On 7 May 2011, Mr. Ittiporn Boonpracong,
Director-General of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and
Deputy Agent of the Kingdom of Thailand before the International Court
of Justice (ICJ), and Mr. Thani Thongphakdi, Director-General of the
Department of Information and Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, briefed a
group of foreign and Thai journalists at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
on issues related to Thailand’s appearance before the ICJ during the
oral hearing at The Hague during 30-31 May 2011, on Cambodia’s request
for indication of provisional measures pertaining to its other request
for interpretation of the Court’s 1962 judgment in the case concerning
the Temple of Phra Viharn.
Regarding key points of Thailand’s pleading, Mr. Boonpracong said that as the Court must first establish its jurisdiction on the principal case regarding the interpretation of the 1962 judgment in order to consider indication of provisional measures, Thailand pointed out that there is no dispute between Thailand and Cambodia as to the meaning and scope of the said judgment. Thailand has already complied fully with the judgment. These include the obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory, and the obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects which have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities. Thailand has also recognized that the Temple of Phra Viharn is situated on the territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia since the 1962 judgment was rendered.
As for Cambodia’s request for provisional measures, the Treaties and Legal Affairs Director-General noted that in addition to the Court’s consideration whether it has jurisdiction, two other criteria would also have to be met. These are whether there is a risk of irreparable harm which could be caused if no provisional measure is ordered, and whether there is urgency. In this connection, Thailand pleaded to the Court that none of these criteria have been satisfied. The incidents in the area of the Temple of Phra Viharn took place during 4-7 February 2011 and have since returned to normalcy, with a minor one on 26 April. Other clashes in April 2011 referred to by Cambodia took place in the areas of the Ta Muen and Ta Kwai Temples in Surin Province, which are situated about 150 kilometres from the Temple of Phra Viharn. Furthermore, bilateral negotiations are progressing.
Mr. Boonpracong added that it is expected that the ICJ would render its decision regarding the indication of provisional measures in the next 3-4 weeks. Meanwhile, as one of the judges had requested for further information from Thailand and Cambodia regarding the displacement of local inhabitants as a result of the incidents which took place along the border since 22 April 2011. Thailand would submit its response by 7 June as instructed to by the Court.
Asked whether Thailand would comply with the Court’s decision if the Court were to rule in Cambodia’s favour, Mr. Boonpracong – noting that Thailand would not try to prejudge the Court’s decision – recalled that even in the case of the 1962 judgment, which Thailand disagreed with on a number of legal issues, Thailand had complied fully with the Court’s decision. Thailand has respected obligations incumbent upon it under the provisions of the UN Charter and has faithfully and fully complied with them, including, in particular, the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, as a member of the United Nations, Thailand would honour all obligations under the United Nations Charter, and will always do so.
As to the question why Thailand has called for Cambodia to withdraw its forces from the Temple of Phra Viharn, the Director-General of the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department reaffirmed that Thailand’s raising of this issue does not imply that Thailand does not recognize Cambodia’s ownership of the Temple, but has been made on the basis that Cambodia’s stationing of troops in the Temple is in violation of international legal instruments, notably the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Properties in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1972 Convention on the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In this regard, Mr. Thongphakdi, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, added that Cambodian troops stationed in the Temple had also been engaged in the clashes with the Thai side. Be that as it may, since Cambodia has denied maintaining any troops in the Temple, this should not be an issue. Also, separate from the matter before the ICJ, Cambodia also has to withdraw its troops from the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, the market and the community as this violates the memorandum of understanding between Thailand and Cambodia. This issue, he said, is in fact nothing new as it has earlier been discussed between Thailand and Cambodia in the context of provisional arrangements under the framework of the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC).
Regarding key points of Thailand’s pleading, Mr. Boonpracong said that as the Court must first establish its jurisdiction on the principal case regarding the interpretation of the 1962 judgment in order to consider indication of provisional measures, Thailand pointed out that there is no dispute between Thailand and Cambodia as to the meaning and scope of the said judgment. Thailand has already complied fully with the judgment. These include the obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory, and the obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects which have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities. Thailand has also recognized that the Temple of Phra Viharn is situated on the territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia since the 1962 judgment was rendered.
As for Cambodia’s request for provisional measures, the Treaties and Legal Affairs Director-General noted that in addition to the Court’s consideration whether it has jurisdiction, two other criteria would also have to be met. These are whether there is a risk of irreparable harm which could be caused if no provisional measure is ordered, and whether there is urgency. In this connection, Thailand pleaded to the Court that none of these criteria have been satisfied. The incidents in the area of the Temple of Phra Viharn took place during 4-7 February 2011 and have since returned to normalcy, with a minor one on 26 April. Other clashes in April 2011 referred to by Cambodia took place in the areas of the Ta Muen and Ta Kwai Temples in Surin Province, which are situated about 150 kilometres from the Temple of Phra Viharn. Furthermore, bilateral negotiations are progressing.
Mr. Boonpracong added that it is expected that the ICJ would render its decision regarding the indication of provisional measures in the next 3-4 weeks. Meanwhile, as one of the judges had requested for further information from Thailand and Cambodia regarding the displacement of local inhabitants as a result of the incidents which took place along the border since 22 April 2011. Thailand would submit its response by 7 June as instructed to by the Court.
Asked whether Thailand would comply with the Court’s decision if the Court were to rule in Cambodia’s favour, Mr. Boonpracong – noting that Thailand would not try to prejudge the Court’s decision – recalled that even in the case of the 1962 judgment, which Thailand disagreed with on a number of legal issues, Thailand had complied fully with the Court’s decision. Thailand has respected obligations incumbent upon it under the provisions of the UN Charter and has faithfully and fully complied with them, including, in particular, the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Therefore, as a member of the United Nations, Thailand would honour all obligations under the United Nations Charter, and will always do so.
As to the question why Thailand has called for Cambodia to withdraw its forces from the Temple of Phra Viharn, the Director-General of the Treaties and Legal Affairs Department reaffirmed that Thailand’s raising of this issue does not imply that Thailand does not recognize Cambodia’s ownership of the Temple, but has been made on the basis that Cambodia’s stationing of troops in the Temple is in violation of international legal instruments, notably the 1954 Hague Convention on the Protection of Cultural Properties in the Event of Armed Conflict and the 1972 Convention on the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage. In this regard, Mr. Thongphakdi, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, added that Cambodian troops stationed in the Temple had also been engaged in the clashes with the Thai side. Be that as it may, since Cambodia has denied maintaining any troops in the Temple, this should not be an issue. Also, separate from the matter before the ICJ, Cambodia also has to withdraw its troops from the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara Pagoda, the market and the community as this violates the memorandum of understanding between Thailand and Cambodia. This issue, he said, is in fact nothing new as it has earlier been discussed between Thailand and Cambodia in the context of provisional arrangements under the framework of the Joint Boundary Commission (JBC).
To the question whether Thailand had withdrawn its
troops from the 4.6 square kilometre “disputed area” in its
implementation of the 1962 judgment, Mr. Boonpracong stated that
Thailand had withdrawn its troops in accordance with the limit set by
the Thai Cabinet’s resolution rendered in June 1962, and Thailand only
has its troops in the areas considered its territory and not beyond the
said limit. The Foreign Ministry Spokesperson added that Thailand had
marked the limit of the vicinity of the Temple with a wire fence, and
this limit had until recently been accepted by Cambodia.
In response to the question why the boundary issue cannot be delinked from that concerning the listing of the Temple of Phra Viharn as a World Heritage Site, Mr. Thongphakdi said that there is the issue of the “buffer zone” for the management plan of the site, which once looked into in details, would have legal implications, for example, as to whose law should apply in the area where the boundary is yet to be determined. This is why it has been Thailand’s position that the consideration of the management plan by the World Heritage Committee needs to be postponed until the boundary issue in the area is resolved.
In response to the question why the boundary issue cannot be delinked from that concerning the listing of the Temple of Phra Viharn as a World Heritage Site, Mr. Thongphakdi said that there is the issue of the “buffer zone” for the management plan of the site, which once looked into in details, would have legal implications, for example, as to whose law should apply in the area where the boundary is yet to be determined. This is why it has been Thailand’s position that the consideration of the management plan by the World Heritage Committee needs to be postponed until the boundary issue in the area is resolved.
0 comments
Post a Comment