General Information for Both Parties and Mediators. The Temple Dispute

The Director of Center «FMC-Polytechnic»,

Professor Sergey Georgievich Chulkin.

General Information for Both Parties and Mediators. The Temple Dispute

The International Court of Justice[1] recently handed Cambodia a partial victory in its territorial dispute with Thailand over the land surrounding an ancient temple along the countries’ border. The court, the top judicial body of the United Nations, said in its judgment that Cambodia had sovereignty over the immediate area around Preah Vihear Temple — the promontory on which it sits. But the court left unresolved who controls a larger disputed area, where Cambodian and Thai troops have clashed in recent years. The court did not draw any new maps but said the promontory is bordered by steep slopes on most sides, and to the north a border drawn up in 1907 by France. The border between Thailand and Cambodia was drawn by French officials in the early 20th century.

The temple’s ownership has been the subject of dispute since Cambodia's independence in the 1950s. Following Cambodia’s independence, Thailand occupied the 900-year-old Hindu temple in 1954. The temple and its vicinity have long been a bone of contention between the neighbors and have in recent years led to deadly clashes between them.

Thailand, the court said, is “under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, that were stationed there.” The land they are referring to is 4.6-square km (1.8 sq mile) of scrub surrounding Preah Vihear. The court said the northern edge of the promontory, upon which Preah Vihear sits, was Cambodian, as agreed in the 1906 treaty between Thailand, then called Siam, and French Cambodia. The territory they were referring to, however, was just one part of the 4.6 sq km that is in dispute, leaving scope for more disagreement.

Cambodia was awarded sovereignty over the temple itself in a 1962 decision by the same court, based in The Hague, and Monday’s judgment clarified that decision. In that June 1962 judgment, the ICJ found that the temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia, and that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

Cambodia went back to the court in 2011 following clashes with Thai armed forces. In April 2011, Cambodia requested the ICJ to interpret the 1962 judgment, arguing that while Thailand recognizes Cambodia’s sovereignty over the temple itself, it does not appear to recognize the sovereignty of Cambodia over the vicinity of the temple. The court created a demilitarised zone around the temple after fighting left about 28 dead and displaced thousands of people, but subsequent talks about withdrawing troops broke down.

The ICJ also affirmed that the temple, which was inscribed in 2008 on the World Heritage List drawn up by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), is a site of religious and cultural significance for the peoples of the region. Unesco called the temple "an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture". But the 2008 listing – intended to help protect the site – led to an escalation of tensions. In this respect, the Court recalled that Cambodia and Thailand – which are both parties to the World Heritage Convention – must cooperate in the protection of the site as an important part of world heritage. In addition, each country is under an obligation not to “take any deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly” such heritage.

The court was only able to clarify jurisdiction of the promontory that was covered in the previous 1962 ruling and said it had no authority to rule on rival claims to other land. Ownership of the temple and its surrounding areas is an emotional one and has been used by politicians on both sides of the border to stoke nationalist feelings.

Nationalist groups have urged the Thai government not to respect the verdict. In a nationally televised speech after news of the decision, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra said the government would negotiate further on the issue with Cambodia.

News services reported that Cambodia’s foreign minister, Hor Namhong, had said the ruling was “good enough.” Cambodia's prime minister, Hun Sen, welcomed the ruling, saying it "gives the frontier between the two countries a clear borderline". He said both countries have agreed to work to maintain peace at the historic temple. Hun Sen said he told Cambodian troops to stay on their side of the border and "avoid any activity that would cause tensions".

Yuthasak Sasiprapha, Thailand’s deputy defense minister, said Thai troops stationed near the border would “stay where they are,” pending further talks with Cambodia. The Thai foreign minister, Surapong Tovichakchaikul, said the verdict offered "satisfactory results to both sides" and promised the neighbors would work together to implement it. In a televised address, Yingluck said both countries should strive to reach a satisfactory interpretation of the verdict. "We share a 800 km long border ... we have to rely on each other for prosperity," said Yingluck, adding that Thai security forces would still patrol border areas "for the sake of peace and security".

Soldiers from both countries were seen near the temple ahead of the judgment and villagers feared the ruling could trigger fresh military clashes. The two sides have exchanged fire around the temple on several occasions in recent years and the dispute has become divisive within Thailand where two broad political factions have been batting for power for years. The verdict could not come at a worse time for Thai Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra, who is facing street protests against a government-backed amnesty bill being debated by the upper house Senate. Opponents say the amnesty is designed to expunge her self-exiled brother and former premier Thaksin Shinawatra's 2008 jail term for abuse of power while he was office, to allow him to return a free man and make a political comeback. Thaksin promoted close ties with Cambodia when he was prime minister and his enemies have accused him of not defending Thai interests in connection with the border dispute. The amnesty bill is being discussed in the Thai Senate where ruling party whips have indicated the draft might be withdrawn. The opposition fears, however, that the government would withdraw the bill to defuse tension then re-introduce it when the dust settles.

Some of the thousands of demonstrators who have been out on the streets of the Thai capital over recent days want to topple Yingluck's government and are accusing it of colluding with Thaksin and Cambodia to "sell" Thai land. Some of the Thai anti-government demonstrators had anticipated the court would rule in Cambodia's favor. At least 1,000 ultra-nationalists among the protesters marched to the Defense Ministry earlier to deliver a letter demanding the military protects what they said was Thai sovereign territory.

That group included former members of the ultra-royalist People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD), which has a track record of whipping up anger to undermine governments that Thaksin has led, both directly and indirectly. The PAD said it did not recognize the court in the Hague. "This government wants to sell our country and our territory," Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD leader who has helped to topple governments, told reporters prior to the verdict."Thais believe in justice but why should we listen to the world court's ruling?"

What concerns Yingluck's government is the PAD's powerful backers among the royalist establishment, which has close ties with military generals who overthrew Thaksin in a 2006 coup and have tacitly backed the PAD in the past. Thailand's government is concerned its opponents will use the court verdict to pile on the pressure.

Although both Thailand and Cambodia have promised to respect the court's decision and keep the peace, both have boosted troops at the border. Hundreds of villagers along the border fear that fighting could happen again in the wake of the ruling and many are sheltering in bunkers.

The parties have agreed to mediation to try to work out a plan for living with the court ruling that will enhance the likelihood of peace on both sides of the border. The prime ministers of both countries have sent high-level deputies to conduct the discussions.

[Note: This is a real-life dispute; the facts are a compilation of online news reports. For purposes of the competition, you are to assume that the status of the dispute is as described above. If anything has happened since the events described above, you may consider it in formulating suggestions for resolution, but you may not treat it as having actually happened.]

Date: 2014-12-29; view: 951