Abhisit said no Thai government had ever officially accepted the 1962 decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and maintained that the country had the right to revive its claim to the 10th century Hindu temple if and when new evidence surfaces.
BP: He specifically mentions Article 60. Thailand cannot revive the issue. ICJ Statute:

Article 60

The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.

Article 61

1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.
2. The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.
3. The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision.
4. The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.
5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.
BP: The judgment was in 1962. That 10 years is up. I can’t see any dispute about the temple Preah Vihear either, as the Court ruled that “the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”, so Article 60 is a no go.
Abhisit continues:
The Democrat Party leader said that with the exception of the Samak government, no Thai government had ever regarded the ICJ ruling as the determination of the national border between the two sides.
BP: Umm. Red herring here by Abhisit. All Thai governments disagree on whether the ICJ ruling determined the national border 4.6km of disputed territory, but previous Thai government have agreed that the temple belongs to Cambodia. The national border is irrelevant. There is also no evidence that the Samark government is any different to previous governments.
Abhisit continues:
Abhisit showed Parliament a letter from the Thai Foreign Ministry to the Cambodian government, calling on Phnom Penh to reconsider its unilateral decision to apply to Unesco for World Heritage status.
The opposition leader also showed a joint communique revealing Samak’s “active support” for Cambodia’s bid for World Heritage status for the historic temple.
BP: Thailand rejected the 2006 application by Cambodia per the Post:
There were reports that Cambodia had attempted to register the temple as a World Heritage site without Thailand’s approval in 1991, but a Foreign Ministry source insisted that the first attempt was made in 2006. At that time, the boundary included the 4.6-square-kilometre disputed area which had not been demarcated.
Cambodia proposed it to the World Heritage Committee in 2006, but Thailand did not support the bid.
“Thailand categorically rejected it because the Cambodian side had used the old map [drawn in 1904 by France] which claimed the 4.6-square-kilometre area as part of its territory,” the ministry source said.
Finally, Cambodia drew a new map excluding the area which has not been demarcated and this has been accepted by the Thai government.
BP : Clear? The Surayud government also stated to UNESCO that it would provide “active support” for Cambodia’s application so I fail to see how “active support” is some revelation.
Abhisit continues:
He accused Abhisit of adding to the tension between the two countries and said Thai nationals in Cambodia are having sleepless nights. Samak said the Cambodian government has the right to propose the main temple – which the ICJ had ruled to be situated inside Cambodian territory – to Unesco for consideration as a World Heritage site.
Abhisit contended that no Unesco committee would approve such a request, as it would unnecessarily split up the ancient temple into two zones.
Last year, Thailand protested against Unesco Cambodia’s unilateral move to have the entire temple, which includes 4.6 square kilometres of overlapping claims, to become a World Heritage site.
The then government of Surayud Chulanont made the sticky topic of national borders a non-issue and suggested that Thailand and Cambodia file a joint application to Unesco.
Cambodia rejected the proposal and resubmitted its bid again this year.
Abhisit said it was a big mistake on the part of the Samak government to stray from the positions of previous governments that called for the two countries to put in a joint application.
BP: Earlier this year, the Surayud government supported a sole application by Cambodia. Last year (when Surayud was PM), UNESCO noted that the Thai government stated it would provide active support for Cambodia’s application. The Samak government is just continuing this.
He finishes with this parting shot:
I never thought that a former lawyer of Thaksin Shinawatra would ever become a lawyer for Cambodia,” Abhisit said, in reference to Noppadon, who had represented Thaksin while the ousted premier lived in exile following the September 2006 coup.

BP: What PAD talking point will he borrow next? That the government is not protecting the Monarchy? Oh wait, it has already done this. So when will Abhisit start saying that the government wants to turn Thailand into Republic? He is complaining that Noppadon is making arguments that help Cambodia, but isn’t Abhisit doing the same when he says the Samak government is giving up [I don't follow exactly what he thinks Thailand is giving up] to Cambodia?
Matichon has Abhisit’s full statement in Thai. He acknowledges that the ICJ ruled that Preah Vihear or the temple is in territory under the sovereignity of Cambodia ( ศาลโลกได้ตัดสินว่า ปราสาทพระวิหาร ปราสาทพระวิหาร ภาษาอังกฤษใช้คำว่า Temple อยู่บนพื้นที่ภายใต้อธิปไตยของกัมพูชา ). As a refresher, the Court ruled that “the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia”.
From there it is downhill, he states that the Court decision was in relation to the “Temple”, but the Cabinet Decision of 1962 was in in relation to the “Area” (ศาลตัดสินให้เฉพาะ Temple แต่มติครม.2505 นั้นเป็นเรื่องของ Area เพื่อจะปฏิบัติ ).
NOTE: Actually in the previous paragraph, he refers to Temple Area
BP: I can’t fathom what he is getting at here. The Court states the temple is in territory of Cambodia. By any reading the “Temple Area” is broader than just the “Temple” (there are the surrounding area. If the Thai Cabinet of 1962 accepted Cambodia over sovereignty of the Temple Area, how can Abhisit sovereignty of the Temple itself?
He then goes on a long semantic debate (in the hope of confusing Samak ?) on boundaries.
btw, look at this incoherence – I think by The Nation:
Samak dodged the accusation that he has effectively forfeited the country’s right to raise the Preah Vihear case with the ICJ. He argued that Thailand had lost the case in 1962 and urged the country to come to terms with the decision.
BP: Raise the Preah Vihear case with the ICJ? It was raised 45 years ago and Thailand lost. It cannot be revived with new evidence.