## Facts

- In 1962, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the Temple of Preah Vihear was situated in territory under Cambodia’s sovereignty and ordered Thailand to withdraw any military or police forces stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory.
- After the Temple’s World Heritage inscription in 2008, armed incidents occurred near the Temple, and the parties disputed the geographic scope of the 1962 judgment, including the meaning of “vicinity” and the relevance of an “Annex I map” line.
- On April 28, 2011, Cambodia filed a request for interpretation under Article 60 of the ICJ Statute, seeking clarification of the meaning and scope of the 1962 judgment’s operative paragraphs.
- Cambodia simultaneously sought provisional measures; on July 18, 2011, the ICJ indicated measures requiring both states to withdraw military personnel from a provisional demilitarized zone and refrain from armed activity there.
- The 2013 judgment addressed whether the Article 60 requirements were met and, if so, how to interpret the 1962 judgment’s operative provisions regarding sovereignty, withdrawal obligations, and the role of the Annex I map.

## Issues

1. Whether a dispute existed between Cambodia and Thailand concerning the “meaning or scope” of the 1962 judgment sufficient to establish jurisdiction and admissibility under Article 60 of the ICJ Statute.
2. Whether the 1962 judgment determined the territorial reach of Cambodia’s sovereignty beyond the Temple building itself, and what area was covered by “vicinity on Cambodian territory.”
3. Whether the 1962 judgment fixed the Annex I map line as the boundary between the states or instead used it only to resolve sovereignty over the Temple area.
4. Whether the 1962 judgment imposed a continuing obligation on Thailand not only to withdraw forces but also to refrain from reintroducing them into the area covered by the judgment.

## Decision

- The ICJ held it had jurisdiction under Article 60 because a real dispute existed over the meaning and scope of the 1962 judgment, including the effect of the Annex I map line and the extent of the “Temple area.”
- The ICJ found Cambodia’s request admissible because it sought interpretation rather than a revision of the 1962 judgment or a new frontier delimitation.
- Interpreting the 1962 operative paragraphs in light of the 1962 reasoning and submissions, the ICJ concluded that the 1962 judgment awarded Cambodia sovereignty over the entire promontory of Preah Vihear on which the Temple stands, not merely the Temple structure.
- The ICJ interpreted the 1962 withdrawal obligation to require Thailand to withdraw all Thai personnel stationed on the promontory at the relevant time, because the “vicinity on Cambodian territory” referred to the promontory as a whole.
- The ICJ clarified that the 1962 judgment did not carry out a general boundary delimitation; the Annex I map line was significant to understanding the reasoning about the Temple area but did not amount to a determination of the entire frontier.
- The ICJ interpreted the 1962 judgment as entailing a continuing obligation for Thailand to respect Cambodia’s sovereignty over the promontory and not to reintroduce personnel into the area from which withdrawal was required.

## Legal Principles

- Under Article 60 of the ICJ Statute, interpretation is available only where a dispute exists about the meaning or scope of a prior judgment; the procedure cannot be used to revise or expand the judgment.
- Interpretation focuses on clarifying the binding meaning of the operative clause, read in context and, where needed, in light of the reasoning and the materials before the court in the earlier case.
- A court may explain how items relied upon in prior reasoning (such as a map) informed the earlier decision, while still declining to decide questions not determined previously (such as general frontier delimitation).
- Where a prior judgment recognizes sovereignty over a place, interpretation may confirm that the sovereignty finding extends to the relevant territorial unit addressed in the earlier dispute, not merely to a structure or point.
- An obligation to withdraw from territory recognized as under another state’s sovereignty may include a continuing duty to refrain from re-entering or redeploying forces in the area covered by the judgment.

## Conclusion

The ICJ accepted and granted Cambodia’s request for interpretation, holding that its 1962 judgment recognized Cambodia’s sovereignty over the promontory of Preah Vihear and required Thailand to withdraw, and not reintroduce, personnel from that promontory, while clarifying that the 1962 decision did not delimit the broader international boundary.


Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), 2013 I.C.J. 281 (I.C.J. 2013)