One can reject the verdict, it the verdict is not correct.

This verdict is not correct, because according to the watershed, the land and temple is in Thailand.

You can appeal the verdict if you think it is not correct. Thailand could have dealt with this in 1908 or in 1962. They didn't. They now have to live with it.

Actually he can't - leaving aside a merits test which would patently fail.

Firstly, their is no appellant court for the ICJ. The courts decisions are final.

Secondly, he is not a state and thus cannot be a member of the ICJ. Only member states of the ICJ can bring a case or an issue for adjudication before it.

At last! Some sense written here!

How dare Fandangle land tell us what to do. We are Thai and we do what we want. If we say it's ours it's ours get it. Now push off

We foreigners all recognise that Thai are dyslexic in matters of Law. I guess it is lovable quirks like this that draw us to Thailand.

I don't see it as the same logic.

Logic? Here? Get real, mate!

You obviously haven't had a visit from Yingluck promoting Thainess yet

How dare Fandangle land tell us what to do. We are Thai and we do what we want. If we say it's ours it's ours get it. Now push off

We foreigners all recognise that Thai are dyslexic in matters of Law. I guess it is lovable quirks like this that draw us to Thailand.

So it's not the sex then?