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.

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.

scholarly journals Lessons from Preah Vihear: Thailand, Cambodia, and the Nature of Low-Intensity Border Conflicts

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 27-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Wagener
Keyword(s):  
World Heritage Site ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Low Intensity ◽  
Heritage Site ◽  
International Court ◽  
Border Dispute ◽  
The Status ◽  
Border Conflicts ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

In 1962, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Preah Vihear temple lies within Cambodian territory. The status of the 4.6 km2 of land surrounding the temple, however, remained unclear. When UNESCO declared the Preah Vihear temple a Cambodian World Heritage Site in July 2008, the situation was exacerbated. Several firefights between October 2008 and April/May 2011 claimed at least 34 lives. The border dispute became a rollercoaster ride along the way: Talks between Thailand and Cambodia were regularly interrupted by exchanges of fire, only to be resumed a little later. This prevented a resolution of the conflict. The essay explores how Thailand's and Cambodia's conflict behaviour can be explained from a first-image perspective. In doing so, uncovering the motives of both countries’ prime ministers is crucial to understanding Bangkok's and Phnom Penh's actions in the border area. The paper argues that in low-intensity border conflicts, motivations are different from those underlying heads of government's behaviour in high-intensity border conflicts. While this complicates an agreement on the Preah Vihear question, it also means that escalation to a manifest border war is very unlikely.

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.

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.

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.

Article 60 ICJ Statute, Interpretation Proceedings, and the Competing Concepts of Res Judicata

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANDREAS KULICK
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

AbstractThe judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 11 November 2013, interpreting its 1962 judgment in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, inspires a reconsideration of the role of interpretation proceedings pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute of the Court. In particular, it invites us to take a closer look at the role and scope of the principle of res judicata in public international law in general and as considered in the case law of the Court in particular. This contribution reveals the competing concepts of the principle in interpretation and consecutive original contentious proceedings, and promotes instead a uniform concept that avoids the conflict inherent in current approaches.Section 1 introduces Article 60 of the ICJ Statute (section 1.1.) and thereinafter views interpretation proceedings before the Court in light of the Court's case law, in particular its 2013 interpretation judgment in the Temple case (section 1.2.). Section 2 constitutes the heart of the analysis and discusses what will be identified as the competing concepts of res judicata. Section 2.1. presents the functions, concepts, and case law of res judicata in public international law in general, whereas section 2.2. focuses specifically on the case law of the ICJ and the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in this regard. Finally, section 2.3. concludes this study by setting out the approach that the author regards as appropriate to reconcile the competing concepts of res judicata.

The Lotus Case in Context

2019 ◽  
pp. 39-58
Author(s):  
Stéphane Beaulac
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Historical Context ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
International Justice ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Theoretical Assumptions

This chapter addresses the significance of the 1927 case of SS Lotus to assess jurisdiction in international law from a historical perspective. It situates the Lotus case in its historical context by considering the influence of the Westphalian legal order and Emer de Vattel’s understanding of state sovereignty on the Court’s judgment. The influence of both of these frameworks supports the positivistic stance taken by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in this decision, which remains present in the more recent jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). By examining the Lotus case, the chapter then looks at the theoretical assumptions that underpin state sovereignty and jurisdiction in international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document