Korbsak Sabhavasu's Blog

Dr. Sompong served as coordinator of Thailand’s attorney committee in the case of Preah Vihear. He has been involved since the beginning of the conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, and his information is accurate and reliable.

Let’s begin with the Thai border problem – the cause of the conflict with Cambodia. According to a treaty between Siam and France in 1908, Thailand holds the Preah Vihear territory. The treaty was signed after an investigation from 1905 to 1907 by the Siam-France Frontiers Committee. The Committee learned that the territory in the Dong Rak mountain range was divided according to its watershed line, based on a bilateral treaty between Thailand and France in 1904. There have been no changes or modifications to this agreement from 1904 until the present, and no one has disputed its validity.

(For readers who do not understand what I mean by watershed, picture a mountain. When it rains, some water flows to one side of the mountain, and some water flows to the other. This natural dividing line was considered the border between Thailand and Cambodia. Watershed is a characteristic of mountains, which are made of stone and stay strong over time.)

Cambodia, however, uses a different border map – which is found in Appendix 1 of the complaint they filed in the Preah Vihear border dispute.

There are two important problems related to the Thai-Cambodian border areas in the Dong Rak mountain range.

First problem: Preah Vihear case, Cambodia v. Thailand, 2502 to 2505.

Cambodia, the plaintiff, filed a unilateral action against Thailand, the defendant, on 6 October 2505, asking the International Court of Justice to decide whether the Preah Vihear Temple area was located within the sovereignty of Cambodia.

(Dr. Sompong points out that Cambodia only filed its complaint with respect to the Preah Vihear Temple, not the Preah Vihear area in its entirety. When we talk about the Preah Vihear case, we should actually call it the Preah Vihear temple case.)

The following information is important.

Cambodia asked the court to make five determinations in the Preah Vihear case:

1. Validate the status of the map from Appendix 1 of the complaint. (This was a map made by France and/or Cambodia without involvement from Thailand. This was a mistake because it benefited France at the expense of Thailand. Dr. Sompong said that Thailand never approved the map in the past, and should not accept its validity of a point of reference now.)

2. Establish the accuracy of the boundary map in Appendix 1.

*On points 1 and 2, the court did not rule on the accuracy of the map or the border line, saying they were not the Frontiers Committee.

3. Rule that the temple area of Preah Vihear is under Cambodian sovereignty.

*The court voted 9 to 3 in favor of Cambodia, saying that the Preah Vihear area is under Cambodian sovereignty.

4. Order Thailand to withdraw from the temple and the area.

*The court voted 9 to 3 in favor of Cambodia, saying that Thailand was obliged to withdraw troops, police and/or guards from the Preah Vihear Temple and surrounding area.

5. Order Thailand to return the lost relics of Preah Vihear from 1350 to 1962.

* The court voted 7 to 5 in favor of Cambodia, saying that Thailand was obliged to return the relics that belong to Cambodia.

Following the court’s ruling, the Thai Cabinet passed a resolution on 3 July 2505 disputing the verdict. In the resolution, the Cabinet said the process was flawed, and the court’s decision was contrary to the principles of justice and international law.

As a member of the United Nations, Thailand was also required to comply with Article 94 of the U.N. Charter. The country filed a protest with the United Nations stating clearly that Thailand reserved the existing right and/or future right to reclaim the Preah Vihear Temple by peaceful means. (This declaration remains in effect today. It is interminable.)

Before discussing the second problem related to the Preah Vihear case, there is an additional point to keep in mind. Thailand only stands by the border as defined by the Thai-Cambodian watershed. Therefore, the only overlapping area – where Thailand and Cambodia fight for ownership – is the location of the Preah Vihear Temple. (Cambodia currently has sovereignty over the temple according to the World Court, but Thailand reserves its rights to the location.) We consider the area around Preah Vihear, which is divided by the watershed, to be territory of Thailand.

Second problem: The registration of Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site.

The issues in this section are not very complicated.

Cambodia filed a request to register Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site, based on the court’s false verdict in the Preah Vihear case. Cambodia claimed that the court accepted the validity of the map in Appendix 1. (In fact, the World Court did not rule on the territory issue.)

Moreover, during May and June 2551, the Thai government – through the Department of Treaty and Law, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Military Survey Department – approved Cambodia’s sovereignty over Preah Vihear by issuing a joint statement with Cambodia. The document was signed by the Foreign Minister of Thailand and the Deputy Prime Minister of Cambodia on 18 June 2551. The joint statement was included in Cambodia’s application to register Preah Vihear as a World Heritage Site. It was seen as Thailand giving full support for Cambodia’s map of Thai-Cambodian border.

In conclusion:

1. With respect to the problems of the Thai-Cambodian border, Thailand holds a treaty while Cambodia adheres to the map in Appendix 1 of their indictment.

2. The World Court did not rule on the border problem, as mistakenly claimed by Cambodia in their World Heritage Site application.

3. The fact that the previous Thai government signed a joint statement supporting Cambodia was seen by default as acceptance of the boundary line from their map in Appendix 1.

The major duty of Prime Minister Abhisit’s government is to correct the problems resulting from an error made by the previous government. This responsibility is intended solely for the benefit of the country and nothing more.

(I based this blog on the contents of a 29-page article by Prof. Dr. Sompong. I summarized the issues I thought would be most useful to readers who have not had time to look closely at the details of the dispute. Dr. Sompong has written a total of eight articles on the matter from 2551-2553.)