| Located on the border between Thailand and Cambodia,the Preah Vihear temple is of high artistic and religious value,and its ownership has become a major issue.For this reason,Cambodia brought Thailand to the International Court of Justice in 195.Thailand’s failure to comply with the judgment triggered another ICJ case in 2011 and an interpretation case in 2013 regarding the 1962 judgment.The International Court of Justice voted 9-3 to award the Temple of Preah Vihear to Thailand.The main basis was a map.While the ICJ’s view was that Thailand’s long-standing conduct constituted silence and thus had the effect of estoppel,the author has an adverse idea.No case can be separated from its historical context,and the details of the evidence presented by Cambodia need to be analyzed.The purpose of this article is to point out that the ICJ’s application of estoppel to the Preah Vihear Temple case was a bit reckless,and the details of what constitutes estoppel by silence also need to be worked out.There are many studies on the principle of estoppel and the Preah Vihear temple case,but most of the studies on estoppel are in the fields of maritime law,insurance law,land law,international commercial arbitration,and domestic contract law,but less in the field of territorial law.The studies on Preah Vihear temple case are mostly supportive and focus on the analysis of the reason of the International Court of Justice made such a decision and its reasonableness.The application of the principle of estoppel in territorial law has certain peculiarities,and issues such as acquiescence and reliance are controversial and ambiguous.The practice of international judicial bodies such as the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice in the application of estoppel may provide some reference for the discussion of the application of the principle of estoppel in territorial law."The decision in the Preah Vihear temple case is unreasonable with respect to the interpretation of the parties’ meaning,the determination of reliance interests,and the use of maps as evidence.The principle of estoppel originated from Anglo-American law and has become one of the important contents of international law.There are different views on its status,such as customary international law and general principles of international law.The basis of estoppel is the principle of good faith and the principle of unanimity.Its constituent elements include three categories,namely,clear and unambiguous statements,statements made voluntarily and unconditionally,and one party’s reliance on the other party.The acquiescence in international law occurs under such circumstances that protests should have occurred,but they did not occur or did not occur in time.The constitutive requirements of acquiescence include knowing,should and can protest,and no or no timely protest.Acquiescence is closely related to and estoppel.In the Preah Vihear temple case,the content of Thailand’s so-called statement or act recognizing the sovereignty of the temple was not clear and explicit,and the content of the statement or act was not made by Thailand completely voluntarily,and there was no loss or gain of reliance interest between Cambodia and Thailand.Therefore,the case does not meet the requirements of the principle of estoppel,and the judgment of the International Court of Justice is unreasonable.Maps are generally considered as a kind of transmitted evidence or environmental evidence.Map evidence may lead to misleading and bias.Therefore,when providing map evidence,we cannot ignore the collection and collation of the relevant production background and explanatory text of the map.In the case of the Preah Vihear Temple,Thailand has always expressed its position with practical actions,although it has not expressed verbal protest against the error of the map.At that time,the power of Thailand and France was seriously unbalanced.In this situation,Thailand was required to publicly protest against France’s behavior in person,which led to adverse consequences.Therefore,this incident is not enough to constitute evidence of Thailand’s acceptance of the map.The case has certain significance for China’s territorial dispute resolution work.China should further improve the collection and use of maps,and pay more attention to the application of f estoppel in territorial disputes,so as to better protect our interests. |
