1cambodia v. thailand

7/28/2019 1Cambodia v. Thailand

1/4

1. Briefly what was the Full title of case, year and citation

Case concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear(Cambodia v. Thailand), Prliminary Objections, Judgment of

26 May 1961.

2. interpretation issue - ie what provision of what treaty? and quote it

The interpretation issue is: Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, and the Declaration of 20 May 1950

and 9 September 1957 by which Thailand and Cambodia respectively recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ

as well as the General Act for the Pacific settlement of the International Dispute of 26 September 1928.

Proceedings in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear(Preliminary Obejection) between

Cambodia and Thailand, which relates the territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear, were

instituted by an Application of Cambodia dated 30 September 1953. The Government of Thailand raised

two preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court.1

On behalf of Gov. of Cambodia: "May it please the Court to adjudge and declare, whether the Kingdom

of Thailand appears or not:

(1) that the Kingdom of Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forces it

has stationed since 1954 in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

(2) that the territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to the Kingdom of

Cambodia";

In the Memorial, on the part of Cambodia: "May it please the Court to adjudge and declare, whether the

Kingdom of Thailand appears or not:

(1) that the Kingdom of Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forces it

has stationed since 1954 in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear;

(2) that the territorial sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear belongs to the Kingdom of

Cambodia";2

In the reply, Thailand: "May it please the Court:

I.To reject the submissions presented by the Kingdom of Thailand in its Counter-Memorial, subject, in

particular, to the presentation, if necessary, of any other grounds for the rejection of any further

submissions that may be presented by the Kingdom of Thailand;

1Case concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear(Cambodia v. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, Judgment

of 26 May 1961; Summary of Judgment, p.57.

2Id., p.20.


2/4

II.To find in favour of the submissions contained in its Application instituting proceedings and in its

Memorial.

3.What did the court suggest was its approach to interpretation in the case? Quote what the court said

it was doing (eg normal meaning etc)

The Court approached the question on interpretation by expressly articulating the canon of

interpretation underlying its own jurisprudence. Accordingly, the Court assigns words the meaning

which they naturally have in their particular context in which they occur.

(t)he Court must apply its normal canons of interpretation, the first of which, according to the

established jurisprudence of the Court, is that words are to be interpreted according to their natural and

ordinary meaning in the context in which they occur: if the 1950 Declaration is considered in this way, it

can have no other sense or meaning than as an acceptance of the compulsory jurisprudence of the

present Court, for there was no other Court to which it can have related.3

4.What was the result (very briefly)

By its Judgment of 26 May 1961, the Court rejected the first preliminary objection of the Government of

Thailand and found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute submitted to it on 6 October

1959 by the Application of the Government of Cambodia.

By Order of the same date, the Court fixed the time-limits for the further pleadings. The case became

ready for hearing on the filing of the last pleading on 2 February 1962.

5.Did the court took actually use the approach that it said it was doing? Ie identify what approach he

court said it was taking and then analyse what approach it actually

The Court was called to consider and decide whether it has competence or not over the territorial

sovereignty of Thailand. Having determined that there is solely the validity of Thailands Declaration that

is in issue in the present proceeding, the Court proceeds its own interpretation of the 1950 Declaration

relating to the decision in the Israel v. Bulgariacase, as Thailand based the alleged effect on Thailands

1950 Declaration of the conclusion reached by the Court in this case. By rejecting the view of Thailand

that the decision in Israel v. Bulgaria case has the consequences concerning the effect of Thailands

1950 Declaration, the Court considers that it must interpret the Thailands 1950 Declaration on its own

merits, and without any preconception of an a priori4

kind, in order to determine what is its real

meaning and effect if that Declaration is read as a whole and in the light of its known purpose, which has

never been in doubt.Thus, the Court approaches the question of interpretation by applying its normalcanons of interpretation, the first of which, according to the established jurisprudence of the Court, is

that words are to be interpreted according to their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which

3Case concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear(Cambodia v. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 May

1961; Summary of Judgment, p.32.4

Id, p. 32.


3/4

they occur.5The Court approaches a textual interpretation of the 1950 Declaration, treating the terms

in their contextual meaning, considering the text sufficiently clear as to demonstrate the intention of the

parties. Also, the Court adopts a teleological interpretation of the 1950 Thailands Declaration, reading

it in the light of its object and purpose, as to find the Thailands intention to be part of the Statute of the

Court, which in the view of the Court it has never been in doubt. Thus the Court is consistent with itself

by approaching the textualist method of interpretation on its entire reasoning as it established, and with

its normal canon of interpretation and practice.

6 . Identify how this case builds on your knowledge of the court's approach so far

This is a case when the Court expressly affirms principles of treaty interpretation, presaging article 31 of

the Vienna Convention. The Court followed the practice of the PCIJ adopting the textualist method of

interpretation as it found the text of the agreement sufficiently clear as to not rise unreasonable, absurd

or self- contradictory result. In doing so, and in support of the textual approach, the Court invokes its

own jurisprudence as relevant tool to strengthen the interpretation of the meaning of the words in their

particular context. Nevertheless, the Court states that words and phrases must not always be

interpreted in a purelyliteral way.6And that this principle did not apply where it would lead to

something unreasonable or absurd.7In my view, the Court adopted more than a literal interpretation

of the terms of the provision. It resorts to a teleological interpretation of the 1950 Thailands

Declaration, as the Court felt to look at the document in a larger perspective, that of the object and

purpose for it was concluded, in order to confirm the result it already reached. So the Court felt to

inquire in depth the agreement to confirm the real intention of Thailand as acceptant of the

International Courts jurisdiction. The Court seems not only to stop at extracting through an ordinary

meaning and teleological approach of interpretation the intention of Thailand in accepting the ICJ

jurisdiction, but also to demonstrate its obvious intention showed by the terms of theprovisions

Declaration as they are expressly provided. And that these terms leave no room of confusion forThailand as being part of the Statute of the Court, and therefore susceptible of acceptance the

compulsory jurisdiction of it: (i)f the 1950 Declaration is considered in this way, it can have no other

sense or meaning than as an acceptance of the compulsory jurisprudence of the present Court, for there

was no other Court to which it can have related.8

Further, in the light of a textualist and also a

teleological interpretation, I see that the Court successfully demonstrated the intention of Thailand to

accept the Courts jurisdiction, and that the Thailands objection to it, could only be justified as its

intention to avoid it: (i)fa literal reading, part of Thailands Declaration had, ex postand because of

the decision of the Court in the Israel v. Bulgaria, to be considered as a purported acceptance of the

jurisdiction, of a defunct Court, this would be in clear contradiction to the reference in another part of a

Declaration to Article 36, paragraph 4, of the Statute(and via that paragraph 2 and 3), which clearlyevidenced acceptance of the jurisdiction of the present Court, and in contradiction also with the fact

5Id, p. 32.

6Id, p.32. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case, ICJ Report 1952, p.104.

7Id. The Postal Service in Danzing( P.C.I.J., Series B, No. II, p.39

8Case concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear(Cambodia v. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 May

1961; Summary of Judgment, p.32.


4/4

that a communication under paragraph 4 could only relate to the present Court.9It follows for the Court

to infer from this that (t)he remainder of the Declaration must be construed in the light of that cardinal

fact, in the general context of the Declaration.10

Given the fact that the interpretation of treaties is an important function of an international court, in my

view, the position of the Court in the present case was strongly governed by its intention to underlinethe importance of the textual approach as the basic principle in treaty interpretation and the

importance of not departure of it, as a certain way of avoiding the vaguesnes in the policy of treaty

interpretation (Which would allow a party to eschew adjudication of the Court even if signed a treaty

providing for such jurisdiction). Also, by following the practice of the PCIJ, the ICJ underlines the

principles of international law, revealing an already existing path in the policy of treaty interpretation,

which aims both to solve the problems that appear in international relations between States and to

prevent disputes from arising.

One of the most controversial issues in the judicial settlement of disputes before theInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) is the relationship between the scope of the jurisdiction

conferred on the Court and the law applicable to the dispute. When, in particular,the Court possesses jurisdiction under a compromissory clause of a treaty, the

issue arises, in dispute settlement on the interpretation and application of that treaty,

as to whether the treaty is the only law applicable. This question is easily solved when

9Id., p.33.

10Id, p.34.

1cambodia v. thailand

Documents