Borders, Truth, and the Future
Part 2: What the Border Really Is—and Where It Came From
We all know where Cambodia is. But do we know why it’s where it is?
Borders are not just lines on a map. They are agreements. They are legacies. And when they’re challenged, they become tests of our sovereignty—and our memory.
To understand today’s dispute, we need to go back—not just to last month’s clash, but to the treaties and maps signed over a century ago. Where Our Border Comes From Between 1904 and 1907, Cambodia—then part of French Indochina—and Siam (now Thailand) signed two key treaties that still define the modern boundary.
- The 1904 Franco–Siamese Convention focused on general boundary principles—primarily following the natural watershed line.
- The 1907 Franco–Siamese Treaty went further: Siam retroceded provinces like Battambang and Siem Reap to French Indochina, and a new, detailed boundary demarcation process followed. These treaties led to two different sets of official maps.
Which Map Are We Talking About?
Many people have heard of the Annex I Map. It was produced in 1907 by the Franco–Siamese Mixed Commission, which had been created under the 1904 Franco–Siamese Convention. While it was not physically annexed to the treaty itself, it was an official product of the boundary delimitation effort mandated by that agreement.
This map became central to the 1962 International Court of Justice (ICJ) case, where Cambodia successfully argued that Preah Vihear temple belonged to Cambodia. Why? Because the map clearly placed the temple on the Cambodian side—and Thailand had accepted and used the map for decades without protest.
That long-standing acceptance gave the map legal authority, even though it slightly deviated from the watershed principle written in the original treaty.
Cambodia’s current legal case focuses on seven official boundary maps produced by Franco–Siamese commissions between 1907 and 1909, all at a 1:200,000 scale.
These include:
– The Annex I Map and Khong Sheet, prepared under the 1904 Convention, which cover the area around Preah Vihear and the Preah Chambak / Tripoint area.
– And five “Secteur maps” created under the 1907 Franco–Siamese Treaty, covering the rest of the border.
Ta Moan Thom is located in Secteur 4, and Ta Krabei in Secteur 5.
Thailand Accepted These Maps—For Decades
Just like with the Annex I Map, Thailand used the 1907 boundary maps without protest for over 50 years. These maps were published, taught, used administratively, and never formally rejected.
In international law, this is what’s known as tacit recognition. When you accept a boundary and behave like it exists—without objection—you give it weight.
So Why Is There Still a Dispute?
Because the 1962 ICJ ruling only addressed Preah Vihear. It did not extend to the four temples now under dispute. Those areas were left for future demarcation—which never fully happened.
Thailand now wants to reinterpret the watershed line, and downplay the historical maps it once accepted. But Cambodia has had enough. That’s why we’ve turned again to the ICJ: to confirm what history already recorded.
The Border Is Not a Suggestion
It’s not up for renegotiation every time governments change or politics shift.
Our border is built on treaties, maps, and mutual recognition. Not on emotion or revisionism. And we’re not fighting for more—we’re fighting for what was already drawn, already agreed, and already respected for generations.
Next: Part 3 – Why the ICJ Matters—and Why Cambodia Chose It.
#CambodiaAndTheICJ #BordersAndTruth #SovereigntyWithLaw #KnowTheFacts
Source: Aarnaud Darc
0 comments: