您好,欢迎访问三七文档
当前位置:首页 > 行业资料 > 国内外标准规范 > THEJUDGMENTOF15JUNE1962INTHECASECONCERNING
11NOVEMBER2013JUDGMENTREQUESTFORINTERPRETATIONOFTHEJUDGMENTOF15JUNE1962INTHECASECONCERNINGTHETEMPLEOFPREAHVIHEAR(CAMBODIAv.THAILAND)(CAMBODIAv.THAILAND)___________DEMANDEENINTERPRÉTATIONDEL’ARRÊTDU15JUIN1962ENL’AFFAIREDUTEMPLEDEPRÉAHVIHÉAR(CAMBODGEc.THAÏLANDE)(CAMBODGEc.THAÏLANDE)11NOVEMBRE2013ARRÊTTABLEOFCONTENTSParagraphsCHRONOLOGYOFTHEPROCEDURE1-13I.HISTORICALBACKGROUND14-29II.JURISDICTIONANDADMISSIBILITY30-571.JurisdictionoftheCourtunderArticle60oftheStatute31-52A.Theexistenceofadispute37-45B.Subject-matterofthedisputebeforetheCourt46-522.AdmissibilityofCambodia’sRequestforinterpretation53-563.Conclusion57III.THEINTERPRETATIONOFTHE1962JUDGMENT58-1071.PositionsoftheParties59-652.TheroleoftheCourtunderArticle60oftheStatute66-753.Theprincipalfeaturesofthe1962Judgment76-784.Theoperativepartofthe1962Judgment79-106A.Thefirstoperativeparagraph80B.Thesecondoperativeparagraph81-99C.Therelationshipbetweenthesecondoperativeparagraphandtherestoftheoperativepart100-1065.Conclusions107OPERATIVECLAUSE108___________INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICEYEAR2013201311NovemberGeneralListNo.15111November2013REQUESTFORINTERPRETATIONOFTHEJUDGMENTOF15JUNE1962INTHECASECONCERNINGTHETEMPLEOFPREAHVIHEAR(CAMBODIAv.THAILAND)(CAMBODIAv.THAILAND)Historicalbackground.*Jurisdictionandadmissibility.Article60oftheStatuteoftheCourtConditionsofjurisdictionExistenceofadisputeDisputeastothemeaningorscopeofJudgmentof15June1962Subject-matterofthecurrentdisputeCharacterizationofAnnexImaplineExtentofareaofTempleofPreahVihearMeaningandscopeofphrases“territoryunderthesovereigntyofCambodia”and“vicinityonCambodianterritory”containedinoperativepartNatureofThailand’sobligationtowithdrawitspersonnelQuestionofadmissibilityPurposeofrequestmustbelimitedtointerpretationNeedtointerpretsecondoperativeparagraphofthe1962JudgmentandlegaleffectoftheCourt’sstatementsregardingAnnex1maplineRequestforinterpretationfoundadmissible.*-2-Interpretationofthe1962Judgment.RoleoftheCourtunderArticle60oftheStatuteRelationshipbetweenoperativeclauseandreasoninginoriginaljudgmentRoleofpleadings,evidenceandsubmissionsofPartiesinoriginalcasePrincipleofnonultrapetitaNatureandpurposeofheadnoteConductofthepartiesoccurringafteroriginaljudgmentgiven.Principalfeaturesofthe1962Judgment.RoleofAnnexImapinreasoningoftheCourtSubmissionsofthePartiesSubject-matterofthedisputebeforetheCourtCourtconcernedwithquestionofsovereigntyovertheTempleareaandnotfrontierdelimitation.Operativepartofthe1962Judgment.Firstoperativeparagraphofthe1962JudgmentclearinmeaningTemplesituatedinterritoryundersovereigntyofCambodiaScopeofthisoperativeparagraphtobeassessedinlightoftheCourt’sexaminationofthesecondandthirdoperativeparagraphs.Secondoperativeparagraphofthe1962JudgmentNoexpressindicationofterritoryfromwhichThailandwasrequiredtowithdrawTerm“vicinityonCambodianterritory”tobeconstruedasextendingatleasttoareawhereThaipersonnelstationed1962ThaiCouncilofMinisters’lineNaturalunderstandingofconceptof“vicinity”ofTempleinviewofgeographicalcontextPhnomTrapoutsideTemplearea1962JudgmentrequiredThailandtowithdrawfromwholeterritoryofpromontoryofPreahVihear.Operativepartofthe1962JudgmenttobeconsideredasawholeTerritorialscopeofthethreeoperativeparagraphsisthesame.DeterminationofboundarylinebetweenCambodiaandThailandbeyondscopeof1962JudgmentNotnecessaryfortheCourttoconsiderwhetherThailand’sobligationtowithdrawisacontinuingoneTerritorialintegrityofaStatemustberespected.TempleofPreahVihearaUNESCOworldheritagesiteCambodiaandThailandmustco-operatetoprotectthesiteEachStateunderobligationnottotakeanydeliberatemeasureswhichmightdamageTempleAccesstoTemplefromtheCambodianplaintobeensured.JUDGMENTPresent:PresidentTOMKA;Vice-PresidentSEPÚLVEDA-AMOR;JudgesOWADA,ABRAHAM,KEITH,BENNOUNA,SKOTNIKOV,CANÇADOTRINDADE,YUSUF,GREENWOOD,XUE,DONOGHUE,GAJA,SEBUTINDE,BHANDARI;JudgesadhocGUILLAUME,COT;RegistrarCOUVREUR.-3-InthecaseconcerningtheRequestforinterpretationoftheJudgmentof15June1962,betweentheKingdomofCambodia,representedbyH.E.Mr.HorNamhong,DeputyPrimeMinisterandMinisterforForeignAffairsandInternationalCo-operation,asAgent;H.E.Mr.VarKimhong,MinisterofState,asDeputyAgent;H.E.Mr.LongVisalo,SecretaryofStateattheMinistryofForeignAffairsandInternationalCo-operation,Mr.RaoulMarcJennar,Expert,H.E.Mr.HemSaem,AmbassadorExtraordinaryandPlenipotentiaryoftheKingdomofCambodiatotheKingdomoftheNetherlands,H.E.Mr.SarunRithea,AdvisertotheMinisterforForeignAffairsandInternationalCo-operation,Mr.HoyPichravuth,AssistanttotheDeputyPrimeMinister,asAdvisers;Mr.Jean-MarcSorel,ProfessorofInternationalLawattheUniversityofParisI(Panthéon-Sorbonne),SirFranklinBerman,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,memberoftheEnglishBar,memberofthePermanentCourtofArbitration,VisitingProfessorofInternationalLawatOxfordUniversityandtheUniversityofCapeTown,Mr.RodmanR.Bundy,avocatàlacourd’appeldeParis,memberoftheNewYorkBar,EvershedsLLP(Paris),asCounselandAdvocates;Mr.GuillaumeLeFloch,ProfessorattheUniversityofRennes1,MsAmalAlamuddin,memberoftheEnglishandtheNewYorkBars,MsNaomiBriercliffe,
本文标题:THEJUDGMENTOF15JUNE1962INTHECASECONCERNING
链接地址:https://www.777doc.com/doc-1086226 .html