Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)

2013 I.C.J. 281 (2013)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning The Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)

International Court of Justice
2013 I.C.J. 281 (2013)

  • Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD

Facts

The ruins of the ancient Preah Vihear Temple stand on a clifflike promontory along the border of Cambodia (plaintiff) and Thailand (defendant). In 1904, Cambodia was a French protectorate, and Thailand was called Siam. France and Siam entered a boundary treaty, agreeing that the border between the two countries followed the contours of a natural watershed that corresponded with the cliff edge. That placed the temple in Siam, which was on the same side of the cliff, making access relatively easy. In contrast, reaching the temple from Cambodia required scaling the cliff. But the commission charged with carrying out the border delineation used French maps that placed the border as cutting across the promontory instead of following the cliff edge, showing the temple in Cambodia, and the Siamese government did not object to those maps. Fifty years later, Thailand stationed troops around the temple on the ground that the 1904 treaty set the border as corresponding with the cliff edge. In 1959, Cambodia petitioned the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare that the temple stood within Cambodia, again presenting the French maps. The court ruled that the temple itself stood in Cambodia. Another 50 years later, Cambodia asked the ICJ to interpret the 1962 ruling as applying to the entire promontory and to enter provisional measures requiring Thailand to withdraw military forces from the surrounding area. The court issued a provisional order in 2011, followed by a ruling as to the boundary dispute in 2013.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership