Thailand to ICJ | Request for Advisory Opinion

[Bossza007]

---

---

To: <David J. Knight, Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice> Dutchy From: <Sarabun@mod.mail.go.th> Subject: Request for Advisory Opinion on Contractual Dispute with Rosoboronexport Security Type: NSST Protocol + Maximum Secure Encrypted Method - Protect by NIA Counter-Intelligence Service - The decryption method is sent separately via fax

---

Chief Knight,

I am writing to request the respected International Court of Justice's guidance and advisory opinion on an issue that has important international law ramifications. A 1999 sales agreement has left the Republic of Thailand and the Russian Empire's state-owned company Rosoboronexport entangled in a legal battle over the meaning and implementation of a particular provision.

The meaning of the word "equipment" in the agreement is the central point of contention. Initially acquired for military use, Thailand has converted 10 Gepard-class frigates for use in disaster relief, coast guard, and humanitarian operations. We contend that this repurposing respects both international norms and our sovereign rights. On the other hand, Rosoboronexport argues that this move violates the conditions of the contract, which forbid reselling or using acquired equipment for other purposes without authorization.

We argue that the agreement's usage of the phrase "equipment" is ambiguous. It is appropriate to interpret such ambiguity against the drafter, in this case Rosoboronexport, in accordance with the rules of international contract law. The changes made to the frigates emphasize non-military purposes and are compliant with both international law and our country's policies. We are sovereign enough to bring about this revolution. In addition to being legally sound, our interpretation complies with the accepted guidelines for interpreting contracts under international law.

Given the above, we humbly ask the ICJ for an advisory opinion on the following matters. Whether modified military hardware used for non-military purposes should be included or excluded in the sales agreement's interpretation of the word "equipment" given its ambiguity. The degree to which a sovereign state may use its legal authority under international law to modify military hardware for non-combat uses, especially under contracts that do not contain clear bans or explanations. The legitimacy and global ramifications of Rosoboronexport's choice to punish Thailand on the basis of their reading of the agreement.

We believe that the ICJ's advisory opinion will help to settle this specific issue and establish a precedent for interpreting contractual provisions in international agreements—especially when it comes to sovereign states and state-owned businesses.

Regarding this important issue that affects international law, diplomatic relations, and the norms of sovereign rights, we look forward to your valued answer and guidance.

With the highest regard,

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul
Minister of Justice
Republic of Thailand

---

 

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

GLOBAL ASSEMBLY​

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul (Bossza007) Minister of Justice Republic of Thailand

PRIVATE​

Your Excellency,

We acknowledge the receipt of your request for an advisory opinion, and we appreciate your prompt submission. However, before the Court can evaluate the admissibility of the request, we kindly ask you to furnish the following information/documents:

1. Clearly articulated legal questions in a list format, outlining the precise matters that the Court is being requested to address.
2. All pertinent documents essential for the Court to comprehensively review and draft an advisory opinion. This includes but is not limited to, a copy of the contract between the Republic of Thailand and Rosoboronexport.

Upon the submission of the aforementioned materials, the Court will proceed to determine the subsequent steps in accordance with the information provided.

Thank you for your cooperation and prompt attention to this matter.

Yours sincerely,
David J. Knight
Chief Justice

---

DIGITAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE​

 

[Bossza007]

---

---

To: <David J. Knight, Chief Justice of the International Court of Justice> Global Assembly From: <Sarabun@mod.mail.go.th> Subject: Request for Advisory Opinion on Contractual Dispute with Rosoboronexport Security Type: NSST Protocol + Maximum Secure Encrypted Method - Protect by NIA Counter-Intelligence Service - The decryption method is sent separately via fax

---

Chief Knight,

The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Thailand sincerely appreciate your prompt and courteous correspondence. To adhere to and address your requested information/document, below are our provided in question. All pertinent documents will be included in the attachment.

Legal Question

Contractual Ambiguity: We are seeking to understand how should the term "equipment" in the contract be interpreted, considering its ambiguous nature? Is the Thai interpretation, which excludes non-technical repurposed Gepard-class frigates from the definition of "equipment," legally justifiable?

Sovereign Rights vs Contractual Obligations: To what extent can a sovereign state, like Thailand, exercise its legal authority under international law to downgrade military hardware for non-combat purposes, especially in the context of a contract that lacks explicit prohibitions or clarifications on such modifications?

Legitimacy of Sanctions: Are Rosoboronexport's actions of imposing sanctions on Thailand for their interpretation and use of the purchased frigates consistent with international law and contractual practices?

Presentation of Facts and Context

Description of the Dispute: The heart of dispute revolves around the term “equipment” within the contract. According to the Terms and Conditions of the Rosoboronexport in 1999, they did not include the downgrading of a vessel in their prohibition, nor they included that the buyer could not repurpose the vessel in non-technical term.

Thailand’s Position: The Republic of Thailand has always been a law-biding nation. We believe, within our sovereignty rights and in accordance with international norms, the frigates we purchased from Rosoboronexport in 1999 were deemed outdated and unfitted for service, resulting in our degrading them for the purpose humanitarian, coast guard, and disaster relief operations.

Legal Arguments and Analysis

Contract Law Principles: In accordance with the principle of contra proferentem, any ambiguity in the contract should be interpreted against the drafter, in this case, Rosoboronexport. The lack of explicit prohibition against the downgrading or non-technical repurposing of the frigates in the contract terms suggests that such actions are not inherently in breach of the agreement. This interpretation supports Thailand's position that the modified usage of the Gepard-class frigates does not constitute a violation of the contract.

International Law Considerations: Thailand's actions align with the principles of state sovereignty and the lawful modification of military equipment for non-combat purposes. The reclassification of these frigates for humanitarian and coast guard services is a legitimate exercise of Thailand's sovereign rights and does not contravene international law norms. Further, the principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) must be interpreted in the context of the inherent ambiguity of the term "equipment" in the contract.

Implications of Rosoboronexport’s Actions

Impact on International Relations: Rosoboronexport's interpretation and the subsequent imposition of sanctions may set a concerning precedent that could undermine the sovereignty of states in similar situations. This could have a chilling effect on the international arms trade and the sovereign rights of states to repurpose military equipment.

Diplomatic Ramifications: The unilateral sanctions imposed by Rosoboronexport could be seen as an overreach and might adversely affect the diplomatic relations between nations. It could be argued that such actions are disproportionate and not in the spirit of international cooperation and trade.

Proposed Resolution

Request for Advisory Opinion: We request the ICJ to provide an advisory opinion on the outlined legal questions, with the hope that it would clarify the contractual ambiguities and set a precedent for future international agreements, especially in cases involving state-owned entities and sovereign states.

Recommendation for Future Practices: We suggest a re-evaluation of contractual terms in international agreements, advocating for clarity and explicit provisions to avoid similar disputes in the future. This would contribute to a more stable and predictable international legal environment.

Concluding Remarks

Commitment to Resolution: The Republic of Thailand reaffirms its commitment to resolving this dispute in accordance with international law and mutual respect for sovereign rights. We believe that the ICJ's advisory opinion will provide the necessary legal clarity and help in preserving the integrity of international agreements.

Upholding International Law and Sovereignty: We emphasize the importance of the ICJ’s role in upholding the principles of international law and respecting the sovereignty of nations. Our plea for an advisory opinion is in pursuit of these fundamental principles.

Attachments

Contract between the Republic of Thailand and Rosoboronexport (1999)

Correspondence between the Republic of Thailand and Rosoboronexport regarding the disputed matter

With the highest regard,

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul
Minister of Justice
Republic of Thailand

---

 

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

GLOBAL ASSEMBLY​

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul (Bossza007) Minister of Justice Republic of Thailand

PRIVATE​

Your Excellency,

With this message we inform you that a request for an advisory opinion has be filed in writing with the Registrar of the Court of which you are a Party.

The questions that have been submitted are as follows:

1. Contractual Ambiguity: We are seeking to understand how should the term "equipment" in the contract be interpreted, considering its ambiguous nature? Is the Thai interpretation, which excludes non-technical repurposed Gepard-class frigates from the definition of "equipment," legally justifiable?
2. Sovereign Rights vs Contractual Obligations: To what extent can a sovereign state, like Thailand, exercise its legal authority under international law to downgrade military hardware for non-combat purposes, especially in the context of a contract that lacks explicit prohibitions or clarifications on such modifications?
3. Legitimacy of Sanctions: Are Rosoboronexport's actions of imposing sanctions on Thailand for their interpretation and use of the purchased frigates consistent with international law and contractual practices?

We thank you for submitting your presentation of facts and context along with your legal arguments and analysis relevant to this matter.

You have a period of two weeks to submit any further written statements to the Court concerning the questions. Depending on the information provided the Court may hold written or oral proceedings as it deems necessary for the examination of the question. Should this not be deemed necessary then you shall receive a copy of the advisory opinion upon publication. Please note that advisory opinions of the Court have no binding force, but they shall be treated with great respect by all Parties.

On behalf of the Chief Justice,

Registrar of the Court
International Court of Justice

---

DIGITAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE​

 

[Global Assembly]

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE​

---

GLOBAL ASSEMBLY​

Piyabutr Saengkanokkul (Bossza007) Minister of Justice Republic of Thailand

PRIVATE​

REF: ICJ/2003001-A
Advisory Opinion on the matter between Thailand and Rosboronexport

Your Excellency,

On behalf of the Court, I am writing to you in response to the request for an advisory opinion that was submitted to the Court by the Government of Thailand on June 2003.

The Court has carefully considered the request and the materials that were submitted in support of it.

The Court has concluded that the question posed by the Government of Thailand is admissible and that it falls within the Court's jurisdiction. The Court further finds that the request is of a legal nature and that it is sufficiently important to be made the subject of an advisory opinion.

The Court has also considered the various legal arguments that were presented. After careful consideration, the Court has reached the following conclusions:

Opinion on the question of Contractual Abiguities

The Court is of the opinion that it reaffirms the principle of contra proferentem. However, in this matter, the question as to how to understand ‘equipment’ hereby relates to ‘purchased equipment’ as per the terms of service. Therefore, there is a clear understanding that this relates to the Gepard-class frigates purchased by Thailand from Rosoboronexport.

Furthermore, the Court thus opines, on the matter of of modifications to the equipment, that under Clause #4 of Rosoboronexport’s Term of Service, purchased equipment, in this matter the Gepard-class frigates, cannot be upgraded without express permission. The Court considers upgrading as ‘the act of improving the quality or usefulness of something, or changing it for something newer or of a better standard’. Therefore, in line with the principle of contra proferentem, Thailand would not be permitted to modify the Gepard-class to improve its quality or usefulness. The Court lacks details as to the specific modifications made to the Gepard-class and cannot advise further as to the legal justifiability of any changes made.

The Court encourages the Parties to use this advisory opinion to mediate any dispute between themselves.

Opinion on the question of Sovereign Rights versus Contractual Obligations

The Court is of the opinion that it has advised on the matter of equipment modifications in the previous section. Thus, it is the Court’s position that the question of the balance between sovereign rights and contractual obligations is too complex to be answered within the limited nature of this matter.

Opinion on the question of the Legitimacy of Sanctions

The Court is of the opinion that under the principle of freedom of contract, it is within Rosoboronexport’s right to decide upon the sale of its equipment. Rosoboronexport, as a legal entity within Russia, is subject to Russia’s anti-discrimination laws and that the legitimacy of any ‘sanctions’ against Thailand are subject to the laws of Russia, absent any international laws.


The Court's advisory opinion is annexed to this email.

The Court reiterates that this advisory opinion is non-binding and aims to provide legal guidance on questions of international law. The purpose of this advisory opinion is to promote international law and support the resolution of legal disputes.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of my highest consideration.

On behalf of the Chief Justice,

Silvester Pearce
Registrar of the Court
International Court of Justice

---

DIGITAL DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE​

 

[Bossza007]

Internal Security Operation Command
Ministry of Interior
Strictly Confidential | Archived | Indefinitely Postponed Disclosure Date​

---

In response to the recent developments involving the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Republic Ordnance Manufacturing Company in a scandal concerning the purported unauthorized transfer, premature decommissioning, sale, and transportation of ten decommissioned Gepard-class Frigates, the Internal Security Operation Command, under the purview of the Ministry of Interior, exercises its authority to freeze, lock, archive, and indefinitely postpone the disclosure date of the relevant documentation.​