissioners would survey the realm within the Dangrek Region. In
January Gregorian calendar month 1907, the President of the French
Commissioners rumored that the realm had been surveyed. No formal results
were free from the Commission as before long once the boundary their attention
would be entertained to a different boundary treaty that was signed in March
1907.

After the survey had been completed, Siamese officers asked the French
officials to draw up the Maps as they didn’t have the technical capability to try
to thus.  The map was completed in the season of 1907 by French Officers, a
number of UN agencies had been a district of the Mixed Commission. The Map
was sent to the Siamese officers in 1908. The Map showed Temple Preah
Vihear as being in Cambodian territory. This raised no compliance from
Siamese officers.

In 1934-35, a survey by Thailand established that the true line of the watershed
diverged from the road within the Map. Thailand never mentioned this in
negotiations over the years that followed. In negotiations that passed in 1925,
1937, and 1947 they did not raise the problem. Also, in 1930, a Cambodian
official greeted a Thai official once he visited the Temple. This never raised any
grievance from Thailand. In fact, Thailand didn’t mention its grievance till
1958. Everything went straight. 

Thailand’s claims
● The Map wasn’t binding because it wasn’t made by the Mixed
Commission.
● The Map didn’t follow the true watershed line, so it was void.
● Thailand never accepted the Map.
● If it did accept the Map, it was only because it thought the Map
followed the true watershed line.

Court’s reasoning on the claims made

The Map wasn’t binding as it was not created by the
Mixed Commission
Thailand claimed that as a result of the Mixed Commission had stopped
functioning many months before the Map was created, it was non-binding.
Nonetheless, the Map was bestowed to the Siamese government as being the
results of the borderline in deep trouble the 1904 pact. The Court found that the
Siamese government didn’t complain or raise any objection concerning this at
the time of receipt and for several years later. The border from that Map was
additionally employed in alternative maps revealed by each party within the
years that followed. As such, the Court found that although the Map was at the
start non-binding, it gained the character of a binding pact by Thailand and
Cambodias’ conduct. This actually showed the implied consent from both.
The Map didn’t follow the true watershed line, thus it
was void
After the Map had been completed, it was shown to the Siamese members of the
Commission, none of the United Nations agencies complained concerning it. An
equivalent factor happened with native Siamese authorities: United Nations
agencies were acquainted with the world. The Court’s view was that if they
didn’t object or complain once the Map was discharged, they cannot complain
fifty years later which is very late.

Also, the divergence between variety or true watershed line and also the border
illustrated within the Map had been established as early as 1934-1935.
Nonetheless, Thailand had to continue to publish maps showing Temple Preah
as being in Cambodian territory. Also, Thailand did not raise the matter in
negotiations in 1937 and 1947, solely raising the matter in 1958.

Thailand never accepted the Map

Thailand claimed that as a result of it never accepting the Map, it was never
required to lift the matter throughout the previously mentioned negotiations. It
claimed that its body acts established this. The Court checked out the very fact
that in 1930 a politician from Thailand was greeted by a Cambodian official
once visiting the world. The Court recalled that Thailand had never complained
concerning this.

Also, the Court discerned that although Thailand had, indeed, shown some
administrative body acts, it wasn’t enough to override the consistent
administrative position that indicated that they accepted the Map as binding.

If it did settle for the Map, it was solely as a result of it

thought the Map followed the true watershed line
The Court pointed that Thailand had accepted the Map, and enjoyed the
advantages of getting a stable border, for fifty years before questioning the
validity of the Map. Moreover, it discerned that the target once creating a
boundary pact is sometimes to create a stable frontier – primarily, following the
watershed was solely a method to realize that goal. Therefore, the Court thought
it didn’t matter whether or not or not the Map followed the watershed, as a
result of the aim of the pact was to determine a boundary. The court also held
that Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw any military or police force
which is stationed there and to restore to Cambodia any objects removed from
the ruins since 1954.

Analysis
This can be seen as the most comprehensive examination of the doctrine of
estoppel which is made by the International Court of Justice in the Temple of
Preah Vihear Case. Both Thailand and Cambodia claimed sovereignty over the
territory which was a site of great historical and religious significance to both
parties. But eventually, their series of conduct showed the shadow of the final
decision given the court when the matter came before them. The court accepted
the Cambodian version of estoppel. 

Throughout the judgment, the elements of estoppel were seen. The court did not
accept Thailand’s idea that it could declare the boundary line as null and void
after fifty years. In the present case, the International Court of Justice was
reluctant to the high degrees to declare the established boundary as void. The
court found out that through the conduct made by Thailand it has accepted that
map which ultimately on its own concluded that the Temple was situated on
Cambodian territory.

https://lawhelpbd.com/international-law/temple-of-preah-vihear/