The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will trigger further tension between Thailand and Cambodia if it allows the Annex I map to mark the two countries' border, Virachai Plasai says.
Virachai: ‘Cambodian stance inconsistent’
Mr Virachai, who heads the Thai legal team in the Preah Vihear temple case initiated by Cambodia, made the remark as part of his closing statement Friday.
He accused Cambodia of being inconsistent with its requests to the court and stances regarding the temple case since it brought the dispute to the World Court in 1959.
At first, Cambodia had asked the court to rule on whether the temple was located in Cambodian territory. Later, it modified this request and requested that the court pass a judgement on the border too, which the court refused to do, Mr Virachai said.
From 1962 to 1963, he said Cambodia expressed satisfaction with Thailand's interpretation of the temple area through its erection of a barbed wire fence around its immediate vicinity.
The country, however, changed its position in 2007, claimed it had not been aware of the fence and is now asking for a much larger commonly claimed area of 4.6 square kilometres on the border. In 1959, Cambodia submitted one version of the Annex I map to the court. This time it submitted another with different border markings on it and and could not confirm to the court which lines it wanted the court to consider.
"It is as if we are dealing with two Cambodias," Mr Virachai said.
The head of the Thai legal team insisted inaccuracies and errors are bound to occur if the Annex I one map is transposed into the actual topography.
"There will be endless possibilities, all of them arbitrary. To allow it to be used will cause more disputes between the two countries than in solving the present one," Mr Virachai said.
He insisted that the boundary dispute could be settled through the Thai-Cambodian Joint Boundary Committee, and not using the arbitrary line on the Annex I map.
Cambodia and Thailand share not only the past but also the future, Mr Virachai told the World Court. Both countries should be able to coexist as responsible Asean brothers if the 1962 ruling is not distorted, he said.
Mr Virachai asked the court to consider the case inadmissible because it does not fall under the court's jurisdiction and to formally declare that the 1962 ruling has no binding on the Thai-Cambodian border. Nor does it fix the limit of the temple vicinity.
Alain Pellet, one of four foreign lawyers representing Thailand who took the stand first Friday, reaffirmed to the court that the 1962 ruling was clear and Thailand had already complied with it.
"Thailand withdrew the military from the territory of Cambodia and could not continue withdrawing the military because the kingdom did not put more forces there," Mr Pellet said.
He said both parties had no problem interpreting the ruling. Cambodia's then leader Prince Norodom Sihanouk did not object to Thailand marking the temple's vicinity with a barbed wire fence. Cambodia also considered the Thai military as being stationed on Thai soil.
Mr Pellet said Cambodia did not express any reservations about Thailand having encroached onto its territory at that time. He said that the two countries cooperated in allowing the public to enter the Preah Vihear temple from the Thai side.
He said although the two nations had a different view regarding the boundary line, it is beyond the court's authority to decide on the matter.
"If the court will say anything clearly, it seems the court will decide beyond the ruling about the military withdrawal as the 1962 court refused to decide on Cambodia's request about the boundary," Mr Pellet said.
Alina Miron, the second lawyer to take the stand, rejected the Cambodian lawyers' claim that the court did not use the Annex 85D map, or the "Big Map", in its 1962 ruling.
The map was hung on the court wall between March 9 and 28 as both Cambodia and Thailand used it to clarify their own territory to the court.
She said that, in a sleight of hand move, Cambodia insisted on using the Annex I map which she said is the least reliable.
Ms Miron said the map is a sketch which does not correspond to the actual topography. It cannot be used for demarcation purposes.
"The lines are random, arbitrary. It is not a criterion for a stable frontier," she said.
Ms Miron emphasised Thailand's position that the watershed line is the single, real division line on the ground.
"Of course, the court didn't use the watershed to consider the temple case. But it didn't mean that the court will apply the principle to other cases. A consideration of the watershed to write a map is the principle of the [Franco-Siamese] treaty in 1904 and 1908, but Cambodia ignores it," she said.
Moreover, in 1962 Cambodia did not pay attention to the area northwest of the temple including Phu Ma Kheau. It recently raised the issue in the case, which is a new request that has nothing to do with the 1962 ruling.
The third lawyer to address the court was Donald McRae who said the 1962 ruling made it clear that the temple was located on the Cambodian side.
"That was all it had to decide and that was all that it decided," Mr McRae said.
He said the purpose of the term "vicinity" was to mark areas where Thai troops had to withdraw from. It was for a military and not a territorial purpose. Cambodia should not claim that the extent of the temple's vicinity is the extent of its territory.
Speaking after the end of the oral hearings, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Surapong Tovichakchaikul said the Thai team has done an excellent job at the World Court.