On Monday, the highest court of the UN, The International Court of Justice (ICJ), ruled that a one kilometer patch around the ancient temple of Preah Vihear and the temple itself are considered part of Cambodia. This story comes to the international spotlight because of the history of this territory between Thailand and Cambodia. In 1962 the ICJ decided that the territory was part of Cambodia, however Thailand said that the 4.6km area around the temple was never demarcated and the decision was done with a map that was from a time when France occupied Cambodia. This map gives the territory to Cambodia when it actually should not. Thailand and Cambodia have now been in a 51yr dispute over this territory and it has been years of small skirmishes. Many people would not understand the reason for international spotlight with this issue but in 2008 Cambodia applied to have the temple to be recognized as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO). When the UN accepted Cambodia's application it turned this 51yr old debacle to a international decision. A decision needed to be made when tensions spiked in 2011. Cambodia went back to the ICJ after several skirmishes between their army and Thai forces, which left 20 people dead and displaced thousands of people. The skirmishes resulted in deaths and put people out of their homes and something needed to be done before things got worse. the decision by the ICJ gave Cambodia the temple and a small area around it, but it also gave the 4.6km area around the temple to Thailand. This decision actually gave both countries exactly what they wanted and it looks to be a positive resolution for both sides.
In class we have talked a lot about the role of international institutions and if they actually work in the international community. Furthermore, many of our discussions or debates have touched upon whether or not international institutions make the world peaceful, or if they are partial to the bigger more powerful countries in the world. I think these articles and this story show reasons to why we can see the international institutions as positive actors in international relations. Although a lot of international news about the UN and the ICJ have been revolving around the US and Iran about Iran's nuclear programs, I think the ability to have an international court like the ICJ is a positive aspect that can take care of a territorial dispute like the aforementioned one. This territorial dispute between Thailand Cambodia is a lot less salient and historical than the one between Israel and Palestine, but I think it is a good indicator of what type of international actors will be needed to someday hopefully solve the dispute over the West Bank. Do you think this example shows that international institutions are effective and important, or do you think that this example is a minuscule and not determinate at all of the ability of international institutions?
I really liked this post. I think it is important to shed some light on the progress that institutions like the ICJ and UN are making, because I do think institutions are necessary to international relations working smoothly. To answer your question explicitly, I do think that this is a valid example of how international institutions are effective. The reason I think its such a good example is because of how seemingly simple the solution was, even though the problem had caused a significant number of deaths and had dragged on for years. Its relatively clear that without the intervention of international institutions to adjudicate such conflict, the dispute would have perpetuated.
ReplyDeleteAlthough incredibly minuscule, the work done by the ICJ could be considered a perfect example of international institutions being effective in creating a positive outcome. The deaths related to the temple dispute is the only thing that gave Cambodia's claim any significance but I have a feeling that the skirmishes were instigated from pride for their homeland and maybe some unsavory actions at the site of the temple. Even though this was successful, I do not think it is significant enough sign that international institutions have positive and effective outcomes as a whole because many issues that are brought to these institutions have far greater casualty and societal implications that discussed here.
ReplyDeleteI felt this was a good article but was fairly one sided in its view toward the ICJ and international institutions over all. There are a variety of cases where international intuitions are completely powerless in creating a favorable outcome. I think that it is very important to look at historical and cultural references before deciding if an international institution like the ICJ can be effective in implementing change or progress.
ReplyDeleteThe powerlessness of international institutions is their Achilles heel. When compared to a harder case such as Israel and Palestine, I think this may be an example of selection effects. The territorial dispute between Cambodia and Thailand is less salient and historical then Israel and Palestine, and would have been easier to reach a solution. Even within the Cambodia case presented, it's still arguable that they lost out on the rest of their 4.6 km claim. I would say that this example is minuscule.
ReplyDeleteIts tough for me to gauge the success of international institutions, given that we cant compare the results of the situation to what might have occurred if the institution wasn't present. I feel that this debate exists in an academic space but is very difficult to see in real life. We hear about the real life successes but not the failures that might not be present if not for this international framework. I personally feel that the very existence of international institutions only serve to broaden the scope of conflict and therefore require this intricate web of organizations to facilitate resolution on a global scale.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a great example of the importance of international institutions. Without some outside actor like the ICJ making a decision about the land dispute, how would have this conflict progressed? In response to the post above mine, I personally feel this can be considered a success because as stated in the post, people were being killed in skirmishes over the land. Something needed to be done about it before these skirmishes escalated. The presence of an international institution in this case, decided something no one else could. I personally believe that international institutions are really important in keeping balance in the international realm, and this is a great example of that happening.
ReplyDeleteThis article shows that international institutions can be effective and promote beneficial needs to other states and allies. This in encouraging to see and I think can be a good start to other for other countries to see this and do the same thing.
ReplyDelete