In the Franco-Siamese Boundary Treaty of 23 March 1907, the Parties recited in the preamble that they were desirous "of ensuring the final regulation of all questions relating to the common frontiers of Indo-China and Siam". A further token of the same object is to be found in the desire, of which the documentation contains ample evidence, and which was evinced by both Parties, for natural and visible frontiers. Even if, as the Court stated earlier, this is not in itself a reason for holding that the frontier must follow a natural and visible line, it does support the view that the Parties wanted certainty and finality by means of natural and visible lines.

The same view is strongly supported by the Parties' attitude over frontiers in the 1925 and 1937 Treaties. By specifically excluding frontiers from the process of revision of previous treaties, which the 1925 and 1937 Treaties otherwise effected, the Parties bore witness to the paramount importance they attached to finality in this field. Their attitude in 1925 and 1937 can properly be taken as evidence that they equally desired finality in the 1904-1908 period.

The indication of the line of the watershed in Article I of the 1904 Treaty was itself no more than an obvious and convenient way of describing a frontier line objectively, though in general terms. There is, however, no reason to think that the Parties attached any special importance to the line of the watershed as such, as compared with the overriding importance, in the interests of finality, of adhering to the map line as eventually delimited and as accepted by them. The Court, therefore, feels bound, as a matter of treaty interpretation, to pronounce in favour of the line as mapped in the disputed area.

Given the grounds on which the Court bases its decision, it 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.

Referring finally to the Submissions presented at the end of the oral proceedings, the Court, for the reasons indicated at the beginning of the present Judgment, finds that Cambodia's first and second Submissions, calling for pronouncements on the legal status of the Annex 1 map and on the frontier line in the disputed region, can be entertained only to the extent that they give expression to grounds, and not as claims to be dealt with in the operative provisions of the Judgment. It finds on the other hand that Thailand, after having stated her own claim concerning sovereignty over Preah Vihear, confined herself in her Submissions at the end of the oral proceedings to arguments and denials opposing the contentions of the other Party, leaving it to the Court to word as it sees fit the reasons on which its Judgment is based.

In the presence of the claims submitted to the Court by Cambodia and Thailand, respectively, concerning the sovereignty over Preah Vihear thus in dispute between these two States, the Court finds in favour of Cambodia in accordance with her third Submission. It also finds in favour of Cambodia as regards the fourth Submission concerning the withdrawal of the detachments of armed forces.

As regards the fifth Submission of Cambodia concerning restitution, the Court considers that the request made in it does not represent any extension of Cambodia's original claim (in which case it would have been irreceivable at the stage at which it was first advanced). Rather is it, like the fourth Submission, implicit in, and consequential on, the claim of sovereignty itself. On the other hand, no concrete evidence has been placed before the Court showing in any positive way that objects of the kind mentioned in this Submission have in fact been removed by Thailand from the Temple or Temple area since Thailand's occupation of it in 1954. It is true that Thailand has not so much denied the allegation as contended that it is irreceivable. In the circumstances, however, the question of restitution is one on which the Court can only give a finding of principle in favour of Cambodia, without relating it to any particular objects.

Part 16