Page 183 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

Baarle-Nassau. The Descriptive Minute and the Boundary kind of dispute the World Court is capable of solving. It
Convention of 1843 attributed the land to Baerle-Duc. awarded the disputed territory to Cambodia, and Thailand
The Netherlands claimed that this was a clerical mistake announced its wihgness to abide by the decision. In the
because the Descriptive Minute was supposed to be simi- preliminary objections Thailand argued forcefully that its
lar to the Communal Minute. The Court did not find adherence to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Interna-
~~cient tional Court made on 26 May 1950, was ineffective
evidence that a mistake had actually been made.
Therefore, in 1843 the land belonged to Belgium.Since because it had intended to renew its 1940 adherence to
1843 the Court did not find suff~cient exercise of the Permanent Court. Under the reasoning of the Court
sovereignty on the part of the Netherlands to replace the in the Aerial Incident of 27 Jub 1955 between Israel and
title already vested in Belgium. Bulgaria, 85 the Court held that adherences, such as
The Court's reasoning here should be compared to that in Bulgaria's, had lapsed when the World Court was discon-
the Minquiers and Ecrehos Case. 82 Had the Netherlands tinued. Thailand maintained that hers was similar to
been able to put forward as strong a caseas did Great Brit- Bulgaria's. Therefore she could not "renew" something
ain for the exercise of its sovereignty over the disputed that had lapsed five years previously. The Court refused to
land the result might have been different. It is not possible extend the rule to Thailand because it looked upon Thai-
to say so with any great assurance because the extent of land's 1950 adherence as a straightforward adherence and
adverse possession in international law is not clear. In the not as a renewal. The Court then went to the merits.
Minquiers and Ecrehos Case the Court never concluded According to the Treaty of 13 February 1904 between
that France at any time had title to the islets. Therefore, France and Siam the frontier was to follow the watershed
Great Britain's exercise of sovereignty was not adverse to line. In the autumn of 1907 the Thai (then Siamese)
any other title holder. Government, which had no mapping service, requested
The Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 the French to map the frontier region. The French did so.
December 1906 Case (Honduras v. Nicaragua) The map supplied the Siamese Govemment showed the
(1958-1960). 83 On October 7, 1894, Honduras and Temple on the Cambodian side of the Frontier.
Nicaragua signed a convention for the demarcation of the Thai officials said nothing. It was not until 1958 that they
boundary between the two countries. In October 1904, maintained that the Temple region was on the Thai side of
the King of Spain was asked to determine that part of the the watershed. Therefore, under the Treaty of 1904, the
frontier line on which the two countries had been unable territory belongs to Thailand, the map being unofficial and
to reach agreement. The King gave his arbitral award on not part of the treaty document.
December 23, 1906. Nicaragua refused to comply with it The Court agreed that it was not part of the treaty. The
on the grounds that no reasons were given for the deter- Court also said that it did not have to decide if the map
minations made, that the King of Spain had no authority was inconsistent with the treaty because Thailand had
to make the award, and that the award was not clear. The shown by its silence that it accepted the map as accurate.
Court rejected these objections, holding that Nicaragua Thailand explained her silence by contending that her
must comply with the award. The Court was not asked to local officers in fact had been in possession of the Temple
re-examine the actual basis of the award or to draw a new from the beginning.The Court rejected the effect of local
boundary itself. Thaiacts around the Temple which appeared to be in con-
The case illustrates the difficulties that arise when the basis flict with the view of the Thai Central Government. For
of an arbiter's award is attacked. Naturally an arbitrator's example, when the Prince of Siam visited the Temple in
powers are limited and if he exceeds them his award may 1930, he was welcomed there by the French President of
be invalid. The difftculty is establishing suitable Cambodia province. No protest of comment was made.
procedures for determining if the power has actually been The case is interesting for its discussion of mistake. Again,
exceeded. It was only resolved in this caseafter a resolu- the court, as in the Frontier Case86 was slow to say that
tion of the Organization of American States requested the mistake will negate consent. Also, the acts of sovereignty
parties to take the dispute to the International Court of of local officials will not be sufficient if not clearly reflect-
Justice. ing central authority. In the Minquiers and Ecrehos
case, 87 the acts performed did reflect the views of the Bri-
The Temple of Preah Vihear Case (Cambodia v. Thai- tish Government.
land) (1959-1962). 84 The merits of the case involve a
dispute as to territorial sovereignty over the region of the The South West Africa Case (Ethiopia v. South Africa;
Temple of Preah Vihear and its precincts. It represents the Liberia v. South Africa) (1960-1966). 88 The govern-
ments of Ethiopia and Liberia filed separate actions (which

82. See supra note 2 1. 8s. See igra note 55.
83. [I9601 I.C.J. Rep. 192; digested in 55 Am. J. Int? L. 478 86. See supra note 28.
(1961). 87. See supra note 21.
84. I19621I.C.J. Rep. 6;digested in 56 Am J. IntlL.1033 (1962). 88. [I9661I.C.J. Rep. 6;reported in 61 Am.J. Int?L. 116 (1967).