Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:23:22.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand). (Merits.)

International Court of Justice.  15 June 1962 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

International law in general — Sources — General principles of law — Estoppel or preclusion — Scope and meaning in international law — Substantive nature of principle — Distinction between estoppel and acquiescence — Circumstances in which acquiescence operates as estoppel — Requirement of reliance upon statements or conduct by other party — Burden of proof.

Territorial sovereignty — In general — Nature of — Disputes as to sovereignty — Judicial settlement of — Burden of proof.

Territorial sovereignty-In general — Nature of — Disputes as to sovereignty — Relinquishment of territory by treaty — Presumption in javorem ejus qui dat.

Treaties — In general — Form of international agreements — Agreement inferred from conduct — Whether delivery of maps to neighbouring State may be basis for inference as to boundary agreement.

Treaties — Operation of — Requirement of consistency in interpretation and observance.

State territory — Parts of — Boundaries — Land boundaries — Treaty providing for watershed line — Map of area subsequently published by one Party — Evidential value of maps — Effect of material errorLine on map not correct watershed line — Whether circumstances such as to put other Party on notice — Effect of acceptance of map by other Party — Acceptance based on mistaken belief that map correctly drawn — Operation of principle of acquiescence in relation to maps — Map acquiring treaty character — Effect of failure to object to map in subsequent negotiations — Relevance of administrative acts as evidence of acceptance or non — acceptanceof map — Relevance of official visit to area and flying of flag of host State — Relevance of intention to achieve finality in boundary treaty.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1967

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)