Advisory Opinion on the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v.

Thailand)
Judgment of June 15, 1962

Cambodia’s position:
 Temple of Preah Vihear is within the boundaries of Cambodia, and therefore must be respected by the Kingdom of
Thailand
 That the Kingdom of Thailand shall withdraw the detachments of armed forces stationed in said temple since 1954
Thailand’s position
 That the claims of the Kingdom of Cambodia are not sustainable and should be rejected
 That Phra Viharn is in Thai territory

Facts and History:

“In the present case, Cambodia alleges a violation on the part of Thailand of Cambodia’s territorial sovereignty over the
region of the Temple of Preah Vihear and its precincts. Thailand replies by affirming that the area in question lies on the Thai
side of the common frontier between the two countries, and is under the sovereignty of Thailand. This is a dispute about
territorial sovereignty.”

 The Temple of Preah Vihear is an ancient sanctuary and shrine situated on the borders of Thailand and Cambodia
o Has considerable artistic and archaeological interest, and is used as a place of pilgrimage
o belonging to the eastern sector of the Dangrek range of mountains which, in a general way, constitutes the
boundary between the two countries
o From the edge of the escarpment, the general inclination of the ground in the northerly direction is downwards
to the Nam Moun river, which is in Thailand
o It is apparent from the description just given that a frontier line which ran along the edge of the escarpment,
would leave this area in Thailand; whereas a line running to the north, or to the north and west, would place it
in Cambodia
 Thailand has urged that the edge of this escarpment constitutes a natural and obvious line for a frontier in the region
 In terms of burden of proof, it must be pointed out that, though, from the formal standpoint, Cambodia is the plaintiff,
Thailand is also a claimant because of the claim which was presented in their second Submission which relates to the
sovereignty over the same piece of territory
 History:
o Until Cambodia attained independence in 1953, she was part of French Indo-China, and her foreign relations
were conducted by France as the protecting power
o It is common ground between the Parties that the present dispute has its fons et origo (the source and origin of
something) in the boundary settlements made in the period 1940-1908, between France and Siam (as Thailand
was then called)
 In particular, the sovereignty over Preah Vihear depends upon a boundary treaty dated February 13,
1904
 Article 1: The frontier between Siam and Cambodia starts, on the left shore of the Great
Lake, from the mouth of the river stung Rolous, it follows the parallel from that point…
 Article 3: There shall be a delimitation of the frontiers between the Kingdom of Siam and the
territories making up French Indo-China
 Neither of the articles make mention of Preah Vihear; it is for this reason that the Court can only give
a decision as to the sovereignty over the Temple area after having examine what the frontier line is
o In due course, a Mixed Commission composed of French and Siamese members was set up, charged with the
task of delimiting the frontier in various districts, including the eastern sector of the Dangrek range where
Preah Vihear is situated
 So far, as the frontier in the Dangrek range was concerned, the task of this Mixed Commission was
confined to the eastern sector where PV is situated
  December 2, 1906: A meeting was held at Angkor Wat, where it was agreed that the Commission
should ascend the Dangrek, and travel along the range by the same route
 It is not contested that the Presidents of the French and Siamese sections of the Commission
duly made this journey; where in this course, they visited the Temple of PV
o However, no record of any decision that they may have taken
 At the same meeting, it was also agreed that another of the members of the French section of
the Commission, Captain Oum, should survey the whole of the eastern part of the range, in
wich PV is situated
o Thus, clear that the Mixed Commission fully intended to delimit the frontier in this
sector of the Dangrek
o The work must have been accomplished because at the end of January 1907, the
French Minister at Bangkok reported to the Minister of Foreign Affiars in Paris that
he had been formally notified by the President of the French section of the Mixed
Commission that the work of the whole delimitation had been finished, and that the
frontier line had been established, except in the region of Siem Reap
 Furthermore, a report on the work of the delimitated provided that “all along
the Dangrek and as far as the Mekong, the fixing of the frontier could not
have involved any difficulty”
 It seems clear that a frontier was surveyed and fixed
o Reports and maps became available around February-March 1907
 It appears that a meeting was scheduled, but said meeting never happened
o The two governments entered into negotiations for a further boundary treaty
 Treaty was signed in March 23, 1907, and provided for exchanges of territory and a comprehensive
regulation of all those frontiers not covered by the previous treaty settlement of 1904
 A second Mixed Commission of Delimitation was set up  as part of its task was to delimit that
sector of the Dangrek region hot having com within the ambit of the first commission, namely from
the Pass of Kel and therefore not including Preah Vihear which lay to the east
 There was in fact some overlapping of the work of the two commissions, but the overlapping
did not extend to PV
o The final stage of the operation of delimitation was the preparation and publication of maps
 For the execution of this, the Siamese Government had officially requested that the French
topographical officers should map the frontier region
 The French government arranged for this to be done by a team of four French officers, three of whom,
had been members of the First Commission
 In the late autumn of 1907, it completed a series of eleven maps covering a large range of the frontiers
between Siam and French Indo-China
 Maps were communicated to the Siamese Government
 3 of the maps had been overtaken by events, inasmuch as the former frontier areas they
showed had, by virtue of the Treaty of 1907, now become situated wholly in Cambodia
o One of the maps was one where part of the Dangrek range in which the Temple is
situated, and on it was traced a frontier line purporting to be the outcome of the work
of delimitation and showing that the whole of PV as being on the Cambodian side 
this map was filed by Cambodia as Annex I, and has become known as the Annex 1
map
o It is on the Annex I Map that Cambodia principally relies in support of her claim to sovereignty over the
Temple
 Thailand, on the other hand, contests that the map was not the work of the Mixed Commission, and
therefore has no binding character, and second, that at PV, the map embodied a material error  that
the frontier line indicated on the map was not the true watershed line in the vicinity (if true watershed
placed, it would appear that the PV is actually within Thailand territory)

Issue: W/N the Preah Vihear is rightfully within the territorial bounds of Cambodia – YES
 Thailand has argued that in the absence of any delimitation approved and adopted by the Mixed Commission, the line
of the frontier must necessarily follow strictly the line of the true watershed  at this line, PV and the Temple would
be placed in Thailand
 Thailand claims that the Annex I map is not representative of the true location, and that it has no binding character
o Denies having acquiesced to what is stated on it, and regards that she had only adopted a merely passive
attitude in what ensued
 Court sees differently  it is clear from the record, including Annex I, that the publication and communication of the
11 maps was something of an occasion
o The maps were given wide publicity in all technically interested quarters and they were also communicated to
the leading geographical societies in important countries
o In August 20, 1908, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Bangkok even said: “regarding the Mixed Commission
of Delimitation of the frontiers and the Siamese Commissioners’ request that the French Commissioners
prepare maps of various frontiers, the French Commissioners have now finished their work”  he
acknowledged it
 Thailand contends that the communication of the maps by the French authorities was ex parte, and
that no formal acknowledgement by conduct was made
 Court: undoubtedly, it is clear that if the circumstances warranted, a reaction would have been made
 if they wished to disagree with the map or had any serious question to raise, they would have done
so. Since none = held to have acquiesced.
 The map, together with other maps, was already communicated to the Siamese members of the Mixed Commission
o The Siamese authorities by their conduct acknowledged the receipt, and recognized the character of the maps
o Further evidence is seen in the subsequent Commission of Transcription which met in Bangkok in March of
1909
 The primary aim was to convert the existing maps into handy atlas form
 No suggestion was made for Annex I, or that it was unacceptable
o Thailand claims that the maps received from Paris were only seen by minor officials
who had no expertise in cartography, and would know nothing about the Temple of
Preah Vihear  Court cannot accept this! Many of those present and received the
copies of the map were not minor officials. Some were even part of the First
commission
 On supposed error on Annex I that the Siamese authorities were unaware of at the time the map was accepted
o Court: it is an established rule of law that the plea of error cannot be allowed as an element vitiating consent if
the party advancing it contributed by its own conduct to the error, or could have avoided it, or if the
circumstances were such as to put the party on notice of a possible error
o An inspection of the map itself drew such pointed attention to PV that no interested person, or anyone in
charge with the duty of scrutinizing it would miss the fact that the temple of PV was placed within Cambodia
 Next, the map of where PV is situated clearly places the temple on the Cambodian side of the line
 Using for a temple a symbol which seems to indicate a rough plan of the building and its
stairways
 ANYONE WHO CONSIDERED THAT THE LINE OF THE WATERSHED AT PV OUGHT TO
BE OWNED BY THAILAND WOULD HAVE PUT UP AN ENQUIRY
 The Siamese authorities knew it was the work of the French topographical officers to whom they had
themselves entrusted the work of producing the maps
 They accepted it without any independent investigation, and cannot therefore now plead error
vitiating the reality of their consent
 The Court will now consider events subsequent to 1904-1909:
o The Siamese authorities did not raise any query about Annex I until the 1958 negotiations between Thailand
and Cambodia
o Even after 1934-1935, when Thailand carried out a survey of her own in this region – it produced a divergence
having the effect of placing the temple in Cambodia
  Although after this date, Thailand eventually produced maps of her own showing PV as being in
Thailand, she continued, even for public and official purposes, to use the Annex I map, or other maps
showing PV as lying in Cambodia
 Even after Thailand’s survey in 1934-1935, the Siamese Royal Survey Department produced a map
showing Preah Vihear as lying in Cambodia
o Thailand had several opportunities of raising with the French authorities the question of the Annex I map;
several treaties between the two were negotiated, and the map was not brought up
 Thereby, the Parties confirmed the existing frontiers, whatever they were
o Thailand having temporarily come into possession of certain parts of Cambodia, including PV, in 1941, the
Ministry of Information of Thailand published a work entitled “Thailand during national reconstruction” in
which it was stated that PV had now been “retaken” for Thailand
 This has been represented by Thailand as being an error on the part of a minor official
 Similar language, suggesting that Thailand had been in possession of PV was used by representatives
of Thailand in the territorial negotiations that took place between Thailand and Cambodia at Bangkok
in 1958
o After the war, by a Settlement Agreement of November 1946 with France, Thailand accepted a reversion to
the status quo ante 1941
 It is Thailand’s contention that this reversion to the status quo did not affect PV because Thailand
already had sovereignty over it before the war
 Important to note that as a consequence of the war events  France agreed to set up a Franco-
Siamese Conciliation Commission consisting of the Parties and Commissioners whose terms of
reference were specifically to go into and make recommendations on an equitable basis in regard to
complaints or proposals for revision which Thailand might wish to make
 The Commission met in 1947 in Washington, and was therefore an opportunity for Thailand
to claim a rectification of the frontier at PV  in fact, Thailand made complaints about the
frontier line in a considerable number of regions – but made none about PV
 May 12, 1947: even filed a map with the Commission showing PV lying in Cambodia
o With regard to use of a map showing PV in Cambodia, Thailand maintains that this was purely for
cartographical reasons, that there were no other maps, or none that were so convenient  this is not
convincing; Thailand could have used the map but could also have entered into some kind of reservation with
France as to its correctness  this she did not do
o With regard to failure to even raise a question re: map until 1958, Thailand states that this was because she
was, at all material times, in possession PV; therefore, she had no need to raise the matter
 That if she never accepted it, she clearly did not need to repudiate it
o February 1940: not long after the conclusion of the proceedings of the Franco-Siamese Conciliation
Commission, Thailand did not raise the question of PV
 France, however, addressed a Note to the Government of Thailand stating a report that there were four
Siamese keepers at the temple
 Until the Year 1950, Notes were sent to Thailand regarding this, however, only acknowledgements
were given and no reply
 By 1953, Cambodia, on attaining independence, proposed to send keepers or guards to the Temple, in
the assertion or maintenance of her position
 Thai keepers already there  sent a note again  mere acknowledgement, but no
explanation
 June 1954: Cambodia addressed a further note to Thailand stating that, as information had been
received to the effect that Thai troops were already in occupation, the dispatch of Cambodian troops
had been suspended in order not to aggravate the situation
 Thai troops remained
 No further diplomatic correspondence

Conclusion:
  Even if there were doubts as to Siam’s acceptance of the map in 1908, Thailand is now precluded by her conduct from
asserting that she did not accept it
o She has for 50 years enjoyed the benefits of the Treaty of 1904
o France, and through Cambodia, relied on Thailand’s acceptance of the map
 As a whole, Thailand’s subsequent conduct confirms and bars out her original acceptance, and that Thailand’s acts on
the ground do not suffice to negative this
o Both parties, by their conduct, recognized the line and thereby in effect agreed to regard it as being their
frontier line
 In general, when two countries establish a frontier between them one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and
finality
o This is impossible if the (frontier) line so established can, at any moment, and on the basis of a continuously
available process, be called in question whenever any inaccuracy by reference to a clause in the parent treaty is
discovered
o The Court thinks it legitimate to conclude that an important, not to say a paramount object of the settlements
of the 1904-1908 period, was to put an end to this state of tension and to achieve a frontier stability on a basis
of certainty and finality
 In the presence of the claims submitted to the Court by Cambodia and Thailand, concerning the sovereignty
over Preah Vihear thus in dispute between these two States, the Court finds in favor of Cambodia. It also finds
in favor of Cambodia the submission concerning the withdrawal of the detachments of armed forces.

Ruling: The COURT, by nine votes to three, finds that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty
of Cambodia.