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 |