Obviously, Cambodia was the winner of the case.According to the 1962 judgement, “by nine votes to three, the court finds thatthe temple of Preah Vihear is situation in territory under the sovereignty ofCambodia. Hence, Thailand is under an obligation to withdrawal any military orpolice forces, or other guards stationed by her at the temple, or in itsvicinity on Cambodian territory. Also, by seven votes to five, Thailand isunder an obligation to restore to Cambodia any sculptures, stelas, fragments ofmonuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery which might, since the date ofthe occupation of the temple by Thailand in 1954, have been removed from thetemple or the temple area by Thai authorities” (ICJ 1962, 2013). Noticeably, thisdecision was made by judge Tanaka and judge Morelli in a joint declaration, aswell as, other important people by appended separate opinions and dissentingopinions (TEMPLE OF PREAH, 1999). Additionally, the court has declared the victory ofCambodia base on few reasons.
First, the judges have declined Thailand’s claimby stating that it’s not convincing enough. As have stated above, Thailand saidthat she has never accepted the map or, alternatively, if she had accepted itshe had done so only because of a mistaken belief that the frontier indicatedcorresponded with the watershed line. However, the claim was not reasonableenough, since these maps were used by Siamese officials over decades.
Althougha survey in between 1934-1935 had been produced showing the Temple as being inThailand, she had nevertheless continued to use and publish maps showing PreahVihear as lying in Cambodia. Furthermore, the map was given wide publicity andwere given to the leading geographical societies in important countries, and tothe Siamese legations accredited to the British, German, Russian and UnitedStates Governments. By all the wide publicity, Thailand has no excuse that theydidn’t accept the map. Moreover, the mix commission have been meeting for manytimes in Thailand to discuss about the map. During the negotiations for the1925 and 1937 Franco-Siamese Treaties, which confirmed the existing frontiers,and in 1947 in Washington before the Franco-Siamese Conciliation Commission, Thailandwould have raise the matter, but she did not do so. On top of that, SiameseMinister of the Interior, Prince Damrong, Siamese provincial governors, andSiamese members of the Mixed Commission, are some of whom knew of Preah Vihear,but they did say nothing regarding the map either then or for many years.
So,they must be held to have accepted the map. If those people whom in highposition have accepted the Annex I map without investigation, they could notnow claim any error degrading the reality of their consent. Based on thesefacts, the court concluded that Thailand had accepted the Annex I map (ICJ 1962, 2013).Having accepted the map, mean that Thailand must accept the fact that PreahVihear temple is located under Cambodia’s territory because Cambodia has usedthe Annex I map as the claim in this case. As a result, Cambodia has finallydeclared as the winner.