Thailand's legal team appears before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) judges this evening at The Hague. Ambassador Virachai Plasai leads the delegation, and is the country's official representative at the court.
Mr Virachai will argue the Thai case in the Preah Vihear temple dispute tonight, and on Friday will reply to Cambodia's claims to the court. This is an orderly, respected method of settling disputes. It is too bad some noisy elements would rather resort to force.
The history of the temple dispute is well known. The temple itself is a monument to Hinduism, built in the 12th century. There was no "Cambodia" and no "Thailand" in those days, and the Hindu religion is no longer the centre of life in either country. The temple sits near the edge of a cliff that seems from one view to be rather obviously in Thailand. It also sits on watersheds that make it seem, from another view, to be clearly in Cambodian territory.
In 1962, the ICJ _ better known as the World Court _ decided Cambodia had the better claim and ordered Thailand to vacate the temple and allow Phnom Penh to raise the Cambodian flag over the ruins. The reaction in Thailand was distress and anger, although thankfully not in equal measures. The historical page on the dispute that appeared in Monday's edition should be required reading for anyone who is interested in the legal progress surrounding the temple.
The military dictatorship and its cabinet of 1962 actually discussed whether to go to war over the ICJ's decision. It took, literally, minutes to reject that option. The defence minister of the day, Gen Thanom Kittikachorn, soon to launch a coup and take power himself, said he personally wanted to "fight to keep what is Thai". Most of the rest of the leadership, and the losing Thai counsel, MR Seni Pramoj, disagreed.
There were protests and even attempts by so-called "patriots" to cross the border to confront Cambodians. Sound familiar?
More than 50 years on, government dissidents and noisy patriots are still with us. Today's army commander, Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, said two months ago that Thailand might not necessarily accept the ICJ's ruling. He sounded very much like the old dictator Thanom. It is certain that nationalists will protest and threaten _ Cambodians if the court decides in Thailand's favour, or Thais if the verdict goes the other way.
These views were rejected in 1962 and they must be rejected again today. Gen Prayuth's view that Thailand might accept a "good" verdict and reject a bad one is unacceptable. The time is past for such a view, and rightfully so.
Thailand has taken a course to settle the Si Sa Ket border quarrel by legal means. It did this five decades ago, and it did so again in 2011. Equally, Cambodia has committed itself to handing the irresolvable dispute to judges who have no stake in the outcome.
There should be no doubt that this is the proper course. It is right to have respect for the law and for justice that is properly applied. The alternative is unacceptable violence. The well-prepared Thai legal team will fight for the country tonight at the proper venue _ the ICJ.