MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, May 23rd 2017 - 07:00 UTC

Falklands actively seeking flight options, including some avoiding Latin America

Friday, May 19th 2017 - 06:11 UTC
Full article 57 comments

The Falklands government, FIG, is actively seeking additional commercial flight routes to assist in the future development of the Islands, and is working on a number of options. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Papamoa

    Flights from South Africa and or Australia could be possible and will not be affected by Argentina`s Tantrums !!!

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Now, if I was one of them conspiracy-type theorists, I'd be wondering if that Ascension runway closure wasn't a way of testing out some other options.

    Fortunately, I aint.

    Honest

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Doveoverdover

    Via St Helena perhaps?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Think

    Geeeeeeee.......

    Yet another “Super Idea” from them Engrish “Super Heads”...

    Facto número uno...:
    Nearest non South-American destination ~6.000km ( and still... “Am Arsch der Welt” ;-)

    Facto número dos...:
    Customer base ~2,700 pax...!!!

    Facto número tres...:
    Very costly Aditional Alternate Fuel requirements due to isolated location...

    Facto número cuatro...:
    Canibalization on the economic base of existing LATAM flight...

    Please...,Think again...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Roger Lorton

    They are thinking, Think. The airbridge from Brize Norton replaced with a direct route to Africa? Some thought gone into that. After all - who needs South America.

    As for costs - depends on a lot of factors.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...

    You say...:
    “As for costs - depends on a lot of factors.”

    I say...:
    Jupppppppppppp...., as I already mentioned...:

    Facto(r) número uno...:
    Nearest non South-American destination ~6.000km ( and still... “Am Arsch der Welt” ;-)

    Facto(r) número dos...:
    Customer base ~2,700 pax...!!!

    Facto(r) número tres...:
    Very costly Aditional Alternate Fuel requirements due to isolated location...

    Facto(r) número cuatro...:
    Canibalization on the economic base of existing LATAM flight...

    Just the four above mentioned “Factors” would set the price of a monkey class ticket MPN-WDH-MPN to ~£3,000.-
    And what would a Kelper do in WDH...?

    Please...,Think again...

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Marcelo Kohen

    Perhaps the abuses of “emergency” stopovers of RAF flights in Brazil may have had an impact. This press release clearly demonstrates a number of things:
    1) The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute has regrettable consequences for everybody. The sooner the denial of the existence of this problem is overcome, the better.
    2) Common sense indicates that, economically, geographically and logistically, the best hub for the islands is Buenos Aires. Invoking “security reasons” to reject flights from the Argentine mainland is risible. Discriminating Argentina while seeking Argentine support for this appears to be unreasonable.
    3) Looking for flights from Africa, North Amewrica or Europe “avoiding Latin America and Argentine influence altogether” simply defies geography. The islands are located in the South Atlantic, in the South America region, not in the North Sea.

    www.malvinas-falklands.net

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Pete Bog

    @Marcelo

    “Perhaps the abuses of “emergency” stopovers of RAF flights in Brazil may have had an impact”

    The additional links suggested are not military air links, they are civilian.

    The Brazilians have confirmed the stopovers are related to search and rescue missions.

    ”1) The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute has regrettable consequences for everybody.“

    OK, go to the ICJ .

    ” Common sense indicates that, economically, geographically and logistically, the best hub for the islands is Buenos Aires.“

    Why?

    Buenos Aires, is not on the doorstep as far as the Falklands are concerned but 1000 miles away.

    Are flights from Argentina economically viable, or would the Argentine government waste money by subsidizing flights?

    ”Discriminating Argentina while seeking Argentine support for this appears to be unreasonable.“

    It is totally reasonable . Argentina has illegally discriminated against the Islanders for many years now and you are actually surprised that the Islanders have been deterred by Argentina's neanderthal actions??????

    Cause and effect, the effect being caused by Argentina.

    Classic, classic, Argentine philosophy= it's always someone else's fault!

    ”3) Looking for flights from Africa, North Amewrica or Europe “avoiding Latin America and Argentine influence altogether” simply defies geography.”

    Are you in the slightest bit aware that aircraft are now developed to fly at longer ranges?

    We are no longer in the era that you are stuck in, i.e. the past where aircraft like the DC3 were standard.

    Skylon will shrink the world even more.

    If South American does not want to deal with the islands then they will become irrelevant.

    Geography is irrelevant.

    The RAF airbridge bypasses South America altogether.

    Some aircraft can fly from Europe to Australia without stopping at every single landmass they fly over to get to Australia. You would have these aircraft land everywhere they flew over.

    What rubbish you type!

    Are you really a professor?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • gordo1

    Marcel Kohen

    1.) Please see a previous thread ”Brazil states RAF Hercules flights from or to Falklands are “humanitarian motivated”. There clearly has been NO abuse.

    2.) There is no sovereignty dispute to settle. If Argentina were so sure of it's risible claim it would have taken it to the International Court of Justice.

    3.) Common sense indicates that the Falkland Islanders should choose and decide their preferences for flights to and from their territory without any pressure or influence from Argentina or individuals such as yourself.

    4.) The Falklands archipelago is located in the South Atlantic - many kilometres away from South America and, thus, has nothing to do with South America neither geographically nor politically!

    5.) Please take you empty rhetoric elsewhere.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Martin Spiers

    Any of the wide body longer range aircraft can route via either Cape Verde islands or perhaps the Gambia, both popular tourist locations both enroute to the UK 5000 miles from Stanley and 3000 miles from the UK. Spare capacity on civilian flights used by tourist traffic, I'm sure both locations would be delighted!

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • portman

    seeking is not a new activity by fig. seeking has been going on for 35 years. continue to seek and you shall find. try, try and try again.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Brit Bob

    Dr. K.

    Only Argentina is in dispute. A sovereignty claim without a case can only mean that it is illegitimate and worthless.

    Nootka Sound, Treaty of Amity , Inheritance From Spain – Uti Possidetis Juris all not applicable to Argentina's claim.


    Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
    https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Doveoverdover

    Well, I for one recognise that there is a dispute and I'm, for the time being anyway, British. Ignoring a dispute doesn't make it go away. Then again, I'm as sure as the next man here in England that these islands belong to the United Kingdom (for as long as its lasts anyway) and the local government is no more than a Kent County Council in the southern hemisphere when it comes to the wishes of the people (or colonists as I prefer to call them). Now, where's that Union flag, so I can drape myself in it.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • DemonTree

    @Marcelo Kohen
    2. By 'security reasons', they mean they do not wish to depend on Argentina for flights as this gives Argentina power over them.
    3. Sure looking outside South America defies geography but if Argentina is blocking flights from South America then it is their only other option.

    @Think
    The customer base would be mostly tourists, not residents. But I agree the distance combined with small size may be an insurmountable problem.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • FRodriguez

    @Brit Bob
    Here you will find a proper analysis of the dispute.
    http://www.malvinas-falklands.net

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • The Voice

    Yeah, but that's a fairy story. And in the real world things aren't going to change. Hepatitis will fill you in, he's on a rolling 25 year time period that indexes a year every year. So change of ownership ain't gonna happen. Prepare for serial disappointment.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    FRodriguez

    Proper analysis of the dispute?

    Nootka Sound, Treaty of Amity , Inheritance From Spain – Uti Possidetis Juris already dismissed above.

    Argentina places great importance on UPJ - Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis. ( El Quali, Abdelhamid, Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)

    Consensual Nature of UPJ - Some Argentine commentators give the opinion that in the El
    Salvador/Honduras case the ICJ decided on its own, in the absence of the compromis to apply the uti possidetis juris. Not true -the actual ICJ judgment in the above case states, 'Both parties are agreed that the primary principle to be applied for the determination of the land frontier is the uti possidetis juris...' (El Salvador/Honduras Judgment p39, parta 40).

    In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only among the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the
    governing principles.133 ((Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p57, quoting Antonpoulos. C, 'the Principle of Uti Possidetis in Contemporary Law 1996).

    So UPJ can't be used in any so-called Falklands dispute.

    You got evidence with references or just fairy tales?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • EscoSesDoidao

    Do a UK/JoBurg/St Helena/Stanley shuttle, - Sorted.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    I see the photo-shop Prof has popped up. Still trying to promote that ridiculous book. Hard to sell it prof? Perhaps you should have tried the truth instead? And your junior partner too I see here. LOL Insufficient customers for that school essay? I did warn you.

    1. What dispute? Argentina opted to abandon talks and try trial by combat instead. The matter of sovereignty is settled. Takes 2 to tango, and we stopped dancing when you trod on our foot.
    2. Argentines are not much inclined to use common sense, so it's hardly surprising if the Islanders wish to look at other options. Including visas for Argentines. The islanders do not seek Argentine support; they would far prefer your indifference. While Argentina is incapable of acting as a serious country, the islanders must look elsewhere.
    3. The Islands are indeed in the South Atlantic - not in South America. There is a lot of Atlantic, and these days aircraft can criss-cross it without interference.

    I doubt anyone will blame the Islanders for looking at all their options. Comes from having an aggressive neighbour who wishes to colonize.

    As for that pamphlet of yours Doc - I suggest you try something larger, and with more detail (award winning too) :-)

    https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/

    ps. Glad to see you dropped the photo-shopping for the English version ..... but when a name sticks........ :-)

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • jlock

    Flights through Africa or Australia really? They are 4000 miles and 6000 miles from Mount Pleasant rather than 500 miles to Punta Arenas. It makes more sense to just fly around Argentine airspace if it even becomes a problem and not just baseless veiled threats which it is now. You don't have to support flights through Argentina to see how unfeasible and expensive flights from Africa or Australia would be. Just keep them coming from Chile, it works now and it doesn't seem to be under any real threat. There is no need to go out and waste more on finding a new route.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hepatia

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • gordo1

    Argentina will eventually realise its claims to sovereignty of the Falklands archipelago are totally futile - this will happen in the same time frame that Hepatitis uses!

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Marcos Alejandro

    First they invade our islands and then they complain that they are far away from home, bored and is difficult to fly anywhere. I am sure they are all emotional now after watching Pippa's wedding .

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Think

    :-)))

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • golfcronie

    Marcos, the FALKLANDS belong to the FALKLANDERS, you Argies are so head up your arse.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • The Voice

    Who is Pippa?

    Which islands?

    Who is bored?

    Who can't fly?

    Who is Marcos?

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Marcos- Invaded? - Invade is when you arrive and forcibly take somebody elses territory or homeland from them. Like your ancestors did in the 1600s in what later became today,s Argentina - didn't have much time for the indigenous folks who had lived there for centuries did they. Oh yes- they repeated it all again in the 1860s in Patagonia didn't they!

    I recall British forces arrived back again in the Falklands in 1833 - not shots were fired - to reclaim what had been British since 1765(before Argentina existed). No civilians forced out or forced to accept the change of rule - as you well know and is well documented in your own Arg naval records for 1833.

    Think you will find the definition of “invaded”- suits 2nd April 1982 instead.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Troneas

    right ok, i havent posted here in a while and thought this is a good moment to say it how it is - again.



    the problem here is that the colonial government of the islands is just so full of themselves and deluded to the point they think the world is desperately gagging for the opportunity to establish connections to these desolate, boring, and ordinary rocky islands with ghastly weather and inhabited by more sheep than people.


    to you, mr summers and ms cheek: get over yourselves - you are still there because 35 years ago the UK sent a task force aided by the US, Chile, and europe to salvage their unpopular government.


    direct flights from miami? london? paris? johannesburg? lol come back down to earth the best you can hope for is what you have now and you are lucky argentina allows your implanted population and chileans fly over its airspace.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse -9
  • Roger Lorton

    Argentina's revisionist historians have done the Argentine people no favours. Now they see history through warped spectacles. Enforced by the continuous policy of indoctrination; it is hardly surprising that they cannot see further than 1833. The same year that Spain repeated to the Americans, its own claim.

    Spain v Britain. Argentina was never on the field.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse +9
  • gordo1

    Marquitos Alejandrito

    Your juvenile whimpering brings nothing to the table as usual - even Kohen and Rodríguez, utterly deluded, warrant more attention.

    Posted 2 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Troneas
    The existing flights from Chile are oversubscribed in summer due to tourists, that is why they are looking for an additional flight.

    And lol at 'unpopular government'. Certainly one government was unpopular in 1982 and decided to start a war, but it wasn't the Falklands government!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Kanye

    DT

    Good post!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Terence Hill

    Marcelo Kohen
    “The refusal to settle the sovereignty dispute” Is disingenuous of you since the issue is purely a legal one that prohibits the UK from any other action.
    “The only public commercial airline route to the Falkland Islands … there have been past threats from Argentina to stop it using their airspace.”
    Perhaps Argentina should abide by the treaties that she is signatory to.
    Chicago Convention which she signed on 4 June 1946. Also known as:
    The International Air Services Transit Agreement, 1944
    containing what has come to be known as “The Two Freedoms” :-
    1) The privilege to fly across the territory of a state without landing;
    2) The privilege to land for non-traffic purposes;which she signed on 4 June 1946

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marcelo Kohen

    Mr Hill, I have already answered the question of the 1944 Chicago Convention in the Penguin News some months ago: ”Last week in this section, Eric Goss and others referred to the “freedoms of the air” of the International Civil Aviation Convention and were astonished that the UK did not raise this issue against Argentina. They forgot a basic point: the sovereignty dispute, and the fact that the States concerned (Brazil, Uruguay) recognise Argentine sovereignty. This is the reason why the matter is not raised by the UK before ICAO. MLAs are aware that without Argentine consent there is no possibility of flight connections between the islands and South America. There is also a discussion whether it would be better a Sao Paulo or a Montevideo flight. There is no doubt that, strictly geographically and economically speaking, the simplest and most suitable air hub connecting the islands with the rest of the world is Buenos Aires. Maybe another approach to the question is possible.”

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Terence Hill

    Marcelo Kohen
    The “alleged sovereignty” issue integrity“ predates UN law and therefore cannot be applied to a retroactive claim.
    ”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
    The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jenningsa Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
    paragraph 80 of the ICJ Kosovo Advisory Opinion that states, 'the scope for the principle for territorial integrity is limited to the relationship between individual States and does not impinge on the right to self-determination and independence.'
    What is legally binding is the views of nations of 1833 then, not one nation supported Argentina's claim their “silence” is indicative of support for the UK. Any change of opinion post 1945 is merely a none-binding political vox populi decision. As legally they are estopped from claiming later a different position. 'Allegans contraria non est audiendus (Jenk. Cent. 16): “He is not to be heard who alleges things contradictory to each other.” This elementary rule of logic expresses, in technical language, the saying that a man shall not be permitted to “blow hot and cold” with reference to the same transaction, or insist, at different times, on the truth of each of two conflicting allegations, according to the promptings of his private interest. Says the Satyr, if you have gotten a trick of blowing hot and cold out of the same mouth, I've e'en done“ with ye.' en.wikiquote.org/wiki
    How ever you want characterize it. Argentina is still in violation of International Civil Aviation Convention.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Brit Bob

    Marcelo Kohen

    'They forgot a basic point: the sovereignty dispute, and the fact that the States concerned (Brazil, Uruguay) recognise Argentine sovereignty.'

    Then you can mention one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before an international court - otherwise the claim is illegitimate.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Think

    TWIMC

    I can find plenty “legal aspects that Argentina has to put before an international court” here...:
    http://www.malvinas-falklands.net

    (So can anybody that can read...)

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    I can find those debunked here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/falklands-history.pdf

    Kohen's book is amusing more for what it omits. No mention of the 1811 claim by Spain to just ONE island. No mention even of Argentina's 1816 declaration of independence. Why? They stand as 'inconvenient facts.

    He does the same with international law. Kohen distorts.

    The ICJ has clearly stated that the right of self-determination applies to ALL the NSGTs - this he knows. (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.)

    The UK does not complain to the ICAO for the simple reason that it would merely provide Argentina with another forum to regurgitate it sovereignty nonsense, without there being any realistic chance that Argentina would go on to acknowledge its international commitments. Unlike Argentina we know when to stop banging our heads against a brick wall.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “legal ..international court”
    According to MK without any supporting citation.
    “The new states inherited the territory .., on the basis of the administrative divisions existing in 1810.”
    The Spaniards were not in sole possession of the Islands. They were further barred from allowing Argentina to any claim under Utrecht Article VIII.
    “.. it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his ...whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
    Whereas Uti possidetis iuris was at best not applied until 1848.
    “Although it is often stated that the uti possidetis principal was proclaimed by the newly independent republics, in fact very few constitutions actually used the expression uti possidetis.31 Of forty-three constitutions examined from the period 1811 to 1850. only one one mentioned the uti possidetis principle. … It has also been stated that the uti possidetis of 1810 was proclaimed by the Congress at Lima in 1848,49 but the statement appears not to be altogether accurate.“

    ”Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis By Suzanne Lalonde
    Suzanne Lalonde is a professor of international law at the Law Faculty of the University of Montreal and a researcher associated with the ArcticNet network in Canada and the Geopolitics in the High North programme in Norway. She holds a PhD in publicinternational law from the University of Cambridge, King's College (1997).
    http://www.ecologic.eu/sites/files/event/2013/Suzanne_Lalonde_EN.pdf

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Funny you should mention UPJ Terence ..... an agreement between states regarding their borders. Nothing more. Manuel Moreno completely failed to mention the term in his protests to Britain in 1833 and 1834. Or indeed, ever. Argentina only sent minor officials to the 1848 Lima conference as Rosas didn't want to sign up to anything that might have restricted a further attempt to grab the Banda Oriental - or Paraguay.

    Kohen and his lackey claim that UPJ is a recognised principle of international law. So recognised that the ICJ will not consider it unless the parties to any action either agree that it may be considered beforehand; or one or more have previously relied upon the notion.

    UPJ is about boundaries - if it had been about inheritance, the benefactor would have signed. Apparently, Spain wasn't even asked.

    Nice quote by the way - I may steal :-)

    Talking of Spain, nobody seems to remember that after 1809, Britain was Spain's new best friend. Old differences put aside. I suppose that Kohen & Rodriguez will now further backdate Argentina's independence to 1808.

    :-)))

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Terence Hill

    Roger Lorton
    “I may steal :-)”
    Knock yourself out, you’re more than welcome.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    Ahh, the British, talking about Argentine independence dates (of which they have absolutely no legal or historical no place to issue verdict on), meanwhile they are well on their way to their second BOTCHED election in the same calendar year.

    First it was Camoron and his ignominious Brexit vote for purely personal politics which has set the UK on the trade winds of disaster.

    Now it is Theresa Way that (as I predicted months ago), is on the way for the second disaster, just for petty personal politics. As I predicted in April, her insormountable lead has just about been surmounted. And when the new parliament is more gridlocked than ever, she will walk out on the EU talks, claim Britannia rules the waves again, invade the Andaman Islands (about the only islands left inhabited by stick and stone Peoples, which is how the UK nefariously built their empire), and then have her economy choke when 40% of the trade her country does in the world, and up to 6 million jobs, go back to WTO rules... hahahaha.

    Who would have thought, the UK becoming the new basket case of World economics, with what Argentina now getting praised everywhere from WSJ to Forbes, to Fortune... and where is that imbecile Yankeeboy when we need an yankee, or imbecile (same thing): Argentina is getting its upgrade from frontier market to full emerging market, jumping two spots skipping the secondary emerging market step. That ranking was so dear to his heart after all.

    I think the country taking Argentina's place in the Frontier Index is the USA, that's what the rumor says. Once Trump gets his tariff program online.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    “Argentina now getting praised everywhere ...” LOL Really? And what has that actually produced, so far ............ exactly?

    Argentina is a basket case, not because of its potential but because of the Argentine people. Been fighting amongst themselves since 1810. Still fighting each other.

    I have no idea how Brexit will go, but this I am confident of - Britain will always remain way, way above Argentina. We don't fight amongst ourselves as much as we we fight everyone else.

    The future is looking bright

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Capt Rockhopper

    At Marcelo Kohen, I am still waiting for you to explain why Argentine human rights outweigh those of the islanders. I fact I would like you to explain how you being only a second generation Argentine have more rights than islanders who are 8th generation islanders. You are neither a native Argentine nor an indigenous south American. To be a native of anywhere dear boy one must be third generation at least.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Brit Bob

    Think
    Using Kohen's link, mention one legal aspect that Argentina has to put before an international court?

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • gordo1

    AustrOllOpithecus

    Are you just recounting your most recent dream? Any remark which promotes Argentina is just plain silly!

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • AustrOllOpithecus

    Roger Lorton talks about infighting (any idea what is he going on about there?), when his own country is Exhibit 1 about intra-national infighting in the world at the moment. Or is the UK one big happy family?

    Only a Brit could say what he say with a straight face (but crooked teeth obviously).

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    What would a Southern Ape know about teeth ?

    We are one big, happy, family. Scotland voted to remain remember (actually annexed in 1707) and Wales didn't get the option. Northern Ireland to join Eire? LOL Hell would freeze over first. Cornwall could get a bit stroppy I suppose; but nothing a decent cider won't sort out.

    That's why it's called the 'United' Kingdom.

    :-)

    Posted 22 hours ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • darragh

    What's up Austro?

    After Frod and Ko got trashed you're not trying to change the subject are you?

    Posted 19 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • gordo1

    AustrOllOpithecus

    You clearly haven't a clue about the British. We beat shit out of each other on the rugby pitches and disagree with each other about politics but when “push comes to shove” we are the UNITED Kiingdom - united against all comers and that includes Argentina!

    Posted 18 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • portman

    setting aside the troubles for one moment, which will not be resolved in this thread, we will need to see if any commercial airlines are interested and at what price in response to the actively seeking exercise fig has signalled it has begun. all accident and emergency flights avoiding south americal will no doubt add to the cost. actively seeking has not yet been extended to all shipping links including the current containerised service avoiding south america - but watch this space!

    Posted 16 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Terry...
    ”Whereas Uti possidetis iuris was at best not applied until 1848.:

    What on earth are dribbling on about...?
    Uti possidetis iuris is a principle in Customary international law ..
    It cannot be back dated or forward dated it's a one time affair and that refers to the date of independence not some time in the future...it isn't a declaration...

    Posted 11 hours ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “What on earth ...? Uti possidetis … international law”
    Well you’ll have to tell Suzanne Lalonde a professor of international law at the University of Montreal she’s wrong. Of course if you could prove it, unfortunately your personal opinion counts for nothing.

    Posted 9 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    “Uti possidetis iuris is a principle in Customary international law...”

    So “customary” that the ICJ will not consider it unless a) the parties to an action agree that the principle is relevant and can be considered; or b) one of the parties has accepted or relied upon the principle before.

    Not much use as a custom then is it? Bit like chasing cheeses rolling down a hill. Custom ! Hah!

    :-)

    Posted 8 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    Terry me ole son...

    You just don’t understand what you are reading…she is merely establishing that Uti Possidetis is a datum and that different Republics like Peru wanted different start dates for the principle due to their own boundary changes through war etc. in determining their boundaries…
    This bears no relevance to Argentine claim of the administrative area of Buenos Aires that included the Falklands…

    BTW..The Congress of Lima 1848 Article 7 of the final version of the treaty, signed on 8 February 1848, stated” “The Confederated Republics declare their right to keep the boundaries of their territories as they existed at he time of the independence from Spain of the respective Viceroyalties, Captaincies-general or Presidencies, into which Spanish America was divided”
    Uti Possidetis principle by any other name…
    Same source as yourself…

    Perhaps you should actually read her book instead of part quoting the bits you like…

    Roger...
    Don't state...without links...
    Like I'm going to trust your unbiased statements...

    Posted 7 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “that included the Falklands…” You like Argentina claim much, but if there is no recognition then it’s an empty claim. First, it has to be recognized by at least two parties. Secondly, it has to have a starting date. Since at the very earliest possibility is 1848. The the UK has effectively controlled the Islands since 1832. It could not be claimed, as it is a claim of retroactive right which is barred under international law.
    ”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
    The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jenningsa Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994

    Posted 4 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    What you trust, or not, is of no concern to me Voice. I talk of facts. Which is why Argentina has always refused to go to the ICJ. You don't wish to believe? Up to you. I'm past caring.

    Go learn Voice

    Posted 1 hour ago - Link - Report abuse 0

Please log in or register (it’s free!) to comment.