Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference 9th Edition

Patent, Copyright & Trademark: An Intellectual Property Desk Reference

Richard Stim Attorney

The most concise and comprehensive explanations of intellectual property law available! Whether you’re an Edison, Faulkner or Jobs, you need Patent, Copyright & Trademark. Intellectual property law has rapidly produced its own language. But don’t count on understanding it right off the bat — the language baffles lawyers and lay folk alike. Whether you’re an inventor, designer, writer or programmer, you need to understand the language of intellectual property law to intelligently deal with such issues as:
  • who owns creative works or valuable information how these owners can protect and enforce their ownership rights
  • how disputes between intellectual-property owners can be resolved
  • how…
  • and many more With this essential guide, you will:
  • get clear overviews of relevant laws
  • understand the different kinds of protection offered by patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets — and which apply to your work
  • get a plain-English definition of every term you’re likely to come across
  • find the information you need, quickly and easily — all entries are organized by topic and extensively cross-referenced.
  • The 9th edition is completely updated to provide the latest law and court decisions, new definitions and additional resources. It also covers new topics such as ”patent trolls” and the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR v. Teleflex.


បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ


ស្រីហិតោបទេស ប្រែថា ការប្រៀនប្រដៅឲ្យដល់នូវប្រយោជន៍, ការពន្យល់ប្រយោជន៍, ការប្រាប់ប្រយោជន៍ ឬការដឹកនាំជនានុជនឲ្យបានប្រយោជន៍នៅនាលោកកិយ៍នេះ និងជាពាក្យប្រៀនប្រដៅសីលធម៌ដល់សាធុជនទាំងឡាយ ។ អត្ថន័យនៅក្នុងស្រីហិតោបទេស គឺប្រៀបដូចជាកញ្ចក់ឆ្លុះបញ្ចាំងដល់សង្គមខ្មែរនៅពេលបច្ចុប្បន្ននេះផងដែរ។ លោកអ្នកអាចអានកម្សាន្ត និងធ្វើការត្រេះរិៈពិចារណា ដើម្បីស្រង់យកគតិបណ្ឌិតពីអត្ថន័យនៅក្នុងសៀវភៅស្រីហិតោបទេសនេះបាន។


  1. ស្រីហិតោបទេស ភាគ ទី១ 
  2. ស្រីហិតោបទេស ភាគ ទី២
  3. ស្រីហិតោបទេស ភាគ ទី៣
  4. ស្រីហិតោបទេស ភាគ ទី៤
បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

Citing Books

This is the citation pattern for books:

author, title, edition (if needed), place of publication, publisher, year of publication, pinpoint (if needed).


PW Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2d ed (Toronto: Carswell, 1985).

Citation Breakdown:

  1. Author’s Name
  • initial(s) or first name (as it appears in the book), then last name
  1. Book Title
  • the title should be in italics
  1. Edition Number
  • include if this is not the first edition (note that 2d and 3d are used, not 2nd and 3rd)
  1. Place of Publication
  • the city name is followed by a colon and contained in parentheses along with the publisher name and year of publication
  1. Publisher
  • write the name of the publisher as it appears on the title page
  1. Year of Publication
  • indicate the year of the current edition
  1. Pinpoint
  • Pinpoint to a page or section. See the following examples:

PW Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada, 2d ed (Toronto: Carswell, 1985) at 73.

RJ Delisle, Evidence: Principles and Problems (Toronto: Carswell, 1984) at 129.


Queen’s University Library “ Legal Citation” Accessed Dec 29, 2016.

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

Cambodian Constitutional Law

The book “Cambodian Constitutional Law”, published by KAS Cambodia, covers 28 fundamental aspects of constitutional law, which have been analysed by renowned experts.

The Cambodian Constitution is of significant importance and relevance for all Cambodian citizens, as it covers varying aspects of their lives. It is due to the Constitution’s high importance that Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Cambodia, in cooperation with the editors of this book, decided to write this introduction on the 1993 Constitution of the Kingdom and thus, to create a comprehensive source of information on Cambodian constitutional law. The book provides an overview of the Constitution as well as comparisons and analyses. It aims at giving basic and helpful information to the reader and at encouraging further academic discussion of Cambodian law.

Currently, the number of available English publications on the Cambodian Constitution is very limited. Therefore, this handbook could serve as a useful guide into the different areas covered by the Constitution, not only for foreign readers, but also for Cambodians, especially for those who study law. We in particular hope for these Cambodian scholars to find motivation in this book to academically engage with legal questions and contribute with their articles towards the analysis and evaluation of Cambodian Constitutional Law. Its comprehensive coverage will be a unique contribution to the academic field of international analysis and research on Cambodia´s Constitution.

The text above was entirely copied from Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung (KAS) Cambodia.

Please click  this  link Cambodian Constitutional Law to download the book.

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ


សៀវភៅពីរបបផ្តាច់ការទៅរបបប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ គឺជាសៀវភៅដែលរៀបរាប់អំពីទស្សនៈនៃទម្រង់លក្ខណៈនៃភាពផ្តាច់ការរបស់មេដឹកនាំតាមប្រទេសនានាមួយចំនួន។

ថ្វីត្បិតសៀវភៅនេះ ខ្ញុំបានអានប្រហែលជាកាលពី៥ឆ្នាំមុនហើយក៏ដោយ ប៉ុន្តែទស្សនៈនិងផ្នត់គំនិតដែលមាននៅក្នុងសៀវភៅនេះហាក់បីដូចជានៅដិតដាមនៅក្នុងគំនិតខ្ញុំជានិច្ច។

លើសពីនេះទៅទៀត ខ្ញុំបានអាននូវទម្រង់នៃរបបផ្តាច់ការ ដែលបានសរសេររៀបរាប់យ៉ាងក្បោះក្បាយនៅក្នុងសៀវភៅនេះ ហើយធ្វើការប្រៀបធៀបជាមួយស្ថានការណ៍នៅក្នុង ប្រទេស ក៏ដូចស្ថានការណ៍អន្តរជាតិផងដែរ ខ្ញុំមើលឃើញថាទម្រង់នៃរបបផ្តាច់ការអាចកើតទ្បើងជាច្រើនទម្រង់ លើសពីអ្វីដែលបានរៀបរាប់នៅក្នុងសៀវភៅនេះទៅទៀត។

ដូច្នេះដើម្បីឲ្យបងប្អូនអ្នកស្រាវជ្រាវសិក្សាសង្គម ក៏ដូចជាយុវជនយើងជំនាន់ក្រោយងាយស្រួលក្នុងការស្វែងរកប្រភព ក៏ដូចជាចង់ស្រាវជ្រាវ នូវចំណុចណាមួយដែលពាក់ព័ន្ធនិងប្រធានបទរបស់ខ្លួន ខ្ញុំបានសម្រួលដោយច្បិចយកនូវមាតិការនៅក្នុងសៀវភៅនេះមកដាក់តាមលំដាប់ដូចខាងក្រោម ដោយរួមជាមួយនិងលីងដើម្បីធ្វើការដោនទ្បូត សៀវភៅយកទៅអានផងដែរ។

  • ការប្រឈមមុខចំពោះរបបផ្តាច់ការដោយភាពប្រាកដនិយម

Facing Dictatorships Realistically

  • គ្រោះថ្នាក់នៃការចរចារ

The Dangers of Negotiations

  • តើអំណាចបានមកពីទីណា?

Whence Comes the Power?

  • របបផ្តាចការមានភាពទន់ខ្សោយ

Dictatorships Have Weaknesses

  • ការអនុវត្តន៍អំណាច

Exercising Power

  • តម្រូវការផែនការជាយុទ្ធសាស្រ្ត

The need for Strategic Planning

  • ផែនការជាយុទ្ធសាស្រ្ត

Planning Strategy

  • ការប្រកួតប្រជែងផ្នែកនយោបាយ

Applying Political Defiance

  • ការបំបែកជាបំណែកៗនូវរបបផ្តាច់ការ

Disintegrating The Dictatorship

  • មូលដ្ឋានគ្រឹះសម្រាបលិទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យយូរអង្វែង

Groundwork For Durable Democracy



បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

ពាក្យសម្តីបណ្ឌិត កែម ទ្បី

បណ្ឌិត កែម ទ្បីៈ

នរណាក៏ដូចនរណា” ករណីអ្នកខ្លាចអំណាចប្រមូលផ្តុំ ខ្លាចការចាប់ដាក់ពន្ធនាគារ ខ្លាចស្លាប់នោះ អ្នកមិនមានឱកាសនិយាយការពិតរហូតដល់ស្លាប់ ហើយពលរដ្ឋរបស់យើងមិនមានឱកាសស្តាប់ការពិតក្នុងសង្គមខ្មែរជារៀងរហូត។

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

Law on Copyrights and Related Rights

ដើម្បីការពារផលប្រយោជន៍របស់អ្នកនិពន្ធ ដើម្បីការពារនូវតម្លៃវប្បធម៍, ដើម្បីការអភិវឌ្ឍសេដ្ឋកិច្ចជាតិ និង ដើម្បីធ្វើសមាហរណកម្មសេដ្ឋកិច្ចកម្ពុជា ចូលទៅក្នុងរបស់ពិភពលោកប្រទេសកម្ពុជាបានអនុម័តច្បាប់ស្តីពីសិទ្ធិអ្នកនិពន្ធ និងសិទ្ធិដែលទាក់ទង។ ច្បាប់នេះត្រូវបានប្រកាសឱ្យប្រើដោយព្រះមហាក្សត្រ នៃព្រះរាជាណាចក្រកម្ពុជានៅថ្ងៃទី 5 ខែមីនាឆ្នាំ 2003 តាមរយៈព្រះរាជក្រឹត្យលេខ 0303/008 ។ ច្បាប់នេះមាន 8 ជំពូកនិង 69 មាត្រា។

In order to safeguard author’s interest, to protect cultural value, to develop national economy and to integrate Cambodia economy into the World’s, Cambodia enacted the law on Copyrights and Related Rights. This law was promulgated by the King of the Kingdom of Cambodia, on the 5th of March 2003, through the Royal Decree NS/RKM/0303/008. The law contains 8 chapters and 69 articles.

សូមទាញយកច្បាប់ Law on Copyrights and Related Rights ដើម្បីអានលម្អិត។

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

The Dangers of negotiations

When faced with the severe problems of confronting a dictatorship, some people may lapse back into passive submission. Others, seeing no prospect of achieving democracy, may conclude they must come to terms with the apparently permanent dictatorship, hoping that through “conciliation,” “compromise,” and “negotiations” they might be able to salvage some positive elements and to end the brutalities. On the surface,
lacking realistic options, there is appeal in that line of thinking.

Serious struggle against brutal dictatorships is not a pleasant prospect. Why is it necessary to go that route? Can’t everyone just be reasonable and find ways to talk, to negotiate the way to a gradual end to the dictatorship? Can’t the democrats appeal to the dictators’ sense of common humanity and convince them to reduce their domination bit by bit, and perhaps finally to give way completely to the establishment of a democracy?
It is sometimes argued that the truth is not all on one side. Perhaps the democrats have misunderstood the dictators, who may have acted from good motives in difficult circumstances? Or perhaps some may think, the dictators would gladly remove themselves from the difficult situation facing the country if only given some encouragement and enticements. It may be argued that the dictators could be offered a “win-win” solution, in which everyone gains something.

The risks and pain of further struggle could be unnecessary, it may be argued, if the democratic opposition is only willing to settle the conflict peacefully by negotiations (which may even perhaps be assisted by some skilled individuals or even another government). Would that not be preferable to a difficult struggle, even if it is one
conducted by nonviolent struggle rather than by military war?

Merits and limitations of negotiations

Negotiations are a very useful tool in resolving certain types of issues in conflicts and should not be neglected or rejected when they are appropriate. In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake, and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an important means to settle a conflict. A labor strike for higher wages
is a good example of the appropriate role of negotiations in a conflict: a negotiated settlement may provide an increase somewhere between the sums originally proposed by each of the contending sides. Labor conflicts with legal trade unions are, however, quite different than the conflicts in which the continued existence of a cruel dictatorship
or the establishment of political freedom are at stake. When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should be no compromise. Only a shift in power relations in favor of the democrats can adequately safeguard the basic issues at stake. Such a shift will occur through struggle, not negotiations. This is not to say that negotiations ought never to be used. The point here is that negotiations are not a realistic way to remove a strong dictatorship in the absence of a powerful democratic opposition.
Negotiations, of course, may not be an option at all. Firmly entrenched dictators who feel secure in their position may refuse to negotiate with their democratic opponents. Or, when negotiations have been initiated, the democratic negotiators may disappear and
never be heard from again. negotiated surrender?

Individuals and groups who oppose dictatorship and favor negotiations will often have good motives. Especially when a military struggle has continued for years against a brutal dictatorship without final victory, it is understandable that all the people of whatever political persuasion would want peace. Negotiations are especially likely to become an issue among democrats where the dictators have clear military superiority and the destruction and casualties among one’s own people are no longer bearable. There will then be a strong temptation to explore any other route that might salvage some of the democrats’ objectives while bringing an end to the cycle of violence and counter-violence.

The offer by a dictatorship of “peace” through negotiations with the democratic opposition is, of course, rather disingenuous. The violence could be ended immediately by the dictators themselves, if only they would stop waging war on their own people. They could at their own initiative without any bargaining restore respect for human dignity and rights, free political prisoners, end torture, halt military operations, withdraw from the government, and apologize to the people. When the dictatorship is strong but an irritating resistance exists, the dictators may wish to negotiate the opposition into surrender under the guise of making “peace.” The call to negotiate can sound appealing, but grave dangers can be lurking within the negotiating room. On the other hand, when the opposition is exceptionally strong and the dictatorship is genuinely threatened, the dictators may seek negotiations in order to salvage as much of their control or wealth as possible. In neither case should the democrats help the dictators achieve their goals.

Democrats should be wary of the traps that may be deliberately built into a negotiation process by the dictators. The call for negotiations when basic issues of political liberties are involved may be an effort by the dictators to induce the democrats to surrender peacefully while the violence of the dictatorship continues. In those types of conflicts the only proper role of negotiations may occur at the end of a decisive struggle in which the power of the dictators has been effectively destroyed and they seek personal safe passage
to an international airport.

Power and justice in negotiations

If this judgment sounds too harsh a commentary on negotiations, perhaps some of the romanticism associated with them needs to be moderated. Clear thinking is required as to how negotiations operate. “Negotiation” does not mean that the two sides sit down together on a basis of equality and talk through and resolve the differences that produced the conflict between them. Two facts must be remembered. First, in negotiations it is not the relative justice of the conflicting views and objectives that determines the content of a negotiated agreement. Second, the content of a negotiated agreement is largely determined by the power capacity of each side. Several difficult questions must be considered. What can each side do at a later date to gain its objectives if the other side fails to come to an agreement at the negotiating table? What can each side do after an agreement is reached if the other side breaks its word and uses its available forces to seize its objectives despite the agreement?

A settlement is not reached in negotiations through an assessment of the rights and wrongs of the issues at stake. While those may be much discussed, the real results in negotiations come from an assessment of the absolute and relative power situations of the contending groups. What can the democrats do to ensure that their minimum claims cannot be denied? What can the dictators do to stay in control and neutralize the democrats? In other words, if an agreement comes, it is more likely the result of each side estimating how the power capacities of the two sides compare, and then calculating how an open struggle might end. Attention must also be given to what each side is willing to give up in order to reach agreement. In successful negotiations there is compromise, a splitting of differences. Each side gets part of what it wants and gives up part of its objectives.

In the case of extreme dictatorships what are the pro-democracy forces to give up to the dictators? What objectives of the dictators are the pro-democracy forces to accept? Are the democrats to give to the dictators (whether a political party or a military cabal) a constitutionally-established permanent role in the future government? Where is the democracy in that? Even assuming that all goes well in negotiations, it is necessary
to ask: What kind of peace will be the result? Will life then be better or worse than it would be if the democrats began or continued to struggle? “agreeable” dictators Dictators may have a variety of motives and objectives underlying their domination: power, position, wealth, reshaping the society, and the like. One should remember that none of these will be served if they abandon their control positions. In the event of negotiations dictators will try to preserve their goals. Whatever promises offered by dictators in any negotiated settlement, no one should ever forget that the dictators may promise anything to secure submission from their democratic opponents, and then brazenly violate those same agreements.

If the democrats agree to halt resistance in order to gain a reprieve from repression, they may be very disappointed. A halt to resistance rarely brings reduced repression. Once the restraining force of internal and international opposition has been removed, dictators may even make their oppression and violence more brutal than before. The collapse of popular resistance often removes the countervailing force that has limited the control and brutality of the dictatorship. The tyrants can then move ahead against whomever they wish.

“For the tyrant has the power to inflict only that which we lack the strength to resist,”

wrote Krishnalal Shridharani ( Krishnalal Shridharani, War Without Violence: A Study of Gandhi’s Method and Its Accomplishments (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1939, and reprint New York and London: Garland Publishing, 1972), p. 260)

Resistance, not negotiations, is essential for change in conflicts where fundamental issues are at stake. In nearly all cases, resistance must continue to drive dictators out of power. Success is most often determined not by negotiating a settlement but through the wise use of the most appropriate and powerful means of resistance available. It is our contention, to be explored later in more detail, that political defiance, or nonviolent struggle, is the most powerful means available to those struggling for freedom. What kind of peace? If dictators and democrats are to talk about peace at all, extremely clear thinking is needed because of the dangers involved. Not everyone who uses the word “peace” wants peace with freedom and justice. Submission to cruel oppression and passive acquiescence to ruthless dictators who have perpetrated atrocities on hundreds of thousands of people is no real peace. Hitler often called for peace, by which he meant submission to his will. A dictators’ peace is often no more than the peace of the prison or of the grave. There are other dangers. Well-intended negotiators sometimes confuse the objectives of the negotiations and the negotiation process itself. Further, democratic negotiators, or foreign negotiation specialists accepted to assist in the negotiations, may in a single stroke provide the dictators with the domestic and international legitimacy that they had been previously denied because of their seizure of the state, human rights violations, and brutalities. Without that desperately needed legitimacy, the dictators cannot continue to rule indefinitely. Exponents of peace should not provide them legitimacy. reasons for hope As stated earlier, opposition leaders may feel forced to pursue negotiations out of a sense of hopelessness of the democratic struggle. However, that sense of powerlessness can be changed. Dictatorships are not permanent. People living under dictatorships need not remain weak, and dictators need not be allowed to remain powerful

Aristotle noted long ago, “. . . [O] ligarchy and tyranny
are shorter-lived than any other constitution. . . . [A]ll round, tyrannies have not lasted long.”

(  Aristotle, The Politics, transl. by T. A. Sinclair (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England and Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books 1976 [1962]), Book V, Chapter 12, pp. 231 and 232)

Modern dictatorships are also vulnerable. Their weaknesses can be aggravated and the dictators’ power can be disintegrated. (In Chapter Four we will examine these weaknesses
in more detail.) Recent history shows the vulnerability of dictatorships, and reveals that they can crumble in a relatively short time span: whereas ten years — 1980-1990 — were required to bring down the Communist dictatorship in Poland, in East Germany and Czechoslovakia in 1989 it occurred within weeks. In El Salvador and Guatemala in 1944 the struggles against the entrenched brutal military dictators required approximately two weeks each. The militarily powerful regime of the Shah in Iran was undermined in a few months. The Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines fell before people power within weeks in 1986: the United States government quickly abandoned President Marcos when the strength of the opposition became apparent. The attempted hard-line coup in the Soviet Union in August 1991 was blocked in days by political defiance. Thereafter, many of its long dominated constituent nations in only days, weeks, and months
regained their independence. The old preconception that violent means always work quickly and nonviolent means always require vast time is clearly not valid. Although much time may be required for changes in the underlying situation and society, the actual fight against a dictatorship sometimes occurs relatively quickly by nonviolent struggle. Negotiations are not the only alternative to a continuing war of annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other. The examples just cited, as well as those listed in Chapter One, illustrate that another option exists for those who want both peace and freedom: political defiance.

Complete source: Gene Sharp

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

តើមានផលប្រយោជន៍អ្វីខ្លះ ជនអន្តោរប្រវេសន៍​វៀតណាមខុសច្បាប់បន្តរស់នៅលើទឹកដីកម្ពុជា?

ខ្ញុំយល់ថា អាណិកជនវៀតណាមដែលរស់នៅកម្ពុជាមិនមានឯកសារគ្រប់គ្រាន់ (រឺហៅអោយស្រួលស្តាប់ គឺមិនស្របច្បាប់) រដ្ឋាភិបាលមិនគួរយល់ព្រមតាមសំណើររបស់ភាគីវៀតណាម បន្តអោយអាណិកជនទាំងនោះរស់នៅដោយស្របច្បាប់នៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជាទ្បើយ។

ការដែលជនទាំងនោះចូលមករស់នៅ យ៉ាងគម្លានដោយមិនស្របច្បាប់ ក្នុងប្រទេសមួយដែលមាន អធិបតេយ្យភាព ឯករាជ្យភាព និងនីតិរដ្ឋទៅហើយនោះ តើពួកគេនិងធ្វើការគោរពច្បាប់របស់ប្រទេសនោះដែរឬទេក្នុងរយះពេលនៃការស្នាក់នៅនោះ?ត្រទ្បប់មករឿងជនអន្តោរប្រវេសន៍វៀតណាមខុសច្បាប់ទាំងនោះវិញ តើពួកគេទាំងនោះមករស់នៅក្នុងប្រទេសកម្ពុជា មានផលចំណេញអ្វីខ្លះដល់សេដ្ឋកិច្ចរបស់ប្រទេសយើង? ខ្ញុំមើលមិនឃើញអ្វីដែលជាផលចំណេញដល់ប្រជាពលរដ្ឋខ្មែរយើងទ្បើយ ក្រៅតែអំពី ការដណ្តើមការងាររបស់ប្រជាជនខ្មែរ បង្ករ អសន្តិសុខដល់សង្គមដូចជា អំពើឆក់ ប្លន់ កាប់សម្លាប់ និងការជេរប្រមាថគ្នា។

លើសពីនេះទៅទៀត អ្វីដែលជាកង្វល់ធំបំផុតសម្រាប់ខ្ញុំ ក៏ដូចជាប្រជាជនខ្មែរទាំងមូលនោះគឺ រូបភាពមកតាំងទីលំនៅខុសច្បាប់ប្រកបដោយការឈ្លានពានរបស់វៀតណាមទាំងនោះ វាមិនខុសអ្វីដូចកាលពីសម័យកាលកម្ពុជាក្រោមទ្បើយ។ សូមអានសៀវភៅរបស់លោក ត្រាំងឆាត ប៊ុត ដែលមានចំណងជើងថា “កម្ពុជាក្រោម អំណាច គ្មានខ្មែរក្រោម” ដូច្នេះ ខ្ញុំសំណូមពរដល់រដ្ឋាភិបាល មិនគួរយល់ព្រមតាមសំណើររបស់ភាគីវៀតណាម ទ្បើយ។ លទ្ធផលនៃការបោះឆ្នោតនាពេលខាងមុខនេះ និងមានផលអវិជ្ជមានចំពោះរដ្ឋាភិបាលជាមិនខាន ប្រសិនបើរដ្ឋាភិបាលមិនមានការថ្លឹងថ្លែងយ៉ាងល្អិតល្អន់ទេនោះ។

រដ្ឋាភិបាលកម្ពុជានិងវៀតណាម បានឯកភាពគ្នាស្នើអ្នកឯកទេសបារាំង មកជួយលើការផ្ទេរខ្នាតផែនទី


បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ

វិហារយ៉ាស៊ូគូនី នៅប្រទេសជប៉ុន

វិហារ​យ៉ាស៊ូគូនី គឺជាវិហារស៊ិនតុ ដែលមានទីតាំងនៅក្នុងឈីយូដាទីក្រុងតូក្យូប្រទេសជប៉ុន​។ វិហារនេះត្រូវបានឧទ្ទិសដល់ទាហាន ហើយនិងជនទាំងទ្បាយដែលបានពលីជីវិតនៅក្នុងការ ប្រយុទ្ធ ក្នុងនាមព្រះចៅអធិរាជនៃប្រទេសជប៉ុន។ បច្ចុប្បន្នេះ ការចុះឈ្មោះជានិមិត្តរូបនៃអាទិទេព បានរាយ​នាមលើសពីចំនួន២៤៦៦០០០នៃចំនួនបុរសនិងស្រ្តីដែលជីវិតរបស់ពួកគេបានឧទ្ទិស ទៅដល់ការ​បម្រើ​​ដល់ប្រទេសជប៉ុនចក្រពត្តិ ជាពិសេសឧទ្ទិសដល់ជនទាំងទ្បាយណាដែលបាន ពលីនៅក្នុងសម័យ​សង្គ្រាម។ វិហារនេះក៏ជាជម្រកដល់សារៈមន្ទីរសង្គ្រាមជប៉ុនមួយចំនួនដែរ ដែលឧទ្ទិសដល់សង្គ្រាម​លោកលើកទី២។ ហើយក៏មានរូបសំណាក់ដែលជាការរំលឹកដល់ម្តាយ និងសត្វពាហនៈទាំងទ្បាយ ដែលបានពលីនៅក្នុងសង្គ្រាមផងដែរ។ វិហារនេះ ក៏បានទាក់ទាញ នូវរឿងចម្រូងចម្រះសម្រាប់ការ តម្កល់ទុកនូវឧក្រិដ្ឋកម្មសង្គ្រាមចាប់តាំងពីសង្គ្រាមលោកលើក ទីពីរមក។

ឈ្មោះដើមរបស់វិហារ​យ៉ាស៊ូគូនី​គឺ សូកូសាដែលត្រូវបានស្ថាបនាទ្បើងនៅឯគឺដាននៅក្នុង​ទីក្រុងតូក្យូនៅក្នុងឆ្នាំទីពីរនៃសម័យកាលម៉ីជិ(១៨៦៩)ដោយមរតកសាសន៍របស់ព្រះចៅអធិរាជម៉ីជិ។ នៅក្នុងឆ្នាំ ១៨៧៩ សូកូសាត្រូវបានដាក់ឈ្មោះសាជាថ្មីថាវិហារ​យ៉ាស៊ូគូនី​។

នៅពេលដែលព្រះចៅអធិរាជម៉ីជិ ធ្វើព្រះរាជទស្សនៈកិច្ចនៅតូក្យូសូកូសាជាលើកដំបូងនៅ ថ្ងៃទី២៧ ខែមករា ឆ្នាំ១៨៧៤ ព្រះអង្គទ្រង់បានតាក់តែងនូវកំណាព្យមួយឃ្លាថា “ យើងសូម​សន្យាដល់អ្នកទាំង​ទ្បាយណាដែលបានធ្វើការប្រយុទ្ធហើយនិងបានពលីជីវិតសម្រាប់​ប្រទេសជាតិខ្លួន ឈ្មោះរបស់អ្នកនិងត្រូវបានគេចងចាំទុកជារៀងរហូតនៅព្រះវិហារនេះ​ក្នុងមូសាស៊ីណូ ” ដូចលោកអ្នកបាន​ឃើញស្រាប់ហើយថានៅក្នុងកំណាព្យនេះ វិហារ​យ៉ាស៊ូគូនី​ត្រូវបានស្ថាបនាទ្បើងដើម្បីជាការរម្លឹកដល់​វិញ្ញាណខ័ន អ្នកដែលបានពលីជិវិតក្នុងការប្រយុទ្ធ ហើយនិងជាការផ្តល់កិត្តិយសដល់សមិទ្ធផលរបស់​ជនទាំងនោះដែលបានលះបង់នូវជីវិត​ដ៍មានតម្លៃរបស់ពួកគេសម្រាប់ប្រទេសជាតិ។ ឈ្មោះ “យ៉ាស៊ូគូនី” ត្រូវបាន ព្រះរាជប្រទាន​ដោយព្រះចៅអធិរាជម៉ីជិដែលជាតំណាងនូវសព្ទសាធុការពរ​សម្រាប់ការការពារសុខ សន្តិភាពដល់ប្រទេសជាតិ។

បានផ្សាយ​ក្នុង ចំណេះដឹងទូទៅ | បញ្ចេញមតិ