“There is no “world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French”. Read the ICJ’s 1962 judgment.
Indisputably correct – and, anyway, far be it from the likes of me to dispute interpretation of a legal ruling with a self-advertised lawyer.
Yet, in practice, it seems that considerable weight is given to those Franco-Siamese maps following the ICJ’s 1962 judgement – e.g the following from the US State Dept in 1966:
“Although no questions have been raised as to the precise alignment of the boundary since the ICJ settlement of 1962, the history of this boundary nevertheless contributes to the present very bad relations between the two states. There are occasional “border incidents”, usually involving smuggling or other crime, but if relations were otherwise good, these difficulties could be settled amicably.
Map compilation of the boundary on official U.S. productions should adhere to the maps of the original delimitation commissions. These series are:
Commission de Délimitation de la Frontière entre l’Indochine et le Siam, 1:200,000
Commission de Délimitation entre l’Indochine et le Siam, 1:200,000
(Sheet)
Khong 1906–7
Dangrek 1906–7
Note: The remaining sheets of this series for Cambodia are replaced by the five listed above. The remainder show the superseded 1904 frontier.
A comparison has been made between these maps and the series Carte de l’Indochine 1:100,000 published by the French Service Géographique de l’Indochine and subsequently by the independent states of former Indochina. Except for minor changes in geographic positions, the boundary is identical with one exception. Northwest of Sisophon, the delimitation commission maps show a single geometric line extending directly from the Stung Kone Kriol to (mount) Phnom Chatt. The modern French map shows three line segments positioned generally to the east. However, the relationships between places and the boundary are identical. Moreover, modern Thai maps also show the boundary line in three segments. We conclude that the modern map shows positions more correctly and hence is an accurate representation of the earlier line. Consequently, the 1:100,000 map series, which has a grid system and is hence more useful than the commission maps, may be used as a compilation source.”
Viewing the ICJ’s 1962 judgement purely as a self-confessed layman, it does seem that they were remiss in not explicitly extending the logic of the basis for the temple judgement to at least an opinion about the surrounding area – shown on the accepted-as-applicable map to be on the Cambodian side of the boundary. Still, we know that courts tend to want to operate in a very black-and-white way and don’t generally volunteer rulings that they weren’t formally asked to provide. Cambodia’s request for further interpretation is therefore long overdue; logically, it should have been included in their original application to the court.
You seem to have not read my earlier comment properly.
I state that “All this doesn’t mean the British public are eager for a republic.”
So, it’s pretty clear that I absolutely understand that the majority of the UK population support a monarchy.
But, equally, I would guess, that a larger majority of British people would support people’s right to criticise the same institution.
What I was attempting to point out was that there was a lot of indifference to the royal wedding, not that the monarchy was disliked. I am interested that this indifference was underreported
I am also 100% certain that when Charles and Camilla take their respective thrones, that support for the UK monarchy will dwindle a bit.
The Queen, is universally admired and respected, even by the 20% of UK population who are republicans.
I do think most of the British population want to keep the monarchy but would suggest that hardcore ultra royalists, of the kind you see in Thailand, likely represent a smaller number than republican thought.
Well, we will all have to wait another week for the House to be dissolved. Why doesn’t Abhisit EVER tell the truth about anything. Is Abhisit trying to get people to resign after the dissolution so that an intrim govt is formed or is he waiting for his masters to cut his strings and take over ruling the country in the dictatorship they always dream of.
The army pushing PR doesn’t suggest a coup in any direct way. It’s just as plausible that it’s a response to the fact that in the last two or three years their popularity has slipped. And that their fig leaf has been in the hospital for 18 months.
If I were Prayuth, I’d be trying for every possible way to keep power without a coup, since that would probably cause civil war, which is bad for business. And it’s all about business.
Benevolent or Machiavellian? The Thai army has been using the same means as the palace’s propaganda to justify their atrociousness. Soon enough we will see what they are up to.
There is no “world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French”. Read the ICJ’s 1962 judgment.
The map you’re referring to was prepared by the French, never “signed” by Siam, and never approved by the Siamese-French delimitation committee. Moreover, it was inaccurate, as the surveyors drew the watershed in the wrong place in the vicinity of Preah Vihear.
Excerpts from HRW May 3, 2011 Report “Descent into Chaos” pertaining to the Central World and other arson attacks by the Red Shirts:
“UDD Leadership Surrenders and Arson Attacks
At around 1:30 p.m. on May 19, the UDD’s leadership made a surprise announcement: they were ending the rally and surrendering to authorities. They urged remaining protesters to go home.[177]
Many ordinary UDD protesters were disappointed and angry at the sudden end to the three-month-long protests. The vast majority of UDD protesters quickly dispersed and left the area or sought safety in Wat Pathum Wanaram, a temple that had been declared a “safe zone” according to an agreement between the government and protest leaders. However, some Black Shirts and UDD protesters began a campaign of arson attacks around Bangkok, setting fire to shopping centers, government buildings, banks, and shops.
Among the arsonists’ main targets was the Central World shopping complex, one of Southeast Asia’s biggest shopping malls, located almost directly behind the Ratchaprasong UDD stage. In plain view, several dozen Black Shirts and UDD protesters began breaking the windows of the complex’s Zen wing. After some looting, they threw petrol bombs and exploding cooking gas canisters inside the mall. Arsonists fed the flames with plastic chairs and other flammable materials from the abandoned protest camp. The mall was soon engulfed in flames. Praiwan Roonnok, a security guard at the Central World, said: ….
I guess that should settle the question of who torched Central World & other buildings (36 buildings all in all) on May 19, 2011. Who? Red Shirts without a doubt.
In its 1962 judgment, the ICJ cited the claims presented to the court by Cambodia and Thailand, each of which sought a ruling on the sovereignty of the Preah Vihear temple and not a broader ruling on the location of the border in the region of the temple. Given the claims presented by the parties, the court said, “[T]he dispute submitted to the Court is confined to a difference of view about sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear.” The court went on to conclude, by a vote of 9 to 3, “that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.” Because the parties had not asked for it, the court expressly declined to reach a decision on the location of the border, saying “[I]t becomes unnecessary to consider whether, at Preah Vihear, the line as mapped does in fact correspond to the true watershed line in this vicinity, or did so correspond in 1904-1908, or, if not, how the watershed line in fact runs.”
I think the premise of Cambodia’s new request is therefore incorrect. As the court’s press release states:
Cambodia now contends that “in 1962, the Court placed the Temple under Cambodian sovereignty, because the territory on which it is situated is on the Cambodian side of the boundary”, and that “[t]o refuse Cambodia’s sovereignty over the area beyond the Temple as far as its ‘vicinity’ is to say to the Court that the boundary line which it recognized [in 1962] is wholly erroneous, including in respect of the Temple itself”.
Cambodia is asserting that the 1962 decision, that the temple belongs to Cambodia, was based on a decision as to the location of the border, which the court in 1962 specifically stated it was not deciding.
The court’s press release continues:
Cambodia states that the purpose of its present request is to seek an explanation from the Court regarding the “meaning and … scope of its Judgment, within the limit laid down by Article 60 of the Statute”.
Article 60 of the Statute of the Court provides: “In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.”
I think the court already gave, in its 1962 judgment, a clear explanation of the “meaning and scope” of that judgment, and could decline to say any more. Thailand might consider denying that there is a dispute about the “meaning or scope,” to preclude application of Article 60.
The court cannot revise its judgment — for example, to include a decision about the location of the boundary — as the power to do that expired 10 years after the judgment, under Article 61. It’s interesting that Cambodia is not asking for such a decision, but is asserting that that decision was already made (in its favor). The 1908 map was demonstrably wrong — it did not accurately reflect the watershed border agreed in the treaty, because the surveyors mislocated it — and Cambodia wouldn’t want the accuracy of the map to be decided.
I will certainly be submitting a paper for consideration, and I encourage other New Mandala readers to do so too. The more discussion we can have on Thailand here in Australia the better. Melbourne is a perfect place for a conference! AW
LesAbbey, “slow” is probably the last word that comes to mind when viewing your posts…..
“The Notion” is a reference to that so-called newspaper’s handling of what it [cough] “reports” – both conspicuously selective in what it sees as “fit to print” and the heavy slant so often given to the content.
Yes, there’ll be an occasional softly critical (and usually equivocal) editorial or even a strongly dissident piece by the honest Pravit – but it’s a minuscule fig-leaf that does nothing to conceal the reality of what drives The Notion as a whole. “Speak truth to power”? The real powers-that-be, that is….. Not for a long time.
Certainly a serious question. Well written, indeed. What is the alternative? The principle function of police is stability and tax collection. Without the army who would ensure tax collection?
The support of the Thai embassy disqualifies the event as an independent forum for free and robust debate. The embassy has proscribed academics’ views, most notably those of senior academics at ANU.
Mind boggling assumption Les. Suggestive of a sneering disrespect for those who do respond to your baiting.
Not sure if that’s correct Ralph. Possibly? Yes maybe I am baiting some of the usual suspects, and that is something I shouldn’t really do as it’s just easy point scoring.
I guess the problem for those who are pushing a more propagandist line is that when an independent organization like HRW or AI reports outside their script there isn’t much you can do except class those organizations as being part of the enemy.
I have just finished reading the summary and although I feel some of the lead up to the army shooting protesters on April 10th. has been missed, (it may be still in the details later in the report), I can accept most of what they say. Now for red shirt supporters it will cause considerable problems. The HRW report paints such a different history to what the UDD leadership, their supporters and Robert Amsterdam have been writing these last few months that it leaves them very little room to maneuver except of course to attack HRW.
Maybe I’m wrong, (although we have had a slight smell of the attack on HRW already), and we could have a general agreement saying it’s a good base to work from to identify faults. It’s worth noting that the HRW report has five key recommendations to the government, none of which will particularly be fondly received by either them or the army.
Now a little mea culpa. I said to Andrew Marshall that care should be taken on anything that looked like a ‘Zinoviev Letter’ before the election. Could the HRW report be looked at in this way? I’m not sure if that argument could stand, mainly because of the HRW’s own reputation, but I’m sure others have a view on this.
The easy way to stop the border dispute is that Thailand needs to abondan its unilateral map that was drawn by thailand itself without the recognition from the United Nations. Thailand should accept the world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French more than 100 years ago.
Only Hitler and his Nazi Germans who drew their own expansionist map to conquer the European countries 72 years ago. To stop its territorial encroahment, Thailand will have good neighbors such as Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia. Otherwise, the border fights will continously occur between Thailand and its 4 neighbors and will not be solved forever. Thailand is not as strong as the US. What country with modern war machines was defeated in Vietnam in 1975?
what’s the point when all opposition are harassed, imprisoned and critical voices against the falangist regime silenced (permanently or temporarily)? Is this a cynical international exercise like the Ambassdor’s sojourns around Australian campuses to give academic credibility to the ruling amaat regime? Participation must be free to all. If people are under threat in Thailand right now why should we support the appearance of liberal democracy on Australian campuses hosted by the representatives of the repressive and duplicitous Thai regime?
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I will offer a paper as well – which will test the academic credentials of the conference.
Nostitz on latest lese majeste arrest
c10
“There is no “world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French”. Read the ICJ’s 1962 judgment.
Indisputably correct – and, anyway, far be it from the likes of me to dispute interpretation of a legal ruling with a self-advertised lawyer.
Yet, in practice, it seems that considerable weight is given to those Franco-Siamese maps following the ICJ’s 1962 judgement – e.g the following from the US State Dept in 1966:
“Although no questions have been raised as to the precise alignment of the boundary since the ICJ settlement of 1962, the history of this boundary nevertheless contributes to the present very bad relations between the two states. There are occasional “border incidents”, usually involving smuggling or other crime, but if relations were otherwise good, these difficulties could be settled amicably.
Map compilation of the boundary on official U.S. productions should adhere to the maps of the original delimitation commissions. These series are:
Commission de Délimitation de la Frontière entre l’Indochine et le Siam, 1:200,000
Secteur No. 1 1908–8
Secteur No. 2 1908–9
Secteur No. 3 1908–9
Secteur No. 4 1907–8
Secteur No. 5 1907–8
Commission de Délimitation entre l’Indochine et le Siam, 1:200,000
(Sheet)
Khong 1906–7
Dangrek 1906–7
Note: The remaining sheets of this series for Cambodia are replaced by the five listed above. The remainder show the superseded 1904 frontier.
A comparison has been made between these maps and the series Carte de l’Indochine 1:100,000 published by the French Service Géographique de l’Indochine and subsequently by the independent states of former Indochina. Except for minor changes in geographic positions, the boundary is identical with one exception. Northwest of Sisophon, the delimitation commission maps show a single geometric line extending directly from the Stung Kone Kriol to (mount) Phnom Chatt. The modern French map shows three line segments positioned generally to the east. However, the relationships between places and the boundary are identical. Moreover, modern Thai maps also show the boundary line in three segments. We conclude that the modern map shows positions more correctly and hence is an accurate representation of the earlier line. Consequently, the 1:100,000 map series, which has a grid system and is hence more useful than the commission maps, may be used as a compilation source.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23555658/Cambodia-Thailand-Boundary (pp 9-10)
Viewing the ICJ’s 1962 judgement purely as a self-confessed layman, it does seem that they were remiss in not explicitly extending the logic of the basis for the temple judgement to at least an opinion about the surrounding area – shown on the accepted-as-applicable map to be on the Cambodian side of the boundary. Still, we know that courts tend to want to operate in a very black-and-white way and don’t generally volunteer rulings that they weren’t formally asked to provide. Cambodia’s request for further interpretation is therefore long overdue; logically, it should have been included in their original application to the court.
Monarchy and “voluntary affection”
Cassandra
You seem to have not read my earlier comment properly.
I state that “All this doesn’t mean the British public are eager for a republic.”
So, it’s pretty clear that I absolutely understand that the majority of the UK population support a monarchy.
But, equally, I would guess, that a larger majority of British people would support people’s right to criticise the same institution.
What I was attempting to point out was that there was a lot of indifference to the royal wedding, not that the monarchy was disliked. I am interested that this indifference was underreported
I am also 100% certain that when Charles and Camilla take their respective thrones, that support for the UK monarchy will dwindle a bit.
The Queen, is universally admired and respected, even by the 20% of UK population who are republicans.
I do think most of the British population want to keep the monarchy but would suggest that hardcore ultra royalists, of the kind you see in Thailand, likely represent a smaller number than republican thought.
Andrew
Nostitz on latest lese majeste arrest
Well, we will all have to wait another week for the House to be dissolved. Why doesn’t Abhisit EVER tell the truth about anything. Is Abhisit trying to get people to resign after the dissolution so that an intrim govt is formed or is he waiting for his masters to cut his strings and take over ruling the country in the dictatorship they always dream of.
Thailand’s benevolent army
Let’s not get carried away.
The army pushing PR doesn’t suggest a coup in any direct way. It’s just as plausible that it’s a response to the fact that in the last two or three years their popularity has slipped. And that their fig leaf has been in the hospital for 18 months.
If I were Prayuth, I’d be trying for every possible way to keep power without a coup, since that would probably cause civil war, which is bad for business. And it’s all about business.
Thailand’s benevolent army
Benevolent or Machiavellian? The Thai army has been using the same means as the palace’s propaganda to justify their atrociousness. Soon enough we will see what they are up to.
Nostitz on latest lese majeste arrest
El Guerro:
There is no “world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French”. Read the ICJ’s 1962 judgment.
The map you’re referring to was prepared by the French, never “signed” by Siam, and never approved by the Siamese-French delimitation committee. Moreover, it was inaccurate, as the surveyors drew the watershed in the wrong place in the vicinity of Preah Vihear.
The king never campaigns
Shan:
Here’s a genealogy of the Chakris that someone has compiled and put on ancestry.com:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~royalty/thailand/persons.html
Understanding Bangkok’s bloody April-May 2010
Excerpts from HRW May 3, 2011 Report “Descent into Chaos” pertaining to the Central World and other arson attacks by the Red Shirts:
“UDD Leadership Surrenders and Arson Attacks
At around 1:30 p.m. on May 19, the UDD’s leadership made a surprise announcement: they were ending the rally and surrendering to authorities. They urged remaining protesters to go home.[177]
Many ordinary UDD protesters were disappointed and angry at the sudden end to the three-month-long protests. The vast majority of UDD protesters quickly dispersed and left the area or sought safety in Wat Pathum Wanaram, a temple that had been declared a “safe zone” according to an agreement between the government and protest leaders. However, some Black Shirts and UDD protesters began a campaign of arson attacks around Bangkok, setting fire to shopping centers, government buildings, banks, and shops.
Among the arsonists’ main targets was the Central World shopping complex, one of Southeast Asia’s biggest shopping malls, located almost directly behind the Ratchaprasong UDD stage. In plain view, several dozen Black Shirts and UDD protesters began breaking the windows of the complex’s Zen wing. After some looting, they threw petrol bombs and exploding cooking gas canisters inside the mall. Arsonists fed the flames with plastic chairs and other flammable materials from the abandoned protest camp. The mall was soon engulfed in flames. Praiwan Roonnok, a security guard at the Central World, said: ….
[Further material can be found at the links. AW]
Source: http://www.hrw.org/en/node/98399/section/8
I guess that should settle the question of who torched Central World & other buildings (36 buildings all in all) on May 19, 2011. Who? Red Shirts without a doubt.
ICJ press release on Cambodia
In its 1962 judgment, the ICJ cited the claims presented to the court by Cambodia and Thailand, each of which sought a ruling on the sovereignty of the Preah Vihear temple and not a broader ruling on the location of the border in the region of the temple. Given the claims presented by the parties, the court said, “[T]he dispute submitted to the Court is confined to a difference of view about sovereignty over the region of the Temple of Preah Vihear.” The court went on to conclude, by a vote of 9 to 3, “that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia.” Because the parties had not asked for it, the court expressly declined to reach a decision on the location of the border, saying “[I]t becomes unnecessary to consider whether, at Preah Vihear, the line as mapped does in fact correspond to the true watershed line in this vicinity, or did so correspond in 1904-1908, or, if not, how the watershed line in fact runs.”
I think the premise of Cambodia’s new request is therefore incorrect. As the court’s press release states:
Cambodia is asserting that the 1962 decision, that the temple belongs to Cambodia, was based on a decision as to the location of the border, which the court in 1962 specifically stated it was not deciding.
The court’s press release continues:
Article 60 of the Statute of the Court provides: “In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.”
I think the court already gave, in its 1962 judgment, a clear explanation of the “meaning and scope” of that judgment, and could decline to say any more. Thailand might consider denying that there is a dispute about the “meaning or scope,” to preclude application of Article 60.
The court cannot revise its judgment — for example, to include a decision about the location of the boundary — as the power to do that expired 10 years after the judgment, under Article 61. It’s interesting that Cambodia is not asking for such a decision, but is asserting that that decision was already made (in its favor). The 1908 map was demonstrably wrong — it did not accurately reflect the watershed border agreed in the treaty, because the surveyors mislocated it — and Cambodia wouldn’t want the accuracy of the map to be decided.
Monarchy and “voluntary affection”
Here is the KING of all Kings that deserves universal reverence.
http://www.therichest.org/world/worlds-richest-kings-2011/
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
Nattavud Pimpa, similar to Stuart’s question — what would we be allowed to discuss? And to what extent is the Thai embassy involved in the conference?
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
I will certainly be submitting a paper for consideration, and I encourage other New Mandala readers to do so too. The more discussion we can have on Thailand here in Australia the better. Melbourne is a perfect place for a conference! AW
The Nation vs WSJ
c14
LesAbbey, “slow” is probably the last word that comes to mind when viewing your posts…..
“The Notion” is a reference to that so-called newspaper’s handling of what it [cough] “reports” – both conspicuously selective in what it sees as “fit to print” and the heavy slant so often given to the content.
Yes, there’ll be an occasional softly critical (and usually equivocal) editorial or even a strongly dissident piece by the honest Pravit – but it’s a minuscule fig-leaf that does nothing to conceal the reality of what drives The Notion as a whole. “Speak truth to power”? The real powers-that-be, that is….. Not for a long time.
Thailand’s benevolent army
The army has a firm grip on Radio, and mainstream TV licenses. I don’t think ‘positive’ is cutting it.
Thailand’s benevolent army
Certainly a serious question. Well written, indeed. What is the alternative? The principle function of police is stability and tax collection. Without the army who would ensure tax collection?
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
The support of the Thai embassy disqualifies the event as an independent forum for free and robust debate. The embassy has proscribed academics’ views, most notably those of senior academics at ANU.
As evidence, I cite a comment by Peter Warr, Executive Director of the National Thai Studies Centre at ANU, in a recent post on this forum: http://www.newmandala.org/2011/04/30/thai-studies-in-australia/#comments
Can Nattavud Pimpa provide us with the list of topics that are not open for discussion?
Are Nick Farrelly and Andrew Walker going?
Amnesty International and Robert Amsterdam
Ralph Kramden – 67
Mind boggling assumption Les. Suggestive of a sneering disrespect for those who do respond to your baiting.
Not sure if that’s correct Ralph. Possibly? Yes maybe I am baiting some of the usual suspects, and that is something I shouldn’t really do as it’s just easy point scoring.
I guess the problem for those who are pushing a more propagandist line is that when an independent organization like HRW or AI reports outside their script there isn’t much you can do except class those organizations as being part of the enemy.
I have just finished reading the summary and although I feel some of the lead up to the army shooting protesters on April 10th. has been missed, (it may be still in the details later in the report), I can accept most of what they say. Now for red shirt supporters it will cause considerable problems. The HRW report paints such a different history to what the UDD leadership, their supporters and Robert Amsterdam have been writing these last few months that it leaves them very little room to maneuver except of course to attack HRW.
Maybe I’m wrong, (although we have had a slight smell of the attack on HRW already), and we could have a general agreement saying it’s a good base to work from to identify faults. It’s worth noting that the HRW report has five key recommendations to the government, none of which will particularly be fondly received by either them or the army.
Now a little mea culpa. I said to Andrew Marshall that care should be taken on anything that looked like a ‘Zinoviev Letter’ before the election. Could the HRW report be looked at in this way? I’m not sure if that argument could stand, mainly because of the HRW’s own reputation, but I’m sure others have a view on this.
Nostitz on latest lese majeste arrest
The easy way to stop the border dispute is that Thailand needs to abondan its unilateral map that was drawn by thailand itself without the recognition from the United Nations. Thailand should accept the world-recognized map which was signed and agreed upon by Siam and French more than 100 years ago.
Only Hitler and his Nazi Germans who drew their own expansionist map to conquer the European countries 72 years ago. To stop its territorial encroahment, Thailand will have good neighbors such as Burma, Cambodia, Laos, and Malaysia. Otherwise, the border fights will continously occur between Thailand and its 4 neighbors and will not be solved forever. Thailand is not as strong as the US. What country with modern war machines was defeated in Vietnam in 1975?
Thai Studies conference in Melbourne
what’s the point when all opposition are harassed, imprisoned and critical voices against the falangist regime silenced (permanently or temporarily)? Is this a cynical international exercise like the Ambassdor’s sojourns around Australian campuses to give academic credibility to the ruling amaat regime? Participation must be free to all. If people are under threat in Thailand right now why should we support the appearance of liberal democracy on Australian campuses hosted by the representatives of the repressive and duplicitous Thai regime?