Thailand leaves UNESCO World Heritage Convention

By Bangkok Pundit Jun 27, 2011

After the UNESCO World Heritage committee merely agreed to consider Cambodia’s management plan of Preah Vihear, Thailand stated they were leaving per The Nation:

Suwit Khunkitti, head of the Thai delegation negotiating with the World Heritage Committee in Paris, announced at 11:55 pm Saturday, that his delegation had informed the World Heritage Committee that Thailand resigned as a member country to the convention.

Suwit, the natural resources and environment minister, said the Thai delegation had to make the move after the committee ignored Thailand’s concern that the consideration of the management plan would complicate Thai-Cambodian border dispute.

“They ignored it and they did not care about our sovereignty and territory,” Suwit said.

“They cared only about the conservation of the temple. Actually, we told them that if Cambodia withdraws its troops from the temple, the conservation can go ahead. The troop withdrawal will allow the conservation to be done. No one will interfere with it. No damages will be done if no one fires from the site.”
…
Following the withdrawal, the World Heritage Committee could no longer force Thailand to compile to its decision, Suwit added.

BP: Although this issue first blew up politically by the Democrats and PAD attacking the Samak government in 2008 – see here and here (one could list all the various nationalist commentary in the Thai media, but that would take hours) and then the legal challenges – see here and here – although most wanted to keep quiet that the government was just following what the Surayud government had agreed too.

Where does one start?

First, despite the claims about sovereignty and territory, Article 11(3) of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention is clear:

The inclusion of a property in the World Heritage List requires the consent of the State concerned. The inclusion of a property situated in a territory, sovereignty or jurisdiction over which is claimed by more than one State shall in no way prejudice the rights of the parties to the dispute

Second, Suwit’s argument is that if Thailand no longer is a member (technically it is called a ‘state party’) of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention and it ceases to be a State Party through withdrawal then Thailand can longer be forced to comply. Really? Article 35 of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention is relevant part:*

Article 35
1. Each State Party to this Convention may denounce the Convention.
2. The denunciation shall be notified by an instrument in writing, deposited with the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
3. The denunciation shall take effect twelve months after the receipt of the instrument of denunciation. It shall not affect the financial obligations of the denouncing State until the date on which the withdrawal takes effect.

BP: Denounce/denunciation is a technical term regarding terminating a treaty. Basically this means that if Suwit or the Thai government (assume it would be Thailand’s Ambassador to UNESCO) send the termination in writing it takes 12 months before this termination takes effect. This type of provision, BP calls the take-my-toys-home-in-a-hissy-fit-prevention provision as it prevents a State Party from leaving when a decision won’t go their way. Basically, if Thailand didn’t want to play ball, it should have left the Convention a long time ago otherwise you have to accept the decisions that go in your favor with those that don’t. Just because Thailand says the Convention no longer applies, doesn’t mean it actually no longer applies. You have to wait 12 months first. Although, Suwit says Thailand has withdrawn, have they actually done so in writing?

In response, UNESCO have a press release:

The head of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) today voiced deep regret after Thailand announced it would denounce the global convention aimed at preserving humankind’s most outstanding shared cultural and natural heritage.

A Thai Government minister said yesterday in Paris, where the UNESCO World Heritage Committee is currently meeting, that his country did not support the convention, the latest step in a row involving the Preah Vihear Temple, a World Heritage List site that was damaged during border clashes earlier this year between Thailand and Cambodia.

UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova said in a press statement issued today that “the World Heritage Convention of 1972 is not only the foremost international instrument for the preservation and protection of the world’s cultural and natural properties which have outstanding universal value, but also widely recognized as an important and indispensable tool to develop and encourage international cooperation and dialogue.”

Ms. Bokova said she hoped that Thailand would “carefully consider its future course of action” regarding the convention and “continue to be an active participant” in the discussion of world heritage issues.

In its press statement UNESCO noted that, contrary to some media reports, the World Heritage Committee did not discuss the management plan for the Preah Vihear Temple or request that reports be submitted on its state of conservation.

Instead the committee reaffirmed the need to ensure the protection and conservation of the temple site from any damage and further encouraged Thailand and Cambodia to use the convention as a tool to support conservation, sustainable development and dialogue.

UNESCO said the committee made the decision unanimously after Thailand staged a walkout, despite “intense negotiations” with both Thailand and Cambodia over the past five days on the sidelines of the committee meeting.

BP: This is bordering (no pun intended) on the ridiculous, what is the benefit of withdrawing? Aside for electoral reasons and to lessen PAD anger towards the government….

h/t a reader