On 17 April 2013 at The Hague, Mr. Surapong Tovichakchaikul, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Phongtep Thepkanjana, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, and Air Chief Marshal Sukumpol Suwanatat, Minister of Defence, led the Thai delegation at the first round of Thailand’s presentation of oral arguments to the International Court of Justice in the public hearings in the Case Concerning the Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). Thailand’s Agent, Mr. Virachai Plasai, Ambassador to the Netherlands, and the country’s foreign legal counsels and experts delivered statements arguing Thailand’s position and responding to Cambodia’s arguments presented to the Court on 15 April 2013.

During the mid-day recess, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs briefed the press on the main points in Thailand’s oral arguments as follows:
1. Cambodia’s request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment is in fact a disguised appeal for the Court to rule on what it expressly refused to over 50 years ago.
2. The territorial claim over an area of 4.6 km2 is new and arose from Cambodia’s wish to inscribe the Temple on the World Heritage List.
3. The current disputed area of 4.6 km2 is not the “vicinity” of the Temple referred to in the Judgment, but is far larger than the area that Cambodia claimed in the original Case, which was only 0.35 km2.
4. The line adopted by Thailand’s Council of Ministers in 1962 marks an area that corresponds to the “vicinity” of the Temple in the 1962 Judgment. Cambodia understood and accepted this as it never protested that Thailand had not withdrawn its forces from that area.
5. Thailand’s cartographic experts demonstrated irregularities in the evidence that Cambodia introduced to the Court.  For instance, the “Annex I map” that Cambodia offered as evidence in the original Case is different from what it is now presenting to the Court.  There exist different versions of this map, the lines on which cannot be transposed to the actual topography without causing further problems.  Cambodia even altered the map Thailand presented in the original Case and submitted as its own evidence in the present case.
6. Thailand has fully implemented the Provisional Measures ordered by the Court on 18 July 2011. Since then, there have been no further armed incidents in the border area, and no further loss of life. Thailand and Cambodia have even worked together and agreed on ways to implement the Measures. In addition, both countries now enjoy cordial relations. There are mechanisms and channels in place to resolve conflicts, including the territorial dispute that Cambodia is requesting the Court to settle which can be negotiated bilaterally through the MoU on the Survey of Demarcation of Land Boundary agreed and signed in 2000.

The Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister also commented that what Thailand argued in the Court today closely follows the approach prepared in advance, which is to request the Court to dismiss Cambodia’s request for interpretation of the 1962 Judgment. But if the Court finds Cambodia’s request admissible, it should decide that there is no reason to interpret the Judgment, as the Judgment is clear and Thailand has already implemented all the obligations contained therein.