Cambodia v.

Thailand

The temple is situated atop a 1,700-foot cliff in the Dangrek Mountains on the
border between Cambodia and Thailand. The dispute originated from agreements
made of 1904–1908. In 1904, Indo China (present-day Cambodia), an Asian
country (present-day Thailand) signed an agreement that established that a
boundary was to be delimited by a Mixed Commission. The treaty established that
the boundary ought to be in accordance with the truth watershed line.

In 1934-35, a survey by Thailand established that the true line of the watershed
diverged from the road within the Map. Thailand never mentioned this in
negotiations over the years that followed. In negotiations that passed in 1925,
1937, and 1947 they did not raise the problem. Also, in 1930, a Cambodian official
greeted a Thai official once he visited the Temple. This never raised any grievance
from Thailand. In fact, Thailand didn’t mention its grievance till 1958. Everything
went straight.
Thailand’s claims

 The Map wasn’t binding because it wasn’t made by the Mixed Commission.

the Court found that although the Map was at the start non-binding, it gained the
character of a binding pact by Thailand and Cambodias’ conduct. This actually
showed the implied consent from both.

 Thailand never accepted the Map.

Thailand claimed that as a result of it never accepting the Map, it was never
required to lift the matter throughout the previously mentioned negotiations. It
claimed that its body acts established this. The Court checked out the very fact that
in 1930 a politician from Thailand was greeted by a Cambodian official once visiting
the world. The Court recalled that Thailand had ne’er complained concerning this.

Also, the Court discerned that although Thailand had, indeed, shown some
administrative body acts, it wasn’t enough to override the consistent administrative
position that indicated that they accepted the Map as binding.

 If it did accept the Map, it was only because it thought the Map followed the
true watershed line.

This can be seen as the most comprehensive examination of the doctrine of

estoppel which is made by the International Court of Justice in the Temple of Preah
Vihear Case. Both Thailand and Cambodia claimed sovereignty over the territory
which was a site of great historical and religious significance to both parties. But
eventually, their series of conduct showed the shadow of the final decision given
the court when the matter came before them. The court accepted the Cambodian
version of estoppel.