ICJ to wade into bloody border conflict?

Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are deliberating whether to wade into a bloody border conflict, after Cambodia asked that it order Thailand to withdraw troops from positions near an 11th century Hindu temple.

By Jared Ferrie
Published on : 8 June 2011 | By International Justice Desk (RNW)

Public hearings were conducted May 30 and 31 in response to a request from Cambodia that the Court interpret a 1962 judgment that placed the Preah Vihear temple inside Cambodian territory. Although the judgment also supported a map demarcating the border, Thailand argues that the ICJ did not have jurisdiction to rule on the border.

A disputed 4.6 square kilometer section of land at the foot of the temple has become a flashpoint for military clashes, including those that claimed at least 10 lives in February.

Cambodia hopes an ICJ clarification will effectively demarcate the border. Thailand wants the Court to dismiss Cambodia’s application, arguing that it has complied with the 1962 ruling, which required it to withdraw its forces from the temple and Cambodian territory in the vicinity.

"The point is that it's unreasonable that the ICJ should grant an injunction as requested by Cambodia when Thailand had abided by the court's ruling issued in 1962,” Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told the Bangkok Post the day before hearings began.

Thai officials have made that argument repeatedly, in public statements and in a February 5 letter to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The letter of 1966
But in its own letters to the UNSC, including one dating back to 1966, Cambodia has claimed that Thailand repeatedly violated the ruling, not only stationing troops nearby, but on one occasion invading the temple complex itself.

The April 23 1966 letter, which was provided to the International Justice Tribune by the Documentation Centre of Cambodia, describes an alleged sequence of clashes in and around the temple.

“On 3 April 1966 at about 7:30 p.m., a unit of Thai Armed Forces about 100 strong attacked and burned the Cambodian post held by nine guards appointed to watch over the temple of Preah Vihear,” wrote Norodom Kantol, who was Cambodia’s foreign minister.

“The aggressors captured five of these guards and occupied the temple.”

The letter goes on to claim that Cambodian troops took back the temple from the Thais who allegedly executed the five prisoners as they were withdrawing.

It also claims that the Thai military used the confrontation to expand into Cambodian territory. Quoting a statement made by Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Cambodia’s head of state at the time, the letter claims:

“They have drawn a new frontier line, to our disadvantage, in the neighbourhood of Preah Vihear itself. In particular, they have laid barbed wire and set up military or police posts which in certain places encroach to a considerable depth on our territory, thus scorning the judgment of the International Court of Justice.”

Thailand has maintained that it accepted the section of the 1962 judgment that placed Preah Vihear within Cambodia. But both the section referring to the borderline, and Thailand’s interpretation of it, is less clear.

The ICJ's summary of 1962
In its summary of the 1962 judgment, the Court explained that various maps had been produced that demarcated the border according to the different designations of the watershed line at the foot of the hill upon which Preah Vihear stands. However, the Court found evidence that Thailand accepted a map it referred to as Annex I.

“The Court therefore felt bound to pronounce in favour of the frontier indicated on the Annex I map in the disputed area and it became unnecessary to consider whether the line as mapped did in fact correspond to the true watershed line,” said the summary.

Thus, the Court appears to have ruled already on the border demarcation issue. But the 1962 judgment also admits that the Thai government never officially endorsed the Annex I map. And over decades the issue has only become more opaque.

Cambodia says it wants a speedy decision by the ICJ in hopes that it will help resolve the border crisis. Authorities have warned of the potential for further clashes, as both countries continue to maintain a heavy military presence in the area.

The ICJ has not determined when it will decide whether or not to examine and interpret the 1962 judgment, saying only that the date “will be determined in due course.”