Actually, on the substance of Tulsie’s opinion piece in The Nation on why Abhisit is acting tough now BP thinks Tulsie is basically right so do not have a dispute with that, but then there is this:
Defending its decision to support Cambodia’s registration efforts, the Samak government pointed to two basic legal points. The first was the World Court ruling in 1962 declaring that the temple was on Cambodian territory. The second was Article 61 of the World Court ruling, which states: “No application for revision may be made after a lapse of 10 years from the date of the judgement.” Article 61 featured prominently in Cambodia’s application document to Unesco, with “LAPSE OF TEN YEARS” written in capital letters).
The Democrat camp led by Abhisit at the time pointed out Article 60 of the court’s ruling. This article allows warring parties to reserve doubts and observations concerning rulings and, unlike Article 61, this one does not spell out any time frame. Which article carries stronger weight is debatable, but the battle line was clearly drawn. The Democrats were saying that any Thai move that could weaken Thailand’s “silent protest” against the World Court ruling had to be avoided.
BP: Ok, He has Article 61 correct, but lets look at Article 60 (it is actually Article 60 of the ICJ Statute and not the court ruling) states:
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.
BP: What is in dispute about the scope of the decision? The key part of the Court decision (see this post for more):
“The Court however considers that Thailand in 1908-1909 did accept the Annex I map as representing the outcome of the work of delimitation, and hence recognized the line on that map as being the frontier line, the effect of which is to situate Preah Pihear in Cambodian territory
by nine votes to three,
Finds that the temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia
BP: So Thailand will go back to the ICJ and ask, did you really mean it when you said that the temple is in Cambodian territory? There is nothing vague about this. See this post as for a critique by someone else at The Nation on trying to use Article 60. Actually, Thailand doesn’t dispute this at all per this document from from the MFA:
Thailand accepts that the Temple belongs to Cambodia as it honors the ICJ’s decision on the matter.
BP: Now, there is argument, which the ICJ didn’t address, about whether the land boundary between Thailand and Cambodia is, is this what the Democrat party argument is? The ICJ didn’t address this in details (although it did mention about Thailand accepting the Annex 1 map) so is there really an argument for going back to the ICJ to determine the scope of the ICJ decision? Does Thailand really want to given that this would put more territory up for grabs?
Thanong in The Nation:
Thailand appears to be totally isolated on the issue. Most of the major powers are backing Cambodia on the management plan for the temple. This will allow interested parties a window of opportunity to take part in the development project for Preah Vihear, plus other business deals with Cambodia afterward.
Cambodia is trying every means to squeeze the territory from Thailand. The implication from this Unesco meeting is significant, for the claim over the land territory will have implications for maritime claims in the Gulf of Thailand, which are rich in oil and natural gas deposits.

If Cambodia insists on managing Preah Vihear, Thailand should respond in kind by closing the borders and stopping all trade with its neighbour. This would be the first warning. Thai soldiers on the border are on high alert. If the first warning goes unheeded, we should reserve the right, under our sovereignty, to drive out any nationals infringing upon our land.
BP: You see the Kasit/PAD line of thought in that first paragraph? Foreign countries are conspiring against Thailand it seems (Question? Because UNESCO delayed the decision until next year does it not logically follow that these countries are stalling for more oil and natural gas or that Thailand is giving them something in return?)
On the second paragraph, from Article 2 of the UNESCO Convention:
11. No act or activity undertaken on the basis of this Convention shall constitute grounds for claiming, contending or disputing any claim to national sovereignty or jurisdiction.
BP: This is the conflating of two issues (Preah Vihear and the maritime claims) by Thanong. Now, the issues are related in terms of Cambodian-Thai relations, but a ruling by UNESCO does not then legally mean anything in relation to the maritime claims.
On the third paragraph, will Abhisit comply?