Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 768

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 15 JUNE 1962 IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (CAMBODIA v. THAILAND)
(CAMBODIA v. THAILAND)

Annexes to the Written Observations of the Kingdom of Thailand

21 NOVEMBER 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Annex 1 Annex 2 Annex 3 Annex 4 Photographs of Prince Damrong's visit to the Temple of PhraViharn (1930), filed as Annex VIIIbis of Cambodias 1959Application Note de l'ambassade de France Bangkok en date du 3 juillet 1950, filed as Annex XVII of Cambodia's 1959 Application Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations, Note on the Question of Preah Vihear, circa 1958 United Nations, Letter dated 29 November 1958 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia Addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. No. S/4121, 2 December 1958 Dean Acheson, Letter to United States Secretary of State, 31October 1960 News report, 18 June 1962, Populace rejoices over border decision Le Monde, 19 June 1962, La Thalande ne parat pas prte accepter la dcision de la Cour internationale United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 4053, 19 June 1962 Le Monde, 20 June 1962, La Thalande rcuse la dcision de la Cour internationale United States Embassy in Bangkok, Airgram to United States Secretary of State, Full Text of Bangkok Post article of June 21, 1962 concerning Prime Minister Sarits Announcement Thailand will Comply with ICJ Decision on Phra Wiharn Case, No. A-425, 23 June 1963 The Prime Ministers Office of Thailand, Communiqu of the Government, 3 July 1962 Prime Minister of Thailand, Public Address on The Temple of PhraViharn Case, 4 July 1962 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 24, 5 July 1962 Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Note to Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. (0601)22239/2505, 6 July 1962 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 43, 6 July 1962 1 5 9 27

Annex 5 Annex 6 Annex 7 Annex 8 Annex 9 Annex 10

33 37 43 47 51 55

Annex 11 Annex 12 Annex 13 Annex 14

61 65 73 77

Annex 15

81

iii

Annex 16

United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Preah Vihear: Cambodian Reaction to Thai Announcement of Compliance with ICJ Ruling, No. A-32, 12 July 1962 Chao Thai Newspaper, 13 July 1962, Flag Lowering Ceremony: United Nations and Cambodia informed Intentionally blank United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 103, 16 July 1962 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Ralits Discusses Problems of Preah Vihear Turnover, No. A-37, 16 July 1962 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 17 July 1962, Terrible weather as Thailand loses territory to thief at the last minute New York Times, 17 July 1962, Thailand yields sovereignty over Temple to Cambodia United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 68, 2 August 1962 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 236, 13 August 1962 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 106, 14 August 1962 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Sihanouk Charges Thai Aggression in Statement to Press., No. A-88, 16 August 1962 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 773/777, 25August 1962 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Speech by Mr. Huot Sambath, Seventeenth Session, Plenary Meetings, 1134th Meeting, pages 173-177 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 479-AS, 27 September 1962 Office of Public Information of the United Nations, U Thant Appoints Personal Representative to Inquire into Cambodia-Thailand Problems, Press Release SG/1339, 9 October 1962 Cambodian Head of State, Press Conference, 5 November 1962

85

Annex 17 Annex 18 Annex 19 Annex 20

89 95 97 101

Annex 21 Annex 22 Annex 23 Annex 24 Annex 25 Annex 26

105 109 113 117 121 125

Annex 27 Annex 28

137 141

Annex 29 Annex 30

149 157

Annex 31

161

iv

Annex 31bis Annex 32

United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 438, 11 November 1962 Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, First Report by the personal representative of the Secretary-General, PL/111 Confidential Report No. 1, 25 November 1962 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 636/AS, 29 November 1962 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Aide-mmoire sur les relations khmro-thalandaises, circa November 1962 United Nations, Letter dated 18 December 1962 from the SecretaryGeneral Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/5220, 18 December 1962 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Foreign Affairs Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6, June - July 1962, pages 128-130 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge d'aujourd'hui, No. 45, June - July 1962 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge d'aujourd'hui, Nos. 48-49-50-51, September - December 1962 Photographs of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the1962 Judgment, 1962-1963 Photographs of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment, 1962-1963 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 3, 2 January 1963 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 5, 2 January 1963 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, No. 520, 2 January 1963 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 14.15, 5 January 1963 Bangkok Post, 5 January 1963, Cambodians, Europeans Get Up To Khao Phra Viharn Bangkok World, 6 January 1963, Sihanouk Arrives. Calm Prevails At Phra Viharn Bangkok Post, 7 January 1963, Sihanouk Leaves Guard At Temple; 'Thai Visit' Offer

167 171

Annex 33 Annex 34

189 195

Annex 35

215

Annex 36 Annex 37 Annex 38 Annex 39 Annex 40 Annex 41 Annex 42 Annex 43 Annex 44 Annex 45 Annex 46 Annex 47

221 229 237 251 255 259 263 267 271 275 279 283

Annex 48 Annex 49 Annex 50 Annex 51

United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 528, 7 January 1963 New York Times, 8 January 1963, Peaceful Overture Held in Cambodia At Disputed Shrine J.F. Engers, Note to Mr. Gussing, 9 January 1963 and Second report by the personal representative of the Secretary-General, 2January 1963 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Cambodian Official Reoccupation of Preah Vihear,No. A-325, 10 January 1963 New York Times, 10 January 1963, Take over Disputed Temple Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, Third Report by the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General, 18 January 1963 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 19 January 1963, Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspaper that he has come to good terms with Thai people La Vrit, 5 June 1963, Interview du Prince Sihanouk par un journaliste indien Le Bulletin de l'Agence Khmre de Presse, Interview du Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Chef de l'Etat du Cambodge, accorde "Far Eastern Economic Review", 11 July 1963 N. Gussing, Note to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, 14 September 1963 J.F. Engers, Aide-Mmoire on the Secretary-General's Five Points of 3 September 1963, 19 September 1963 United Nations, Letter dated 9 November 1966 from the SecretaryGeneral to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No.S/6040, 9 November 1964 Ralits Cambodgiennes, 18 December 1964, Les ruades de Thanat Khoman Gauthereau, Cable to David Owen, No. CAM 228, 24 December 1964 Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations, Notes to the Secretary-General, No. 1442 and 1449, 11 April 1966 (French in the original) Acting Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations, Note to the Secretary-General, No. 335/2509, 22 April 1966 Intentionally blank

287 291 295 309

Annex 52 Annex 53 Annex 54 Annex 55 Annex 56

319 323 331 335 339

Annex 57 Annex 58 Annex 59

347 355 361

Annex 60 Annex 61 Annex 62

365 371 375

Annex 63 Annex 64

381 389

vi

Annex 65

United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279, 3 May 1966 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Note to Foreign Office, No. 954, 5 May 1966 United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279/Corr.1, 5 May 1966 British Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cable to Foreign Office, 9 May 1966 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Cable to Foreign Office, 14 July 1966 United Nations, Letter dated 16 August 1966 from the SecretaryGeneral to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7462, 16 August 1966 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Memorandum of Conversation between the Foreign Minister and Ambassador de Ribbing, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on 6 September 1966, Annex 10 of Report by the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and First Contact with their High Authorities, 13September 1966 Herbert de Ribbing, Note to the Secretary-General, Report by the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and First Contact with their High Authorities, 13 September 1966 French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 686/688, 2 November 1966 United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1966, pages 162-163, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/unyearbook. html?name=1966index.html Chao Thai Newspaper, 24 July 1967, Should seek future benefit. Quarrel is detrimental to both sides French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 382/84, 27 July 1967 French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 400/402, 4 August 1967 Herbert de Ribbing, Cable to the Secretary-General, 16 October 1967 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Declaration Commune entre La Thailande et le Cambodge of 13May 1970, Foreign Affairs Bulletin 1970 Vol. IX, Nos. 1-6 (August 1966-July 1970), pages 436-437

395

Annex 66 Annex 67

401 405

Annex 68 Annex 69 Annex 70

409 413 417

Annex 71

421

Annex 72

429

Annex 73 Annex 74

447 451

Annex 75 Annex 76 Annex 77 Annex 78 Annex 79

455 459 463 467 471

vii

Annex 80 Annex 81 Annex 82 Annex 83 Annex 84 Annex 85 Annex 86 Annex 87 Annex 88 Annex 89 Annex 90 Annex 91

Chao Thai Newspaper, 14 May 1970, Ambassadors will be exchanged soon. Cambodia is attacked and its domestic affairs interfered Daily News, 14 May 1970, Thailand and Cambodia issued a joint communiqu to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks Daily News, 12 July 1970, [] but sends border police to Phra Viharn Daily News, 24 March 1971, Revealing conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn 'Cut off '. Thai side has to assist. Chao Thai Newspaper, 27 October 1971, Thai and Khmer joined forces Daily News, 30 October 1971, The Day Viet-Cong attacks Daily News, 3 November 1971, Khao Phra Viharn Front is Not Serious Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site between Thai side and Cambodian side, 7 November 1991 A photograph of the iron gate at Tani stream, circa 1992 Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 30 June - 2 July 1999 Agreed Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 5-7 June 2000 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary, 14June 2000 Record of joint meeting between Delegation of the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province, 22 February 2001 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission, Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/1015, 25 November 2004 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission, Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/192, 8 March 2005

477 481 487 491 497 501 505 509 527 531 537 543

Annex 92

561

Annex 93

577

Annex 94

587

viii

Annex 95

The Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO, A Challenge to Thailand's denunciation of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee, 2009, pages 1-23 International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University, Assessment of the Task of Translating the Cambodia-Thailand boundary depicted on the 'Annex I' map onto the Ground, October 2011 (omitting Appendices 1-6) Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran, 9November 2011 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch showing the location of the French flag pole in 1930, 17 November 2011 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch of 1991 arrangements for tourism, 17 November 2011 Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, History of the Negotiations for the Inscription of the Temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List, November 2011 Carte annexe au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo et Ivey (Annexe I), filed as Annex LXVIc of Cambodia's Reply Map showing strips of Cambodian territory attributed to Thailand if Annex I were declared valid, filed as Annex No. 76bis of Thailand's Rejoinder Oxford University Press, Oxford English Dictionary, online version September 2011, available at: http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177; accessed 15 November 2011 Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003, page 1393 Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn and aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn List of members of Cambodian Cabinet in 1962-1964 Dangrek map of a 1:200,000 scale held at the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand

593

Annex 96

621

Annex 97 Annex 98 Annex 99 Annex 100

671 679 683 687

Annex 101 Annex 102

725 729

Annex 103

733

Annex 104 Annex 105 Annex 106 Annex 107

739 743 747 755

ix

Annex 1 Photographs of Prince Damrongs visit to the Temple of PhraViharn (1930), filed as Annex VIIIbis of Cambodias 1959Application

Annex 1

Annex 1

Annex 1

Annex 2 Note de lambassade de France Bangkok en date du 3 juillet 1950, filed as Annex XVII of Cambodias 1959 Application

Annex 2

Annex 2

Annex 3 Permanent Mission of Cambodia to the United Nations, Note on the Question of Preah Vihear, circa 1958

Annex 3

10

Annex 3

11

Annex 3

12

Annex 3

13

Annex 3

14

Annex 3

15

Annex 3

16

Annex 3

17

Annex 3

18

Annex 3

19

Annex 3

20

Annex 3

21

Annex 3

22

Annex 3

23

Annex 3

24

Annex 3

25

26

Annex 4 United Nations, Letter dated 29 November 1958 from the Permanent Representative of Cambodia Addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. No. S/4121, 2 December 1958

27

Annex 4

28

Annex 4

29

Annex 4

30

Annex 4

31

Annex 4

32

Annex 5 Dean Acheson, Letter to United States Secretary of State, 31October 1960

33

Annex 5

34

Annex 5

35

36

Annex 6 News report, 18 June 1962, Populace rejoices over border decision

37

Annex 6

38

Annex 6

39

Annex 6

40

Annex 6

41

42

Annex 7 Le Monde, 19 June 1962, La Thalande ne parat pas prte accepter la dcision de la Cour internationale

43

Annex 7

44

Annex 7

45

46

Annex 8 United States Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 4053, 19 June 1962

47

Annex 8

48

Annex 8

49

50

Annex 9 Le Monde, 20 June 1962, La Thalande rcuse la dcision de la Cour internationale

51

Annex 9

52

Annex 9

53

54

Annex 10 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Airgram to United States Secretary of State, Full Text of Bangkok Post article of June 21, 1962 concerning Prime Minister Sarits Announcement Thailand will Comply with ICJ Decision on Phra Wiharn Case, No. A-425, 23 June 1963

55

Annex 10

56

Annex 10

57

Annex 10

58

Annex 10

59

60

Annex 11 The Prime Ministers Office of Thailand, Communiqu of the Government, 3 July 1962

61

Annex 11

62

Annex 11

63

64

Annex 12 Prime Minister of Thailand, Public Address on The Temple of PhraViharn Case, 4 July 1962

65

Annex 12

66

Annex 12

67

Annex 12

68

Annex 12

69

Annex 12

70

Annex 12

71

Annex 12

72

Annex 13 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 24, 5 July 1962

73

Annex 13

74

Annex 13

75

Annex 13

76

Annex 14 Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Note to Secretary-General of the United Nations, No. (0601)22239/2505, 6July 1962

77

Annex 14

78

Annex 14

79

Annex 14

80

Annex 15 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 43, 6 July 1962

81

Annex 15

82

Annex 15

83

84

Annex 16 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Preah Vihear: Cambodian Reaction to Thai Announcement of Compliance with ICJ Ruling, No. A-32, 12 July 1962

85

Annex 16

86

Annex 16

87

Annex 16

88

Annex 17 Chao Thai Newspaper, 13 July 1962, Flag Lowering Ceremony: United Nations and Cambodia informed

89

Annex 17

90

Annex 17

(Translation) Chao Thai 13 July 1962 (Excerpt) Flag lowering ceremony: UN and Cambodia informed. Deputy Prime Minister said that, on 15th of this month, Thai officials will travel to mark the limit of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn that will be given to Cambodia and will lower the flag from the Temple. Before the meeting of the Parliament yesterday (12) morning, General Thanom Kittikachorn, Deputy Prime Minister, gave an interview to the newspaper representative about the marking of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn which is to be given to Cambodia that the marking of the vicinity of the Temple of Phra Viharn would be done by the Royal Thai Government unilaterally and the Government had already decided the limit which was 20 metres from the Temples naga staircase toward the main road, two roads paralleling the Temples stairs at 100 metres each. At the back, 30 metres from the broken staircase at the steep cliff. The area is a trapezium with an area of approximately 150 rais. The officials would be led by General Praphas Charusathien, Minister of Interior, in their travel to mark the limit, build up a fence and lower the national flag from the flag pole and out of the Temple area on 15th of this month. When asked how Cambodia would access the Temple, General Thanom said there is only one way which is the broken staircase on the cliff which can be repaired or done otherwise by Cambodia. Concerning the news that Cambodia would let France to be caretaker of the Temple, it is up to Cambodia. We have also informed the UN and Cambodia of our undertakings which have taken into account of the ICJ decision. []

91

Annex 17

92

Annex 17

93

94

Annex 18 Intentionally blank

95

96

Annex 19 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 103, 16 July 1962

97

Annex 19

98

Annex 19

99

100

Annex 20 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Ralits Discusses Problems of Preah Vihear Turnover, No. A-37, 16 July 1962

101

Annex 20

102

Annex 20

103

Annex 20

104

Annex 21 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 17 July 1962, Terrible weather as Thailand loses territory to thief at the last minute

105

Annex 21

106

Annex 21

(Translation) Thai Rai Wan 17 July 1962 (Excerpt)

General Praphas Charusathien, Minister of Interior, saluted by a police officer at the ceremony to erect fence around the Temple of Phra Viharn and lower Thai national flag to place inside Thai territory.

Terrible weather as Thailand loses territory to thief at the last minute The elderly cry in sorrow Sihanouk will meet his fate Sad day of 15 July 1962 when Thailand had to cut 166.5 rais of land in order to once again comply with international obligations. Minister of Interior travelled there to give order in a sad and angry atmosphere among all saddened faces. "Today is one of Thailand's historic days that we have to surrender the sovereignty over the Temple of Phra Viharn...I mark this time from 12pm", said the Minister. The Minister said we have to remove everything. The Thai flag will not be lowered. Rather, the flag pole will be moved with the flag flying at its top and to be placed in Thai territory. One day we may have to return the flag to its former place. He ordered that any intruders crossing into Thai territory will be pushed back, and if resisted force can be used without the need of prior authorization.

[]

107

Annex 21

108

Annex 22 New York Times, 17 July 1962, Thailand yields sovereignty over Temple to Cambodia

109

Annex 22

110

Annex 22

Published: July 17, 1962 Copyright The New York Times

111

112

Annex 23 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 68, 2 August 1962

113

Annex 23

114

Annex 23

115

Annex 23

116

Annex 24 United States Embassy in Bangkok, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 236, 13 August 1962

117

Annex 24

118

Annex 24

119

120

Annex 25 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 106, 14 August 1962

121

Annex 25

122

Annex 25

123

Annex 25

124

Annex 26 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Sihanouk Charges Thai Aggression in Statement to Press., No. A-88, 16 August 1962

125

Annex 26

126

Annex 26

127

Annex 26

128

Annex 26

129

Annex 26

130

Annex 26

131

Annex 26

132

Annex 26

133

Annex 26

134

Annex 26

135

Annex 26

136

Annex 27 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 773/777, 25August 1962

137

Annex 27

138

Annex 27

139

Annex 27

140

Annex 28 United Nations, Official Records of the General Assembly, Speech by Mr. Huot Sambath, Seventeenth Session, Plenary Meetings, 1134th Meeting, pages 173-177

141

Annex 28

142

Annex 28

143

Annex 28

144

Annex 28

145

Annex 28

146

Annex 28

147

Annex 28

148

Annex 29 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 479-AS, 27 September 1962

149

Annex 29

150

Annex 29

151

Annex 29

152

Annex 29

153

Annex 29

154

Annex 29

155

156

Annex 30 Office of Public Information of the United Nations, U Thant Appoints Personal Representative to Inquire into Cambodia-Thailand Problems, Press Release SG/1339, 9 October 1962

157

Annex 30

158

Annex 30

159

160

Annex 31 Cambodian Head of State, Press Conference, 5 November 1962

161

Annex 31

162

Annex 31

163

Annex 31

164

Annex 31

165

Annex 31

166

Annex 31bis United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 438, 11 November 1962

167

Annex 31bis

168

Annex 31bis

169

170

Annex 32 Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, First Report by the personal representative of the Secretary-General, PL/111 Confidential Report No. 1, 25 November 1962

171

Annex 32

172

Annex 32

173

Annex 32

174

Annex 32

175

Annex 32

176

Annex 32

177

Annex 32

178

Annex 32

179

Annex 32

180

Annex 32

181

Annex 32

182

Annex 32

183

Annex 32

184

Annex 32

185

Annex 32

186

Annex 32

187

Annex 32

188

Annex 33 French Ambassador to Thailand, Note to Minister of Foreign Affairs, No. 636/AS, 29 November 1962

189

Annex 33

190

Annex 33

191

Annex 33

192

Annex 33

193

Annex 33

194

Annex 34 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Aide-mmoire sur les relations khmro-thalandaises, circa November 1962

195

Annex 34

196

Annex 34

197

Annex 34

198

Annex 34

199

Annex 34

200

Annex 34

201

Annex 34

202

Annex 34

203

Annex 34

204

Annex 34

205

Annex 34

206

Annex 34

207

Annex 34

208

Annex 34

209

Annex 34

210

Annex 34

211

Annex 34

212

Annex 34

213

Annex 34

214

Annex 35 United Nations, Letter dated 18 December 1962 from the Secretary-General Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/5220, 18 December 1962

215

Annex 35

216

Annex 35

217

Annex 35

218

Annex 35

219

220

Annex 36 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Foreign Affairs Bulletin, Vol. I, No. 6, June - July 1962, pages 128-130

221

Annex 36

222

Annex 36

223

Annex 36

224

Annex 36

225

Annex 36

226

Annex 36

227

228

Annex 37 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge daujourdhui, No. 45, June - July 1962

229

Annex 37

230

Annex 37

231

Annex 37

232

Annex 37

233

Annex 37

234

Annex 37

235

Annex 37

236

Annex 38 Ministry of Information of Cambodia, Cambodge daujourdhui, Nos. 48-49-50-51, September - December 1962

237

Annex 38

238

Annex 38

239

Annex 38

240

Annex 38

241

Annex 38

242

Annex 38

243

Annex 38

244

Annex 38

245

Annex 38

246

Annex 38

247

Annex 38

248

Annex 38

249

250

Annex 39 Photographs of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the1962 Judgment, 1962-1963

251

Annex 39

252

Annex 39

A. Photograph of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken from the Thai side (circa 1962)

253

Annex 39

B. Photograph of the barbed-wire fence erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken from Cambodian side published in Cambodge daujourdhui, Nos. 48-49-50-51, September-December 1962

254

Annex 40 Photographs of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment, 1962-1963

255

Annex 40

256

Annex 40

A. Photograph of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken from the Thai side (circa 1962)

257

Annex 40

B. Photograph of the sign erected to comply with the 1962 Judgment taken from the Cambodian side, published in Cambodge daujourdhui, Nos. 48-49-50-51, September-December 1962

258

Annex 41 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 3, 2 January 1963

259

Annex 41

260

Annex 41

261

262

Annex 42 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 5, 2 January 1963

263

Annex 42

264

Annex 42

265

Annex 42

266

Annex 43 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, No. 520, 2 January 1963

267

Annex 43

268

Annex 43

269

270

Annex 44 French Embassy in Phnom Penh, Tlgramme, No. 14.15, 5 January 1963

271

Annex 44

272

Annex 44

273

274

Annex 45 Bangkok Post, 5 January 1963, Cambodians, Europeans Get Up To Khao Phra Viharn

275

Annex 45

276

Annex 45

277

278

Annex 46 Bangkok World, 6 January 1963, Sihanouk Arrives. Calm Prevails At Phra Viharn

279

Annex 46

280

Annex 46

281

282

Annex 47 Bangkok Post, 7 January 1963, Sihanouk Leaves Guard At Temple; Thai Visit Offer

283

Annex 47

284

Annex 47

285

286

Annex 48 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Telegram to United States Secretary of State, No. 528, 7 January 1963

287

Annex 48

288

Annex 48

289

290

Annex 49 New York Times, 8 January 1963, Peaceful Overture Held in Cambodia At Disputed Shrine

291

Annex 49

292

Annex 49

Published: January 8, 1963 Copyright The New York Times

293

294

Annex 50 J.F. Engers, Note to Mr. Gussing, 9 January 1963 and Second report by the personal representative of the Secretary-General, 2January 1963

295

Annex 50

296

Annex 50

297

Annex 50

298

Annex 50

299

Annex 50

300

Annex 50

301

Annex 50

302

Annex 50

303

Annex 50

304

Annex 50

305

Annex 50

306

Annex 50

307

308

Annex 51 United States Embassy in Phnom Penh, Airgram to Department of State, Cambodian Official Reoccupation of Preah Vihear,No. A-325, 10 January 1963

309

Annex 51

310

Annex 51

311

Annex 51

312

Annex 51

313

Annex 51

314

Annex 51

315

Annex 51

316

Annex 51

317

318

Annex 52 New York Times, 10 January 1963, Take Over Disputed Temple

319

Annex 52

320

Annex 52

Published: January 10, 1963 Copyright The New York Times

321

322

Annex 53 Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, Third Report by the Personal Representative of the Secretary-General, 18 January 1963

323

Annex 53

324

Annex 53

325

Annex 53

326

Annex 53

327

Annex 53

328

Annex 53

329

Annex 53

330

Annex 54 Thai Rai Wan Newspaper, 19 January 1963, Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspaper that he has come to good terms with Thai people

331

Annex 54

332

Annex 54

(Translation) Thai Rai Wan 19 January 1963

Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspaper that he has come to good terms with Thai people. Sihanouk told Hong Kong newspapers that Thailand and Cambodia are now on good terms. On the date that he brought his entourage to the Temple of Phra Viharn, he gave brandy to Thai border police. In fact the border police had never touched it. Yesterday morning, General Praphas Charusathien, Minister of Interior, gave an interview to newpaper journalists at the Ministry of Interior about the story that Hong Kong Standard newspaper published a news article that Sihanouk gave an interview that Thailand and Cambodia are now on good terms and that, on the day that he took his entourage to the Temple of Phra Viharn, he gave brandy to Thai border police who stationed at Khao Phra Viharn in Thai territory. When asked by journalists whether the story was true, the Minister joked that we do not know who drank it and we will have to investigate. If anyone drank it, he will be given laxative to take the drink out. General Praphas further said that Sihanouk gave such news just to please Thai people.

333

Annex 54

334

Annex 55 La Vrit, 5 June 1963, Interview du Prince Sihanouk par un journaliste indien

335

Annex 55

336

Annex 55

337

Annex 55

338

Annex 56 Le Bulletin de lAgence Khmre de Presse, Interview du Prince Norodom Sihanouk, Chef de lEtat du Cambodge, accorde Far Eastern Economic Review, 11 July 1963

339

Annex 56

340

Annex 56

341

Annex 56

342

Annex 56

343

Annex 56

344

Annex 56

345

346

Annex 57 N. Gussing, Note to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mission to Thailand and Cambodia, 14 September 1963

347

Annex 57

348

Annex 57

349

Annex 57

350

Annex 57

351

Annex 57

352

Annex 57

353

Annex 57

354

Annex 58 J.F. Engers, Aide-Mmoire on the Secretary-Generals Five Points of 3 September 1963, 19 September 1963

355

Annex 58

356

Annex 58

357

Annex 58

358

Annex 58

359

360

Annex 59 United Nations, Letter dated 9 November 1966 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No.S/6040, 9 November 1964

361

Annex 59

362

Annex 59

363

Annex 59

364

Annex 60 Ralits Cambodgiennes, 18 December 1964, Les ruades de Thanat Khoman

365

Annex 60

366

Annex 60

367

Annex 60

368

Annex 60

369

370

Annex 61 Gauthereau, Cable to David Owen, No. CAM 228, 24 December 1964

371

Annex 61

372

Annex 61

373

374

Annex 62 Permanent Representative of Cambodia to the United Nations, Notes to the Secretary-General, No. 1442 and 1449, 11 April 1966 (French in the original)

375

Annex 62

376

Annex 62

377

Annex 62

378

Annex 62

379

380

Annex 63 Acting Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations, Note to the Secretary-General, No. 335/2509, 22 April 1966

381

Annex 63

382

Annex 63

383

Annex 63

384

Annex 63

385

Annex 63

386

Annex 63

387

388

Annex 64 Intentionally blank

389

Annex 64

390

Annex 64

Intentionally blank

391

Annex 64

Intentionally blank

392

Annex 64

Intentionally blank

393

394

Annex 65 United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279, 3 May 1966

395

Annex 65

396

Annex 65

397

Annex 65

398

Annex 65

399

400

Annex 66 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Note to Foreign Office, No. 954, 5 May 1966

401

Annex 66

402

Annex 66

403

404

Annex 67 United Nations, Letter dated 23 April 1966 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Cambodia Addressed to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7279/Corr.1, 5 May 1966

405

Annex 67

406

Annex 67

407

408

Annex 68 British Embassy in Phnom Penh, Cable to Foreign Office, 9 May 1966

409

Annex 68

410

Annex 68

411

Annex 68

412

Annex 69 United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, Cable to Foreign Office, 14 July 1966

413

Annex 69

414

Annex 69

415

416

Annex 70 United Nations, Letter dated 16 August 1966 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc. No. S/7462, 16 August 1966

417

Annex 70

418

Annex 70

419

420

Annex 71 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Memorandum of Conversation between the Foreign Minister and Ambassador de Ribbing, Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on 6 September 1966, Annex 10 of Report by the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and First Contact with their High Authorities, 13September 1966

421

Annex 71

422

Annex 71

423

Annex 71

424

Annex 71

425

Annex 71

426

Annex 71

427

Annex 71

428

Annex 72 Herbert de Ribbing, Note to the Secretary-General, Report by the Special Representative on his First Visit to Cambodia and Thailand and First Contact with their High Authorities, 13 September 1966

429

Annex 72

430

Annex 72

431

Annex 72

432

Annex 72

433

Annex 72

434

Annex 72

435

Annex 72

436

Annex 72

437

Annex 72

438

Annex 72

439

Annex 72

440

Annex 72

441

Annex 72

442

Annex 72

443

Annex 72

444

Annex 72

445

446

Annex 73 French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 686/688, 2 November 1966

447

Annex 73

448

Annex 73

449

Annex 73

450

Annex 74 United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations, 1966, pages 162-163, available at http://unyearbook.un.org/ unyearbook.html?name=1966index.html

451

Annex 74

452

Annex 74

162

POLITICAL AND SECURITY QUESTIONS

S/7662, S/7667, S/7678, S/7695, S/7707, S/7738, S/7782, S/7801. Letters of 3, 5, 12, 19 and 30 January, 14 and 23 February and 2 March 1967

from Cambodia. A/6302. Report of Security Council to General Assembly (16 July 1965-15 July 1966), Chapter 18.

COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING RELATIONS BETWEEN CAMBODIA AND THAILAND


During 1966, a series of charges and countercharges concerning alleged frontier incidents were addressed by Cambodia and Thailand in letters to the President of the Security Council
and in communications to the Secretary-General. Most charges brought categorical denials from the other party; neither party requested consideration of the situation by the Security Council. In August 1966, the Secretary-General designated a Special Representative to examine the situation with the parties concerned. The most frequent Cambodian charges referred to Thai firing across the border, to armed Thai elements penetrating into Cambodian territory and attacking military posts and border villages, and to mines being laid by Thai armed forces, exploding under Cambodian patrols, villagers, carts and cattle. There were also charges of Thai fishing junks entering Cambodian territorial waters. Villagers and military personnel subversion by "Free Khmer" traitors established in Thailand which, Cambodia alleged, was one of the military bases of United States imperial-

ism waging a colonialist war against the VietNamese people and threatening the peace and security of other countries in the region. A number of Thailand's complaints charged Cambodia with firing across the frontier at Thai military elements and villages. Other charges were that Cambodian soldiers had crossed the

frontier and opened fire, set mines and perpetrated acts of aggression against Thai fishing craft in Thai waters. Occasional casualties were reported. In reply to Cambodian charges, Thailand asserted that careful investigation had failed to find evidence that Thai elements had crossed the Cambodian frontier to attack posts or lay mines at the alleged places or dates. Thailand categorically rejected Cambodia's charges as
false and groundless. Thai border police, it was

were stated to have been killed or wounded on


numerous occasions.

In various letters replying to Thai charges, Cambodia stated that no Cambodian elements had taken part in the alleged mine-laying or other operations on their territory and that the border incidents had been initiated by Thai armed elements. In addition to its protests and demands that Thailand cease its provocative acts of incursion and aggression, Cambodia drew attention to what it described as the extremely serious situation created on its western border by the warlike
and expansionist policies of Thailand, stating

said, were under strict instructions not to shoot unless for purposes of self-defence. In denying various Cambodian charges, Thailand also complained of terroristic Cambodian acts to disrupt the peaceful existence of Thai, border inhabitants. Thailand denied active support to the "Free Khmer" movement; it also stated that Cambodia had allowed its territory to be used as a sanctuary and passage for the communist Viet-Cong and North Viet-Namese forces in their campaign against the free people

of South Viet-Nam and also for communist


agents to enter Thailand in order to carry out

that this constituted a threat to the peace. Cambodia, it was said, remained faithful to its policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries and did not possess the military means to pursue a policy other than that of defending its independence and its territorial integrity. Cambodia could not be held responsible for activities of anti-Government rebels in certain frontier zones in Thailand. The Thai authorities, Cambodia charged, were encouraging attempts at

the communist plan to subvert and subjugate the freedom-loving people of Thailand. The area of the temple of Preah Vihear was the subject of several charges and countercharges. Cambodia, for instance, complained of a series of attacks between 3 April and 5 May 1966 by elements of the Thai Armed Forces, in one case in battalion strength, in another by an estimated 2,000 soldiers. It complained of mortar

453

Annex 74
QUESTIONS RELATING TO ASIA AND THE FAR EAST

163

and automatic weapon fire, as well as the use of armoured vehicles. When, on 6 April, Khmer forces recaptured the temple occupied on 3 April, it was stated that the withdrawing aggressors killed five captured Cambodian guards on the spot. In a letter dated 23 April, Cambodia complained of these attacks and a previous series of provocative incursions, all of which, it said, constituted violations of the United Nations Charter and the judgement of the International Court of Justice of 15 June 1962, confirming that the temple of Preah Vihear was situated in Cambodian territory.17 The letter also said that the recurrence of these provocations seemed likely, as in September 1940, to be the prelude to a large-scale attack on Cambodia. In reply, Thailand said that thorough investigations had found no evidence of Thai soldiers having crossed the border into Cambodia at or around the alleged times and places so as to attack or occupy the temple; the charges were false and malicious. On the contrary, Cambodian soldiers near the temple had fired with heavy weapons at the Thai border police on the days the incidents were alleged to have taken place to provoke the Thai police into taking drastic action. Thailand also pointed out that the Cambodian Government had deliberately distorted Thailand's position vis-a-vis the 1962 decision of the International Court of Justice in stating that Thailand had refused to recognize its judgement.

On 16 August, the Secretary-General informed the President of the Security Council that he had designated Herbert de Ribbing as his Special Representative to examine the situation, endeavour to find ways and means of reducing tension in the area and explore the possibilities of resolving whatever problems might exist between Cambodia and Thailand. This action, he wrote, had been taken in consultation with the two Governments, which had signified their willingness to share on an equal basis all costs

involved. With reference to this letter, the USSR


emphasized on 27 August to the President of the

Council that, under the Charter, decisions connected with the maintenance of international
peace and security could only be taken by the Security Council. The USSR stated that it would have no objection when the Council took a decision on the particular candidate put forward. Argentina and Uruguay, however, considered that the action by the Secretary-General was fully justified. In letters dated 30 September and 12 October 1966, respectively, they said that the Secretary-General had the authority to keep himself informed on all matters which might threaten international peace and security and to exert the utmost effort to relieve situations which might become threats.

17

See Y.U.N., 1962, pp. 467-9.

DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES S/7097, S/7098. Letters of 22 and 24 January 1966


from Thailand. S/7126. Letter of 7 February 1966 from Cambodia.

23 and 28 September 1966 from Cambodia.


S/7522. Letter of 30 September 1966 from Argentina. S/7530. Letter of 5 October 1966 from Thailand.

S/7147, S/7166. Letters of 16 and 25 February 1966


from Thailand.

S/7548. Letter of 14 October 1966 from Cambodia.


S/7550. S/7555, from S/7560. Letter of 12 October 1966 from Uruguay. S/7557. Letters of 17 and 18 October 1966 Cambodia. Letter of 21 October 1966 from Thailand.

S/7279 and Corr.1, S/7305, S/7309, S/7319, S/7344, S/7348, S/7353, S/7356, S/7364. Letters of 23
April, 17, 19, 24 May, 6, 8, 14, 15 and 17 June 1966 from Cambodia. S/7366. Letter of 17 June 1966 from Thailand. S/7381. Letter of 27 June 1966 from Cambodia. S/7384, S/7393, S/7454. Letters of 28 June, 1 July and 8 August 1966 from Thailand. S/7461. Letter of 10 August 1966 from Cambodia. S/7462. Letter of 16 August 1966 from SecretaryGeneral.

S/7567, S/7582, S/7618. Letters of 24 October, 11


November and 6 December 1966 from Cambodia. S/7627. Letter of 9 December 1966 from Thailand.

S/7651, S/7665, S/7666, S/7677, S/7694, S/7708,


S/7724. Letters of 28 December 1966, and 4, 5, 12, 19, 30 January and 6 February 1967, respectively, from Cambodia. A/6302. Report of Security Council to General Assembly, Chapter 19. S/7787. Letter of 24 February 1967 from Thailand.

S/7478. Letter of 27 August 1966 from USSR.


S/7492. Letter of 12 September 1966 from Thailand.

S/7493, S/7496, S/7510, S/7516. Letters of 12, 14,

454

Annex 75 Chao Thai Newspaper, 24 July 1967, Should seek future benefit. Quarrel is detrimental to both sides

455

Annex 75

456

Annex 75

(Translation) Chao Thai 24 July 1967 (Excerpt) Should seek future benefit. Quarrel is detrimental to both sides. Colonel Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave a television interview and reaffirmed that Thailand, the Government of Thailand and the Thai people have good intention and wish to have fraternal relations with the people of Cambodia and Cambodia On a television interview broadcast on 26 of this month, Minister Thanat reaffirmed that Thailand does not want Cambodian territory and does not have any boundary dispute with Cambodia as alleged by some Cambodians. On the reservation made by Thailand on the sovereignty over the territory of Khao Phra Viharn, Minister Thanat clarified that the reservation is a legal one which Thailand has the right to do so under the provisions of the UN charter. He said the reservation does not mean a threat to use force to occupy the territory which had been decided to be belonging to Cambodia by the ICJ. The reservation is only a legal one in accordance with existing rights and it can be withdrawn only through peaceful measures. []

457

Annex 75

458

Annex 76 French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 382/84, 27 July 1967

459

Annex 76

460

Annex 76

461

Annex 76

462

Annex 77 French Embassy in Bangkok, Tlgramme, No. 400/402, 4 August 1967

463

Annex 77

464

Annex 77

465

Annex 77

466

Annex 78 Herbert de Ribbing, Cable to the Secretary-General, 16 October 1967

467

Annex 78

468

Annex 78

469

Annex 78

470

Annex 79 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand, Declaration Commune entre La Thailande et le Cambodge of 13May 1970, Foreign Affairs Bulletin 1970 Vol. IX, Nos. 1-6 (August 1966-July 1970), pages 436-437

471

Annex 79

472

Annex 79

473

Annex 79

474

Annex 79

475

476

Annex 80 Chao Thai Newspaper, 14 May 1970, Ambassadors will be exchanged soon. Cambodia is attacked and its domestic affairs interfered

477

Annex 80

478

Annex 80

(Translation) Chao Thai 14 May B.E. 2513 (1970) Ambassadors will be exchanged soon Cambodia is attacked and its domestic affairs interfered The negotiations to restore friendly relations between Thailand and Cambodia ended with the heads of delegations of both sides signed the communiqu in the late morning of 13 of this month. The content of the communiqu is as follows: 1. Upon the invitation of H.E. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, H.E. Yem Sambaur, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia, made an official visit to the Kingdom of Thailand. He was accompanied by H.E. Prom Tos, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, General Saray Saman, Chief of Staff of the Royal Cambodian Army, Mr. Dong Rasee, Member of Parliament, Mr. Plek Chat, Cambodian Permanent Representative to the Mekong River Commission, and other Cambodian officials. 2. During the stay in Thailand, Cambodian Minister of Foreign Affairs and his delegation were warmly welcomed, as brothers, by the Government and the people of Thailand. 3. The two Ministers exchanged views openly and constructively on the resolution of the problems which concerned both, and on the international affairs situation, in particular, the various problems in the South East Asia. The exchange of views proceeded in the atmosphere of cordiality and greatly helped to build better understanding between each other. 4. On the consideration of the review of relations between Thailand and Cambodia, both Ministers mutually agreed that it was necessary to promote better relations between the two countries, and agreed that such relations should be firmly based on trust, friendship and fraternity. 5. Both Ministers reaffirmed the intention to vigorously uphold the objects and principles of the UN Charter. In accordance to such resolve, both Ministers reaffirmed the respect of present common boundary between the two countries. Both Ministers affirmed the intention to adopt the policies of good neighbourliness, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the other country, and declared that both countries will closely and effectively cooperate with other countries, for the mutual benefits of the international community, and for peace and progress of the South East Asian region. 6. Both Ministers, for each respective government, agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations between Thailand and Cambodia, and to exchange diplomatic agents in the near future. 7. Both Ministers expressed concern over the widespread interference and attack on Cambodia by Viet-Cong and North Viet Nam soldiers, which constituted flagrant violation of international law and the Geneva Convention of 1954. 8. Cambodian Minister expressed thanks to Thailand for extending sympathy to Cambodia for its ideology of justice and righteous campaign to expel the aggressors from Cambodian territory. 9. Before his departure, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia expressed satisfaction and thanks to the government and the people of Thailand for warmly welcoming him and the Cambodian delegation during their sojourn in Thailand.

479

Annex 80

480

Annex 81 Daily News, 14 May 1970, Thailand and Cambodia issued a joint communiqu to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks

481

Annex 81

482

Annex 81

(Translation) Daily News 14 May B.E. 2513 (1970) Thailand and Cambodia issued a joint communiqu to resume diplomatic ties in 2 weeks. The Royal Thai Government and the Cambodian government signed a joint communiqu to resume diplomatic ties within 2 weeks. Each government reaffirmed its intention to adhere to the principles of the UN charter and respect present common boundary between the two countries, to adopt a policy of good neighbourliness, and to refrain from interference in the domestic affairs of the other country. This is for the mutual benefits of the international community. The signing ceremony took place yesterday (13th) at 10.15 hours, inside the meeting room of the Department of Information, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The joint communiqu was signed by Col. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs, for Thailand, and by Mr. Yem Sambaur, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia, for Cambodia. The details of the 9 articles of the joint communiqu, translated from English to Thai, as announced by the Department of Information are as follows: 1. Upon the invitation of H.E. Thanat Khoman, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Thailand, H.E. Yem Sambaur, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia, made an official visit to the Kingdom of Thailand. He was accompanied by H.E. Prom Tos, Deputy Minister of Trade and Industry, General Saray Saman, Chief of Staff of the Royal Cambodian Army, Mr. Dong Rasee, Member of Parliament, Mr. Plek Chat, Cambodian Permanent Representative to the Mekong River Commission, and other Cambodian officials. 2. During the stay in Thailand, Cambodian Minister of Foreign Affairs and his delegation were warmly welcomed, as brothers, by the Government and the people of Thailand. 3. The two Ministers exchanged views openly and constructively on the resolution of the problems which concerned both, and on the international affairs situation, in particular, the various problems in the South East Asia. The exchange of views proceeded in the atmosphere of cordiality and greatly helped to build better understanding between each other. 4. On the consideration of the review of relations between Thailand and Cambodia, both Ministers mutually agreed that it was necessary to promote better relations between the two countries, and agreed that such relations should be firmly based on trust, friendship and fraternity. 5. Both Ministers reaffirmed the intention to vigorously uphold the objects and principles of the UN Charter. In accordance to such resolve, both Ministers reaffirmed the respect of present common boundary between the two countries. Both Ministers affirmed the intention to adopt the policies of good neighbourliness, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of the other country, and declared that both countries will closely and effectively cooperate with other countries, for the mutual benefits of the international community, and for peace and progress of the South East Asian region. 6. Both Ministers, for each respective government, agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations between Thailand and Cambodia, and to exchange diplomatic agents in the near future.

483

Annex 81

7. Both Ministers expressed concern over the widespread interference and attack on Cambodia by Viet-Cong and North Viet Nam soldiers, which constituted flagrant violation of international law and the Geneva Convention of 1954. 8. Cambodian Minister expressed thanks to Thailand for extending sympathy to Cambodia for its ideology of justice and righteous campaign to expel the aggressors from Cambodian territory. 9. Before his departure, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia expressed satisfaction and thanks to the government and the people of Thailand for warmly welcoming him and the Cambodian delegation during their sojourn in Thailand. After the signing ceremony of the joint communiqu, Col. Thanat Khoman gave an interview with the press stating it was a good thing that there would be an exchange of officials of the rank of ambassador within 1 or 2 weeks from now, and that Thailand and Cambodia are close neighbours, not only geographically but also historically and culturally. Col. Thanat Khoman also stated that the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia had mentioned that the dissatisfaction between Thailand and Cambodia in the past was solely caused by Prince Sihanouk. He used the terms which I do not want to repeat Minister Col. Thanat spoke with a grin to indicate to the reporters that Prince Sihanouk was strongly condemned and the Cambodian side hoped for smooth relations. This was because, in recent time, Thailand had proceeded in many ways but was impeded by only one person, namely that person. Therefore, when that person was no longer around, the various problems gradually improved. In response to a question concerning the identity of the officials with the rank of ambassador from both sides, Col. Thanat said that the names have been chosen, but could not yet be revealed, pending the agrment of the respective governments. As for the embassy officials of each side, Col. Thanat said that they might be sent in advance, even though diplomatic relations as yet was not yet resumed. As for the negotiations concerning the receipt of assistance from the government of Thailand, Col. Thanat said that the Cambodian side had not asked Thailand for help in sending troops since it had been agreed that the negotiations for assistance would be proceeded in stages. On the movement of the Cambodian delegation, after the signing ceremony of the joint communiqu, in the same afternoon at 14.00 hours, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia and the delegation travelled by helicopter from the accommodation in Bangkok to the Klai-Kangwon Palace, Hua Hin, where Col. Thanat led the delegation to have a royal audience with Their Majesties the King and Queen. After that, the delegation on the restoration of diplomatic relations of Cambodia returned to Bangkok for the reception at the residence of Col. Thanat where official businesses were also discussed. Mr. Yem Sambaur, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cambodia would be the head of the delegation of 5, travelling out of Thailand today (14th) for Jakarta, Indonesia, to attend the meeting of the Group of Asian Countries next week. Col. Thanat Khoman will travel at the end of this week to join the said meeting too.

484

Annex 81

485

Annex 81

486

Annex 82 Daily News, 12 July 1970, [] but sends border police to Phra Viharn

487

Annex 82

488

Annex 82

(Translation) Daily News 12 July 1970

(Excerpt)

But send border police to Khao Phra Viharn

[]

Field Marshal Thanom Kittikachorn, Prime Minister, gave an interview that the news of the movement of Thai armed forces into the area of Khao Phra Viharn is not true. The Thai soldiers carried out their duty along the Thai border only. He revealed further that Cambodia asked Thailand to help protecting Khao Phra Viharn and Thailand has sent border police as requested without encroaching into Cambodian territory

[]

489

Annex 82

490

Annex 83 Daily News, 24 March 1971, Revealing conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn Cut off. Thai side has to assist.

491

Annex 83

492

Annex 83

(Translation) Daily News 24 March 1971 Revealing conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn Cut off. Thai side has to assist ----------------------------------The conditions of Khmer soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn are revealed. They are in the state of being marooned, cut off from their main forces, as Viet-Cong has cut their supply route. The Khmer soldiers have to help themselves mostly. The conditions are poor. Foods are occasionally given by the Thai authorities. Once in a while, plane from Phnom Penh would fly over to drop supplies. But they do not meet the demands of the soldiers who have moved their families up with them. Khmer currency that they have, are not accepted at the market and needs to be exchanged into US dollar at the US Consulate in Ubonratchatani. The worst of all is the soldiers children, who are suffering from smallpox. A reporter reported on 22 March that at around 10.30 am of 20 March, Special Pol. Col. Chaiyasit Seksit, Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police, Nakorn Ratchasima Province together with Pol. Lt. Col. Sompas Kumprapan, Superintendent of Si Sa Ket Provincial Police, , Capt. Manit Nitsayan, Inspector of Provincial Police, Kantharalak district, travelled by car to inspect the defence line at Kantharalak district to find ways to strengthen the preventive strategy against infiltration of the opposition. Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police visited Phum Srol camp, which is the location of Border Patrol Police Division 2, Sub-Division of 3rd Area Provincial Police, and had a confidential meeting with Pol. Lt. Poon Pochan, Border Patrol Police Captain, in order to deploy reinforcement in the ten areas prone to infiltration. The meeting lasted about 1 hour. Commander of 3rd Area Provincial Police then travelled to the location of special force unit and border patrol police at the Thai-Khmer coordination point, Khao Phra Viharn, and went up Khao Phra Viharn to meet Maj. Kim SaKol, chief of the Khao Phra Viharn Khmer guards, then returned on the same day. Dailynews met up with Maj. Kim Sakol, who revealed to our reporter that, at present, his unit is in a very bad situation since they are completely cut off from the main forces after Viet-Cong had attacked Chom Ksan district. Maj. Duangsak, district sheriff and commander of battalion 35 died in last July. This had led to the forces on Khao Phra Viharn being cut off from this battalion. Later, the last stronghold at Pa Pai district, 4 km. from Khao Phra Viharn, was lost to Viet-Cong. Every route of connecting with Phnom Penh was cut off. Being completely cut off like this has caused the Khmer soliders on Khao Phra Viharn to be marooned since then. Every soldier has to rely on himself. On the issue of supplies, sometimes help is brought up by the Thai authorities or plane from Phnom Penh dropped food supplies, however it was infrequent and with no set schedule. Soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn have brought up their families. So when faced with scarcity, it affects women and children too. And there is another problem looming, as the soldiers children are suffering from smallpox and it is spreading fast.

493

Annex 83

Maj. Kim Sakol said that the soldiers on Khao Phra Viharn have some coins in Khmer currency with them, but cannot be used to buy goods from the Thai market to relieve scarcity. Merchants did not accept their money claiming that they do not a place to exchange it and do not know of the rate. The situation is grave as if their money is worthless. Some were sent to Ubon Ratchatani to negotiate with American consul to exchange money, with unsatisfactory result.

494

Annex 83

495

496

Annex 84 Chao Thai Newspaper, 27 October 1971, Thai and Khmer joined forces

497

Annex 84

498

Annex 84

(Translation) Chao Thai 27 October 1971 Thai and Khmer joined forces Viet Cong sent troops to the border to seize Khao Phra Viharn and clashed heavily with Thai forces. The fighting continues until now. On the morning of 26 this month, Mr. Puang Suwanarat, Permanent Secretary for Interior gave an interview with newspaper representative that he received an urgent radio call from Si Sa Ket Province reporting that on the night of 25 this month, at 9pm, Viet Cong forces attempted to invade into Thai territory on Si Sa Ket front. They want to go up Khao Phra Viharn to fight against Khmer soldiers guarding it. Mr. Puang said that the paths up to Khao Phra Vihran are inside Thai territory. There are 2 paths namely, the Broken Staircase pass and Chong Kra-bue pass. Viet-Cong tried to enter through both paths. The exact number of Viet-Cong soldiers which clashed with Thai forces, comprising defence volunteers and border police guarding the two paths, are not known. The fighting continues until 11am of 26 Oct. Si Sa Ket Province has sent reinforcement. I am on standby waiting for updates through the radio.

499

Annex 84

500

Annex 85 Daily News, 30 October 1971, The Day Viet-Cong attacks

501

Annex 85

502

Annex 85

(Translation) Daily News 30 October 1971

The Day Viet-Cong Attacks A report from Si Sa Ket Province reveals the story and events before the invasion of VietCong into the area of Khao Phra Viharn on the night of 25 October. During 11-18 Oct, there was a sign in Khmer territory at Chom Ksan district bordering Thailand, indicating of things to come. A group of Viet-Cong and Khmer Rouge at Baan Sra Am had mobilized into the forest near Baan Huay Somboon, between the route from Baan Sa Tiang Kwong and Baan Pai, using 2 wagons carrying arms and food supplies including 2 4-inch bazookas, 4 crates of ammunition. The troops patrolled up to Baan Sra Am. Previously, between 7-8 Oct, Viet-Cong and Khmer Rouge from Baan Tabaeng Mee Chai had mobilized to Chom Ksan district. The location of this group of Viet-Cong had 30 bags of rice and civilians in the area of Chom Ksan district were ordered to stock up food, in order to attack and capture Khao Phra Viharn area. At present, Khmer Rouge at Chom Ksan district comprises women and men, well trained in arms combat. These men and women had been home guards during day time in the past. It is expected that Viet-Cong will use this group of Khmer Rouge to fight because civilians are prohibited to leave home at night, between 8pm 6am, claiming that traps have been placed around. It is also prohibited to light a fire except lighting a torch.

Troops deployed along the whole stretch As for the Thai sides preparation, Air Chief Marshal Tavee Jullasap, Minister of Transport, as Chief of Staff of the military, said to reporters on the morning of 28 Oct that although the fighting is over, as a precaution, provincial border patrol police and defence volunteers are deployed along the whole stretch, especially in at the broken staircase pass as it is considered to be a dangerous point.

503

Annex 85

504

Annex 86 Daily News, 3 November 1971, Khao Phra Viharn Front is Not Serious

505

Annex 86

506

Annex 86

(Translation) Daily News 3 November 1971 (Excerpt) [] Khao Phra Viharn Front is not serious Concerning the event on Khao Phra Viharn front, which intensified again last week because of Viet Cong attack, Police Major General Chana stated that from meeting and enquiring with Mr. Phuang Suwannarat, Permanent Secretary for Interior, the situation is not so serious as to require sending military reinforcement. Because the forces of provincial border police and defence volunteers are still able to halt Viet Cong attack. The Thai Ambassador to Phnom Penh said that he will meet the Foreign Minister in 2-3 days after the meeting of the Cabinet and National Security Council to receive assignments to be implemented.

507

Annex 86

508

Annex 87 Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site between Thai side and Cambodian side, 7 November 1991

509

Annex 87

510

Annex 87

(Translation) Summary of a meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site between Thai side and Cambodian side 7 November B.E. 2534 (1991) at Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall The meeting begins at 08.30 hrs. Second Lieutenant Somjit Junlapong, Governor of Si Sa Ket Province, is the head of the Thai delegation. Mr. Suk Sum-eng, Governor of Phra Viharn Province, is the head of the Cambodian delegation. The summary of the meeting is as follows: Item 1 Opening of Khao Phra Viharn as tourist site 1. Day and time of the opening 1.1 Tourists may visit the Temple of Phra Viharn every day from 8.00 to 16.00 hrs. from December 1991 onward. The Thai side shall fix the opening date and inform the Cambodian side at least 3 days in advance. 2. Tourists 2.1 Tourists whose visits are permitted include Thai, Cambodian and foreign citizens. 2.2 Cambodian tourists who wish to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn must have a certifying note from the Cambodian government permitting their lawful entry into Thailand and travel in and out through designated temporary pass points or border checkpoints in accordance with the laws. 3. Means of access 3.1 A tourist who wishes to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn from Thailand shall obtain prior permission from Si Sa Ket Province. The Province shall issue 2 types of permits as follows:

511

Annex 87

3.1.1 Three types of permit badges for affixing on tourists chest to prevent unauthorised entry: 1) Official badge (white) 2) Tour guide badge (blue) 3) Tourist badge (yellow) For special guests of the Thai side, the Cambodian side shall provide a number of special badges as required. The Thai side shall send a note notifying the date and time of the visit in advance and the Cambodian side shall have an on-duty official who is empowered to authorize the visit and shall be available to facilitate the visit on a daily basis. 3.1.2 There are 4 types of entry tickets for the access of the Temple of Phra Viharn: 1) Foreign tourists (blue) 2) General tourists - adult (yellow) - child (green) (not exceeding 120 cm in height) 3) Students in uniform (pink) 3.1.3 The entry tickets shall be printed in 2 parts and in 3 languages Thai, Khmer, English and shall bear the phrase Permit to visit the Temple of Phra Viharn and the price of the ticket. 4. Tour company or juristic person that provides guide tour services [They] shall be authorized by Si Sa Ket Province only. This is in order to verify whether or not they operate legally and whether they are willing to comply with the conditions of the Agreement between Thailand and Cambodia. The Province will facilitate and ensure order and safety, and coordinate with the Cambodian side. The Province shall inform the Cambodian side of the list of authorized companies. 5. Entry ticket price The price for the visit of the Temple of Phra Viharn is as follows: 5.1 Foreign tourists

512

Annex 87

- adult - child 5.2 General tourists - adult - child

200 baht per person 100 baht per person

60 baht per person 20 baht per person

- students in uniform 5 baht per person 5.3 The price of the visit of Khao Phra Viharn above does not include tour services of juristic person which provides guide tours. 5.4 The proceeds obtained from the entry tickets shall be shared equally. 6. Security measures in the area of Khao Phra Viharn 6.1 Each side shall provide security personnel to provide security to the tourists at all time in its respective area. 7. Provision of other facilities 7.1 The Thai side shall construct restrooms for tourists in the area on Khao Phra Viharn. 7.2 The Thai side shall provide cement pillars and barbed wires for the Cambodian side to clear landmines and build fences around the area of the Temple of Phra Viharn in order to indicate the areas and limits that tourists can visit. 7.3 The Thai side shall appoint a committee to jointly inspect the area with the Cambodian side and indicate limits of construction zone in accordance with articles 7.1 and 7.2 giving consideration to appropriateness and necessity of such construction. 7.4 The tour companies shall provide food and drinks to their clients in 2 locations. 7.5 The Cambodian side shall arrange sales of food and drinks for the tourists on Khao Phra Viharn. Consideration should be given to hygiene. Thai citizens may sell food and drinks to tourists and there is no objection if the Cambodian side comes down to buy products in order to sell them on Khao Phra Viharn. 8. Coordinating officers

513

Annex 87

There shall be a joint coordination post with coordinating officers of both sides stationed at the post in the area of Temple pond on Khao Phra Viharn from 8.00 to 16.00 hours daily in order to provide services or resolve any problem which may occur to the tourists. All Thai officers shall not be subject to entry fee. 9. Tour guide 9.1 The Thai side may have a tour guide to guide tourists through their visit of Khao Phra Viharn. The tour guide shall not be subject to entry fee. 9.2 Tourists may take photographs and record videos in the area of the Temple of Phra Viharn except in places where there is a sign prohibiting such activities. 10. Closure of Khao Phra Viharn 10.1 If the Cambodian side has a necessary reason to close Khao Phra Viharn, it shall notify the Thai side at least 15 days in advance. If there is no advance notice and there is a legal omplaint for damages, the Cambodian side shall be liable to damages except in cases of force majeure e.g. there is a war or fighting in the area adjacent to Khao Phra Viharn which may endanger the tourists. 10.2 If the Thai side has a reason to terminate tourism in the Temple of Phra Viharn, it shall notify the Cambodian side immediately. Item 2 Opening of temporary border pass point The Cambodian side proposed that the Thai side open a temporary pass point for trade at one of the following areas: 1. Chong Poi Pass, Ban Dan, Sao Thongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district. 2. Chong Dumpaka Pass, Ban Nong Wa, Sao Thongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district. The Thai side proposed in principle that since the matter involves many authorities and takes time to consider, therefore, both sides should establish a joint committee to study which pass points are possible then submit the information to their respective governments to consider. When a policy on the matter is set by the governments, there shall be another meeting to negotiate the matter. Item 3 Border security Both sides agreed to cooperate to prevent and suppress sales of illegal goods and arms along the border. Both side will prevent and suppress such activities in the area under their respective responsibility.

514

Annex 87

The meeting ends at 18.30 hrs. Both sides agreed as stated above and, therefore, record report of the meeting in 2 languages Thai and Khmer. Both texts have identical meaning.

(Signed) (Somjit Junlapong) Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Province

(signed) (Mr. Suk Sum-eng) Governor of Phra Viharn

515

Annex 87

Negotiation meeting on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn 7 November B.E. 2534 (1991) 9.30hrs. at meeting hall, Si Sa Ket provincial authority

List of Thai delegation 1. Second Lieutenant Somjit Junlapong 2. Colonel Wiroj Chanasit 3. Mr. Siva Saengmanee 4. Mr. Poj Jaimun 5. Mr. Virasak Pornpiboon 6. Colonel Amnuay Paojinda 7. Colonel Surapol Ruek 8. Lieutenant Colonel Sura Homchit 9. Police Colonel Peerasak Preawpanich 10. Mr. Warong Siripanich 11. Pol. Lt. Col. Sophon Nakabordee 12. (Ineligible) 13. Mr. Anurak Eimla-or 14. Mr. Sompong Pattani 15. (Ineligible) 16. Pol. Lt. Col. Pinit Srisaranukrom 17. Mr. Pring Petchluan (ineligible) Provincial education officer Translator Provincial commerce officer Provincial information officer Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Chief of Staff, Suranaree Task Force Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province Vice Governor of Si Sa Ket Province (ineligible) Commander-in-Chief of 23th Paramilitary Ranger Unit Chief of 9th Intelligence Operation Unit Deputy Commander Sheriff of Kantaraluck district Immigration Police, Ubon Ratchathani Province absent

516

Annex 87

517

Annex 87

518

Annex 87

519

Annex 87

520

Annex 87

521

Annex 87

522

Annex 87

523

Annex 87

524

Annex 87

525

Annex 87

526

Annex 88 A photograph of the iron gate at Tani stream, circa 1992

527

Annex 88

528

Annex 88

Photograph of Iron Gate across Takhop/Tani Stream, taken circa 1992

529

530

Annex 89 Agreed Minutes of the First Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 30 June - 2 July 1999

531

Annex 89

532

Annex 89

533

Annex 89

534

Annex 89

535

Annex 89

536

Annex 90 Agreed Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Thai-Cambodian Joint Commission on Demarcation for Land Boundary, 5-7 June 2000

537

Annex 90

538

Annex 90

539

Annex 90

540

Annex 90

541

542

Annex 91 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia on the Survey and Demarcation of Land Boundary, 14June 2000

543

Annex 91

544

Annex 91

545

Annex 91

546

Annex 91

547

Annex 91

548

Annex 91

549

Annex 91

550

Annex 91

551

Annex 91

552

Annex 91

553

Annex 91

554

Annex 91

555

Annex 91

556

Annex 91

557

Annex 91

558

Annex 91

559

Annex 91

560

Annex 92 Record of joint meeting between Delegation of the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province, 22 February 2001

561

Annex 92

562

Annex 92

(Translation) Record of a joint meeting Between Delegation of the Governor of Si Sa Ket Province and Delegation of the Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province Re: Opening of Khao Phra Viharn Pass Point for Tourism On 22 February B.E. 2544 (2001) At Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall, Si Sa Ket Province, Thailand . The meeting was attended by Mr. Kosin Kedtong, Governor of Si Sa Ket Province, Head of the Thai delegation and Mr. Boon Suwann, Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province, Head of Cambodian delegation. The meeting discussed and exchanged views. Both sides agreed to strengthen relations by opening a temporary pass point at Khao Phra Viharn as international tourist site. The result of the meeting is annexed as ANNEX A. The record of the meeting is done in the Thai and Khmer languages with identical meaning and substance and may be modified according to the circumstances and appropriateness by mutual agreement.

(Mr. Kosin Kedtong) Governor of Si Sa Ket Province The Kingdom of Thailand

(Mr. Boon Suwann) Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province The Kingdom of Cambodia

Police Colonel (Mr. Wanich Ritdech) Deputy Governor of Si Sa Ket Province (Jia San) Chief of Tourism police, Phra Viharn Province

Major General (Pinit Srisaranukrom) (Mr. Gao Long)

563

Annex 92

Command of Si Sa Ket Provincial Police

Sheriff of Chom Ksan district

(Mr. Songsak Satupak) Sheriff of Kantharalak district

564

Annex 92

Annex A No. Matters 1 Measures to maintain order and security at the Pha Mo I Daeng temporary pass point, Thailand/ Khao Phra Viharn, Cambodia Proposal 1. Appoint a committee to coordinate resolutions of problems at the Pha Mo I Daeng temporary pass point for tourism, Sao Tongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district, Si Sa Ket Province, Thailand and the Temple of Phra Viharn, Chom Ksan district, Phra Viharn Province, Cambodia Principles and Reasons 1. to maintain order at the Pass point: (1) to prevent people under its administrative control from committing crimes against the people of the other side e.g. battery, robbery, pickpocketing and abduction for ransom. If such crime occurs, it shall prosecute the wrongdoer in accordance with the law of the place that the crime takes place (2) Strictly and continuously prevent arms trade, prostitution, drugs sale, and illegal casino (3) prevent illegal smuggling of good or prohibited items in accordance with the laws of the respective sides (4) prevent illegal immigration whether for tourism or employment (5) prevent the people of each side from Ageement Agreed

565

Annex 92

making sales of goods in the pass point area of the other side. If found, legal action must be immediately carried out in accordance with the laws (6) Both sides of the Committee must cooperate to prevent and suppress theft of property, animals, vehicles, motorcycles and archeological artifacts and shall return the stolen goods when there is clear evidence. (7) Each side of the Committee shall prevent homeless persons, disabled persons, beggars and prostitutes from entering into the territory of the other side. If one side deports such person, the other shall take him/her back and proceed in accordance with the laws. 2 The area of the Khao Phra Viharn Temporary Pass Point for tourism 2. Pha Mo I Daeng, Sao Tongchai subdistrict, Kantharalak district, Si Sa Ket Province, Thailand and the Agreed

566

Annex 92

Temple of Phra Viharn, Chom Ksan district, Phra Viharn Province, Cambodia. 3 Duration of the Phra Viharn Temporary Pass Point for tourism 3. Daily from 8.00 to 16.00 hrs from the date of the official opening of the temporary pass point 3. To prevent illegal immigration of person from the other side and to provide security for tourists who visit the Temple of Phra Viharn Agreed

4.

Regulations on the goods sold at the Phra Viharn Temporary Pass Point

4. Only consumer products deemed necessary for daily life and souvenirs which worth not more than 500,000 baht are allowed to be sold.

Agreed

(signed) (Mr. Kosin Kedtong) Governor of Si Sa Ket Province

(signed) (Mr. Boon Suwann) Deputy Governor of Phra Viharn Province

567

Annex 92

568

Annex 92

569

Annex 92

570

Annex 92

571

Annex 92

572

Annex 92

573

Annex 92

574

Annex 92

575

576

Annex 93 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission, Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/1015, 25 November 2004

577

Annex 93

578

Annex 93

579

Annex 93

580

Annex 93

581

Annex 93

582

Annex 93

583

Annex 93

584

Annex 93

585

Annex 93

586

Annex 94 Adviser to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Thailand-Cambodia Joint Boundary Commission, Note to Adviser to the Royal Government of Cambodia in Charge of State Border Affairs and Co-Chairman of the Cambodia-Thailand Joint Boundary Commission, No. 0803/192, 8 March 2005

587

Annex 94

588

Annex 94

589

Annex 94

590

Annex 94

591

592

Annex 95 The Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO, A Challenge to Thailands denunciation of UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee, 2009, pages 1-23

593

Annex 95

594

THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA

A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION OF UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

THE TEMPLE OF PR P PREAH VIHEAR HEAR EAR


A WORLD HERITAGE SITE, 2008

Published by the Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO

A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION OF UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

Phnom Penh 2009

Annex 95

595

Annex 95

596

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGES 1-7 8-10 11-12 13-17 18-20 21-22 23
i-vi vii-x xi-xiii xiv-xv xvi-xxii xxiii-xxvii xxviii-xxix xxx xxxi xxxii xxxiii

1- A JOYOUS TIME CLOUDED BY THAILANDS HOSTILITIES

2- THERE IS A CLEAR INTERNATIONAL FRONTIER LINE BETWEEN CAMBODIA AND THAILAND

3- THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR, 1962: A Year of Decision

4- THAILANDS TWO TRACK POLICY REGARDING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

5- THAILANDS INVASION OF CAMBODIA

6- THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAI HOSTILITIES: POST-INVASION CONFLICT AND OCCUPATION

7- THE FUTURE OF THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

8- APPENDICES

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Appendix V

Appendix VI

Appendix VII

Appendix VIII

Appendix IX

Appendix X

Appendix XI

1. A JOYOUS TIME CLOUDED BY THAILANDS HOSTILITIES

Every year, delegates from all over the world come together for a meeting of the World Heritage Committee (WHC), a UNESCO organization dedicated to the preservation and sustainable development of the worlds most noteworthy and outstanding natural features and man-made structures. It is a jubilant time, as different countries nominate their most valued treasures to be inscribed as World Heritage Sites.

Decision: 32 COM 8B.102 Inscribes the Temple of Preah Vihear, Cambodia, on the World Heritage List under criterion (i);

Criterion (i): Preah Vihear is an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture. It is very pure both in plan and in the detail of its decoration.

And so it was in July, 2008, when the WHC met in Quebec City, Canada and unanimously decided to have the Temple of Preah Vihear, the 11th century Khmer monument perched on the southern end of a 625 meter high rock promontory of the Dangrek mountain range, inscribed as a World Heritage Site, having outstanding value, despite last minute strong objection by the State Party of Thailand to derail the inscription.

Annex 95

597

Annex 95

598

The Temple of Preah Vihear, a masterpiece of the Khmer architecture, was inscribed on the World Heritage List on 7, July 2008. The Temple presents an axial plan North South having 800 meters in length with successive Gopuras and Pavements leading to the main shrine or Gopura I, at the farthest South of the escarpment.

The Gopura V, to the farthest North, overlooking the staircase and the frontier line with Thailand

The Gopura IV and the Gopura III

The Gopura II and the Gopura I

It is paramount and duly appropriate to recall that the Royal Thai Government had committed to lend active support for the inscription as evidenced by numerous declarations, joint press releases, culminating with the 18 June 2008 Joint Communique witnessed by representatives of the UNESCO. 2

The road to Quebec City had been a long and bumpy one. Although it was the year 2001 when Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia initially made the official request to have the Temple of Preah Vihear listed. It took 6 years before the documents supporting the nomination was finalized and submitted to the World Heritage Center, UNESCO for approval, thus opening up the way for the inscription of the site on the World Heritage List by the decision of the World Heritage Committee (WHC), which consists of 21 member countries, elected among 186 country members of the 1972 Geneva Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Even so when Cambodia nominated the Temple of Preah Vihear for the inscription on the World Heritage list at the 31st Session of the WHC at Christchurch, New Zealand (2007), the Committee agreed in principle that the Temple of Preah Vihear should be inscribed. However the formal inscription was delayed a year while additional information was prepared for submission in support of the Temples nomination for inscription.

Annex 95

599

Annex 95

600

Activities of the delegation of the Royal Goverment of Cambodia led by H.E. Dr. Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Council of Ministers, at Christchurch, New Zealand, during the 3st Session of the World Heritage Committee, Jue-July 2007. (Photos Office of the Council of Ministers/Royal Government of Cambodia).

With the requirements of the 31st Session of the WHC, July 2007 at Christchurch having been met, on 7 July 2008 the 32nd Session of the WHC in Quebec City, Canada unanimously decided to have the famous Temple of Preah Vihear inscribed as it represents an outstanding masterpiece of Khmer architecture. 4

Upon hearing news of the decision of the WHC, spontaneous celebrations occurred all over the Kingdom of Cambodia. It has not been often in recent decades that the Cambodian people have had a chance for such positive international recognition, and they responded with the kind of heartfelt festivities reserved for the most important events in the life of the nation. A week later, on 14 July 2008, a celebration organized by the municipality of Phnom Penh in collaboration with Bayon TV channel at the indoor arena of the National Olympic Stadium upon the arrival of the Cambodian delegation from Quebec City, Canada. The event has further strengthened the unity of the whole nation under the wise leadership of Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, re-asserted the pride of the whole nation for the achievements of the Cambodian delegation led by H.E. Dr. Sok An Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Office of the Council of Ministers who has demonstrated time and again his professionalism, modesty, patience and patriotism, and sparked a new national confidence in the preparedness of the whole nation facing diversity of the 21st century and beyond.

H. E. Dr. Sok An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Office of the Council of Ministers, gave a speech during the 14 July 2008 celebration. With him are Lok Chumteav Annie Sok An and other members of the delegation to the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee, Quebec, Canada.

The celebrants raised from their seat to wave the flags, banners, as an expression of joy and appreciation in welcoming home H.E. Dr. Sok An Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Office of the Council of Ministers and the delegation to the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee, Quebec, Canada.

Annex 95

601

Annex 95

602
Thai army units crossed the Cambodian border and moved deeply inside Cambodia......... occupied Keo Sikkha Kiri Svara pagoda....... and the Cambodian civil administrative post. (Photos:OCM/RGC)

The next day, 15 July 2008, defying the United Nations Charter and fundamental international law, the Thai army crossed the Cambodian border, moved deeply inside Cambodia toward the newly inscribed Temple of Preah Vihear, and occupied "its vicinity on Cambodian territory" including Keo Sikkha Kiri Svara pagoda and its surrounding areas.

Above all, this Thailand's act of deliberate invasion and occupation is definitely and unequivocally in flagrant violations of The Hague's 15 June 1962 International Court of Justice's judgment, which said as follows:

"THE COURT,

by nine votes to three,

finds that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia;

finds in consequence,

by nine votes to three,

that Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers, stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory;

by seven votes to five,

that Thailand is under an obligation to restore to Cambodia any objects of the kind specified in Cambodia fifth Submission which may, since the date of occupation of the Temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from the Temple or the Temple area by the Thai authorities."

The Cambodian people are no strangers to war, having gone through many decades of armed conflict. But there was disappointing surprise as to why the Thais had reacted in such a manner to an event of such hope and universal aspiration as the one that had occurred in Quebec City. The use of brute military forces on the ground by the Royal Thai Government to justify a failed objection on the international arena, in Quebec City was beyond comprehension, and it was vicious and despicable. The Cambodian soil will be defended at all costs, but the whole nation is reasonably patient to leave the matter in the hands of the Royal Government of Cambodia under the wise leadership of Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister.

Cambodian field unit commander on the front line spoke with field HQ, after the armed clash with Thai soldiers, October 2008. (Photo AFP)

The Cambodian soldiers are highly motivated in the defense of their country. (Photo and caption by a couple of foreign tourists)

Annex 95

603

Annex 95

604

2. THERE IS A CLEAR INTERNATIONAL FRONTIER LINE BETWEEN CAMBODIA AND THAILAND

The history of Cambodia, the border issues between Cambodia and Thailand, the events of 1962 and the Temple of Preah Viher thereafter will enlighten the readers about the truth on the invasion of Cambodia by Thai troops.

11 August 1863: A Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Protection (or the Treaty placing the Kingdom of Cambodia under French Protectorate) was concluded at Houdong; (Note: Up to this date, even Siam exercised domination over the Kingdom of Cambodia, there had not been any treaty between Cambodia and Siam. It was an aggression, an occupation and domination.) Appendix I

December 1863: A Treaty between Siam and Cambodia, of which article 1 stated that Cambodia is a vassal state of Siam. (Note: Cambodia must have signed the Treaty under duress; Siam sneaked behind the back of France to have this Treaty signed about four months on the heel of the 11 August 1863 Treaty concluded between Cambodia and France.) Appendix II

15 July 1867: A Treaty between Siam and France was concluded in Paris, of which article 2 stated that the December 1863 Treaty between Siam and Cambodia was null and void. (Note: Siam and currently Thailand cannot claim ownership of Cambodia under vicious maneuvering to force Cambodia to sign a Treaty under duress, and behind Frenchs back) Appendix III

3 October 1893: A Peace Treaty between the French Third Republic and the Kingdom of Siam following an act of war starting with the expansion of the territory by France backed up by the gunboat policy, in March 1893. In the end Siamese submitted fully to the French conditions, under the 3 October 1893 Treaty, finding no support from the British. The Kingdom of Laos was freed from the Siamese domination and placed under French Protectorate. In addition French demanded as guarantees the occupation of Chantaburi, the demilitarization of Battambang and Siemreap, and a 25 kilometre-wide zone on the Western bank of the Mekong. Appendix IV

13 February 1904: A Treaty for the settlement of certain difficulties in the interpretation of the 3 October 1893 Treaty. With regard to Cambodia this Treaty regulated inter alia the frontier in the eastern Dangrek region, p.16 in accordance with Article I and Article III of said Treaty, and under the latter article, a delimitation will be carried out by Mixed Commissions composed of officers appointed by the two contracting countries, p 16 and so far as the frontier in the Dangrek range was concerned, the task of this Mixed Commission was confined to the eastern sector (roughly east of the pass of Kel) in which Preah Vihear is situated. p.17 There were evidences that the Siamese government had officially requested that French topographical officers should map the frontier region, p.20 There were evidences that a series of eleven maps completed in late autumn 1907 by the French topographical officers were communicated to the Siamese government in 1908 p.29. They were widely distributed p.23 and were accepted, and as for the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia Vs Thailand) the Court found that the Siamese authorities in due course received the Annex I map and that they accepted it, p.26. It must be noted that three of the maps had been overtaken by events, in as much as the former frontier areas they showed had, by virtue of the Treaty of March 8

1907, now become situated wholly in Cambodia. Siam was not therefore called upon either to accept or reject them. p.20 (International Court of Justice; Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear Cambodia v. Thailand Merits- Judgment of 15 June 1962, pages as above indicated). The Treaty, Appendix V ANNEX I MAP

Area of the Temple of Preah Vihear in the Dangrek range of mountains (extrapolation from the map recognized by the International Court of Justice, 15 June 1962)

Annex 95

605

Annex 95

606

23 March 1907: A Treaty for the final settlement of all the problems concerning the common boundary line between Indochina and Siam, following the works of delimitation of the Mixed Commission in the execution of the 13 February 1904 Treaty. Under this Treaty the Siamese government ceded to France the territories of Battambang, Siem Reap and Sisophon, while France ceded to Siam the territories of Dan-Sai and Kratt in exchange. A second Mixed Commission was established with the task of delimiting the new frontiers, resulting from the exchange of the territories. The new frontiers are subdivided into five sectors for delimitation, (1) from the estuary of Klong Po ko, facing Koh Kut to Phnom Thom, (2) from Phnom Thom to Pailin, (3) from Pailin to the river Nam Sai, (4) from Aranh to the Dangrek range up to the pass of Sa Met, and (5) from the pass of Sa Met to the pass of Kel, where the (new frontier) line drawn by this Commission joined up with an already existing line proceeding eastwards to the Temple area and beyond. p.19 There were evidences that the Siamese Commissioners, members of the Mixed Commission for delimitation had requested French Commissioners, members of the Mixed Commission for Delimitation to prepare maps of various frontiers. p.20 (International Court of Justice; Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear Cambodia v. Thailand Merits- Judgment of 15 June 1962, pages as above indicated) . The Treaty, Appendix VI. 14 February 1925: A Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between France and Siam, valid for a period of ten years from the date of exchange of ratification (Art.28). Article 27 confirmed and reciprocally guaranteed to respect the frontiers established between their territories by virtue and in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty of 3 October 1893, the Treaty of 13 February 1904, and the Treaty of 23 March 1907. Appendix VII

9 May 1941: The 1941 Tokyo Convention returned much of French Indochina to Thai control. France and Siam concluded a treaty under the mediation of Japan, signed in Tokyo on May 9, whereby Thailand acquires the section of Laos province west of the Mekong River, three-fourths of the Kampong-Thom province, and territory in northern Cambodia. Appendix VIII

17 November 1946: The Settlement Agreement between France and Siam, under which the Tokyo Convention of 9 May 1941 repudiated by the French government was annulled and the status quo ante was restored, meaning that the Indochinese territories covered by the Tokyo Convention of 9 May 1941 must be returned to the French authorities. Appendix IX

It is the facts and truth, and in accordance with the ideal of the United Nations and in the interest of world peace, that between the Kingdom of Cambodia and the Kingdom of Thailand an international frontier line exists, one of the primary objectives to achieve certainty and finality. The Dangrek map or the Annex I map is an integral part of the international frontier line accepted by Siam and France and its successor, the Kingdom of Cambodia.

10

3. THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR 1962: A Year of Decision

The ancient Angkorian Temple of Preah Vihear has belonged to Cambodia since it was built in the 11th century. However, Thailand came into temporary possession of parts of Cambodia, including the area around the Temple, during the Second World War. After the War, by a Settlement Agreement with France, Thailand accepted a reversion to the status quo ante 1941. Nonetheless, and in contravention of the Settlement Agreement, Thailand continued its military presence at and in the vicinity of the Temple, a fact which ultimately led Cambodia to submit the issue to the International Court of Justice in 1959.

On June 15, 1962, the ICJ delivered its verdict on the case, deciding that the famous Temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. Furthermore, it ruled that Thailand had to remove its troops from the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

The Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, Published by the International Court of Justice (Printed in Netherlands)

The reasons for the Courts decision were presented in judgment. At the outset of its judgment, the ICJ stated that it could only give a decision as to the sovereignty over the Temple area after having examined what the frontier line is. 11

Annex 95

607

Annex 95

608

The Court found that in 1904, the governments of Siam (Thailand) and France (then the protectorate of Cambodia) signed a treaty agreeing to survey and establish the border of Cambodia and Thailand. A Franco-Siamese Mixed Commission was created to map the border, and a series of 11 maps were produced.

The map concerning the Dangrek region (including the border adjacent to the Temple, and referred to as the Annex I map) was completed in late autumn 1907, when the new 23 March Treaty 1907 came into existence, thus bringing the final settlement of the territories between France and Siam. After a careful examination of the history of the map and the circumstances of its creation, the Court concluded that be little doubt about the origins of the map: What is certain is that the map must have had a basis of some sort, and the Court thinks that there can be no reasonable doubt that it was based on the work of the surveying officers in the Dangrek sector.

Even so, the fact that it was produced after the Commission ended, and may not have been consistent with the text of the 1904 Treaty which referred to a border using the watershed; the question was raised as to whether the map could be held to be valid under the circumstances. The Court expressed its opinion:

The real question, therefore, which is the essential one in this case, is whether the Parties did adopt the Annex I map, and the line indicated on it, as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation of the frontier in the region of Preah Vihear, thereby conferring on it a binding character.

More importantly, in the eyes of the Court, was that the map was adopted by the two governments as representing the border. In its judgment, the Court recounts the dissemination of the Annex I map within the Royal Thai government and the adoption of the border in a subsequent map produced by the Royal Thai Government Survey Department.

In detailing the long history of the adoption of the map by Thai authorities, the Court also listed the numerous occasions that they had the opportunity to object to the map apparently produced by the Mixed Commission and did not do so. It judgment thereafter became famous for helping to establish the legal principle of acquiescence in international law.

Thailands objection to the use of the Annex I map was that the Treaty of 1904 stated that the border should be drawn in accordance with the watershed, and the Annex I map is not in accordance with the watershed. The Court specifically rejected the Thai argument concerning the maps departure from the watershed line, stating it was certainly within the powers of the Governments to adopt such departures.

Based on all of the evidence, the ICJ concluded that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vihear in Cambodian territory. The Court concluded that the acceptance of the Annex I map by the Parties caused the map to enter the treaty settlement and to become an integral part of it.

12

4. THAILANDS TWO TRACK POLICY REGARDING THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

The consequences of losing the ICJ case were dramatic for Thailand. According to accounts written at the time, there were violent protests and a virulent press campaign. Demonstrations and marches were held to protest the ICJ decision. Students at Thammasat University in Bangkok demanded that the name of Prince Sihanouk be removed from the rolls of the University and insisted that an honorary degree that had been conferred upon him be withdrawn. (His Majesty King Norodom Sihanouk complied by returning his degree.)

By late June, 1962, and after much internal deliberation, the Thai government announced that it would honor its obligations under the U.N. Charter. However, in writing to the UNs Secretary General, U Thant, Thai Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman wrote that Thailand reserved all rights that it had, or might have in the future, to recover the Temple.

Thus, Thailands decision to accept the ICJ ruling was provisional. Even after accepting the decision and withdrawing its troops, it was clear at the time that Thailand fostered hope of reclaiming the Temple of Preah Vihear in the future. According to one account of the Thai reaction, it was noteworthy that the Thai flag and flagpole were removed from the temple in a standing position and later placed in a Thai museum. This refusal to lower the Thai flag was viewed by contemporary observers as an indication that Thailand remained determined to return its standard to Preah Vihear at a later date.

Even the lapse of the statute of limitations of the ICJ requiring appeal within 10 years of the decision did not dampen Thai interest in getting the Temple again. Apparently, this hope continued into the period of time of Cambodias civil war, as there are reports that Thai Government officials approached leaders of the factions that existed along Cambodias border with Thailand and, as a condition for continued support from Thailand, requested agreement that the Temple be given to Thailand if the factions were able to assume power in Phnom Penh.

But it is now evident that, in the event that they were not able to take the Temple outright, the Thais have had a second plan in place they would lay claim to the land located around the Temple. Cambodias nomination of the Temple of Preah Vihear to be inscribed as a World Heritage Site in 2007 forced the Royal Thai Government to implement the above-mentioned alternative.

When Cambodia put forward the Temple as a candidate for inscription at the 31st Session of the World Heritage Committee at Christchurch, New Zealand, Thailand raised objections to the listing and asked that the inscription be postponed. At the same time, Thailand unveiled a map which was at a variance from the map used and endorsed by the ICJ in rendering its judgment regarding the sovereignty of the Temple. In the Thai map, the border between the two countries is at the immediate edge of the structures of the Temple, rather than at some distance as is the case with the ICJs Annex I map.

The World Heritage Committee and the two Parties agreed to postpone the inscription on the Temple of Preah Vihear until the next years meeting at Quebec City, Canada, and the Thai delegation agreed to support the nomination at the next session. In the year that followed the Christchurch meeting, the Cambodian Government and its technical experts worked on the issues that had been discussed at Christchurch and updated the nomination file in anticipation of inscription at the 2008 Quebec City session of the Committee. 13

Annex 95

609

Annex 95

610
Meeting at the UNESCO Paris Headquarters on 22 May 2008 between H.E. Dr. SOK An, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister in charge of the Council of Ministers of the Royal Government of Cambodia and H.E. Mr. Noppadon Pattama, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand in the presence of H.E. Mrs. Franoise RIVIERE, Assistant Director-General for Culture of UNESCO and H.E. the Ambassador Francesco Caruso.

As the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee in Quebec City approached, Thailand reaffirmed its support of inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear. In a Joint Communiqu signed on June 18, 2008 by the then Thai Foreign Minister, Noppadon Pattama, and Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister H.E. Dr. Sok An, and witnessed by a UNESCO representative, Thailand reaffirmed its support for the inscription of the Temple.

(Photo: OCM/RGC)

14

Unfortunately, immediately prior to the 2008 World Heritage Committee meeting in Canada, political turmoil in Bangkok caused the Thai government to once again withdraw its support of the nomination, reversing the promise made in Christchurch. And in the overheated political debate in Bangkok prior to the World Heritage Committee meeting, the Thai government aggressively promoted the map which drew the border substantially inside the previously recognized demarcation line with Cambodia.

At the time it was unveiled, the Royal Thai Government authorities stated that the map that they had unilaterally drawn represents the long-standing position of the Royal Thai Government. The Thai Foreign Ministry, for example, stated that the map represents of the Royal Thai Government position

Annex 95

15

611

Annex 95

612
Map used by the Kingdom of Cambodia based on the Map recognized by the ICJ as an intergral part of the treaty settlement in its judgment of 15 June 1962 Recent map for the same area unilaterally prepared and presented by the Kingdom of Thailand. The yellow colored area indicates the claim by Thailand.

regarding the border after the ICJ decision in 1962. But to the extent that the map had been created and adopted unilaterally by the Royal Thai Government, it had not been promoted in the years following the ICJ decision as the Thai perception of the real border.

For over 40 years, Thailand did not openly dispute the ICJ border. The fact that it had kept its unilateral map out of public view was underscored by the recent revelation of a map produced by the Royal Thai Survey Department during the conflictive period of Cambodias recent history. Although there is no date on the map, it is clear that it was created at some time from the assumption of the Khmer Rouge regime in 1975 and the end of the war in Cambodia at the end of the 1990s. This is clear because the Cambodian side of the border is marked Democratic Kampuchea, the name assumed by the Khmer Rouge government for the country.

The border depicted on the map that identified Cambodia as Democratic Kampuchea is the same as the border on the unilateral map as unveiled in Christchurch World Heritage session and publicly promoted by the Royal Thai Government before the following Quebec City meeting. But the map produced by the Royal Thai Government Survey Department during the time of Democratic Kampuchea is marked secret in the Thai language. Accordingly, such aspect of the map that the Royal Thai Government Survey Department was 16

warning the map users to keep from public view. (The legend placed on the Thai map of the border with Democratic Kampuchea reads in full in the Thai language: Reminder: This map is a secret document. Map user should keep it very carefully for the safety of Thailand.)

It must have been a great disappointment to the Thai officials that, when peace was finally achieved in Cambodia, they had not taken back the Temple. But they kept the map of the border near Preah Vihear Temple secret and waited for the moment when they could advance their territorial ambitions and encroach on the land adjacent to the Temple. If they could not have the Temple itself, then they determined that they could control the land around it.

The moment arrived with the inscription of the Temple of Preah Vihear in Quebec City on July 7, 2008. With a unanimous decision of the World Heritage Committee, the Temple was inscribed. This led to an ugly outburst by the then Thai Foreign Minister, who headed their delegation. And this was followed by an even angrier speech by the head of the Thai Heritage Committee. There was no applause as the unhappy Thai delegation stormed out of the convention hall, leaving hundreds of members and observers in stunned silence.

Annex 95

17

613

Annex 95

614
Thai army units crossed the Cambodian border and moved deeply inside Cambodia......... occupied Keo Sikkha Kiri Svara pagoda....... and the Cambodian civil administrative post. (Photos:OCM/RGC)

5. THAILANDS INVASION OF CAMBODIA

15 July 2008 Thailand Uses the Pretext of the Inscription to Invade Cambodia

While emotions were still running high in Bangkok, it must have seemed the best time to implement the long standing desire to advance the objective of redrawing the border. The invasion started with a subterfuge.

On July 15, 2008 just one week after the inscription Thai military troops entered Cambodia near the Temple of Preah Vihear. The Thai armed forces used the pretext of going in to negotiate the release of a Thai monk, nun and layman who had illegally entered the area. In fact, the Thai soldiers had gone into Cambodia to occupy the area proximate to the Temple.

The Thai military troops entered the Keo Sikha Kiri Svara pagoda, which local Cambodians used as a place of worship. The pagoda, which is approximately 700 meters inside Cambodia, is only 300 meters from the Temple.

18

After the initial incursion, the Thai military forces engaged in the deployment of more troops to the area, with hundreds of heavily armed soldiers in the area next to the Temple, and thousands more just behind the border, as well as artillery and armored combat vehicles. Thailand also has redeployed jet fighter aircraft to the area near the border.

On the same day of ground invasion, Thailand displayed its air power flying F16s and other military aircrafts. (Photo: Thai Military - Wing I Korat)

Thailand flexed its militarys muscle including tanks and long-range howitzers. (Photo: Thai Military)

Thai soldiers set-up heavy artillery on the Thai-Cambodian border. (Photo AFP)

After a Thai military presence had been established in and around the pagoda, the Government of Thailand abandoned the subterfuge that it had entered the pagoda to free the illegal Thai intruders. Instead, H.E. Samak Sundaravej, the then Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand, announced that the pagoda was within the territory of the Kingdom of Thailand. According to his letter to Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia,

The presence of this Pagoda and other structures as well as that of Cambodian settlers and military personnel in the area, constitute a continued violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Thailand.1

Letter from Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej to Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen, July 18, 2008. Appendix x

Annex 95

19

615

Annex 95

616

In response, Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen replied,

according to the ANNEX I MAP used by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1962, (the pagoda) is legally located approximately seven hundred meters inside Cambodian territory. The ANNEX I MAP, used by the ICJ as basis for its judgment in 1962, was drawn in 1908 as a result of the demarcation work of the Commissions of Delimitation of the Boundary between Indo-China and Siam set up on the basis of the Convention of 1904 and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam and was accepted by the Kingdom of Siam. In its reasoning, the ICJ very clearly demonstrated the legal validity of the border line as shown in the ANNEX I MAP. 2

Also, it is worth noting that in his letter, the then Thai Prime Minister alleged that the so-called violations of Thai sovereignty had been the subject of repeated protests for the previous 4 years. But if one examines the Notes to which he refers, there is no specific allegation that Thai sovereignty and territorial integrity have been violated. Those protests are more related to practical matters such as population growth of the village and the resulting waste and water disposal. The problems mentioned are not in the context of a violation of sovereignty.

There can be no doubt that this issue concerning the alleged Thai territory is of recent vintage, and the reasons have as much to do with the current political unrest in Thailand as an old unhappiness about the 1962 ICJ decision concerning the Temples sovereignty. The Thai diplomatic notes attempt to create a history of a border dispute when, in fact, there was no controversy for decades.

2 Letter

from Prime Minister Samdech Hun Sen to Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej, July 19, 2008. Appendix xi

20

6. THE CONSEQUENCES OF THAI HOSTILITIES: POST-INVASION CONFLICT AND OCCUPATION

In the time since its troops crossed the internationally-recognized frontier, Thailand has used various measures to expand the territory it controls and assert Thai authority over which previously had been uncontested Cambodian soil. The measures taken by the Thais include both military and non-military actions.

As the Thai military forces have attempted to extend their reaches into Cambodia through military patrols, there have been the inevitable incidents in which Thai soldiers have wandered into minefields left over from the conflictive period when the area was under Khmer Rouge control. As Cambodian soldiers know where the minefields are, they are unlikely to have casualties due to troops inadvertently stepping on explosive devices. But every time Thai soldiers make the mistake of venturing into these old minefields, they blame the Cambodian military for laying new landmines when casualties inevitably increase as a result of the expansion of Thai military activities.

Most seriously have been the battles that have resulted from Thai soldiers attempting to expand their territory. On October 15, 2008 fighting erupted between Thai and Cambodian soldiers. While Thailand attempted to blame the Cambodian soldiers on the incident they did admit that the Thai soldiers were patrolling near the border, indicating aggressive intent.

On October 15, 2008 at 14:15 Thai troops started attacking the Cambodian troops at three different places deep inside the Cambodian territory. Area 1. At Prolean Intry (Eagle Field), approximately 1,120 meters South of the international boundary line between Cambodia and Thailand. Area 2. At the area of Phnom Troap, 1,600 meters South of the International boundary line between Cambodia and Thailand. Area 3. In the vicinity of Keo Sikha Kiri Svara pagoda, approximately 300 meters west of the Temple of Preah Vihear and approximately 700 meters from the international boundary.

Annex 95

21

617

Annex 95

618
The market-village burned and completely destroyed by Thais shelling. (Photos: OCM/RGC) 319 Cambodian families were made destitute by Thai military hostilities (Photos: OCM/RGC)

Subsequently, fighting erupted again on April 3, 2009 with Thai rockets and heavy weapons completely burning the village market near the Temple, and seriously affecting the livelihood of 319 Cambodian families.

In addition to these military actions, Thailand has warned that anyone traveling to the Temple must have Thai permission. This includes not only Cambodian officials, but international experts and UNESCO and World Heritage Committee personnel who are tasked with preserving the Temple of Preah Vihear as well. Such a warning represents the most aggressive expansion of Thai territorial claims to date.

22

7. THE FUTURE OF THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

The recent actions taken by the Royal Thai Government at the 33rd Session of the World Heritage Committee in Seville - Spain, indicate that it will not give up its territorial claims or its desire to insinuate itself into the sovereignty of the Temple itself. Prior to the meeting in Spain, Thai officials including the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister, and head of the delegation to the World Heritage meeting denounced UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee on the basis of the 2008 inscription of the Temple, and announced various objectives sought at the Seville conclave. They wanted a review of the Quebec City decision to inscribe the Temple. It was also announced that they have wanted a joint management, a notion which had been rejected at the previous years meeting. In the alternative, they wanted either joint listing of the Temple, or to have the Temple delisted.

Their pleadings fell on deaf ears. The Thai delegation was not even accorded the privilege of speaking at the meeting. Nevertheless, upon their return to Bangkok, it was announced that they would be preparing for next years meeting of the Committee and again attempt to have the Temple matter reviewed and push for a joint listing.

It is clear that the Royal Thai Government, frustrated in exerting control over the territory and sovereignty where stands the temple and ruled by the 1962 ICJ decision, continues to flex its military muscle and to step up its diplomatic campaign to push its way towards other Machiavellian and vicious schemes. However, it would be an unfortunate choice by the Thai officials because Cambodia, based on strong legal and historical grounds and constant vigilance, could preserve her sovereignty over the sacred Temple of Preah Vihear and its vicinity on Cambodian territory.

Annex 95

23

619

P the Natio f

Annex 95

A CHALLENGE TO THAILAND'S DENUNCIATION OF UNESCO AND THE WORLD HERITAGE COMMITTEE

620

Published by the Cambodian National Commission for UNESCO Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Annex 96 International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University, Assessment of the Task of Translating the CambodiaThailand boundary depicted on the Annex I map onto the Ground, October 2011 (omitting Appendices 1-6)

621

Annex 96

622

Annex 96

Assessment of the task of translating the Cambodia-Thailand boundary depicted on the Annex I map onto the ground

Report prepared for the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand October 2011
Authors: Alastair Macdonald & Martin Pratt

623

Annex 96

Assessment of the task of translating the Cambodia-Thailand boundary depicted on the Annex I map onto the ground
Report prepared for the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand October 2011
Authors: Alastair Macdonald & Martin Pratt

International Boundaries Research Unit Department of Geography Durham University DH1 3LE United Kingdom Tel: +44 191 334 1961 Fax: +44 191 334 1962 ibru@durham.ac.uk www.durham.ac.uk/ibru

Disclaimer Every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this report is accurate. However, the International Boundaries Research Unit cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of any action undertaken on the basis of the material contained herein.

624

Annex 96

Contents
About the authors................................................................................................ iv A. Introduction .................................................................................................... 1 B. Description of the Dangrek sheet ................................................................. 2 C. Three versions of the Dangrek sheet ........................................................... 5 D. Constraints on production methods .......................................................... 10 E. Significant errors on the Annex I Map........................................................ 12 F. Technical limitations of the Annex I Map ..................................................... 17 F. Determining the extent of the line to be examined ................................... 19 G. Transfer of the Annex I boundary to real world: method ......................... 19 H. Transfer of Annex I boundary to real world: results ................................. 24
Single point transformations ..................................................................................... 24 End point transformations ........................................................................................ 29 Segmented end point transformations...................................................................... 34 Comparison of all transformations ............................................................................ 34

I.

Concluding comments ................................................................................ 43

Appendices
Appendix 1: The 1:50000 scale enlargement of a section of the Annex I map (actually the revised version of the Dangrek sheet) accompanying the report of Professor Schermerhorn submitted as Annex 49 of the Thai Counter-Memorial in the Temple case.......................................................................................................... 45 Appendix 2: Temple case Thailand Counter-Memorial pp 194-196 and Annex 49 ....... 46 Appendix 3: Temple case Cambodia Reply p 472 and Annex LXVIa and c.................. 58 Appendix 4: Temple case Thailand Rejoinder pp 45-53 and Annexes 75a-b................... 65 Appendix 5: Temple case Documents submitted to the Court after the closure of the Written Proceedings - Supplemental report of Doeringsfeld Amuedo & Ivey ............. 83 Appendix 6: Temple case Expert witness cross-examinations ..................................... 87

International Boundaries Research Unit

iii

625

Annex 96

About the authors


The International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) at Durham University works to minimise conflict associated with international boundaries on land and at sea around the world. IBRUs work is interdisciplinary in approach and global in scope, integrating theory and practice in order to provide: (i) practical expertise in boundary-making, border management and territorial dispute resolution; and (ii) academic leadership in the study of boundaries and their impact on international relations and borderland development. It was the worlds first boundary research centre and it remains a unique resource for scholars and practitioners. Alastair Macdonald spent his whole career as a professional surveyor in the service of the UK government. For 15 years he worked in the field in Africa and Southeast Asia before returning to UK to work for the Ministry of Defence. His final posting before retirement in 1992 was as Director of Surveys and Production at the Ordnance Survey, the national mapping agency of Great Britain. Since retirement he has advised the governments of Nigeria, Ethiopia, Sudan and the Palestinian Authority on boundary-related matters. In 2009 Alastair was awarded an MBE for services to mapping and the resolution of boundary disputes in Africa. He is also an Honorary Research Fellow of the International Boundaries Research Unit. Martin Pratt is IBRUs Director of Research. He has two decades experience advising governments, commercial organisations and NGOs on land and maritime boundary issues around the world. Recent projects in which he has served as a geographical expert include the maritime boundary arbitration between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago, the Abyei arbitration between northern and southern Sudan and research in preparation for boundary negotiations in the Middle East. In 2010 Martin was made an Honorary Professor in Geography for his contribution to boundary studies in Durham, and he also received the Michael Barrett Award of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, awarded annually to the person whom in the opinion of the RICS has contributed most to the understanding of the subjects of land transfer, registration and administration, encroachments, cadastre and boundary issues.

International Boundaries Research Unit

iv

626

Annex 96

A. Introduction
1. The map sheet which came to be known as the Annex I map in the Temple of Preah Vihear case of 1959-62 is officially titled Dangrek: Commission de Delimitation Entre LIndo-Chine et Le Siam. It is one of eleven sheets in a 1:200000 map series which depict the boundary between Thailand (then Siam) and Cambodia and Laos (then French Indochina) determined by a FrancoSiamese mixed commission between 1905 and 1907 1, although its status as an official map reflecting the work of the commission has always been contested by Thailand. The sheet shows the line of the boundary following the watershed2 in the Dangrek range between a point just to the west of the Pass of Kel (Chong Samrong/Choam) at Greenwich longitude 104E 3, and the eastern edge of the sheet at 104 44E. Unfortunately, the map contains a number of errors which distort the line of the watershed and hence the boundary. 2. The International Boundaries Research Unit (IBRU) has been asked to assess how one might transfer the boundary depicted on the Annex I map to the real world, whose topography is now much better understood and mapped than it was at the beginning of the twentieth century. 3. We are aware of the exchanges between the parties concerning the Annex I map during the Temple case, and the expert reports that were submitted concerning the alignment of the watershed in the vicinity of the temple. 4 We do not intend to retread the ground covered during the case although we note in passing that we agree with the findings of the reports of Professor Schermerhorn submitted by Thailand, and disagree with the contradictory findings of Messrs Doeringsfeld, Amuedo and Ivey submitted by Cambodia. The aim of this report is to move beyond the debate in the Temple case, which focused almost entirely on a very small section of the Annex I map, and examine the map as a whole, with particular reference to the relationship between the boundary and the topography and drainage system depicted in the Dangrek range.
1

The commission in question is sometimes referred to as the first commission. A second commission (set up under a boundary treaty of 1907) revised the boundary from the Pass of Kel westwards and three of the first commissions sheets to the southwest of the Dangrek range became redundant, at least in terms of boundary depiction. We define a watershed as the line dividing the areas drained by two separate river systems such that rain falling on one side of the line runs into one system and on the other side of the line into the other system. Between any two river systems the watershed is a unique and unambiguous linear feature of the landscape, although it is not always easy to identify on the ground. The longitude grid on the map refers to the Paris Meridian which is approximately 2 20 east of the now universally-used Greenwich Meridian. Except where stated otherwise, the longitudes of positions read from the Dangrek sheet mentioned in this report are referred to the Greenwich Meridian. Relevant extracts from the Temple case pleadings are reproduced in appendices to this report.

International Boundaries Research Unit

627

Annex 96
4. In addition to examining the Annex I map in relation to modern mapping and satellite imagery of the boundary area, the authors visited a number of sites along the Dangrek escarpment during a field visit to Thailand on 15-18 August 2011. This visit helped us to appreciate the challenges that would have been faced in surveying the area in 1907, producing errors which led to the creation a map which is unfit for purpose as a basis for boundary recovery and demarcation.

B. Description of the Dangrek sheet


5. The map sheet Dangrek, submitted by Cambodia as Annex I to its Application to the International Court of Justice in the Temple case and reproduced at reduced scale (1:450000) as Figure 1, is a printed map assembled under the supervision of Henry Barrre, a Paris-based cartographer5, from a series of field sketches and measurements by Captains Kerler (who surveyed the area from the Great Lake to the western end of Dangrek range) and Oum (who was tasked with surveying the Dangrek range itself). 6 The map is one of a series of 11 sheets. It is undated but we understand from the records of the Temple case that it was completed in November 1907 and published in June 1908. 7 It is drawn at a scale of 1:200000 (1 centimetre on the map = 2 kilometres on the ground) on a sinusoidal projection with a central meridian at 101 40E (Paris). Tracks, villages and other man-made detail appear in black, drainage networks in blue and contours in brown. There is a green colour wash indicating areas of forest/jungle. The contours, at an interval of 50 metres, are confined to the area covered by the Dangrek mountains. 6. The Dangrek map sheet presented as Annex I contains a significant registration error of the brown (contour) printing plate. This can be detected by looking at the contours in any valley not running in the same direction as the displacement and noting that the stream is not in sympathy with the contours (see Figure 2 for examples). Once this error is understood, it can be seen that the line of the watershed is displaced from the ridges along which it should run. The error varies across the sheet but is of the order of 1-2.5 millimetres (200-500 metres on the ground). The contours need to be moved in a roughly northeast direction to come into sympathy with the rest of the map.

5 6

The publisher is not named on the map but Barrre worked for Maison Andriveau-Goujon. This is the implication of the final paragraph on p. 126 of the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Spender in the Temple case, and we concur with his interpretation. Dissenting Opinion of Sir Percy Spender, pp. 125-26.

International Boundaries Research Unit

628

Figure 1: The Annex I map (scale reduced to 1:450,000)


International Boundaries Research Unit 3

Annex 96

629

Annex 96

Figure 2: Examples of the registration error with the brown printing plate on the Annex I map. Examples of areas where the error leaves the boundary off ridges and hilltops which form the watershed are highlighted in yellow. Examples of areas where the error leaves streams not running along the bottom of valleys are highlighted in red.

International Boundaries Research Unit

630

Annex 96

C. Three versions of the Dangrek sheet


7. During our visit to Bangkok, we discovered that the record copy of the Dangrek sheet held by the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs (DTLA) is a different version of the sheet to that submitted by Cambodia to the Court in 1959. To avoid confusion we refer to this second version as the revised version of the sheet. It is reproduced at reduced scale (1:450000) as Figure 3. Although it is essentially the same map as the Annex I map, the contours are shown by a finer line, some contours have been added to enhance hill features, while other contours have been smoothed to give a more elegant appearance. Place names and contour heights are in a more elegant style, and a small index map has been added in the top right hand corner of the sheet. Overall, the revised version is much easier to read than the Annex I map. Most significantly, the registration displacement apparent on the Annex I map is no longer present, meaning that the boundary on the revised version crosses the tops of hills and follows ridge lines, as one would expect from a watershed boundary. 8. Among the contour adjustments, there is a significant change to the contours at and around the hill at Phra Viharn. The contours on the Annex I map are difficult to follow. Some of them are interrupted, perhaps because of a lack of space, and some are obscured by other symbols. However, it does seem that the ring contour indicating the highest part of the hill lies at the northern end of the temple symbol with a lower incomplete contour running off to the southwest. On the revised Dangrek sheet, there is much greater clarity, the contours are continuous and there are now two ring contours on top of the hill. The northern ring is a revised version of the one shown on the Annex I map and the boundary line now passes over it; the second one is new and contains the temple. It has changed the shape of the lower contour on the Annex I map into a much squarer presentation and the northern side of this square has a kink in it which might well represent an acknowledgment of the presence of the Ackermann stream which was central to arguments about the location of the watershed at Phra Viharn in the Temple case.8 On the Ph Sethisom mountain at the eastern edge of the sheet, contours have been made more parallel and the corners of the mountain more right-angled. The differences between the two versions of the sheet in this area are illustrated in Figure 4. It is interesting to note that the contours on the rest of the sheet, to the west of the extract, show little deviation from those on the Annex I map, although they are not precise copies.

We use the term Ackermann stream to refer to the stream that Friedrich Ackermann of the International Training Centre for Aerial Survey surveyed before the 1962 hearings and which was the main subject of his lengthy cross-examination. Ackermann said that this stream flowed northwest into Thailand. Cambodian counsel Dean Acheson strongly criticised this view and claimed it ran southeast into Cambodia. We visited the area in August 2011, saw the stream and can confirm that Ackermanns claim is correct.

International Boundaries Research Unit

631

Annex 96

632
International Boundaries Research Unit 6

Figure 3: The revised version of the Dangrek sheet (scale reduced to 1:450000)

Annex 96

Figure 4: A comparison of extracts from the Annex I map (top) and the revised Dangrek sheet viewed at the Thai Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs. 9 Superimposed arrows highlight examples where the boundary misses hilltops on the Annex 1 map but passes over them on the revised version of the sheet.

The cleaner look of the Annex I map reflects the fact that the paper version of the Dangrek sheet viewed at the DTLA was in quite poor condition. We are not concerned with any differences in colouring or brightness between the two sheets; only differences in lines and text are significant.

International Boundaries Research Unit

633

Annex 96

9. Since we returned from Bangkok, researchers for the Thai legal team have viewed the copies of the sheet held in the archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the archives of the French Ministry of Colonies, the Bibliothque Nationale de France, the Institut Gographique National (IGN) in Paris and the Royal Geographical Society in London. All copies viewed were the revised version of the sheet, with the exception of the IGN copy. The latter is similar to the revised version but it contains a few noticeable differences. Most of the changes appear on the blue plate containing the stream information. The names of streams are drawn in a different style and their placement has been modified. In contrast to the other two versions, there are now no streams classified as Rivire non leve and the size of peck used to denote streams dry for part of the year has changed. On the contour plate, changes have been made to some contours to give a more rounded effect. A good example is at the hill southeast of Ph Sethisom on the eastern edge of the sheet, shown on the original revised version as a square regular shape like a pyramid but rendered more natural in the third version. There are also minor changes to the area covered by the green (forest) colour wash. These are largely cosmetic changes which, to an observer today, hardly justify the work involved to produce a further edition of this map. 10. Looking at the changes between the three versions that we have discovered, the most likely order of production would seem to be: (i) The Annex I map: this has the appearance of a first edition, less elegant than the revised Dangrek sheet and with a large registration error on the brown contour plate. (ii) The revised Dangrek sheet found in Bangkok and four out of five collections in Europe: contours have been properly aligned and their appearance improved. A better type style has been introduced. The map is easier to read, particularly the drainage detail. The classification Rivire non leve continues to be used. (iii) The version found at IGN in Paris: the classification Rivire non leve is no longer used. Cosmetic changes have been made to the blue and brown plates and some changes to the extent of forest cover. 11. It is clear from Annex XLIVa of Cambodias Reply in the Temple case that the copies for the French ministries of colonies and foreign affairs and that of the Royal Geographical Society were to come out of the 1000 print run ordered by the Ministry of Colonies in May 1908. It seems reasonable to assume therefore that this print run was of the revised Dangrek sheet and not of the version found at IGN in Paris. We have not been able to determine how and when this third version of the sheet was printed. It seems reasonable to assume that the Annex I version was a draft, and the revised version (with correctly aligned topographic detail) held by the DTLA was the original published

International Boundaries Research Unit

634

Annex 96

version of 1000 copies.10 Either way, the existence of two versions of the same sheet showing different relationships between the topography and the boundary, with a third version containing further improvements raises interesting questions about which version of the map and which depiction of the boundary the Court considered Thailand to have accepted. 12. Although it is not possible today to discover the reasons for the revised editions, they did not appear by chance. It might have been that the Annex I map was produced in a hurry, the editor decided that a print run of 1000 copies justified a more elegant production and the cartographer had more time to re-interpret the field notes during the redrawing process. Whatever the reason, it does seem that the publishing house had some discretion in interpreting the information received from Captain Oum, leaving the unanswerable question: was the publishers interpretation correct? 13. Neither the registration error on the Annex I sheet nor the existence of revised versions of the sheet appears to have been discussed at any point during the original Temple case. That is not altogether surprising since: the displacement of the contours, while immediately obvious to an experienced map user, may not stand out to a casual observer; we understand that the ICJ archive contains only the Annex I version; since both the temple and the boundary are printed in black, the geographical relationship between the two is the same on all three sheets.

14. Professor Schermerhorns report on the determination of the watershed in the vicinity of the temple that was submitted as Annex 49 to the Thai CounterMemorial in the Temple case included a 1:50000 scale map of the temple area which Professor Schermerhorn described as an enlargement of the Annex I map. An examination of the contours and drainage channels on that map (reproduced in Appendix 1) makes it clear that Professor Schermerhorn was working with the revised version of the map rather than the Annex I map, presumably because he was supplied with a copy of the version held by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs when he was commissioned to undertake his study. This would explain why Professor Schermerhorn made no comment about the registration error on the Annex I map he simply would not have been aware of the error. 15. It seems highly likely that the Annex I map was the version used in the oral hearings in the Temple case. In his examination of Professor Schermerhorn11,
10

Another possibility is that the initial print run involved a registration error, and that a second printing took place at a later date to correct the error. However, the revised version is far more than just a reprint, and it is difficult to understand why a commercial publishing house would have expended time and money to make so many non-essential amendments to the content of a map, such as re-styling place names, if just a reprint was required. ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 381.

11

International Boundaries Research Unit

635

Annex 96

Cambodias Counsel Dean Acheson drew attention to the existence of a stream flowing southeast down the escarpment from the vicinity of Phra Viharn which required the careful use of his little microscope to see clearly. In his closing speech12, Acheson again referred to the use of a magnifying glass to see this stream. This stream is very difficult to pick out on the Annex I map but easily visible to the naked eye on the revised Dangrek sheet. Presumably Professor Schermerhorn, standing several metres from the map on display in the court, would not have been able to see that he was looking at a slightly different version of the map to the one that he had used when preparing his report: the differences are only visible on close inspection. 16. The reason for the existence of three versions of the Dangrek sheet may never be known. Whatever the reason, if the course of the boundary needs to be determined with reference to the topography depicted on the Dangrek sheet, the existence of three versions of the sheet, with slightly different contour patterns in places and a 200-500 metre difference in the location of contour lines across the whole sheet becomes significant, complicating an already challenging task still further.

D. Constraints on production methods


17. The Dangrek would not have been an easy area to map in 1907, and the forest cover meant that, generally, there were no dominant open summits from which to get a clear view of the mountainous area sloping down to the north of the escarpment. 13 The plane tabling survey technique commonly in use at that time, in which summits, ridges and height points for contouring are positioned by intersection from sites with an open view of the terrain, would be a very difficult process. Summits along the escarpment could be intersected from the Cambodian plain and some of the more northerly summits might have been intersected from Thai farmland to the north. Stream courses and their associated dividing ridges in the mountains would have been difficult and sometimes impossible to map in this way. In isolated cases, use could have been made of rock platforms outcropping from the sides of some ridges to view individual valleys. 18. Another method would be to walk the tracks and record distance and bearing as one went along. Distance could have been measured by a wheel or by time and walking speed. Intersections could have been made from suitable locations on the tracks. However, once in the mountains, the density of vegetation meant that visibility could have been very limited indeed and an understanding of stream patterns difficult to gain.

12 13

Ibid., p. 467. This is confirmed by the later RTSD survey report (1928-29) at Annex XXXVIII of the Reply of Cambodia, p. 488.

International Boundaries Research Unit

10

636

Annex 96

19. There is no evidence on the Dangrek sheet, in contrast to sheets further east, of any form of survey control point established either by triangulation or astronomical observations.14 This partly explains why the latitude and/or longitude of many of the features depicted on the map is significantly wrong. However, we would expect that some known positions in latitude and longitude were available.15 The other possibility is that the surveyors were provided with a base map of settlements and tracks in the Cambodian plains on which to construct their map of the mountainous area. 20. An inspection of the legend and the map itself leads us to the conclusion that the method used was indeed one of following tracks. These are classified on the map into four categories: cart tracks, footpaths, difficult footpaths16 and routes not followed. The latter implies that the other routes were followed, and an inspection of the map reveals a number of heights along the crossmountain routes; this suggests that Captain Oum took an aneroid barometer along those routes. 21. Although there appears to be no record of any comment on the way in which the work was done by Oum and Kerler, Lieutenant Malandain (who surveyed the area to the southwest of the Dangrek for the second mixed commission) has left a record of his style of working and there is no reason to suppose that the formers method was any different. It was quoted in the oral argument of M. Rolin thus:
La dtermination exacte de la ligne de partage des eaux a t rendue fort difficile par la nature couverte du terrain. La fort y est continue et trs paisse vers le pied de la pente, et principalement au sommet du plateau. Les vues y sont limites cent mtres au maximum et tout fait insuffisantes, il fut donc ncessaire de se chercher d'autres moyens d'oprer que ceux employs habituellement. Le procd qui a paru le plus pratique consiste, chaque fois qu'un point de relvement est ncessaire, rechercher l'arbre le plus lev aux environs et construire son sommet une plate-forme en rondins permettant dy placer la planchette en station (la planchette de vigie), et doprer en haut de cet observatoire comme on l'aurait d faire terre, avec cette diffrence et cet inconvnient que la mobilit de ce support rendait les vises trs longues et trs difficiles. Le moindre mouvement de l'oprateur, la moindre brise, rendaient ncessaire un nouveau rglage des niveaux et de la ligne de vise.

14

Other sheets (e.g. the adjacent Khong) carry a triangle symbol on some hill tops. While this symbol is not explained in the legend, it was in widespread use in that era as the symbol for a triangulation point or an astronomical point, e.g. on 1912 maps of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It continues to be in such use today. A survey station description for a Cambodian primary triangulation point at Phra Viharn in 1910 refers to an astronomical station on the south monument in 1907. No path in this category occurs on the Dangrek sheet.

15

16

International Boundaries Research Unit

11

637

Annex 96

Il n'a pas t construit pour la leve de ce secteur moins de cent douze de ces observatoires, qui ont permis, par des recoupements nombreux, de fixer exactement tous les dtails topographiques de la rgion. 17

22. Although Malandain claims to have fixed exactly all the topographic features of the region, this would depend entirely on the dedication, ability and experience of the surveyor. It is clear from a visual inspection that, for whatever reason, the Dangrek sheet did not meet Malandains claim. The second commission confined its mapping to a narrower strip along the watershed, whereas Oum and Kerler ranged much wider. The lack of concentration on the area of significance along the watershed may explain the lower standard. 23. It is not essential to understand how the map was made to carry out our task. An understanding of the possibilities does, however, help to explain the many significant errors in the Annex I map.

E. Significant errors on the Annex I Map


24. We have used the sheets of the Royal Thai Survey Department (RTSD) 1:50000 L7018 series, printed in the period 2001-09, as provided to us by DTLA, as the representation of the real world, with which to compare the Annex I map. Although there is no indication in the legend that the RTSD maps were prepared from satellite imagery, confirmation has been received that this was the case. Two of the sheets do state that revision has been carried out using SPOT 5 satellite imagery which confirms this approach. 25. The fact that the Annex I map carries several significant errors is obvious even from an initial visual comparison with the RTSD sheets. The relationship between the boundary depicted on the Annex I map and the watershed line depicted on the RTSD maps is shown in Figure 5. This comparison has been made by transforming the Annex I map to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84) and then overlaying it on the RTSD maps, also on WGS 84. No other transformation has been applied.

17

ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 253

International Boundaries Research Unit

12

638

Figure 5: The boundary line on the Annex I map (highlighted in green) in relation to the boundary line on current RTSD topographic mapping (red) after transforming the Annex I map to WGS 84 (scale reduced to 1:250000)

Note: When measuring distance, it may be helpful to remember that each grid square on the RTSD sheets represents 1 kilometre by 1 kilometre.
International Boundaries Research Unit 13

Annex 96

639

Annex 96

26. Among the most obvious errors concerning the boundary line are these: (i) At 104 13 E (101 53 Paris) there is a significant valley penetrating the escarpment, some 10 kilometres long and ending on the slopes of a hill named Ph. Sruong. The map shows a stream flowing south into Cambodia from this hill whereas, in reality, the valley contains two streams. One is 2.5 kilometres long and flows south from the boundary watershed into Cambodia; the other flows north from this watershed into Thailand and, after 7.5 kilometres, passes to the east of a hill given a height of 463 metres on the RTSD map and probably the hill labelled Ph. Sruong on the Annex I map. Thus, on the Annex I map, the boundary line reaches a point 7.5 kilometres north of the true position of the watershed. (ii) At around 104 20E (102 Paris) there is a major deviation of around 4 kilometres to the north of the correct line of watershed, which continues for around 7 longitude. (iii) At 104 35 (102 15 Paris) the boundary follows a contorted route between Ph. Don Peang and Ph. Sruach whereas in reality the watershed follows a much simpler line. (iv) At 104 40 E (102 20 Paris), there is the error of the O Tasem stream which was highlighted in the Temple case and which led the cartographer in 1907 to show the watershed running to the north of the temple. (v) At the eastern edge of the Annex I map, the boundary line strikes off northeast rather than following the watershed to the summit of Ph. Sethisom. Four of these errors disadvantage Thailand. 27. The first error above, at 104 13 E, is worth further consideration. Thailand, in its Rejoinder in the Temple case18, discussed the correction of an error made by the second commission in the vicinity of the Pass of Kel where a stream flowing into Cambodia was wrongly shown as extending further into Thailand. In general, the Sector 5 map, produced by the second commission surveyors, does seem to be of a much better quality than the Dangrek sheet of Captain Oum. It is reasonably easy to see a clear correlation between the shape of the escarpment west of the Pass of Kel and the line on the modern RTSD maps. 19 It would seem to be in character that Lieutenant Malandain discovered the error quickly and then put it right. 28. The error and its correction are well illustrated in Figure 6 which is a black and white version of the Sector 5 map from the DTLA archives and may even have been the field sketch which was the basis of the colour version which is
18 19

Rejoinder of Thailand p. 591 Unfortunately, the Sector 5 map has no latitude/longitude graticule nor any scale bar, so it is difficult to make comparisons of actual position.

International Boundaries Research Unit

14

640

Annex 96
also available in the DTLA archives. Acheson in his oral Reply misunderstood the implications of this error. He said:
Both Commissions had believed (showing that these mistakes are not unusual and are not horrendous) that a stream near the pass, which flowed south into Cambodia, rose much further to the north and flowed through into Cambodia. As a result, both Commissions drew the watershed as moving sharply to the north around the headwaters of this supposed stream.20

Figure 6: Extract from an annotated copy of the second commissions Sector 5 map showing the commissions error in defining the boundary in the vicinity of the Pass of Kel and the correction of the error 29. The mistake is in fact confined to the second commission map. In the area of the Pass of Kel, the Annex I map is correct. The error on the Annex I map is a second, separate and much greater one, lying about 10 kilometres further to the east. Here a stream, flowing more directly to Anlong Veng than the stream corrected on the second commission map, is wrongly extended 7 kilometres further north into Thailand. 30. While the second commission error is understandable given the contours of the ground, the first commission error (i.e. the error on the Annex I map) is less easy to understand. It would appear that the footpath running northwards to the west of the problem stream was followed. We too have followed a track in a southerly direction in a similar location passing Hill 463 and walking the last 500 metres towards the watershed. There was no doubt
20

ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p.462

International Boundaries Research Unit

15

641

Annex 96
we were following rising ground and it is difficult to understand how a competent surveyor walking the track in 1907 would think otherwise. He might at least have been concerned enough to cut his way down to the stream to check its direction before inserting on the map the longest incursion by any stream through the escarpment in the Dangrek. 31. The Sector 5 map is continued east of the Pass of Kel into the area of the Annex I map error and once again its interpretation of the line of the escarpment appears to be reasonably accurate. However, it does not provide any information about the extent to which the Cambodian streams go beyond (i.e. north of) the escarpment and therefore no information about the location of the watershed and of the boundary itself. In effect, the Sector 5 map is saying that the gap in the escarpment shown on the Annex I map is incorrect but it offers no help on where the boundary should correctly run. Without any longitude reference it is difficult to be precise but, using a distance from the Pass of Kel to Anlong Veng as a scale reference, it would appear that the Sector 5 escarpment ends in the vicinity of Ph Key on the Annex I map. The alignment and extent of the mapped escarpment is shown on Figure 7.

Figure 7: Approximate alignment and extent of the escarpment mapped by the second commission in March 1908 east of the Pass of Kel, superimposed on the Annex I map 32. Annex 15 to the Thailand Counter-Memorial in the Temple case contains a map that purports to be Malandain's sketch attached to the Minutes of the Meeting of the 22nd March, 1908 of the Mixed Commissions of Delimitation set up under the Treaty of the 23rd March 1907 and appears to be a certified copy of the Sector 5 map referred to in paragraph 28.

International Boundaries Research Unit

16

642

Annex 96

33. The Mixed Commission appears to have approved this correction on 22nd March 1908. As explained above, Malandains map does not provide enough information to correct the Annex I map error so it is not entirely clear whether the commission realised it was correcting two errors or only the one near the Pass of Kel. It seems more likely that it only corrected the error for which it had clear information about the correct alternative, i.e. the Sector 5 error, but one cannot be sure. 34. Whichever it was, the Annex I map was never amended to show any correction, even though it must have been realised at the time of the Mixed Commission meeting that there was some doubt about its depiction of the boundary in this area. The second commission mapping was in clear contradiction of the work of Captain Oum. 35. While the errors discussed so far may be the most glaring, when a more detailed comparison is made, it becomes obvious that the Annex I map is riddled with positional errors and gives a poor impression of the topography. It is not easy to show the differences with the real topography in a comparative illustration. We have attempted to show this by comparing the drainage pattern on the Annex I map with the drainage pattern on one of the RTSD 1:50000 sheets. This seems particularly useful because it is the drainage pattern that determines the watershed and hence the boundary line. We have done this in Figure 8 which, although cluttered, does show how distorted and displaced a view of the drainage was presented in the Annex I map.

F. Technical limitations of the Annex I Map


36. Finally, there is a need to consider the technical limitations of a small scale map such as the Annex I map. Even if the map is accurate, the scale will define the precision with which the position of any feature on the map can be determined. The arms of the cross symbols used to mark the boundary on the Annex I map are about 0.6 millimetres wide, which is 120 metres on the ground. The contours which define the watershed are fairly crude and the choice of location of the boundary line within the ring contours of the crest line (made most probably by a cartographer in Paris) must have been fairly arbitrary, leading to further uncertainty of position. If a mathematical transformation is to be used, the coordinates of common points must be taken off the Annex I map and, as well as the errors of uncertainty discussed above, it is not possible to measure coordinates to better than 0.2 millimetres, or even 0.4 millimetres, leading to uncertainties of 40 to 80 metres on the ground. 37. These are small uncertainties when compared to the size of some of the positional errors we have found in the Annex I map. However, if it were to be decided that the boundary had to follow the Annex I map line with all its positional errors, there would still be a significant degree of uncertainty of the order of up to 100 metres in the position of the boundary due to the technical limitations of the map.

International Boundaries Research Unit

17

643

Annex 96

Figure 8: Comparison of drainage depicted on the Annex I map and current 1:50,000 RTSD mapping (area selected = RTSD sheet 5937-IV)

International Boundaries Research Unit

18

644

Annex 96

F. Determining the extent of the line to be examined


38. Before assessing the translation of the Annex I map boundary to the ground, we had first to decide on the extent of the line to be examined. There was no difficulty at the western end where there was an agreement between the first and second commissions that the changeover between their two surveys would be at the Pass of Kel. A boundary pillar was erected at the exact point (BP1) in 1908. It still exists today and its position is depicted on the RTSD 1:50000 sheet 5837-IV. 39. The obvious eastern end is the eastern edge of the sheet, but it should be borne in mind that any boundary arising from the use of the Dangrek sheet will have to merge with the boundary to the east, however the latter may be defined. It is worth noting that the adjacent sheet (Khong) carries a small index map which shows that Capt Oum, who was principally responsible for the Dangrek sheet, continued his work as far east as the Col dAn Sen in longitude (Paris) 102 38 E. If demarcation has not already taken place in this part of the Khong sheet, then a surveyors view would be that Capt. Oums work from BP1 right through to the Col dAn Sen should be considered as a whole rather than being cut off at the Dangrek sheet edge. However, for this report, we have accepted the eastern edge of the Dangrek sheet as our limit.

G. Transfer of the Annex I boundary to real world: method


40. Although it is now evident that the errors in the Annex I map mean that the watershed is incorrectly depicted in places, most famously around Phra Viharn, in our opinion it is clear that the intention of the cartographer who produced the map was to depict a boundary which followed the watershed along the Dangrek range. If we were given nothing but the map and asked to say where the boundary should run on the ground, our recommendation would be to set the map aside, identify the watershed in the field using modern surveying techniques, and define the boundary along the line of the surveyed watershed. 41. We recognise that identifying the watershed on the ground would not be a trivial task in some parts of the densely forested Dangrek range. Nevertheless, a watershed is by definition a precise linear feature of the landscape which, given sufficient time, expertise and resources, can be determined scientifically. The decision of the International Court of Justice in 1962 that the temple of Phra Viharn is under Cambodian sovereignty means that the boundary would have to depart from the watershed in the vicinity of the temple. Elsewhere, however, our view is that the most reasonable and practical approach to translating the boundary from the map to the ground would be to locate the boundary along the watershed. The poor quality of the Annex I map and the many errors it contains mean that mathematical methods for transferring the boundary line into the real world will always be compromised by the amount of error present.

International Boundaries Research Unit

19

645

Annex 96

42. If a best fit mathematical approach must be used, the obvious method is that of transformation. Transformation is the term given to the adjustment of the size, shape and position of one map so that points of detail (or a linear feature such as a boundary line) on it can be directly compared to equivalent points of detail on another map produced on a different projection and datum. In the case we are dealing with, the Annex I map is on a sinusoidal projection and its datum is not stated and is treated as unknown. 21 The RTSD mapping is on a Transverse Mercator projection and WGS 84 datum. 43. Transformations from one well-used datum such as Indian Datum to WGS 84 have been calculated and are widely available. They can be applied without further work. In our case, with an unknown datum, we have to establish our own transformation and this is done as follows: (i) common points on the Annex I map and the RTSD 1:50000 maps are selected; (ii) the graticule on the Annex I map is transformed in a Geographic Information System to WGS 84; (iii) the Annex I points are made to fit the coordinate positions of the points as they are known today. 44. Two points must be emphasised about this procedure: the method depends entirely on the choice of common points and on the two positions of each common point representing the same feature. these transformations only force the chosen common points to the correct positions. Significant errors can remain on the boundary line between the common points.

21

The datum of the Annex I map very probably results from astronomical observations.

International Boundaries Research Unit

20

646

Annex 96

45. We have selected fifteen common points which are listed in the table below and illustrated in Figures 9a and 9b.
Name on Annex I map WGS 84 position on Annex I map after graticule transformation 22 Lat 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Konkok Ph Sruogh Chring village Outlier, end of boundary Ph N Trakuon Ph Srouch Ph Key Rossey/Sreng junction Hill W of Ph Swai Boundary at Roy headwater Ph Don Peang Outlier Temple (S. end) Sq. Outlier Ph Tchal 14.408 14.391 14.299 14.330 14.332 14.437 14.363 14.289 14.414 14.410 14.416 14.413 14.421 14.422 14.425 Long 103.730 103.748 103.830 104.020 104.070 104.114 104.177 104.202 104.274 104.382 104.518 104.620 104.680 104.731 104.807 Lat 14.412 14.386 14.295 14.326 14.331 14.432 14.361 14.284 14.400 14.371 14.372 14.387 14.392 14.394 14.394 Long 103.678 103.678 103.798 103.980 104.059 104.115 104.175 104.161 104.260 104.419 104.513 104.620 104.680 104.736 104.844 Lat 0.004 -0.004 -0.004 -0.004 -0.001 -0.004 -0.002 -0.005 -0.014 -0.039 -0.044 -0.025 -0.029 -0.028 -0.031 Long -0.052 -0.070 -0.032 -0.040 -0.012 0.001 -0.003 -0.041 -0.014 0.037 -0.005 0.000 -0.001 0.005 0.037 MEAN Distance apart (km) 5.58 7.56 3.52 4.29 1.27 0.49 0.34 4.40 2.14 5.93 4.95 2.83 3.24 3.16 5.30 3.93 WGS 84 position on RTSD map Differences

46. Even a quick visual comparison of the positions of the common points on the two maps makes it immediately obvious that not only significant positioning errors exist in the Annex I map, but that the errors vary across the map. In the western Dangrek, the latitude is reasonably accurate but points are located several kilometres east of their true position, while in the east the longitude is more accurate but points are located 2-3 kilometres south of their true position. 47. We have used three transformations as follows: (i) Single Point co-location: This has little merit scientifically but has been included because of an argument that developed in the 1962 oral hearings over Annex 76 of the Thai Rejoinder (see paragraph 49). We wanted to see what the merits of the arguments were. (ii) End Point co-location (linear transformation): Two points are used for the transformation, one at each end of the line. The intervening common points will not collocate and because of the poor quality of the 1907 map, the displacements are large.

22

Coordinates are listed as decimal degrees rounded to three decimal places. Coordinates of hilltop points on the Annex I map with italicised names were derived from the revised Dangrek sheet held by the Thai DTLA to correct the registration error on the Annex I map.

International Boundaries Research Unit

21

647

Annex 96

648
International Boundaries Research Unit 22

Figure 9a: Comparison WGS4 locations of common points on the Annex I map and their actual locations from modern RTSD topographic maps (RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV backdrop, scale reduced to 1:250,000)

Figure 9b: Comparison WGS4 locations of common points on the Annex I map and their actual locations from modern RTSD topographic maps (Annex I map backdrop, scale reduced to 1:250,000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 23

Annex 96

649

Annex 96

(iii) Segmented End Point co-location: To reduce the displacements, one would, if the errors were small, use a polynomial transformation which takes into account all common points and achieves a best mean fit, but we rejected this approach because of the size of the errors. We think that the simplest solution is to break the line down into segments and to carry out successive transformations along the line. Where a common point does not lie on the line, it will transform into different positions for the two transformations it is involved in. The disparity will depend on the distance from the line and the angle between the two lines connecting it to adjacent common points.

H. Transfer of Annex I boundary to real world: results


Single point transformations
48. As one might expect, the three single point transformations each produce a degree of coincidence in the vicinity of the point chosen but deviate more and more as one moves along the watershed away from the chosen point. Thus, the Temple transformation produces a displacement of 3 kilometres into Cambodia at the western end of the sheet while the Ph Sruogh transformation produces a similar displacement into Thailand at the eastern end. The central point (Ph Swai) produces, as one would expect, roughly half the displacement at each end of the sheet (see Figures 10a to 10d). 49. Single point transformations such as these have no real standing mathematically and our three transformations should serve to indicate the reason their dependence on the choice of collocated point. We present them primarily because the method seems to have been used by Cambodia during the oral hearings of the Temple case when it was claimed that, by overlaying the Annex I map onto a 1951 edition of the RTSD 1:200000 map so that the locations of the temple itself coincided, then the Annex I line coincided with the watershed for the whole of its length. 23 This was in response to a submission by Thailand24 by which it claimed to show the gains and losses that would arise for both Parties if the Annex I boundary line was enforced. If the line on the map at Annex 76 is compared with the blue line on Figure 10a, it will be seen that there is close agreement, so the method used by Thailand was almost certainly that of our single point transformation. If the blue line is compared with the red line of the correct watershed in Figure 10a, it will be seen how different in shape the two lines are, and it is difficult to see how Acheson was able to make them match. However, we must emphasise that this is not an important technical point as we do not recommend this simplistic method of transformation.

23 24

Reply of Mr. Acheson, ICJ Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, p. 457. Annex 76 to the Rejoinder of Thailand.

International Boundaries Research Unit

24

650

Figure 10a: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary overview (RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 25

Annex 96

651

Annex 96

652
International Boundaries Research Unit 26

Figure 10b: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Figure 10c: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 27

Annex 96

653

Annex 96

654
International Boundaries Research Unit 28

Figure 10d: Impact of three single point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Annex 96
End point transformations
50. We carried out two end point transformations, using two different points at the western end, one at Konkok (well into the second commission area,) and one at Ph. Sruogh close to the point of change between the two commissions. Again, the differences between the two transformations are what one would expect. There is some displacement up to 1 kilometre at the western end which would arise from an error in the relative positions of the two chosen points. The effect diminishes as one travels east, and is negligible as one approaches the eastern common point (see Figures 11a to 11d). 51. Whichever line is chosen, the displacement between the Annex I map line and the RTSD line is reduced by about half from that in Figure 5. The transformed line remains generally to the north of the RTSD line with a particularly large displacement of around 5 kilometres at the 102 Paris meridian.

International Boundaries Research Unit

29

655

Annex 96

656
International Boundaries Research Unit 30

Figure 11a: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary overview (RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)

Figure 11b: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 31

Annex 96

657

Annex 96

658
International Boundaries Research Unit 32

Figure 11c: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:10,000)

Figure 11d: Impact of two end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 33

Annex 96

659

Annex 96

Segmented end point transformations


52. Simply adjusting the Annex I line using only two end points does nothing to remove the errors in the map along the line itself. Some further errors can be removed if the line is split into several parts and each section adjusted independently. 25 This requires further common points to be found, although there is a limit on how many can be confidently identified. We have chosen to split the line into five sections and the results are displayed in Figures 12a to 12d. 53. The result is, as expected, much closer to the RTSD watershed line. Starting from the temple in the east, there are 25 kilometres of fairly close agreement (within 1 kilometre), then 25 kilometres of displacements to south and north of the RTSD line, followed (if one ignores the incorrect valley running to the north) by fairly good agreement for the final 25 kilometres to BP1. 54. A significant displacement also starts just to the east of the temple and runs off the sheet. We have examined the adjacent sheet and the Annex I line does return towards the RTSD line after another 3 kilometres or so. 55. When we talk of fairly close agreement, we do not imply that the solution has any merit. The variation from the true watershed is up to 1 kilometre and, if adopted, the line would oscillate to and fro across the watershed in an illogical manner. In some instances it might even find itself half way down the escarpment cliff.

Comparison of all transformations


56. We have shown all the transformations together in Figures 13a to 13d. The intention is not to confuse but to indicate the variations that arise from the choice of transformation. 57. Transformations are usually carried out between two sets of reliable data or, at the very least, data that contains errors that are sufficiently small to be handled by statistical methods. This is not the case here. The Annex I map contains a multitude of errors that cannot be represented mathematically and so there is no perfect solution.

25

It should be noted that there will be small discontinuities at the junctions between the segments. The end point in one segment will transform to one position and the same point in the adjacent segment will transform to a different position. In view of the other errors present in the Annex I map, this discrepancy can reasonably be ignored.

International Boundaries Research Unit

34

660

Figure 12a: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary overview (RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 35

Annex 96

661

Annex 96

662
International Boundaries Research Unit 36

Figure 12b: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Figure 12c: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 37

Annex 96

663

Annex 96

664
International Boundaries Research Unit 38

Figure 12d: Impact of segmented end point transformations on the Annex I boundary (RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Figure 13a: Comparative depiction of all transformations discussed in this report overview (RTSD sheets 5837-IV, 5837-I and 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:250000)

Annex 96
International Boundaries Research Unit 39

665

Annex 96

666
International Boundaries Research Unit 40

Figure 13b: Comparative depiction of all transformations discussed in this report (RTSD sheet 5837-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Figure 13c: Comparative depiction of all transformations discussed in this report (RTSD sheet 5837-I, scale reduced to 1:100000)
International Boundaries Research Unit 41

Annex 96

667

Annex 96

668
International Boundaries Research Unit 42

Figure 13d: Comparative depiction of all transformations discussed in this report (RTSD sheet 5937-IV, scale reduced to 1:100000)

Annex 96

I. Concluding comments
58. We have attempted to transfer the Annex I map boundary line onto the real landscape of the Dangrek mountains as best we can. In the course of our work, it became clear that the map may have been a worthy attempt to record the features of the landscape in the circumstances of the time it was made, but its many errors are now evident from maps made from satellite imagery. 59. We have used the latest editions of the RTSD 1:50000 maps of the area to provide the model with which to compare the Annex I map. 60. It is clear from our examination of the Annex I map that, although the Judgment in the Temple case referred to the parties expressed desire in 1907 to achieve finality in the definition of the boundary26, the Court was overoptimistic if it expected this map to deliver it. The dense forest and the mountainous terrain of the Dangrek meant that, until aerial photography became available in the second half of the twentieth century, it required a great deal of skill, dedication and hard work to produce a reliable map of the area. From the evidence of the Sector 5 map of the second commission, it is clear that Lieutenant Malandain possessed these qualities and his map reflects that in its conformity with present day knowledge. From the evidence of the Annex I map, it is probable that Captain Oum did not and, without them, his map failed to reflect the finality in its depiction of the landscape that the parties might have wished for. 61. In its Judgment in the Temple case, the Court stated:
the Parties at that time [1908] adopted an interpretation of the treaty settlement which caused the map line, in so far as it may have departed from the line of the watershed, to prevail over the relevant clause of the treaty.27

The evidence before the Court mainly concerned the 7 kilometres by 12 kilometres area mapped by Professor Schermerhorn in the vicinity of the temple, a small part of the roughly 100 kilometres of boundary covered by the Annex I map. Outside the temple area, there were arguments about whether the line of the escarpment further west was accurately represented on the Annex I map and there was some discussion of the error at the Pass of Kel. We have shown that the escarpment and hence the watershed are poorly depicted on the Annex I map, and that the errors at and to the east of the Pass of Kel were not fully understood by counsel to the extent that an undefined gap may exist in the boundary line in this area. We have further suggested that the boundary does not end on the eastern edge of the Annex I map and that there are implications for the boundary line as it continues on the adjacent Khong sheet.

26 27

Temple case Merits Judgment of 15 June 1962 p. 34-35. Temple case Merits Judgment of 15 June 1962 p. 34.

International Boundaries Research Unit

43

669

Annex 96

62. Because of the unreliable nature of the Annex I map, we feel that to use its depiction of the boundary line for delimitation and/or demarcation would be misguided. The map is unfit for this purpose. We believe that a new on-theground definition of the watershed would be the best solution even though it would be a very difficult task in some sections. We accept that there would have to be negotiations over how to leave and rejoin the watershed in the vicinity of the temple. We did not think it would be useful for us to make suggestions on this point at this stage. 63. However, if it transpires that the Annex I boundary line has to be transformed onto the landscape, then we would reluctantly recommend that a segmented transformation method be used. To achieve this, agreement would have to be reached with Cambodia over the common points to be used. The result would probably be a search by each side for the most advantageous points to produce the greatest territorial gain, and there would be no scientific grounds for determining who was right. No matter which common points are chosen, the boundary would only coincide with the watershed in a handful of places and in some areas it would lie several kilometres from the watershed. 64. We have chosen what we believe to be the best available common points in terms of reliability and the division of the line into as equal sections as possible. 65. Finally, we would like to thank the officials of the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs and the Royal Thai Survey Department as well as all those who looked after our security during our visit to the border area for their kindness and the care they showed for our well-being. It was an invaluable experience and a great help in the writing of this report.

International Boundaries Research Unit

44

670

Annex 97 Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran, 9November 2011

671

Annex 97

672

Annex 97

(Translation) Suranaree Task Force, 2nd Area Army Affidavit

No. 3013 Affidavit of Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran Written at Headquarters of Suranaree Task Force 9 November B.E. 2554 (2011) Before the Chief of Staff of Suranaree Taskforce

I, Lieutenant General Surapon Rueksumran, of Thai race and Thai nationality; Occupation, civil servant on pension; Born on 8 October B.E. 2492 (1949); Age 62; Residing at Suranaree Taskforces residential house, Piboonla-iad Road, Nong Pai [lom] Subdistrict, Mueang District, Nakorn Ratchasima Province Tel: 081-6846305 I truthfully make the following statement: 1. I entered military service at the 6th Regimental Combat Team ,Supprasitprasong Camp, Ubon Ratchathani Province in B.E. 2516 (1973). In B.E. 2534 (1991), I was the Commander-in-Chief of the 23rd Paramilitary Unit, 2nd Area Army, Ministry of Defense at Kantharalak District, Si Sa Ket Province. I retired in B.E. 2552 (2009). 2. In B.E. 2534 (1991), there was a meeting at Si Sa Ket Provincial Hall between Si Sa Ket Province of Thailand and Phra Viharn Province of Cambodia on the opening of Khao Phra Viharn as a tourist site. I, as the Commander-in-Chief of the local military unit, was assigned to attend the meeting as a Thai delegate and I attended the aforesaid meeting. In the meeting, both sides agreed to open Khao Phra Viharn as a joint tourist site. The Thai side would allow Thai, Cambodian and foreign tourists to access the Temple of Phra Viharn from the Thai side through the iron gate at the Tani stream which had been built by Si Sa Ket Province. The Thai side would issue entry tickets for each type of tourists. Any proceeds from the ticket sales would be shared equally and both sides would assign personnel to provide

673

Annex 97

security for the tourists. However, there was a point of disagreement, which was extensively discussed by the two sides, which almost prevented the agreement from being concluded. That was the issue of cost sharing of the preparation for the visits of the tourists. At first, it was proposed that each side would bear the cost in its own area on the respective side of the existing fence. However, the Cambodian side claimed that it did not have enough budgets and asked the Thai side to provide construction materials and to build restrooms for the tourists in the Temple of Phra Viharn. The Thai side hesitated to accept the request because such area was beyond Thai territory but it eventually accepted the request. 3. In November 1991, after the two sides jointly agreed to open the Temple of Phra Viharn as a tourist site, the Thai side constructed restrooms for the tourists in the Temple of Phra Viharn at Lan Phya Nakarat, between the Temple staircase and the first Gopura, on the west side of the Temple, slightly opposite the Temple Pond (Sra Song). Later, the Thai side considered it necessary to construct another set of restrooms north of the Temple staircase, approximately 30 metres from the barbed-wire fence. In addition, the Thai side constructed barbed wires fence to mark the pathway from the iron gate to the foot of the Temple staircase in order to prevent tourists from entering mined area. The Thai side also provided Cambodia with cement pillars and barbed wires for the construction of fences marking the limits of tourists access. The marking of such limits was in accordance with the opinion of the joint committee which was jointly set up by the two sides. 4. To access the Temple, Cambodian tourists who came from other areas must carry a certifying note from the Cambodian Government allowing their travel into Thailand legally and must travel in and out through authorized temporary pass points or checkpoints in accordance with the laws. Cambodian citizens who lived in the Temple could come down to buy goods in the Thai side and re-sell them at the Temple of Phra Viharn through the iron gate at Tani stream, the same route as the one used by the tourists. Prior permission must be sought from the Thai officers who stationed with Cambodian officers at the joint coordination post situated at the Temple Pond (Sra Song). The access was permitted from 08.00 to 16.00 hours daily.

674

Annex 97

5. Both sides would prevent and suppress unlawful activities in accordance with their laws within the areas under their respective responsibilities. Has been read and found to be correct.

(Signed) Lt. General Surapon Rueksumran Maker of the statement (Signed) Col. Sorachat Sutthison Interrogator I, Lieutenant Colonel Kumpanat Wapunsu, Chief of Intelligence Section, Suranaree Task Force, recorded and read back to him this affidavit which is hereby found to be correct. (Signed) Kumpanat Wapunsu Chief of Intelligence Section Suranaree Task Force

675

Annex 97

676

Annex 97

677

Annex 97

678

Annex 98 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch showing the location of the French flag pole in 1930, 17 November 2011

679

Annex 98

680

N
Location of Temporary shed of attap and French flag pole in 1930
100 m.

Sketch showing location of the French Flag Pole

20 m. Foot of the staircase Naga staircase


20 m.

Centre line of the Temple

Broken staircase

To Cambodia
Sra Song (Temple Pond)

Second Gopura

Barbed wire fence

Annex 98

Pei Ta Di

681

682

Annex 99 Royal Thai Survey Department, Sketch of 1991 arrangements for tourism, 17 November 2011

683

Annex 99

684

Sketch of 1991 arrangements for tourism


Iron gate

N
Thai military post
Thai control post and ticketing office
Barbed wires to protect tourists from mines

Foot of the staircase


Cambodian gate Naga staircase

First Gopura
Remains of stone walkway

Broken staircase

To Cambodia
Restrooms Second Gopura
Sra Song (Temple Pond)

Joint Coordination Post

Annex 99

Pei Ta Di

685

686

Annex 100 Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, History of the Negotiations for the Inscription of the Temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List, November 2011

687

Annex 100

688

Annex 100

Non-paper

History of Negotiations for the Inscription of the Temple on the UNESCO World Heritage List

1. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that, in the process of inscription of the Temple of Phra Viharn on the World Heritage list, Cambodia has progressively recognized that its sovereignty does not extend to Thai territory on the Phra Viharn promontory. It will show in particular that after some initial attempts in 2008 to leave doubt about the extent of the buffer zone or management zone for the Temple indispensable for a complete inscription Cambodia has since 2010 officially recognized that Thai territory on the promontory is to be excluded from such zone.

2. Prior to her formal submission of the inscription of the Temple on the World Heritage List in 2008, Cambodia had already submitted to the World Heritage Committee during its 31st session (2007) a proposal for the inscription of the Temple. The proposed inscription in 2007 would cover the area of the property of 154.70 ha with the area of the buffer zone of 2,642.50 ha. 1 The Schema Directeur pour le Zonage de Preah Vihear a map attached to the Cambodias proposed nomination describe the three areas, designated as Zone 1, Zone 2 and Zone 3a/3b, as Zone monumentale de protection maximale, Zone tampon de protection et de cne de vue and Zone de dveloppement, respectively.2 These three zones encroach on Thai territory. 3. At the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee in July 2008, Cambodia agreed to reduce the surface of the nominated property which would now comprise only the Temple of Phra Viharn and not the wider promontory with its cliffs and caves. 3 This nominated property, covering the area of 11 ha., is described in Cambodias Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World

See UNESCO, Document No. WHC -07/31.COM/8B Paris, 11 May 2007, pp.16-17 and 3031; and ATTACHMENT 1: The Temple of Preah Vihear Inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO) since 2008, edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, May 2010, p. 24. 2 ATTACHMENT 2: Schema Directeur pour Le Zonage de Preah Vihear submitted by Cambodia at WHC 31. 3 UNESCO, Decisions adopted at the 32nd Session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec City, 2008), Document No. 32 Com 8B.102, para. 9.

689

Annex 100
2

Heritage Committee in the same session as Zone 1 Primtre du Temple de Preah Vihear.4 The RGPP also describes two other zones, roughly marked by number 2 and number 3, as Zone tampon and Zone exclue de la zone tampon, respectively.5 The RGPP thus confirms Cambodias recognition of Thailands right to the disputed area (marked by number 3), which was henceforth excluded from the buffer zone, although the confines of zone 2 and zone 3 are not clearly marked. 4. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), one of the three Advisory Bodies of UNESCO, stated in its evaluation report during the 32nd session (2008) of the World Heritage Committee regarding the inscription of the Temple of Pra Viharn that: ICOMOS noted in its 2007 evaluation that, according to information provided to it by the World Heritage Centre, the precise location of the frontier between Cambodia and Thailand to the north of the nominated site is currently the subject of a dispute between the two States Parties. The property

nominated in 2007 and parts of its buffer zone lay partly within the disputed area. The property now nominated lies entirely within territory in Cambodia over which there is no dispute with Thailand.... 6 and In its 2007 evaluation, ICOMOS noted that, the boundary of the nominated property coincided on the north with the existing frontier between Cambodia and Thailand. The area beyond this segment of the boundary lies entirely within what is currently the territory of Thailand. The nominated area has now been revised so that it falls entirely within land in Cambodia not disputed by Thailand. The core zone includes the temple and a small area immediately surrounding it.7 5. The RPPG was subsequently reproduced in Cambodias Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear dated January 2010 on page 52.
4

Interestingly, an

ATTACHMENT 3: Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World Heritage Committee submitted by Cambodia at WHC 32, reproduced in ATTACHMENT 4: Cambodias Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear dated January 2010, p. 52 5 Ibid. 6 ATTACHMENT 5: WHC.08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add2, Addendum 2: ICOMOS Evaluations of nominations of cultural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List - Preah Vihear (Cambodia) No. 1224 (p. 6) as appeared in http://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/32COM/documents/ 7 Ibid.

690

Annex 100
3

Archaeological Potential Map of the Site was also produced on page 93 which defines more clearly the extent of the area identified in the RGPP as Zone tampon (i.e. area marked by number 2).9

6. After some initial attempts to leave doubt about the extent of the buffer zone for the Temple in the RGPP produced in 2008, Cambodia in 2010 thus officially recognized that Thai territory on the promontory is to be excluded from such zone.

7. This is clearly seen from another map officially published in May 2010 by the Office of the Council of Ministers of Cambodia to illustrate the property and its buffer zone for inscription on the World Heritage List.10 The map clearly shows the intended buffer zone in green. excluded. 8. The May 2010 map has been confirmed by the Plan de Zonage Dlimitant la Zone Tampon submitted by Cambodia to the World Heritage Committee for consideration at its 34th Session in Brasilia in July-August 2010. 11 Here again, zone 3, roughly representing Thai territory on the promontory, is exclue de la zone tampon. 9. Although the World Heritage Committee does not have mandate or jurisdiction over State boundaries, these official maps are nonetheless evidence of the acceptance by Cambodia that, pending delimitation of the area, the geographical extent of Cambodias sovereignty does not extend to Thai territory on the Phra Viharn promontory. Thai territory on the promontory, marked in yellow, is

***

ATTACHMENT 4 : Cambodias Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear dated January 2010, p. 52 9 ATTACHMENT 6: Archaeological Potential Map of the Site, ibid., p. 93 10 ATTACHMENT 1: The Temple of Preah Vihear inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO) since 2008, edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, May 2010, p. 27 11 UNESCO, Documents No. WHC -10/34.COM 7B.Add.3, 27 July 2010, p. 7
8

691

Annex 100

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. The Temple of Preah Vihear Inscribed on the World Heritage List (UNESCO) since 2008, edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers, Phnom Penh, May 2010 2. 3. Schema Directeur pour Le Zonage de Preah Vihear submitted by Cambodia at WHC 31. Revised Graphic Plan of the Property (RGPP) submitted to the World Heritage Committee submitted by Cambodia at WHC 32 Cambodias Management Plan of the Temple of Preah Vihear dated January 2010, p. 52 WHC.08/32.COM/INF.8B1.Add2, Addendum 2: ICOMOS Evaluations of nominations of cultural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List - Preah Vihear (Cambodia) No. 1224 Archaeological Potential Map of the Site

4. 5.

6.

692

INSCRIBED ON THE WORLD HERITAGE LIST (UNESCO) SINCE 2008

THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA
ATTACHMENT 1

Edited by the Office of the Council of Ministers

PHNOM PENH MAY 2010

Annex 100

693

Annex 100

694

11 THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA SUBMITS A PORTFOLIO COMPRISED OF 4 DOCUMENTS

In conformity with paragraph 15 of the Decision 32 COM 8B.102, the Kingdom of Cambodia submitted 4 (four) enumerated following documents to the World Heritage Centre in May 2009, on an exceptional basis beyond the deadline established in the paragraph 148 of the Operational Guidelines, including: a) A provisional map providing additional details of the inscribed property and a map delineating the buffer zone identified in the RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property);

b) an updated nomination dossier to reflect the changes made to the perimeter of the property;

c) a confirmation that the management zone for the property will include the inscribed property and buffer zone identified in the RGPP;

d) a progress report on the preparation of the Management Plan.

These documents have been requested by the World Heritage Centre, with the application of its Decision 32 COM 8B.102 (Quebec, Canada, 7 July 2008). Taking into account the new state of the maps and the zoning (provisional state,) it is important to recall that it is to the request of the honorable members of the Committee and in the spirit of the effort of conciliation to facilitate the inscription that the Kingdom of Cambodia has consented to give up the advantages gained by virtue of the Decision 31 COM 8B.24. (Christchurch, New Zealand, July 2007, which

- Recognizes that the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear is of great international significance and has Outstanding Universal Value on the basis of criteria (i), (ii) and (iv);

- agrees in principle that it should be inscribed on the World Heritage List;

- and notes that the process for inscription is in progress

23

Consequently, as it was inscribed at the 32nd session of the Committee, the Temple of Peah Vihear has a perimeter which covers 11 (eleven) hectares, but the Decision of the Committee at its 31st session, announcing the process for inscription in progress, was based on the proposition of the inscription of the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear covering 154.70 ha (one hundred fifty four hectares and seventy ares).

In the same way, the initial buffer zone covered 2,642.50 ha (two thousand six hundred forty two hectares and fifty ares), but the buffer zone identified in the RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property) as what has been accepted by the Committee at its 32nd session covers only 644.113 ha (six hundred forty four hectares and one hundred thirteen ares), seeing that the proposed property for inscription has been reduced and that the perimeter of the proposed zone for inscription has been revised.

In this regards, it is important to point out, again, that the followings have been TEMPORARILY excluded from the zoning:

a. the zone situated between the ascendancy of the historical staircase conducting to the temple in the east and the border line between Cambodia and Thailand, in the north of the temple;

b. and the zone in the west of the temple, claimed by Thailand. This is the area which stretches from the border line true to the map being integral part of the Judgment of the international Court of Justice The Hague, 15 June 1962) and the line indicated in the map unilaterally made by the Kingdom of Thailand and presented only at the 31st session of the Committee in Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June02 July 2007 (see maps and drawings on pages 6,7 and 8).

Annex 100

24

695

Annex 100

696

The Committee at its 31st session (2007) recognized the validity of the criteria (i) (ii) and (iv) for the inscription on the World Heritage List, in conformity with the evaluation performed by ICOMOS. The same Committee, however, at its 32nd session (2008) inscribed the Temple of Preah Vihear on the List on the basis of criteria (i) alone.

But the Decision 32 COM 8B.102 indicates in its paragraph 11 that the Committee agrees that it would be desirable in the future to reflect its full value (= full value of the property) and landscape setting through a possible additional inscription to the World Heritage List that could capture criteria (iii) and (iv), which had been recognized by the Committee in its Decision 31 COM 8B.24

25

12 THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA UPDATES A PROVISIONAL MAP FOR NOMINATION AND A

MAP PROVIDING THE BUFFER ZONE IDENTIFIED IN THE RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property)

The provisional map of the property (identified 1) inscribed on the World Heritage List.

n Ki

om

Th
ai land ia od b of Ca m

gd

Annex 100

26

697

The map of the buffer zone (identified 2) of the property inscribed on the World Heritage List

Annex 100

698

n Ki

gd

ha land i ia om od b of Cam

27

13 THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA UPDATES THE NOMINATION DOSSIER TO REFLECT THE

CHANGES MADE TO THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY

The nomination file, evaluated by ICOMOS and examined by the World Heritage Committee at its 31st session (Christchurch, New Zealand, 2007), was related to THE SACRED SITE OF THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR

The updated property proposed for inscription has been reduced and that the perimeter of the proposed zone for inscription has been revised.

The updated dossier presented this property (zone 1) covering 11 (eleven) hectares only, but the Decision of the Committee at its 31st session, announcing the process for inscription in progress, was based on the proposition of the inscription of the Sacred Site of the Temple of Preah Vihear covering 154.70 ha (one hundred fifty four hectares and seventy ares).

The buffer zone (zone 2) identified in the RGPP (Revised Graphic Plan of the Property) as what has been accepted by the Committee at its 32nd session covers only 644.113 ha (six hundred forty four hectares and one hundred thirteen ares), instead of the initial buffer zone covering 2,642.50 ha (two thousand six hundred forty two hectares and fifty ares), when the World Heritage Committee made the Decision announcing the process for inscription in progress.

During the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee, the conciliation efforts, conducted in cooperation with the Secretariat by the honorable members of the World Heritage Committee (firstly the Representative of the U.S.A), resulted in the inscription of the property entitled THE TEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR, on the basis of the Decision 32 COM 8B.102 (Quebec, Canada, July 2008).

Annex 100

28

699

Annex 100

700

Gopura III

Gopura II

Gopura I

Aerial view South North: Gopura I, Gopura II and Gopura III are clearly visible

29

In the same spirit of conciliation, the Cambodian Delegation accepted to reduce the surface of the nominated property which covers only the Temple of PREAH VIHEAR and not the wider promontory with its cliffs and caves.
Explanatory Note on the zoning presented in the provisional Map

In conformity with the policy of peace and good neighbourliness led by His Excellency the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Cambodia, Samdech Akka Moha Sena Padei Techo Hun Sen, and in the spirit of conciliation, at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec, Canada, 2008), the delegation of the Royal Government of Cambodia consented to accept the proposition made by the

Committee during the preliminary work for the Decision 32 COM 8B. 102.

Consequently, the area figured in yellow in the present map is PROVISIONALLY out of the zoning.

This area stretches from the border line true to the map being integral part of the Judgment of the international Court of Justice (15 June 1962, please see NB. hereafter) and the line indicated in the map unilaterally made by the Kingdom of Thailand and presented only at the 31st session of the Committee (Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June-02 July 2007).

The final zoning will be fixed according to the result of the work on the border demarcation of the Joint Boundary Commission between

Cambodia and Thailand.

NB.: in the Judgment of 15 June 1962 (See the International Court of Justice, Reports of Judgments, Case concerning the Temple

of Preah Vihear, Judgment of 15 June 1962, page 32, paragraph 5), it is said: The court however considers that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognizes the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Vihear in Cambodian territory.

Annex 100

701

30

Annex 100

702

THE INSCRIBED PROPERTY

The inscribed property lies on a higher part of the plateau located above 250 metres. The perimeter of the property is composed of the linear monument and its immediate surrounding.

It excludes the monumental staircase leading to the monument on the east side as well as its landscape setting.

In the same manner, it excludes temporarily: On one side, the zone which, beyond the area of the historical staircase on the east, is extended to the north up to the line indicated on the Schma directeur pour le zonage de Preah Vihear under the title TRAC TITRE INDICATIF DE LA FRONTIRE, e.g. the border line true to the map being integral part of the Judgment of the International Court of Justice (Judgment of 15 June 1962); and

The zone extending to the west of the Temple, starting from the promontory to the TRAC TITRE INDICATIF DE LA FRONTIRE as here above clarified. This zone is claimed by Thailand on the basis of a map unilaterally made and submitted only, for the first time, at the 31st session of the World Heritage Committee (Christchurch, New Zealand, 23 June to 2 July 2007) [see maps and drawings on page 6, 7 and 8].

The buffer zone, indicated as zone No 2, covers at the east, the south and the west of the Temple, an area of 644.113 ha (six hundred forty four hectares and hundred thirteen).

This zone, consisting essentially of landscape comprising cliff, forest and vegetation, is bounded by:

the area set for the historic monumental staircase at the east;

the lay-out of the new access road to the Temple (road in construction, starting from the east to the south and leading to the traditional village Ko Muoy, allowing the access to the promontory, at the west to the Temple of Preah Vihear (see the map on page 33). 31

Trac titre indicatif de la frontire: This is indicative of the frontier line based on ANNEX I MAP, used by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for its judgment in 1962, which was drawn in 1908 as a result of the demarcation work of the Commission of Delimitation of the boundary between Indo-China and Siam set up on the basis of the Convention of 1904 and the Treaty of 1907 between France and Siam and was accepted by the Kingdom of Siam. In its reasoning, the ICJ very clearly demonstrated the legal validity of the border line as shown in the ANNEX I MAP.
Annex 100

K
T
g in
d a i lan di o m b of Cam

ha

do

703

32

Annex 100

704

14 THE KINGDOM OF CAMBODIA CONFIRMS THAT THE MANAGEMENT ZONE OF THE PROP-

ERTY WILL INCLUDE THE PROPERTY AND THE BUFFER ZONE IDENTIFIED IN THE RGPP

The Kingdom of Cambodia, as State Party recognizes that the values of the Temple of Preah Vihear are linked to its position in the landscape and the way it responded to that dramatic landscape.

Initial Map (January and May 2008), in preparation for the inscription

33

As required by the World Heritage Committee, the Royal Government of Cambodia confirms that the management zone includes the World Heritage property (= zone 1 or the Temple of Preah Vihear) and the buffer zone (= zone 2 identified in the RGPP)

Th

a ilan

d ng
m
of Ca mb o

di

Inscription (7 July 2008) Zone 1: The Temple of Preah Vihear, the inscribed property Zone 2: The buffer zone

Annex 100

34

705

Annex 100

706
The Office of the Council of Ministers of The Royal Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia

Printed in Phnom Penh CAMBODIA 2010

Annex 100

ATTACHMENT 2

707

Annex 100

ATTACHMENT 3

708

Annex 100

ATTACHMENT 4

709

Annex 100

ATTACHMENT 5

710

Annex 100

711

Annex 100

712

Annex 100

713

Annex 100

714

Annex 100

715

Annex 100

716

Annex 100

717

Annex 100

718

Annex 100

719

Annex 100

720

Annex 100

721

Annex 100

722

Annex 100

ATTACHMENT 6

723

724

Annex 101 Carte annexe au Rapport de MM. Doeringsfeld, Amuedo et Ivey (Annexe I), filed as Annex LXVIc of Cambodias Reply (enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)

725

Annex 101

726

Annex 101

727

728

Annex 102 Map showing strips of Cambodian territory attributed to Thailand if Annex I were declared valid, filed as Annex No. 76bis of Thailands Rejoinder (enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)

729

Annex 102

730

Annex 102

731

732

Annex 103 Oxford University Press, Oxford English Dictionary, online version September 2011, available at: http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177; accessed 15 November 2011

733

Annex 103

734

Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...

Pronunciation: /vsnt/ Etymology: < Latin vcnits , < vcn-us : see VICINE adj. and -ITY suffix. So Italian ...

1. a. The state, character, or quality of being near in space; propinquity, proximity.


1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. xij , For the Frenchmen come of the same offspringe that we do: And for the vicinitie therof are very necessary for the Italians and vs. 1604 T. WRIGHT Passions of Minde (new ed.) v. 4. 275 The vicinitie also of the evill moveth much, for dangers afarre off we little esteeme. 1641 1698 J. JACKSON True Evang. Temper III . 169 The third is to feed, and eate together. Another degree of vicinity, and neerenesse. J. FRYER New Acct. E.-India & Persia 226 The most unhealthy of these [winds] are the South-East, for that then the Air is thicker, by reason of the Seas Vicinity. SWIFT Short View State Ireland 11 The abundance and vicinity of Country-Seats.
v

17278

1774 O. GOLDSMITH Grecian Hist. I. v. 105 But the Athenians were not to be intimidated by any vicinity of danger. 1825 SCOTT Betrothed iii, in Tales Crusaders II. 85 The Constable alleged the vicinity of the Welch, as what might possibly again render the abode of his betrothed brideperilous.

1849 T. B. MACAULAY Hist. Eng. II. vi. 102 He had forgotten that vicinity operates in more ways than one. 1892 Photogr. Ann. II. 247 Under these conditions all vicinity of watercourses, unless bridged, should be avoided.

b. Const. to, with.


1651 1681 1781 R. BAXTER Plain Script. Proof Pref. sig. bi , That we may enjoy the comfort of unityaccording to our vicinity with you on Earth. P. RYCAUT tr. B. Gracin y Morales Critick 23 All those Epithets of changeable, defective,and the like, arederived from her too near vicinity with the Earth. W. COWPER Heroism 52 Ill-fated race! how deeply must they rue Their only crime, vicinity to you!
v

1836 DICKENS Sketches by Boz 1st Ser. I. 108 How much more awful is it to reflect on this near vicinity to the dying. 1858 J. MARTINEAU Stud. Christianity 206 This vicinity to the great capital drew him, however, into a wider circle of duties.

2. Nearness in degree or quality; close relationship or connection; resemblance, likeness. Obs.

1 of 3

15/11/2011 10:24

735

Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...

1594 W. WEST Symbologr.: 2nd Pt. II . Chancerie 145 Unto whom your said Oratrices husband, for the vicinity of bloud, and abilitie of substance, was bolder to make his mone for helpe. 1599 Master Broughtons Lett. xii. 42 Speeches farre more differing from any vicinitie to prophanenes then this of yours. 1614 W. B. tr. Philosophers Banquet (ed. 2) I . xxv. 51 The vicinity with mans nature it hath. 1642 BP. J. TAYLOR Of Sacred Order Episcopacy (1647) 281 An honorary, and extraordinary priviledge indulged to them for their vicinity and relation to our Blessed Lord the fountaine of all benison to us. a1676 M. HALE Primitive Originat. Mankind (1677) I . iii. 83 There is a vicinity between Agents and Patients.

3. = VICINAGE n. 1.
1781 T. JEFFERSON Corr. in Wks. (1859) I. 293 Lord Cornwallis had advanced to the vicinities of the Moravian towns.

1789 T. JEFFERSON Corr. in Wks. (1859) III. 26 The progress of lighthas equalled expectation in Paris only and its vicinities. 1835 I. TAYLOR Spiritual Despotism iv. 173 Thattendency of things, which places the clergy of a vicinity in opposition the one to the other.

1843 E. BULWER-LYTTON Last of Barons I. I . viii. 129 It commanded a full view of the vicinity without. 1860 J. TYNDALL Glaciers of Alps I . xi. 75 We were gladto escape the vicinity of that ugly crevasse. 1875 A. HELPS Social Pressure iii. 41 That might gradually have the effect of removing all noxious trades from London and its vicinity.

4. a. in the vicinity (of), in the neighbourhood (of), near or close (to). (Cf. VICINAGE n. 1b, 3.)
(a) 1796 H. HUNTER tr. J. H. B. de Saint-Pierre Stud. Nature (1799) II. 229 It would most probably have in it's vicinity, the tree which Nature designed should contrast with it in the same site. 1820 W. IRVING Sketch Bk. I. 121 The merchant has his snug retreat in the vicinity of the metropolis. 1840 T. HOOD Up Rhine 149 The extraordinary transparency of the atmosphere in the vicinity of the Rhine. 1864 G. O. TREVELYAN Competition Wallah (1866) 185 Amidst the park-like undulating scenery in the vicinity of the town. 1891 Hardwicke's Sci.-gossip 27 14/1 During a severe storm in that year the Port Glasgow ship Marseilles capsized in the vicinity of Portpatrick.

(b) 1827 M. FARADAY Chem. Manip. xviii. 469 The minute holemay be obliterated by a little pressure towards it upon the lute in the immediate vicinity. 1843 E. BULWER-LYTTON Last of Barons I. III . v. 249 A young man of low statureslowly approaching towards the arch, and every cap in the vicinity was off, and every knee bowed.

2 of 3

15/11/2011 10:24

736

Annex 103
vicinity, n. : Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr/view/Entry/223177?redirect...

b. With similar sense in other constructions. Also transf., something near to (a specified amount, etc.).
1817 J. MILL Hist. Brit. India II. IV. iv. 145 A detachment of grenadiers were very expeditiously quitting the vicinity of danger. 1901 Proc. New-Eng. Hist. Geneal. Soc. 9 Jan. p. xvi, Raising the extra cost of that number of the Annual Proceedings to the vicinity of one hundred dollars.

vicinity, n. Second edition, 1989; online version September 2011. <http://www.oed.com.faraway.u-paris10.fr /view/Entry/223177>; accessed 15 November 2011. Earlier version first published in New English Dictionary, 1917.

Oxford University Press


Copyright 2011 Oxford University Press . All rights reserved. Your access is brought to you by: University of Paris-X-Nanterre

3 of 3

15/11/2011 10:24

737

738

Annex 104 Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Websters Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2003, page 1393

739

Annex 104

740

Annex 104

741

Annex 104

742

Annex 105 Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn and aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn

743

Annex 105

744

Annex 105

Sketch of cross-section plan of the Temple of Phra Viharn

Aerial photograph of the Temple of Phra Viharn (circa 1930)

745

746

Annex 106 List of members of Cambodian Cabinet in 1962-1964

747

Annex 106

748

Annex 106
(Unofficial Translation) List of the Cabinet Members of the Government of Cambodia

Chau Sen Cocsal Chhums Government (6 August 6 October 1962) 1 Prime Minister, 1 Senior Minister, 13 Secretary of State, 2 Deputy Secretary of State Chau Sen Cocsal Chhum Lon Nol Yem Sambor Phlek Phen Huot Sambath Ung Hong Sath Trinh Vanh Sing Poeuk Thor Hou Yun Hou Nim Phy Theanlay Oub Kim Ang Man Chhum Yung Yun Hel Sumpha Kuy Puv Prime Minister

Senior Minister in charge of National Defence Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and Telecommunication Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Tourism Secretary of State, Ministry of Health Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs Secretary of State, Ministry of Planning Secretary of State, Ministry of Finance Secretary of State, Ministry of Commerce Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Secretary of State, Ministry of Interior Secretary of State, Ministry of Youth Training and Fine Arts Secretary of State, Ministry of Industry Secretary of State, Ministry of Social and Labour Affairs Deputy Secretary of State, Ministry of Education and Parliamentary Affairs

Sak Sudsakhorn

Deputy Secretary of State, the Office of Council of Ministers in charge of Security and National Defence Affairs

749

Annex 106
Prince Norodom Kantols Government (6 October 1962 25 December 1964 1 Prime Minister, 1 Senior Minister, 14 Secretary of State, 3 Deputy Secretary of State Prince Norodom Kantol Lon Nol Long Boreth Chao Seng Sak Sudsakhorn Prime Minister and Minister of Interior

Senior Minister in charge of National Defence and Sport Secretary of State, Ministry of Finance Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture Secretary of State, the Office of Council of Ministers in charge of National Peace Affairs and National Defence

Huot Sambath Hou Yun Tim Dong

Secretary of State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Secretary of State, Ministry of Planning Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Relations Affairs and Tourism Secretary of State, Ministry of Interior and Education

Prince Norodom Phurisara Phy Theanlay Thor Peng Theung Wan Moliwan

Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice Secretary of State, Ministry of Health Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and Telecommunication

Khieu Samphan Phou Si Uy Ung Keat Chhut Chhoeur

Secretary of State, Ministry of Agriculture Secretary of State, Ministry of National Training and Fine Arts Secretary of State, Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour Secretary of State, Ministry of Industry

Ung Kropumm Phka Deputy Secretary of State, Ministry of Public Affairs and Telecommunication

Man Chhum

Deputy Secretary of State in charge of Education and Parliamentary Affairs

Chao Sao

Deputy Secretary of State in charge of Finance

750

Annex 106

751

Annex 106

752

Annex 106

753

754

Annex 107 Dangrek map of a 1:200,000 scale held at the Department of Treaties and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand (enlarged reproduction is attached to this volume)

755

Annex 107

756

Annex 107

757

758