It is therefore submitted that these claims should not now be entertained by the Court.

2. Alternatively,

In regard to the first of the said claims Thailand submits the following conclusions:

(i) The map Annex 1 has not been proved to be a document binding on the Parties whether by virtue of the Treaty af 1904 or otherwise.

(ii) Thailand and Cambodia have not in fact treated the frontier marked out on Annex 1 as the frontier between Thailand and Cambodia in the Dang Rek region.

(iii) For the above reasons, the frontier line marked on Annex 1 ought not to be substituted for the existing boundary line in fact observed and accepted by the two Parties in the Dang Rek range.

(iv) Even, therefore, if the Court, contrary to the submission of Thailand, thinks it proper to entertain the said claim (1) now put forward by Cambodia, Thailand submits that on the merits this claim is not well founded and ought to be rejected.

3. Thailand submits the following further conclusions in answer to Submissions 2 and 3 put forward by Cambodia:

(i) Abundant evidence has been given that at all material times Thailand has exercised full sovereignty in the area of the Temple to the exclusion of Cambodia. Alternatively, if, which is denied, Cambodia in any sense carried out any administrative functions in the said area, such acts were sporadic and inconclusive, and in no sense such as to negative or qualify the full exercise of sovereignty in the said area by Thailand.

(ii) The watershed in the said area substantially corresponds with the cliff edge running round Phra Viharn and constitutes the treaty boundary in the said area as laid down by the Treaty of 1904.

(iii) To the extent that the cliff edge does not precisely correspond with the watershed as shown by the configuration of the ground in the area, the divergencies are minimal and should be disregarded.

(iv) The general nature of the area allows access from Thailand to the Temple, whereas access from Cambodia involves the scaling of the high cliff from the Cambodian plain.

(v) There is no room in the circumstances of the present case for the application in favour of Cambodia of any of the doctrines prayed in aid by Counsel for Cambodia, whether acquiescence, estoppel or prescription.

(vi) Cambodia ought not in any event now to be allowed by the Court to put forward a claim based on prescription not having anywhere in her pleadings or until the very end of her oral argument put forward any such claim.

(vii) The evidence in favour of Cambodia is in any event wholly inadequate to support any prescriptive title in Cambodia.

Cambodia's second and third Submissions ought therefore to be rejected.

4. Further and in the alternative with regard to Cambodia's fourth Submission, it is submitted that this Submission, even if entertained by the Court, is wholly unsupported by evidence, and the claim put forward by Cambodia in its fourth Submission is accordingly unsustainable."

B. Revised Submissions presented on 20 March 1962 after the hearing

"With respect to the revised Submissions presented by the Government of Cambodia on the 20th March 1962, the Government of Thailand respectfullÿ submits the following Submissions to the Court:

I. With regard to the first claim of the revised Submissions:

1. The whole of the evidence before the Court shows that the map of the sector of the Dang Rek which is Annex 1 to the Memorial of Cambodia was not prepared or published either in the name or on behalf of the Mixed Commission of Delimitation set up under the Treaty of the 13th February, 1904; but, whereas the said Mixed Commission consisted of a French Commission and a Siamese Commission, the said Annex 1 was prepared by members of the French Commission alone and published only in the name of the
French Commission.

2. The French officers who prepared the said Annex 1 had no authority to give any official or final interpretation of the decisions of the said Mixed Commission, still less of the intentions of the said Mixed Commission at points at which no decision had been recorded.

3. No decision of the said Mixed Commission was recorded about the boundary at Phra Viharn. If the said Mixed Commission did reach such a decision, that decision is not correctly represented on the said Annex I, but was a decision that in the Phra Viharn area the boundary should coincide with the cliff edge.

4. There was no subsequent agreement of the parties attributing a bilateral or conventional character to the said Annex I.

Part 5

Chaninat & Leeds offered support in translating Supreme Court case law. Chaninat & Leeds is a Thailand Law Firm practicing family and business law. Chaninat & Leeds specializes in Thailand criminal Lawyer. Chaninat & Leeds is managed by an American attorney Thailand. For any submissions, comments, or questions, e-mail the Thailand Law Forum at: info@thailawforum.com Please read our Disclaimer.