Falklands/Malvinas: Brazil joins Argentina in criticizing UK’s “unilateral actions”
The Brazilian government questioned UK’s “unilateral actions” regarding the (Falklands) Malvinas Islands and called for the sovereignty “long standing dispute” to reach “as soon as possible a solution”.
The words belong to Brazilian Defence minister Nelson Jobim who met with his Argentina peer Nilda Garré on the sidelines of the IX Conference of Ministers of Defence from the Americas which is taking place at the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz de la Sierra.
A release from the Argentine Defence ministry underlines Brazil’s support for Argentina’s claim over the Falklands and other South Atlantic Islands and adjoining maritime spaces, pointing out that unilateral measures and actions are not compatible with United Nations resolutions.
Minister Jobim recalled regional interest for the long standing sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom referred to “the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime spaces to reach as soon as possible a solution according to the pertinent resolutions from United Nations; declarations from the Organization of American States, Mercosur, Unasur and other regional and multilateral forums”.
Argentine Minister Garré thanked her Brazilian peer’s support statement adding that such declarations “contribute to consolidate even more the strategic alliance between both countries”.
On Monday during the opening speeches of the different ministers at the conference, Garré criticized the “persistent British occupation of the Malvinas Islands and the UK’s systematic denial to abide by United Nations resolutions”.
She also questioned UK “military exercises” in the Islands and “unilateral actions referred to the exploitation of natural resources which do not belong to the UK”.
The Argentine minister also warned about the possibility of a “major environmental catastrophe” in the Falklands/Malvinas waters (similar to what happened in the Gulf of Mexico with BP) because of the hydrocarbons activities.
In the framework of the Defence Ministers conference Argentina and Brazil signed a Joint Declaration calling for intensified Argentine-Brazilian defence cooperation in several fields.
Suggested Stories
-
May 24th 2013
Argentina and Brazil jointly developing satellites for South Atlantic research
-
May 23rd 2013
Falkland Islands wish for normal neighborly relations with all South American neighbors
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 21st 2013
Falklands: optimism about identification of the unknown Argentine soldiers
181 comments Feed
Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
”Minister Jobim recalled regional interest for the long standing sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom referred to “the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and adjoining maritime spaces to reach as soon as possible a solution according to the pertinent resolutions from United Nations; declarations from the Organization of American States, Mercosur, Unasur and other regional and multilateral forums”.
....unless (of course) it doesn't suit you arguement to aknowledge it.
;-p
Argies, not looking for oil then?
Looks like Brazil is playing Argentina like a banjo again and Argentina is happy to be placated by such words.
Brazil has bigger fish to fry while Argentina is fretting about it's trade deficit with Brazil and an IMF that is going to teach an apparent specialist department how to calculate a CPI.
Honestly, politics can be a spectator sport or a comedy. With fists flying in Argentinas parliament and the clown that is CFK (and her IMF u-turn) it looks like our South American brothers can enjoy sport and comedy at the same time!
Think you are weakest link (or missing) goodbye
Petty politics .. nothing of substance.
Don't cry for me..Argentina!
Oh, the tears!
........Did the Argentine minister also warn the Brazilian Government about the environmental catastrophe that is actually happening and has been happening for decades and it is called “deforestation”.Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions . Did the Argentine minister have a go at him on this or did he just witter on about a possible oil spill even though there are no rigs there yet but Argentina are already drilling on their side of the fence !
By the way,There is nowhere on earth called the “Malvinas” accept as a figment in the imagination of some Argentine politicians wanting a few more votes. Its called the Falkland Islands>
Britain is looking alone and out of touch.
If this is so then why haven’t you done something abt it,
we were alone in 1939 did it bother us, today the Argentineans still shout from behind the white flag , such hero's ,
[[[Garré thanked her Brazilian peer’s ]]]
you really mean they kissed their boots, yes master any word will help us.
you still don’t get it do you, it does not matter if over 100 countries give /and or promise support/ like they have , aren’t they nice friends.
The fact remains that they will not support you militarily , and that my argentine bloggers leave you looking like that little boy who sticks he's finger in the dam wall , waiting for his none existent friends to help him, just keep you finger there mate, im on my way ??? Honest
The various arguments over history and international law are meaningless unless tested in a court of law and the only one anywhere near capable of doing the job is the ICJ.
Argentina is like a terrier at a rat hole with it's constant nipping at the feet of the UN. The only thing that the UN can eventually do is suggest that the matter is taken to the ICJ.
So, all roads lead to the ICJ and yet the available evidence is that this is the one course of action that Argentina does not want. After all, the option is already available.
As to the future ... well there's something to be learnt from Gibraltar .... after all, we've been ignoring Spain for 300 years, so Argentina's 177 (nearly 178) years of frustration has a way to go yet :-)
but there is no natural law that says life has to be fair. (We know this Malvinas) HONEST.
As to the future ... well there's something to be learnt from Gibraltar after all, we've been ignoring Spain for 300 years, so Argentina's 177 (nearly 178) years of frustration has a way to go yet . We have patience, in 300, 500, 1000 years, we're there.
You'll be some tin pot junta again soon enough, mark my words, all you know how to do is talk big holding a gun, it's in your nature like White Flags and one-way helicopter rides for people you don't agree with.
Power of what?
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8157153/Tuition-fee-protests-aerial-footage-of-police-van-attack.html
Protestors attacking a police van merely discredits the protest....... which may be why it was left in a vulnerable position .... with cameras present to facilitate future arrests maybe ........ or is my paranoia showing :-)
Don't forget to remind these young students! They didn't know.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8157372/Tuition-fees-protest-students-clash-with-police-in-Whitehall.html
:-)
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/nov/24/student-protests-school-children-streets
Keep spending money in Malvinas ...
Sometimes, money is well spent :-)
“great powers”
You forgot 2 words “Great Power of Piquteros”
ha ha ha ha
Of course you neighbour will whisper sweet nothings in your ear in the margins if you prompt him to do so. What does he say to the UK Ambassador the next week ?
Story no substance.
@12 Britain likes being alone. Then we know that whatever we destroy is the enemy.
@16 But you'll be dead, dead, dead.
@22 Not much chance of that. It's just a dream in la-la land.
@24 We have loads of money, thanks. As witness that we can afford to loan Ireland £7 billion. And more movements are starting to get us out of the EU. So we will save even more money. I wonder how Spain will like a revived Britain?
Not to worry. Look forward to the day when the Falklands economy is bigger than that of Argentina. It will show you your proper place in the great scheme of things. Down near the bottom.
Or like the song “wanna be in my gang, my gang, my gang”
Grow some testicles Argentina, take the issue to the ICJ and stop crying to so called 'friends'.
Shut up. Give back the land that is not yours.
“Thieves respect property; they merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it.”
G.K. Chesterton
Argentina take note :-)
Are you angry that Brazil has been complicit in facilitating the oil exploration in Falkland Islands waters?
Just a question.
No.
A riddle for you..........
G u e s s w h a t B r i t o n s a r e ? :
(choose min. 5 definitions)
Humorists?
Classists?
Realists?
Racists?
Brits?
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/25/david-cameron-howard-flight-breeding
We have the balls to fight, that's why in 1982, we fought against the UK and helpers. If there is someone without balls that is the UK.
This time the fight would be Argentina vs the UK, or Argentina against the UK plus 10 or 15 countries like 1982? lol But there will be no war anyway.
Angry with Brazil? Why? “Brazil joins Argentina in criticizing UK's unilateral actions” There is no reason to be angry, it's the opposite.
Ref the breeding row,we could go down the line of your great mates
pangaea.org/street_children/latin/brazil.htm
Argentinean proposal about “Refusal of Service” for all Malvinas related shipping on all ports of Unasur’s member states. ….
Today, 25/11/2010, Unasur meeting, Georgetown….. Hot and humid…….
www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQI8pMWXE2k
You are right about one thing though, there will be no second war. Looks like you learnt the first time not go go back for a second battering.
But you are not angry that Brazil has facilitated the oil drilling in the Islands! Very interesting, you must not really care about the exploration then.
Drill bit is still turning. You lot are not very effective are you? On the other hand you could grow up and collaborate or we can go down the FPSO route and cut you out of any deal altogether.
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/concoughlin/8127539/Lord-West-should-stop-worrying-about-the-Falklands.html
argentine bloggers eat your words .
All services Think? Or just oil services?
And will Brazil commit ...... really commit?
Details being discussed as I write....
My personal opinion.......
Live necesssities (basic life-sustaining goods as food, medicines, toilet paper printed with argentinean flags etc.) should be allowed...... under the condition that they are bought and shipped from Argentina :-)
OH OH And the toilet paper, yes they should be allowed [think] so the islanders can swipe their shxt on your flag and throw it down the drain,
we are not the country that wants something it cannot have.
We are not desperate .
We are not argentinian
? now if only Argentina would cease all aggresion towards the islanders and the british, [god bless them] we can all sleep in peace,
It's also completely irrelevant; as if there will ever come a time when we have to buy medicines from you!
It is so not in our interests to have to depend on you for anything. Why do you think there is no air link to Argentina?
it leaves you, amongst others, the same country that will destroy the very thing it tells the world that it wants, now how stupid is this.
the only thing you and the Falklands will ever have in common, is that you both live on the same planet ?? [it really is that simple]
We have to speak, is the only way to reach a solution.
It's not possible with Argentina around, they'll just invade again the moment we leave.
“The French courage proceeds from vanity—the German from phlegm—the Turkish from fanaticism & opium—the Spanish from pride—the English from coolness—the Dutch from obstinacy—the Russian from insensibility—but the Italian from anger”
George Gordon Noel Byron
#57 So you are keeping the islands just to avoid invasion? OMG, who´s the indoctrinated side here?
“It can be considered a rule that the probable duration of an Empire may be prognosticated by the degree to which its rulers believe in their own propaganda.”
Doris Lessing
#58 The UN thinks differently. Try reading its resolutions!
So you've stopped charter flights coming in here. Cunning; now your own veterans and bereaved families can't charter a plane to come and visit the graves of their loved ones. Nice one. Hurts us, but hurts you too. How is that a good thing, you bunch of saddoes?
and kicked out the British? today you sunk the Royal Navy, and sent the rest packing, tomorrow you will kick out the R.A.F. when are you Argentineans going to stop listening to all the crap from your government, [only joking]
and except the truth, the Falklands are british, and Argentina has not the will, or the guts, to take them . all you have in reserve is a couple of white flags '''''''''''''''''''''''''''Have you ever thought of applying for British nationality, and become proud like we are, or stay as Argentinean , moaning/crying/begging/ for something you can never have.
Come on you argy bloggers we know you secretly admire us, and wish to be part of a great dynasty, [British you know it makes sense ? ]
No..We are keeping the islands because the current residents do not want to be a part of Argentina.
We are keeping our forces there to stop Argentina from invading again.
only Argentina will close all her ports, and only Argentina will suffer.
The rest of south America will be partying with all the new businesses
Unfortunately you're still making the same stupid comments. On our knees???? I don't think so. You flatter yourselves.
Sigh, i'll say again(for probably the fourth time to you) we don't expect Argentina to invade, the forces are there are just there to make sure Argentina does not invade.
Put simply: We don't trust you.
Personally i don't trust people who's actions have proven them untrustworthy.
;-)
I'm surprised that you do ?
www.laprensa.com.ar/368170-Unasur-prohibira-el-ingreso-a-sus-puertos-de-barcos-con-la-bandera-ilegal-de-Malvinas.note.aspx
www.google.com.ar/search?q=ilegal+bandera+de+las+malvinas&hl=es&client=firefox-a&hs=8OY&rls=org.mozilla:es-ES:official&channel=s&prmd=n&ei=fpHwTMCvOIyr8AaJ7ei6Cg&start=0&sa=N
;-)
Why Brits only believe what its in English?
The sun and the moon don’t speak English and are there have you noted that.
Well just in case
Gotcha
momento24.com/en/2010/11/26/unasur-countries-pledged-not-to-allow-the-dock-for-boats-with-the-illegal-flag-of-malvinas-falkland-islands/
Not certain what you got NiceButDim, but it ain't me :-)
AFAIK there is just one commercial boat in the whole world that this could effect, a real triumph there NicoDin, that'll bring us to our knees.
I have a cunning plan, fold the Falklands flag so that it just shows the union jack and bingo beat the blockade
D'oh!
Isolde, everyone can win, have to be smart.
1) return to Argentina.
2) Shared Sovereignty
3) Hong Kong-style solution.
In all three cases we all win.
In Argentina the last 2 points gives and takes.
Let's talk, let's find the solution.
removed from the video so you do not like it, but speaking it can be!!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwA2QhVGTQ
Argentina can rant and rave - no problem!
South America can rant and rave - no problem!
The Falkland Islander's will make their own decisions but with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, the British will remain in the South Atlantic ..... get used to it!!
:-)
1)return to Argentina, (can't return to what never was. & what would be in it for us?).
2)Shared Sovereignty(why should we surrender half of our sovereignty & whats in it for us?).
3)Hong Kong style situation(once again, surrendering our sovereignty to a foreign power who has no moral or legal rights over us & whats in it for us?).
In all three cases Argentina wins, we don't. in the last two, from Argentina's view, you may have compromised a little but we have lost our identity, our sovereignty.
no, Malvinense it is not enough. you have not come up with anyting new
you are not willing to recognise us as an independant people, with the government WE choose. as we have said, there is nothing to discuss and there you have it
Isoldeeee, you there.
What is the benefit for us (the Falkland Islanders) in your 3 scenarios Malvinense? I can't see any I'm afraid. You want a 'solution' so what can you offer?
@West, www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article7043099.ece
Yes Mr Parris the voice of reason
www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=1056
www.movingtargetzine.com/article/matthew-parris-apologises-for-beheading-cyclists-joke-in-times-2-cyclists-killed-over-weekend
And guess what, they will have no interest either, so just give up the fight, you will never get the Falklands never, never, never
Argentina is impotent. There is no problem and the islanders will continue along much as they have done for 177 years .... 177 years 11 months :-)
We can offer you 30 days warning note before the foreclosure.
So you have some time to arrange your transportation back to UK.
This is a real good offer take it before gone as the Menen offer in the '90.
Then don't complain mates!
1)there is no such thing as the English Army. not since 1707 anyway.
2)we are not stealing your resources, they are our resources.
3)you are the one who should shut up until your brain engages.
@99NicoDin. another threatening macho-man and don't call me mate. you could never be my mate with a stand-over attitude that you have. what a hero!
@94Malvinense.what sort of concessions would you like to see us make(apart from the ridiculous 3 that you mentioned,)? AND more importantly what sort of concessions are YOU willing to make?
please think of something new & don't repeat yourself.
e.g. would you be willing to give us joint sovereignty over say TDF,Santa Cruz & Chubut provinces? awaiting your response.
saludos
Yaghan, I have read its resolutions & its Charter. Accordingly:
” The General Assembly requests the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”
but the AR ended oil & fishery agreements, not the UK
The UN GA requests that the AR & UK find a peaceful solution to AR's dispute. I would suggest AR should take its claims to the ICJ under Article 92 of the UN Charter as the appropriate way forward
However, the future of the Falklands is not the decision of the UK, AR or the UN. It is the decision of the Falklanders
The Falklands is a territory to which the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1514(XV) applies and the Islanders right to exercise self-determination is recognised by the General Assembly including Argentina, who voted for this resolution to apply to the case of the Falklands Islands
The Islanders in accordance with the Charter of the UN, i.e. Article 73 & resolution 1514(XV) continue to exercise their right to self -determination and their choice of free association
The basis of the dispute is Argentine politics; let AR test the merit or otherwise of its sovereignty claims at the ICJ
Right now, Argentina is in breach of resolutions 1514(XV), 2065(XX) & Articles 73 & 74 of the UN Charter & UNCLOS in its current policy of systematic political, economic & racial persecution of the Falklanders
Argentina should cease all its prejudicial acts against the Falklanders immediately to conform with international law & acceptable norms of behaviour; The ICJ is there to be used, Argentina should use it rather than resort to illegal persecution
“We can offer you 30 days warning note before the foreclosure.
So you have some time to arrange your transportation back to UK.”
LOL, an Argentinian threatening foreclosure...that's a laugh! I reckon you should pay off YOUR overdue debts before threatening anyone else with foreclosure.
:-)
You are expending your precious time mates, try to arrange your trip back to UK before its is too late.
Have a nice trip and say hello to Mr. camerum.
Yawwwwn....we've heard it all before Nico.
New today .... well, life goes on :-)
Just as kelpers, talking about the world! what do they know if they are totally isolated! LOL
WHAT A DUMBASS THIS M_OF_FI !!!!
c'mon! islanders better travellers?, this british are AMUSING!
You can have absolutely no basis for saying we are 'totally isolated', apart from your own ignorant prejudice. Because it isn't true.
Herman Hesse, Demian
The Falkland Islands are British .... get used to it!
Argentina did not have it first free elections until 1916 ! and then after a dreadful facist era (Peron) they lost control to the army who run a dictatorship for 17 years ,until the residents got fed up with the disappeared/Desaparecidos which reached about 30'000 deaths plus ,God knows how many more were tortured. So too make themselves popular,the Junta decided to invade the Falklands .3 months later the British army defeated the military and the Junta fell,giving Argentina back to the people,freeing them of the tyranny and fear of their own government. If it were not for the Falklands.....Uraguay may still be protesting to the Argentine government about the number of bodies arriving downstream and floating in its harbour. The population of Argentina have a lot to thank the Falklands for and could live in a more peaceful manner. The Falkland Islanders wish no ill will on the people of Argentina and just want to live in peace with all their neighours and all their neighbours to respect their rights as free people.
“So Argentina thinks that the Falkland islanders may want to become Argentinians !”
Certainly not, islander should leave to where they belong. I mean Great Britain after all its what they claim to part of.
We want them to be very happy where their wonderful culture will remain intact and keep their values, like the Queen, the fish and chips, the Kebabs, the British law, English heritage, etc.
So they should go home where else?
Do you know any other place in the world better than Britain to be British?
Emma Goldman- Patriotism: a menace to liberty
Sounds very much like a Argie
P.s old joke...How does an Argentinian commit suicide....he jumps off his own ego !
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/8026971/Aliens-have-deactivated-British-and-US-nuclear-missiles-say-US-military-pilots.html
www.dvorak.org/blog/2010/09/27/are-space-aliens-in-control-of-british-and-us-nuclear-missiles
goo goo ga ga I'm sure lady gaga is an alien, she is deactivating your nuclear missiles haha
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8mXfdjvGX4
The Falklanders home is the Falkland Islands because that is where they were born, lived and died for many generations, just in the same why Argentina is home for Argentines.
The Falklanders are already at home where they belong, the Falkland Islands and it is not for you or anyone else to decide they must live elsewhere and then to coerce and intimidate them to bend to your will.
That is also wrong and against international law.
If the Falklanders choose to live in the Falkland Islands, this is their free choice, and it must be respected in the same way an Argentine choses to call Argentine their home and choses to live in Argentina.
VF was merely throwing Yaghans quote back in his teeth, he was not excusing Britains past actions. Whatever atrocities Britain has commited in the past are not relevant to the Falklands though Marcos. They didn't commit any here.....or do you think that just because Britian has a bloody history you can take retribution for that on us.
You Argies are always banging on about legality, If someone steals your car you don't steal it back, you take him to court. If you think our presence in the Falklands is illegitimate then take us to court.
Simple.
You Argies are always banging on about legality, If someone steals your car you don't steal it back, you take him to court. If you think our presence in the Falklands is illegitimate then take us to court.
Simple.”
You are DISGUSTING, makes me sick reading you. Leaving behind that U.K has commited those atrocities, and still is of your admiration tells a lot of you.
Thus in the 2º paragraph not just implicitly accept you are illegaly occupying territory, but laught at us about it.
We are not going to ICJ, for the simple fact that the court is marred by powerfull nations (U.K empire in your case).
Would you go on trial against Bill gates because he robbed (perhaps a computer program) you? who would win? do you really think you've got a chance?
We are realistic, until we gain more power and allies, we are not going to ICJ...
Still, things are being done properly and in due time.
The only way for Argentina to make any headway with its lies is to convince the UN General Assembly that they have a case, and then the UNGA is likely to suggest the matter goes to the ICJ.
No ICJ = no future for Argentina's claims.
As for the British Empire, I am immensely proud of it. The British did no more than any of their counterparts in other nations. Many nations tried to get an empire, some succeeded, we were better at it than anyone else. Now that IS something to be proud of. Argentina is still trying to get its empire ... but it will fail. The Falkland islands are British!
get used to it :-)
You can read an awful lot out of not very much Juan, I did not excuse Britains bloody past or even her present military activities, I merely pointed out that in the Falklands there had been none of the atrocities that had happened elsewhere in the time of the Empire, any violence in the Falklands past lies at Argentinas door not Britains.
“Thus in the 2º paragraph not just implicitly accept you are illegaly occupying territory, but laught at us about it.”
If you read it correctly you'll find that I'm not implying any such thing.
The stolen car line is an analogy, nothing more. Nor do I laugh at you, sneer perhaps.
”We are not going to ICJ, for the simple fact that the court is marred by powerfull nations (U.K empire in your case). Would you go on trial against Bill gates because he robbed (perhaps a computer program) you? who would win? do you really think you've got a chance?
We are realistic, until we gain more power and allies, we are not going to ICJ...”
What a very Argentine approach, try to arrange it so you get the result you want no matter what, why not convene your own Kangeroo court if it'll make you feel better. The 'ICJ is marred by powerful nations' line is a red herring, The real reason you're not going to the ICJ is you'd lose becuse our case is stronger than your case, no ammount of 'allies' and 'power' is going to change that.
1- It's not a statement, it's common sense. And I'm sure you are as ignorant/informed as me when it comes to ICJ. So don't get too cocky with me...
2- No empire! conquering times are over, Malvinas are Argentine took by pirates. Get that on your head and you will suffer less when the eviction times come.
Argentina inherited and occupyed the islands, you “conquered” them by expelling our population. See the difference?
Argentina did not “inherit” the islands & your population was NOT expelled. this has been proved to you many times, but still you repeat the lies. now you are threatening us with ethnic cleansing are you? you people are the ones that need to be evicted.lets give southern Argentina to Chile, then we could live in peace with our neighbour! oj.
Juan,
You inherited nothing from Spain. You took your independence by force, not by a consensual handover by Spain. Anyone who believes Argentina inherited the Falklands has no idea how international law worked in the 19th century, or the first part of the 20th. And the population was not expelled. Only the military garrison was expelled.
A good point VF, one that no Argie will reply to I suspect.
@140
“No empire! conquering times are over, Malvinas are Argentine took by pirates. Get that on your head and you will suffer less when the eviction times come.
Argentina inherited and occupyed the islands, you “conquered” them by expelling our population. See the difference?”
If we just brush over for the moment that you are incorrect and that the 'eviction' is never going to happen, How do you suggest that the aknowledgment that “Malvinas are Argentine took by pirates” is quantified? will you just ask people? also how will one “suffer less” if one does aknowledge it? will people who don't get a smack as they embark?
;-)
Stop insisting with the ICJ, when you see what nationalities are those people at the UN Secutiry Council, and then you see what the USA and the UK do with people who don't follow their orders, you can easily know what the result will be. The ICJ is another fraud. Would you insist on going the ICJ if the UN Security Council were integrated by Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Paraguay and Ecuador? hahaha NO! And you can see the current composition of the Court:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
What if the UK, the USA, Russia, etc etc weren't there? Would you insist on going to the ICJ? hahaha, what a joke!
They have never been (and still they aren't) british. To take possesion of it doesn't mean you own it, the people living there indeed are british, until and if they decide to acquire a different nationality. But you know very well to whom those islands belong, I said colonial times ended long time ago, it's disputed territory and colonial enclaves are no longer trendy, I think you could imagine the rest...
Yes, we do. They belong to the Falkland islanders. Now whether in January 1833, under international law as it existed then, they belonged to Spain or the UK is debatable, but what is absolutely certain is that, under international law as it existed then, they most certainly did not belong to Argentina.
Tell what ever you want in any field, Argentina always have the titles to proclaim it's sovereignty over Malvinas.
Emma Goldman was a Russian-born American writer, feminist, anarchist, atheist and a close associate of Alexander Berkman.
She is undoubtedly more akin to your culture than to ours, which you consistently underestimate whenever the occasion suits you.
Some of your “contributions” exemplify this splendidly:
#30, #127, #139
Viscount & Isolde I will later discuss some of your blogs.
“When Spain recognised Argentina in 1859 and 1863, it simply was not in the position to do anything about them.” Who cares if Spain “recognized”? We declared our Independence on July 9 1816, and we didn't care about Spain anymore. You can imaging, if our Independence depended on Spain, we'd still be a colony.
You can proclaim what you want and no doubt you'll continue to do so but guess what, we're still here, we're still British and we're staying put, you could of course try to remove us by force but that didn't go so well last time you tried it did it?
“We declared our Independence on July 9 1816, and we didn't care about Spain anymore. ”
A unilateral declaration of independence does not by itself establish sovereignty over anything. Establishing effective control over territory and recognition of that control is what establishes sovereignty. And recognition wil not be over territory the seceding entity has not established effective control over. There have been many declarations of independence that did not lead to to sovereignty because the seceding entity failed to establish effective control over its territory.
Answer me this. If you think the United Provinces' declaration of independence without Spain's consent was legally enough to establish sovereignty, please explain why Argentina argued at the ICJ that Kosovo's declaration of independence was illegal without Serbia's consent.
“You can imaging, if our Independence depended on Spain, we'd still be a colony.”
But this is not about independence. It's about what territory the seceding United Provinces established sovereignty over.
Puzzling how Argentina denies the same choice that it made in the past to Kosovo, very puzzling.
Yes. Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia. The Viceroyalty was an integral part of the Spanish Empire. The legal distinction between contiguous territories and distant territories did not exist before 1945.
the falklands are british untill they decide otherwise,
Argentina belives in fairies untill they decide otherwise
So, you agree that it is not the declaration of independence that establishes sovereignty, but the establishment of effective control.
And the falklands were an integral part of the British Empire.
Cept, you aren't spanish. We are british.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata
I suggest you do your own research regarding terms like secession, effective control, unilateral declaration of independence, title to territory, self-determination, etc. I did.
Here are some links I hope you read carefully:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
www.arso.org/
Read and learn about self-determination. I won't waste my time on someone who tells me about the right to self-determination of British people, born British and living in an island with and English governor and a Queen as Head of the State, as happy as a perdiz, because if you think that those British in the islands can claim the right to self-determination, that shows you know nothing about it.
I know what independence is. I also know the difference between independence achieved with the consent of the metropolitan state (cession) and independence achieved without the consent of the metropolitan state (secession) and how these affected title to territory in the 19th century.
I know what self-determination is. I know there are two types, internal and external. I know that external self-determination can be exercised in any of 4 ways: 1)independence, 2)free association with another state, 3)integration with another state, 4)the emergence into any other political status freely determined by the people of a territory. I know that international law makes no distinction between indigenous people and non-indigenous people when it comes to SD, several of the territories that are or were on the UN's decolonisation list do not have an indigenous population, some never had one. They were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. I know that the right to SD did not exist in international law before 1945, so it is not applicable to Argentina's declaration of independence. All this I know without even having to look at the wiki page.
Now, I find it extremely ironic that you link a Western Sahara self determination page given that Argentina does not support Western Sahara's right to self determination.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Western_Sahara
¡Qué papa frita que sos pibe! Te hace falta un buen cuetazo a vos. Why do you think I posted that link about the western sahara? Just to show you how twisted is your understanding about self-determination. You read, but you can't understand what you read, or you understand what you want haha I repeat, you obviously didn't read the link of wikipedia about self-determination, anyway, dab#### you can talk to my hand from this moment on.
Juanwether(or not) - stop relying on your school text books and do some research! You won't like what you find :-)
Good morning all .... Falklands war going well (for the British) I see. Dealt with the Spanish in 1771, the Argies in 1833 and 1982 ........ and again now!
Hey ho, there's no problem and all is well with the world. Wonder when the Argentines will get the balls to either take their claim to the ICJ or admit that they were wrong!!
You're still not making yourselves look very tempting are you.
Result!
José Maria Ruda was an Argentine judge who sat at the ICJ between 1973 and 1991
Your flag, ExBrain, has already flown at the ICJ ... but still Argentina would not seek their opinion!
Cowards!
read read our history, but in Spanish, not in English, see you papa frita.
The ICJ is the best you can ever hope for. Shun them and you've got nowhere left to go.
“forced population transfer and appropriation of property is wrong. In fact, it is a grave breach of international law”
Where was the international law when Brits invaded Iraq? Afghanistan? In Diego Garcia? In Africa?
Pure Rubish
“The strong survive and the weak perish (natural selection)”. Darwin (Britain)
“Survival of the fittest”. Herbert Spencer (Britain) also often used by guy above.
Do you want something more British than that? I love it!
“it must be respected in the same way an Argentine choses to call Argentine their home and choses to live in Argentina”
That its not true none respected our choice we are strong enough to be here else the the Brits, Spanish, French, even Yanks, etc would take over it long time ego.
Welcome to the real world.
@WestisBest
“If someone steals your car you don't steal it back, you take him to court”
This its in true in an organized society where the rule of law works the world its not like that. And Brits are an example of that why UKI did not go to the ICJ when we invade the Islands? Did they? Hypocrisy perhaps?
About The ICJ: this its an American dispute so OAS would be fair way to go.
“¡Qué papa frita que sos pibe! Te hace falta un buen cuetazo a vos.”
Resorting to insults, XB. How predictable.
Why do you think I posted that link about the western sahara? Just to show you how twisted is your understanding about self-determination. You read, but you can't understand what you read, or you understand what you want haha“
It doesn't contradict anything I've said. Now, why you've posted it when your government does not support Western Sahara's right to self-determination is a question you still haven't addressed. You'll probably contort yourself trying justify that WS has SD for the purposes of this debate, but not for the purposes of Argentina's position on SD. Or ignore my question, insult me, and come up with something irrelevant in an attempt to change the subject.
”I repeat, you obviously didn't read the link of wikipedia about self-determination, anyway, dab#### you can talk to my hand from this moment on.”
Actually, I had read it some time ago. Long before you posted the link here. Now, unlike you, I don't rely on wiki as the sole source of my information. And, also unlike you, I also know the distinction between self-determination as an ideal, an aspiration, and self-determination as a recognised right in international law. Peoples have always wanted to be free, ever since one people conquered another people, so as an aspiration, self-determination has always existed. But as a recognised right in international law where the people of a territory can set themselves up as an independent state or establish some other political status for the territory with or without the consent of the metropolitan state, no. That right did not exist before 1945
““If someone steals your car you don't steal it back, you take him to court”
This its in true in an organized society where the rule of law works the world its not like that. And Brits are an example of that why UKI did not go to the ICJ when we invade the Islands? Did they? Hypocrisy perhaps?
”
The analogy doesn't quite for 1982 though Nico, a more appropriate one would be where you see a thief is interested in your car, you warn him that you'll give him a hiding if he touches it, he does anyway so you give him a hiding.
1982 was clear cut, the British government, suspecting Argentinas intentions, told you that any attack on the Falklands would be countered with force, you didn't believe them and invaded the Falklands, you got a hiding.
The difference Nico is that the events of 1982 were not like some long running, static territorial dispute even though that was the cause, your invasion of the Falklands was an act of war, so a war was what you got.
xbolloc if Ruda sat as a Judge on the ICJ until 1991, and Argentina had its flawed democracy since 1983, I work out that you had 8 years in which to bring your case to the ICJ while your flag flew there.
Maybe the unilateral action of Argentina in 1982 had something to do with it?
“@ Domingo
“forced population transfer & appropriation of property is wrong. In fact, it is a grave breach of international law”
Where was the international law when Brits invaded Iraq? Afghanistan? In Diego Garcia? In Africa?
Pure Rubish”
Hey, c'mon, be fair. You know and I know it's not “pure rubbish”.
We humans don't need to reference anything than our own moral judgement to conclude that:
1. forced population transfer & appropriation of property is wrong
don't you agree?
but some research can be done to prove that:
2. Forced population transfer & appropriation of property is a grave breach of international law
Check-out the 1949 fourth Geneva Convention for wartime prohibition of forced population transfer & appropriation of property, to which both AR & UK are signatories
Also check-out the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court which also similarly prohibits forced population transfer and appropriation of property in both peacetime and wartime as defined by the statute as Crimes Against Humanity.
To answer your question where was international law when the Brits invaded Iraq, their “official” justification was the non-compliance of Iraq with its disarmament obligation under UN SCR 660, 661, 678, 686, 687, 688, 707, 715, 986, 1284 & 1441
Personally I think it was a panicked reaction to 9/11 & fear of future terrorist attacks that motivated the US administration to invade Iraq
I applaud the removal of the dictatorship & provision of democratic freedom to Iraq, but weep for the enormous cost in life to innocent Iraqis so wrong. Similarly, Afghanistan was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 under Article 51. These aspects deserve open criticism
Today, the forced transfer & appropriation of property of either Chago Islanders or Falklands Islanders is prohibited under the Rome Statute of the ICC which came into force in 2002; before then there was no international law to protect Chagossians, who should return & be compensated
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!