ARA Libertad case to be discussed by Argentina and Ghana November 29/30
Argentina announced on Friday that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea proposed November 29 and 30 as the days to hold the hearings between Argentina and Ghana over the seizure of the ARA Libertad Frigate at Ghana's Tema Port.
Argentina last Wednesday filed a lawsuit against Ghana at the UN Tribunal of the Sea in Hamburg to demand the release of the ARA Libertad training frigate, which has been stranded for over six weeks in the African country due to a court order brought by bondholders.
Before the oral hearings, there will be a round of consultations between delegates from the two countries.
“Argentina has accepted the dates proposed by the Tribunal for the oral hearings as the other aspects of the procedure which were discussed in a tele-conference between the two sides and Hamburg”, according to the Ministry’s release.
Argentina had filed the lawsuit last week arguing that the release of the vessel should be ‘unconditional and immediate”. ARA Libertad has been retained since 2 October following an order from a New York court presented by holders of Argentine defaulted bonds that did not accept the restructuring offered by Argentina in 2005 and 2010.
The tele-conference included Judge Shunji Yanai president of the Law of the Sea tribunal and representatives from both countries and was geared to consult the two sides on procedure aspects in the next stage of the ‘precautionary’ measure presented by Argentina.
The administration of President Cristina Fernandez is requesting that Ghana be made internationally responsible for the ‘illicit impounding’ of the frigate and to order Ghana ‘to pay compensation for all legal and other damages’ incurred by such an illicit action and ‘to publicly redress Argentina’s symbols, which have been challenged from the moment the Navy’s flagship immunity was ignored’.
Suggested Stories
-
May 22nd 2013
Francis criticizes ‘savage capitalism” and the “logic of profit at any cost”
-
May 22nd 2013
PM Cameron warns 10 Overseas Territories on tax issues: ‘get your house in order’
-
May 21st 2013
Falkland Islands: it’s a three-side debate; Argentina must recognize Islanders right to decide their future
-
May 21st 2013
Argentines expect inflation to average 34.9% in the next twelve months
95 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.
Personally I think Argentina as targeting Ghana to focus attention away from the matter at hand which is the debt owned to creditors. I appreciate that hedge (vulture) funds are hold outs and want all their money but why should they not. If you ave three credit cards which you used you don't then get to not pay one of them because they want all their money back as per the agreement you entered into...!
Argentina should sue directly the vulture funds and try to impose embargoes on any investment made by them around the world.
If any govt don’t want to collaborate to enforce the law sanctions will be extended to the whole country.
Do you think you could refrain from embarrassing yourself at least once? Your transparency has worsened.
I think Yankeeboy's predictions of patercones and riots might well be spot on.
You can sue anyone in the world if you find the right court and you have the resources to deal with.
After all is what the Vulture Funds do.
Doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong the trick is to corner you in any possible way to make you spend a lot of money in hiring layers and force you to move assets from one place to another because them can be frozen even if you are right.
This for a nation is pain in the @ss but for investment fund is dead sentence because who is going to put money into a fund that asset can be embargoed?
Do you understand the idea?
So I will start to sue NML capital in any place they move capital.
They will only be safe in those places that until now have being protecting them. But that will ruin their business because they live from moving around the globe looking for economies in trouble to buy cheap and claim full compensation.
In a couple of years they will be asking for mercy and even offering loans without interest to me if I would be Argentina or any country.
It doesn't matter if NML is a vulture und or not. The judge is impartial and will only look at evidence.
The most damning piece of evidence is the one that got Argentina in this situation in the first place, namely that th Argentine government waived all of its sovereign immunity rights in order to secure the original loan. In other words the Argentine government put up all Argentine sovereign property both inside and outside Argentina as collateral in order to secure loans. There were no clauses that said 'except military vessels' it that agreement, and the judge in Ghana stated that seizing military assets was perfectly legal.
The Law of the Sea Tribunal will take all of these things into account.
I personally believe that they will dismiss the case as not being under their jurisdiction, as this appears to be a dispute between the Argentine government and a privately owned company, and not a dispute between two nations, no matter how much the Argentine government try to twist the matter.
And that is the real crux of the matter. The Law of the Sea Tribunal was set up to settle disputes between sovereign nations, not a government and a privately owned company, which is why this case will probably be dismissed at the hearing at the end of November.
And because it won't be the Law if the Sea tribunals jurisdiction, they won't be able to overrule the Ghanaian courts decision, even if they wanted too.
The only true recourse is for Argentina to pay their debts. As for Argentina's reputation, it is in complete tatters thanks to these muppets that laughingly call themselves the Argentine government.
how embarrassing for Argentinians
If they just played by the rules every other legitimate country does they wouldn't be in this mess.
Why oh why can't they grow up?
I wonder if CFKs hotels will count as part of the house arrest when she is relieved of her power.
I am sure it will be - but not in your favour.
Right away this behaviour inside of black population sea.
Your post doesn't make much sense but it does sound very racist.
@10 This should be another nail in CFK's coffin. Look forward to argieland having to cough up around twice the bond they were asked for in the first place.
@12 I'm afraid that I don't agree with you. Surely the issue here revolves around Article 32 of the Convention. “With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.” The waiver should negate that. Once the Tribunal has ruled that the immunity was waived, argieland will be dead meat.
Perhaps, but I stand by the fact that this isn't an issue between 2 sovereign nations, so therefore outside of the remit of the Tribunal. The Tribunal doesn't have the right to interfer in a sovereign nations judicial system, only the ICJ has that power.
Argentina is twisting and turning like mad to try and find a way out of this that gives them the Libertad without paying. It just won't happen.
At the end of November the Law of the Sea Tribunal will dismiss the case as being outside their remit (just like the UNSC did over the Falklands), and Argentina will stand there with yet more egg on their faces.
Eventually they will have to pay or lose the Libertad. Either way it'll be open season on all Rentine sovereign assets, and they won't be able to set foot outside of Argentina until they pay up.
Not only that, but in a brilliant stroke of genius, CFK announced to the world that Argentina has US$45 billion in reserve. That means they can't use the excuse that they haven't got the money to pay back their overdue loans, as the international community will just point to that interview she gave at Harvard and say, 'but you said you had 45 billion dollars.'
Stupid Cristina has painted Argentina into a corner with no way out.
www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no.20/C20-Request_for_official_website.pdf
“Thus, Argentina requests the arbitral tribunal to assert the international responsibility of Ghana, whereby the state must:
1 immediately cease the violation of its international obligations as described in the preceding paragraph.
2 pay to Argentinian Republic adequate compensation for all material losses caused.
3 Offer a solemn salute to the Argentinian flag as satisfaction of the moral damage caused by the unlawful detention of the flagship of the Argentine navy .......
4 impose disciplinary sanctions on the officials of the republic of Ghana directly responsible for the decisions by which such a state has engaged of the aforesaid international objections.”
“Further attempts to forcibly board and move the frigate without the consent of Argentina would lead to escalation of the conflict and to serious incidents in which human lives would be at risk.”
Do you write this plaintive comment from South Africa where town and cities have been divided into townships without basic infrastructure for blacks and well resourced suburbs of whites , look at rural ares heve been didvided underdeveloped bantustans and well developed white owned commercial farming areas....and not a single sector of South African society ,nor a person living in South Africa untouched by a ravage of apartheid.
They sound like children tattling.
I hope that ship is in NYC harbor by spring.
Can I have some of whatever you are smoking....please??
I am very serious and right that majority comments are from South Africa....Conqueror,Dany,Chris,..,..Welsh origin, from Manchester...etc.
interesting that some of them are black....
Oh and for the record, what the hell makes you think am danyberger, hes an argentine supporter, not a Brit like Me, Chris and Conqueror !
Oh i get it, all you argentines are upset with me because i got your mate Guzz banned. Well pissing me off then, by making up inaccurate assumptions about me, isn't going to do you lot much good is it, unless you want me to get you, banned as well as anyone else that trolls the comment boards with comments that have nothing to do with the article in question!
Hhhmmm
You are Teaboy2
then what about Teaboy ?
To set the matter straight, Ghana is in WEST AFRICA.
I still don't get the South Africa - Ghana connection. You are familiar with the Rand McNally Company I assume?
no !...i have never seen Chicago in my life.
As I suspected Argentina is reverting to form and using emotion rather than logic. This has been their downfall far too often.
They seem to miss the point that Justice is Blind. In other words it will start off neutral and then when evidence is produced they will study it and come to an impartial decision.
The Law of the Sea Tribunal is impartial, as is the UN. They don't take sides. They don't let emotion get in the way of making rational decisions.
Argentina, as the plaintiff, has to PROVE that the courts in Ghana have acted illegally. In other words, they have to PROVE that the waiver, freely signed by the Argentine government, regarding Argentine sovereign property excluded military vessels.
This they can't do, because the waiver they signed didn't specifically say it was, and there is no law that states a sovereign country can't put it's military hardware up as collateral to secure loans.
No only that, but the Courts might say that it was reasonable that the lender (NML) inferred that Argentina meant all sovereign assets including military hardware because they DIDN'T put in a specific clause saying it didn't, and therefore loaned the money in good faith.
Now it's Argentina's time to show good faith and pay back what they owe. After all, they've got 45 billion US dollars just collecting dust, haven't they?
If they're looking for an apology from Ghana or NML they'll be waiting a long time.
And they are naive if they believe that Ghana can't legally board the Libertad, especially if the Argentine sailors start waving weapons at unarmed civilians again. The crew has no immunity, and Ghana has the legal right to defend its citizens.
LightThink
You are a racist pr!ck. Not only that but you are thick too, especially if you think Ghana is a part of South Africa.
It's like saying Argentina is part of Canada because both countries share the same continent.
Go look at an Atlas, you might actually learn something.
Well i think Argentina should win simply on the basis of it being a “military” ship, regardless of prior waiving of sovereign immunity (bearing in mind the jurisdiction of the LOTS court) .
It wont have much to do with common sense or decency though, otherwise the CFK Junta would have simply paid their full debts in the first place and this would never have happened.
Its a nice fantasy for the blind though (a bit like CFK being good looking in fact)
----
@ Lightthink wth is a “bantustans ” ?
------
#26
To set the matter straight, Ghana is in WEST AFRICA.
Wha? It MOVED? hth did it do that? ¬_¬
i THINK YOU SHOULD CHANGE YOUR NAME TO “THICKO”!!!!!!
Ghana i/ˈɡɑːnə/, officially the Republic of Ghana, is a country in West Africa. It is bordered by Ivory Coast to the west, Burkina Faso to the north, Togo to the east, and the Gulf of Guinea to the south. The word Ghana means “Warrior King”[6] and is derived from the ancient Ghana Empire.
LightThink has chosen this time to humiliate himself in public!!!
( 26 LightThink )
Not that it makes any difference as the Falkland Islands don't need Argentinian ports.
However as Argentina won't pay ports fees to the Ghanans, does this mean that Ghana can dock her ships in Argentina without paying harbour fees?
Very true. But the Argentines believe that international law only applies to non-Argentines.
If the Law of the Sea Tribunal accepts this case (unlikely but you never know) and then rules against Argentina, the Argentine government will immediately issue a statement saying that their judgements are not legally binding on them. They did the same thing with ICJ rulings that went against them.
They truly believe that they are above the law. They are soon to have a very rude awakening.
still,
aparently she gets off, being humiliated,
brings a whole new meaning to PLASTICS ..
International law defines a warship as a ship belonging to the armed forces of a nation bearing the external markings distinguishing the character and nationality of such ships, under the command of an officer duly commissioned by the government of that nation and whose name appears in the appropriate service list of officers, and manned by a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline.
A warship enjoys sovereign immunity from interference by the authorities of nations other than the flag nation. Police and port authorities may board a warship only with the permission of the commanding officer. A warship cannot be required to consent to an onboard search or inspection, nor may it be required to fly the flag of the host nation. Although warships are required to comply with coastal nation traffic control, sewage, health, and quarantine restrictions instituted in conformance with the 1982 LOS Convention, a failure of compliance is subject only to diplomatic complaint or to coastal nation orders to leave its territorial sea immediately. Moreover, warships are immune from arrest and seizure, whether in national or international waters, are exempt from foreign taxes and regulation, and exercise exclusive control over all passengers and crew with regard to acts performed on board.
Auxiliaries are vessels, other than warships, that are owned by or under the exclusive control of the armed forces. Because they are state owned or operated and used for the time being only on government noncommercial service, auxiliaries enjoy sovereign immunity. Like warships, they are exempt from foreign taxes and regulation, and exercise exclusive control over all passengers and crew with respect to acts performed on board.
If right (it is) and if the Tribunal is fair (it will be) the ruling will be for an immediate release.
What about him, Anyone could be using the username Teaboy, i even responded to him once about him using a very similar name to mine. I use Teaboy2 as my username, you are simply jumping to conclusions. You see if i wanted to i coulg sign up with an username such as LightThink1 Would that make me and you the same person? No, it wouldn. So give up the wild pointless accusations of a number of posters being one and the same.
Yes we suspect some argentine posters here are one and the same, but don't directly accuse me of being someone that uses more than 1 user name when i do not!! Especially so when your accusation serve no purpose and have nothing to do with the article nor are they founded on any legitimate evidence that would suggest i was using more than one username.
Infact, the fact you even remember someone using the the username Teaboy on here when he onely made the odd one or two posts (from what i have seen) would suggest its more likely to be you using the Teaboy user name. But then it wouldn't be the first time an argentine has taken up a username similar to british posters usernames on here to stir up trouble and try, invein i might add, to discredit the british poster that uses the original version of the username.
For the record i use my username on various forums, such as legal beagles and on some gaming forums. Why do i stick to using it, well because its easier to remeber 1 username then to have loads of different ones, that fact alone is evidential proof that i only use Teaboy2 as my user name here!
To the extent the Republic [of Argentina] or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled … to any immunity from suit, … from attachment prior to judgment, … from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, … the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction…
Unless that sovereign nation decided to waive those rights, which Argentina did, so it isn't nearly as black and white as you try to make it. Not only did Argentina waive those rights, it also didn't put any provision in that excluded military vessels. From that it can be inferred that Argentina put ALL it's sovereign assets up as collateral INCLUDING it's military hardware.
I doubt this situation has ever arisen before. Plus the fact that this isn't a dispute between nations but between a privately owned business and the government of Argentina who owe them money, and the Tribunal has NO jurisdiction over the internal judiciary of sovereign nations. Only the ICJ can intervene, but again their remit is to settle disputes BETWEEN nations, not between privately owned companies and a government that owes them money.
I suspect they'll say as much after Argentina present their case.
I lay good odds that Ghana will still have the Libertad impounded in December.
Oh and DoD. It is up to ARGENTINA as the plaintiff to PROVE that they didn't waive their sovereign immunity. They can't do that, because they did.
And just what an outrageous breach of sovereignty it would be, were the Court to find that Argentina couldn't sign whatever contract it likes. Why, that would make them some sort of banana republic or something!
And were the self-same Court to find they had signed a legally invalid contract, why that would make them look either stupid or dishonest. Surely not!
I doubt this situation has ever occurred before, where a nation has put all it's sovereign assets up as collateral, so I actually don't believe that there is any law anywhere in the world that covers this, or that states that military hardware can't be put up as collateral. It just has NEVER come up before.
What I'm sure the courts would recognise are these facts:
-Argentina FREELY entered into this loaned agreement and knowingly waived its sovereign immunity rights.
-The lender loaned Argentina the money in good faith, expecting to be repayed.
-This is not a dispute between sovereign nations.
-The Ghanaian court acted within the spirit of the law.
But the Tribunal will be wary of setting a precedent one way or the other, and will probably use the fact that this isn't a dispute between nations so outside their remit, to wipe their hands of the problem.
Even if Argentina take this to the ICJ next, they'd probably get the same reaction.
The ball would then be firmly back in Agentina's court, with all avenues except one being closed to them, namely to pay off their debt.
I have seen so many clone names here
for example
Max ....Maxaue
Geo.... GeoffWard
Yul...Yuleno
J.A.ROBERTS.....J.A.RIMMEL
Teaboy....Teaboy2
Cristiano Ronaldo(or --- CFK) ....Chris
by the way your writing style almost similar to --AxelArg.
hahahaha
Poke in the eye Chrissy
But I'll bet international law doesn't state that a sovereign nation CAN'T put up its military hardware as collateral.
As I said, I doubt this situation has ever occurred before, and I doubt anyone ever thought that a sovereign nation would put itself in this situation.
Whichever way the Law of the Sea Tribunal rule it will set a precedent. This they won't want to do, as it will cause too many headaches, with appeal after appeal.
However, the Law of the Sea Tribunal was set up to resolve differences between nations. This case doesn't fall under that remit, so they will probably wash their hands of it, and any difficulties it will cause them.
Argentina should pay its debts, don't you think, DoD? If it did, it wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.
No matter how this ends, the Argentine government has basically shown the world that they don't honour their debts. No one will be willing to loan them so much as a dime in the future, and Venezula can only prop them up for so long.
Face it, Argentina is the author of its own demise.
I have tried to join many forums where the teaboy2 username has all ready been taken by someone else. Out of the possibly millions of people that visit this website then its perfectly possible for a number of different people to have similar usernames to 3 or 4 other people. So when you look at it from a mathmatics point of veiw, your thoery is nothing more than a conspiracy - Also as i pointed out ever on this page or on another page, their have been argentines using similar usernames to brits posters purely to discredit said brit poster. So your basically making a pointless point!
Laudable as your post sounds it is stretching it a bit to call a training ship a warship. They are manned by a mixture of untrained and ‘turned out’ personnel on the flag State records.
Also, I have read the whole of the Convention and the various notifications, schedules, etc.
The internal waters of a flag State are outside the Convention (see Article 11: Ports). Furthermore, warships do not have total exemption from the realities of life, see Article 31.
Article 32 is an interesting one, setting out as it does the LACK of immunity for warships.
As far as I can tell AG’s ‘lawsuit’ (MP ignorance, or maybe AG’s ignorance) does not even fall within the scope of the Convention.
ARTICLE 11
PORTS
For the purpose of delimiting the territorial sea, the outermost permanent harbour works which form an integral part of the harbour system are regarded as forming part of the coast. Off-shore installations and artificial islands shall not be considered as permanent harbour works.
ARTICLE 31
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FLAG STATE FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY A WARSHIP
OR OTHER GOVERNMENT SHIP OPERATED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions of this Convention or other rules of international law.
ARTICLE 32
IMMUNITIES OF WARSHIPS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT SHIPS
OPERATED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES
With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31, nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes.
This character is quite interesting and may be believable, were it not for a few glaring mistakes. Indulgent and unneccesary verbosity should point at their true author.
And just in case anyone thinks the ship is heading to Argentina soon, this is the clause that waives that right:
To the extent the Republic [of Argentina] or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled … to any immunity from suit, … from attachment prior to judgment, … from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, … the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction…
Remember, first thing Monday morning, when reporting at work at our secret Malvinas Situation Bunker, 2.5 miles deep under the Meseta de Somuncura to.....:
1) Tell Tobias/ TTT to cut the indulgent and unneccesary verbosity on our best sock puppet: Cmdr. McDod.
Their most brilliant Turnips are beginning to suspect!
2) Sharpen all my pencils...............
“apple pie tastes good too.”
What a perculiar thing for a British person to say? An Yank may say that but never a British person. One would think that you are an Argentine troll pretending to be British.
I know. You supposedly served in the RN years ago. Tell us what ships you served on and where they sailedor tell us the last 4 digits of your service number, you know to proved that you aren't a Walt and an Argentine Walt at that.
You should also be able to tell me the difference of being Jack in the RN and being Jack in the Army.
Waiting for your answers. By the way silence will just confirm what we already suspect.
I wanna play, I wanna play too can I?
Gangplank and let’s go for some Kbabs mate and if we eat a lot we can always go to the heads.
Now can you tell me who was your upper deck while you were serving tables in the RN please?
Now one easy for you from ARG army.
“Achtung! Tagarna salto rana mar and get some oil”
I guess is a “long shot” for you after all you have been serving coffee and drinks.
Am I wrong?
Will you answer with a post of by using the Pipe?
Jack speak
Teaboy is a namé from Chris
If you don't believe me ask to Captain Yankeeconqueror.
My post wasn't directed at you, unless one of your other identities is Doveoverdover.
Mr DoD claims to have been in the RN, and claims to be British, but he makes little mistakes that no British person would make.
Hence why I was testing him.
I have never claimed to be in the RN, but I was in the British Army. I have also never pretended to be any nationality other than British, nor do I have any other ID but the one I always use.
Perhaps DoD can explain the difference of Jack in the RN and Jack in the Army because you obviously can't.
By the way, Dany, Ghana still has your ship, and I'll lay good odds on the Law of the Sea Tribunal wiping their hands of this altogether.
ARA Libertad 10/1/2012 = SS Paul Singer 11/30/2012 17:00:00 Hours
Did Think touch a nerve?
By the way you still haven't answered the question. What is the difference between Jack in the RN and Jack in the Army?
Surely if you served in the RN you'd know the answer to this simple question.
yaaah...and you are claiming residing in the USA ?
poor old irish wimp
jijijiiiii
Oh I do know so I'll humour you just this once. Jack in the RN is the generic name for the sailor and the name of that pole, as in jack staff, at the sharp end of the boat (damn, cover slipped). Jack in the Army is to move the hand rapidly up and down the male member, a selfish individual and the rank, as in lance jack, you probably struggled to keep when they moved you out of the QM's store, you jack bastard.
You are truly a smooth Navy operator, you are….
”Jack Staff at the SHARP END OF THE BOAT”……. ;-)))))
But….. Wasn’this name “Jack Dawson” ?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uSZrs-ew0Q
www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
Since you go to all the effort of creating a dual persona with associated verbal d for my amusement, I'm more than happy to show my appreciation!
Keep it up 'you two', it's worth it, good entertainment, maybe someone hasn't twigged yet, old boy......Red Grant
INDEC is still stating that Argentine inflation is running at 9% when the real figure is nearer 25% - when will CFK and the Comedy club ever learn?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rKYL0tW-Ek
It's amazing what you can find on google, isn't it?
However someone who had actually served would certainly have answered thus and not used so many obviously 'researched' meanings.
RN - Jack - good sailor, good guy/mate
Army - Jack - lazy, devious backstabber, often used in conjunction with the word b@stard. As in 'he's a Jack b@stard'.
You get things nearly right. By the way it's not to jack, it's to 'jack off' or to w@nk.
As for the rank, again Lance Jack a nickname for Lance Corporal, given because they are one rank up from private and give out the crap jobs, so are often Jack to their former mates.
Anyway, back to the topic.
It'll be interesting to see what the Law of the Sea Tribunal make of Argentina's emotional plea.
Also, it took Captain Birdseye about ten hours to come up with that lot.
As Cmdr. McDod, so exquisitely effortless and succinctly implied...., you do seem to be an authority on the subject……..
I'll be even more concise, though……:
Tosse.
(Try Wiktionary :-)
No proper comeback so you resort to name calling. How sad. Even your little friend Think is upset for you.
Never mind, back to La Campora HQ for reassignment.
By the way Ghana still has your ship...
By way of recompense can I say that I'm quite content for you to continue to repeatedly accuse me of dishonesty, to attribute foreign nationality to me or to accuse me of disloyalty to my country and treason. For myself, I will remember your wise words of remonstrance every time a fellow poster is so sad as to resort to name calling.
(Got that last bit, Joe?)
Poor DoD, you get upset so easily. To add to what surfer said, 'Dry your eyes, Princess.'
But enough of this let get back to commenting on the story. That is whether the Law of the Sea Tribunal will intervene in this matter, or indeed find in Argentina's favour.
I personally think it's highly unlikely.
Princess indeed!
'the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction'
The ARA Libertad,
She sailed away from sunny BA,
And hasn't been seen there today,
Hey ho , me hearties,
Will she ever return?
Has anyone seen, has anyone seen , has anyone seen our ship,
Der der der der, dun dun!”
Further proof you're not ex-British military. “Man up, Princess”, “dry your eyes, Princess” are common phrases to describe habital whingers and moaners, such as yourself. In other words, grow a pair.
Also just what lofty position in life do you hold that you have the right to look down on others, or the lower orders, as you call them?
@92 - surfer
I think the real sticking point is the phrase, “to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction” which could be open to interpretation.
However, as far as I can tell there has never been a case where a sovereign state has waived its sovereign immunity to secure loans, or indeed put it sovereign property (such as military hardware) up as collateral.
I doubt there is a precedent for this situation, so the Tribuanal will either have to set a precedent one way or the other, or say that this particular and unique situation is actually outside of their remit.
So the question really is, can a government waive its sovereign immunity on all sovereign assets, as Argentina did, to secure loans?
The answer, I would suggest, is yes. Do those sovereign assets included military assets?
IMO I would suggest yes as the Argentine government didn't specifically state that they were exempt.
Besides possession is 9/10 of the law, isn't it? And Ghana certainly possess all the cards right now. :)
“You don t know Ghana is a part of South Africa.”
You are the only one who “knows” this. Hilarious!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!