The Temple of Preah Vihear
scribed on the World Heritage List. State parties can request assistance for site protection and maintenance, or to meet more urgent conserva- tion needs. This financial incentive is at least partly responsible for the success of the Convention and for the significant number of protected cultural sites throughout the world.
The World Heritage Committee is the body that administers the Convention, and has been respon- sible for the evolution of the instrument towards a more culturally-sensitive approach to heritage. Through successive sets of Operational Guide- lines, the system has evolved in order to take into consideration the human dimensions of cultural heritage, as opposed to simply its presence in a state’s territory.
The Temple of Preah Vihear Dispute 32
In 1962, the International Court of Justice decided the merits of the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). The Court was asked to settle a sovereignty dispute be- tween the two countries over the Temple of Preah Vihear area, which stood at the very center of the Thailand-Cambodia border (see map on page 31 from the ICJ’s opinion). The Temple of Preah Vi- hear, built in the 11th century, is situated atop a hill between the two countries. It overlooks the Cambodian plains to the south, and Thailand to the north. The southern face of the hill that looks onto Cambodia is a precipice, which makes ac- cess from the Cambodian side very difficult; but from the north, it is a fairly easy climb up a slope, and then a stairway. The Temple is a testament to Khmer architecture and to the Khmer civilization more generally, which plays an important role in the historical and cultural formation of the region.
The Court reached its decision by interpreting a 1904 boundary settlement between Siam (as Thailand was then known), and France (Cambodia was a French protectorate), that included maps produced by French geographers giving the dis- puted area to Cambodia. The Court held that be-
cause Thailand never protested the maps, despite having knowledge of their existence and demar- cations, (having received several official copies from the French government), Thailand could not now contest their validity.
The case became a textbook example of the ap- plication of the doctrines of acquiescence and es- toppel, because, according to the judgment of the ICJ, Thailand’s lack of protest until the case was initiated in 1962 amounted to an endorsement of the boundary as set therein. As a consequence, sovereignty over the territory where the Temple stands remained with Cambodia.
Immediately after the ICJ’s judgment, there was a wave of violent protests in Thailand, during which the Thai population accused Cambodia and the ICJ of stealing the country’s territory and cultural landmark. Some weeks later, the Thai govern- ment issued a statement recognizing Cambo- dia’s sovereignty over the Temple and reiterating the government’s intent to comply with the ICJ’s judgement. Nevertheless, from 1962-2008, there were intermittent boundary skirmishes between Thai and Cambodian military forces, resulting in several deaths during the 46-year period.
In 2003, a Thai actress that was very famous in Cambodia allegedly said that she would perform in Cambodia unless the Angkor Wat Temple (another important Khmer temple and World Heritage site) was returned to Thailand. She also said, allegedly, that if she was ever reincarnated she would rather be a dog than a Khmer national. Despite the fact that this slander turned out to be a fabrication, it was enough to spur a wave of violent protests which culminated with the burning of the Thai Embassy in Phnom Penh. The rumor added fuel to a fire that had already been stoked by nationalism, domestic politics, and cultural disputes.
In 2007, the World Heritage Committee issued a decision on the status of the Temple of Preah Vihear, quoting a statement endorsed by both Cambodia and Thailand in which the two coun-
ILSA Quarterly » volume 20 » issue 1 » October 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64