I argue that contextually reading two disputes involving Siam—Cheek v. Siam (1898) and the Temple of Preah Vihear (1962)—proves that both private law and public international law are structurally rigged against ex-semi-colonial nations. Nineteenth-century Siam was a political ferment known variously as a semi-colonial, semi-peripheral, non-colonial, or uncolonized polity. Siam bargained under imperial shadows her political independence by the tactical grants of concession contracts, as well as by negotiating treaties with competing European powers. In the post-colonial Temple of Preah Vihear case, colonial stationery—maps, photographs, and communiqués—as well as imperial customs offered evidentiary support to Cambodia, an ex-colonial state, against Thailand. In the early twentieth century, while authors picked Cheek v. Siam as a precedent for the law of international claims, textbooks offer the Temple of Preah Vihear case as a precedent on the form of treaties and estoppel. Conclusively, these two cases allow us to locate, if not exorcise, the ghosts of empires in Asian legal history, exposing, at the same time, Judge Koo’s Orientalization of customary international law.

中文翻译：

---

国际法、半殖民地泰国和帝国幽灵

我认为，从上下文中阅读涉及暹罗的两起争议——奇克诉暹罗（1898 年）和柏威夏寺（1962 年）——证明私法和国际公法在结构上都是针对前半殖民地国家的。19 世纪的暹罗是一场政治动荡，被称为半殖民地、半外围、非殖民或非殖民政体。暹罗在帝国阴影下通过特许权合同的战术授予以及与竞争的欧洲大国谈判条约来讨价还价她的政治独立。在后殖民时期柏威夏寺案件、殖民文具——地图、照片和公报——以及帝国习俗为前殖民国家柬埔寨反对泰国提供了证据支持。在 20 世纪初，虽然作者选择奇克诉暹罗作为国际索赔法的先例，教科书提供了柏威夏寺案例作为条约形式和不容反悔的先例。最终，这两个案例让我们能够找到（如果不能驱除）亚洲法律史上的帝国幽灵，同时揭露顾法官对习惯国际法的东方化。