International Court of Justice

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 203-204 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Sacred Place ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
International Court ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): On October 6, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against the Kingdom of Thailand was filed in the Registry of the Court by the Kingdom of Cambodia. In its application the Kingdom of Cambodia alleged that since 1949 the Kingdom of Thailand had persisted in the occupation of a portion of Cambodian territory—the area surrounding the Temple of Preah Vihear, a sacred place of pilgrimage and worship for the Cambodian people—and that in 1954 it had sent detachments of its armed forces into the territory in question. The Kingdom of Cambodia alleged also that its tide to sovereignty over the land had been established by treaties, that it had effectively exercised territorial powers, and that the Kingdom of Thailand had not performed any acts of sovereignty which would displace them. The Court was thus requested to adjudge whether or not the Kingdom of Thailand was under an obligation to withdraw its troops, and whether or not territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah belonged to the Kingdom of Cambodia.

The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon CHESTERMAN
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Preference ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

This essay examines the 2013 Decision by the International Court of Justice interpreting its 1962 Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case between Cambodia and Thailand, situating the more recent decision in the context of the Court's evolving role in Asia. Only eight Asian states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; only nine have ever appeared before it. The narrowness of the recent decision is of interest in part because of the modest role it ascribes to judicial institutions, but also for what this modesty heralds for the Court's status in Asia. A key conclusion is that Asian states are likely to retain a general preference for bilateral resolution of disputes. For smaller disputes, however, especially those concerning subjects that cannot be divided or traded—such as a temple (and, as we shall see, an island)—the ICJ may play an important role.

International Court of Justice

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-658 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): In an order of June 10, 1960, the International Court of Justice, having received the preliminary objections of the government of Thailand to its jurisdiction within the timelimit fixed for the filing of the countermemorial, set July 22, 1960, as the timelimit within which the government of Cambodia might present a written statement of its observations and submissionson the objections.

International Court of Justice

1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-329 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Time Limit ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand): According to an order of December 5, 1959, the International Court of Justice in the case of the Temple of Preah Vihear fixed January 20, i960, as the time limit for filing the memorial of Cambodia, and May 23, 1960, for filing the counter-memorial of Thailand.

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (I.C.J.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Riesenberg
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

In 2013, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered judgment in a dispute between Cambodia and Thailand (the 2013 Judgment)1 over the interpretation of the ICJ’s previous decision in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (the 1962 Judgment).2 The parties’ dispute arises from longstanding uncertainty over the location of the territorial boundary between Cambodia and Thailand in the region of the Dangrek Mountains. Neither the original judgment nor its interpretation fully resolves this uncertainty, although together they confirm Cambodia’s sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear and the high promontory on which it stands.

scholarly journals A view of the judgement and interpretation of the international court of justice in the temple of Preah Vihear case

2014 ◽  
Vol 66 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 51-70
Author(s):  
Marko Novakovic ◽  
Mihajlo Vucic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Border Dispute ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple ◽  
Recent Interpretation

On 11th November 2013, the International Court of Justice issued a judgment regarding the request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15th June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, a border dispute between the Kingdoms of Cambodia and Thailand. In this article, the authors have elaborated both the original judgment and its recent interpretation. They begin by providing the historical context that led to the dispute before the Court. The main part of the article is dedicated to the legal analysis of the judgment and its interpretation. Special attention is given to the Court?s manner of reasoning and the implications which this manner has for the substantial settlement of the dispute and the clarification of several principles of international law that deal with territorial delimitation between states on natural borders, but also to the wider jurisprudence of the Court in similar instances.

Borders on the Fantastic: Mimesis, Violence, and Landscape at the Temple of Preah Vihear

1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-890 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Cuasay
Keyword(s):  
Northeast Thailand ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Thai Language ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Boundary ◽  
Mountain Chain ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple ◽  
The Way

Peace based on a fallacy is not for the living. The living must and shall demand the truth, for such is the way of nations, and such is the way of man.—Seni Pramoj, speaking at the World Court, March 27, 1962 (Pleadings, 564)On 15 June 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) pronounced judgment on a dispute between Cambodia, formerly a colony of France, and Thailand, formerly called Siam, a neighboring kingdom which had never been formally colonized. The dispute regarded territorial sovereignty over the area of an ancient Brahmanic temple named Preah Vihear (following the Khmer language of Cambodia) or Phra Viharn (following Thai language). The Temple is perched high on a spur of the Dangrek mountain chain which roughly forms the boundary between both countries. North of the Dangrek lies the Khorat Plateau of Northeast Thailand, while to the south the Temple affords a magnificent view of the forested Cambodian plain below. The judgment was peculiar in that it relied upon absence to startling effect. Applying the principle qui tacet consentire videtur si loqui debuisset ac potuisset (Judgment, 23) [He who keeps silent is held to consent if he must and can speak—ibid., 96], ICJ held that Thailand's failure to protest the inaccuracy of a map purporting to reflect the watershed line between the two states, and thus by the Treaty of 1904 the international boundary between them, constituted tacit acceptance of the map line as the line established by treaty.

scholarly journals The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 881-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Profile ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

With the request for an advisory opinion on Kosovo opportunity knocked on the doors of the International Court of Justice. The opportunity was unique for several reasons. First, the case of Kosovo was momentous. It had involved war. International armed forces had intervened to stop ethnic cleansing. Since then, the situation of Kosovo has been politically loaded. It has polarized the entire international community. Second, it is a rare occurrence that such a situation comes to the Court. The regular case, if there is such a thing, before the Court has tended to be a relatively low-profile interstate dispute. The Kosovo incidence had only come to the Court in the first place—like the case of the Wall on the West Bank, the other recent high-profile exception—because the detour via the United Nations General Assembly had been open.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY v ITALY) JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 741-752
Author(s):  
J Craig Barker
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
German Reich

The vexed question of State immunity and the extent and application thereof has once again found its way to the International Court of Justice (the Court) in the form of the Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy).1 On this occasion, the precise question concerned the so-called ‘territorial tort exception’ to State immunity and involved an assessment of the immunity to be granted to Germany, by Italy, in relation to compensation claims brought in Italy by Italian claimants against German armed forces and the organs of the German Reich during the Second World War.2

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document