YTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxVYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptx

YTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxVYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptxYTTTTTTTTTTTDJ.pptx

• 1.
  TEMPLE OF PREAH V.
• 2.
  Location of the Temple
• 3.
  INITIAL OF THECONFLICT • The present boundary is the result of treaties which were negotiated in 1904-07 and which determined that the line was generally to follow a specified watershed in this area. • The watershed line at Preah Vihear followed the edge of the escarpment, with the natural result geographically of enclosing the temple within Thailand. • However, the maps which were later produced by a French firm, at the request of the Siamese Government, deviated from the watershed line at Preah Vihear so that the temple was shown as being in Cambodia which, until 1953, was a part of French Indo-China.
• 5.
  •In 1949, theFrench Government protested on learning that Thai troops had been stationed at Preah Vihear. No explanation resulted and Cambodia, having become independent in 1953, instituted the present proceeding before the International Court of Justice in 1959, asking that it be declared the sovereign of the area in question.
• 6.
  CASE CONCERNING THETEMPLE OF PREAH VIHEAR (CAMBODIA V. THAILAND) [1962] • The Court ruled in favour of Cambodia by a vote of nine to three. • The watershed was probably due to a topographical mistake. • The Court give 2 alternative: (1) that the two countries adopted the maps at the time of their publishing as officially delimiting the international boundary; and (2) that the concept of preclusion now prevents Thailand from claiming sovereignty over the territory.
• 7.
  THE CONCEPT OFACQUIESCENCE • The Court concluded that the circumstances were such as to impose on Thailand a duty to inspect the maps, and a failure to protest was to be taken as a tacit adoption. This conclusion was based on the concept of "acquiescence" which protects a country having taken a position adverse to the interest of another, where the other fails to protest within a reasonable time. • The theory is that the first country may have relied on its own position and the other country ought to be estopped to contest the result at a later time. This is said to be "an essential requirement of stability" in the international sphere.
• 8.
  THE CONCEPT OFACQUIESCENCE CONT.. • Acquiescence may have relevance either with respect to changes in the status of international rights and customs, or with respect to modification of treaties, as in the instant case. However, for the acquiescence to be effective, it must be under circumstances from which consent on the part of the adversely affected nation could reasonably be inferred
• 9.
  A PLEA OFERROR • Thailand's duty to inspect the maps also prevented it from claiming that any adoption at the time of publication was vitiated by the undetected error. • A plea of error will not be allowed in international law where the parties could have avoided it, and here the circumstances were such as to put Thailand on notice of possible error.
• 10.
  PRECLUSION THEORY •"Preclusion" ininternational law is the process by which one nation acquires sovereignty over an area by long possession adverse to the real sovereign. •The assertion of sovereignty in the publication of the maps by Cambodia, and continued acts in relation to the temple amounting to a continued claim to ownership.
• 11.
  RESULT CAMBODIA WINS