MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 26th 2018 - 14:56 UTC

UN C24 calls for negotiations over Falkland Islands sovereignty between Argentina, UK yet again

Saturday, June 24th 2017 - 01:53 UTC
Full article 135 comments

President Mauricio Macri's administration Friday renewed Argentina's case before the United Nations' Decolonization Committee in New York to bring the United Kingdom to discuss sovereignty over the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and their surrounding maritime spaces. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • jlock

    Cue a flood of angry comments from British guys and one guy posting a link to some “academic article” he wrote himself

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Hepatia

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse -10
  • gordo1

    The usual “mierda” from Gaucholand - just a waste of time!

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    Massive deja vu ...................... 29 times over

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 05:16 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • LEPRecon

    The C24 once again shows its irrelevance by issuing a proclamation which is outside it's remit.

    The mission of the C24 is to assist NSGT's to INDEPENDENCE or to another situation that the PEOPLE of those territories want. It is NOT the mission of the C24 to interfere or to hand any territory over to a power that the PEOPLE of those territories don't want.

    C24 = irrelevant.

    Argentina's insistence at once again crawling to this no nothing, no power committee shows that:

    a. Argentina is desperate
    b. Argentina has NO sovereignty case...otherwise Argentina would be going to the International Courts of Justice...the ONLY ones who could order a change of sovereignty.

    And all those Argentine trolls will now be getting a 'hard on' because some powerless nobodies have once again gone outside their remit to support Argentina's illegal and spurious claims against the Falkland Islanders.

    And no ONE of the recommendations (because that's all the C24 can make...they can't make resolutions) have EVER passed the 4th Committee, let alone come anywhere near the UN General Assembly.

    And the Argentine trolls actually think that something has been achieved!

    Well it has...the Argentine government has placated these idiots for yet another year...and they're still no closer to sovereignty of the islands than they were in 1965.

    All that effort and Argentine taxpayers money spent to produce NOTHING yet again. You all must be really proud.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • gordo1

    LEPRecorn

    Congratulations - an outstanding post!

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Jedi389

    Next week Argentina will return their lands to the indigenous people.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_in_Argentina#/media/File%3AAborigenesDistribucion.jpg

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • darragh

    And not only that but the Argentine delegation pointed out that the trip to NY had been a huge success as most of the stores on Fifth Avenue are having buy one get one for free (b.o.g.o.f.f.) offers.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    Ser idiota argentino es cometer la misma boludez una vez tras otra, sólo por placer y diversión, y esperar resultados diferentes.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • golfcronie

    Well,well what an excellent result for Argentina yet again.Let's hope the Argies talk to the FALKLANDERS and the FALKLANDERS tell them to fuck off.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • MaryJane Attorney

    The discussion in the United Nations Committee is on Sovereignty. It is not about “self-determination”. The principle of self-determination, like any principle, is not absolute, when it violates the territorial integrity of existing States, as in the case of Argentina with respect to the islands. Argentina became independent in 1816, the islands since Spanish possession were a dependency of Buenos Aires. To finally end with this question the legitimate titles of possession must be shown. To end once and for all with such a case that is only used to exacerbate the nationalistic spirit, especially when there are elections. This maneuver is called POPULISM.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Terence Hill

    MaryJane Attorney
    “self-determination, like any principle, is not absolute, when it violates the territorial integrity of existing States”
    Argentina is barred from using ”territorial integrity“ as an argument. As it is a post UN law and cannot be applied retroactively.
    ”...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 Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
    “The islands since Spanish possession were a dependency of Buenos Aires” No they weren’t as is shown in the following: Lord Palmerston on 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said: “… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.”
    “To finally end with this question the legitimate titles of possession must be shown.
    “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.” ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins. Falklands and the Law, Observer, 2 May 1982

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Roger Lorton

    Argentina has never possessed the Falklands Mary-Jane, nor ever had any right to them. Territorial integrity is therefore inapplicable.

    Self-determination is the only factor.

    I should also add that resolution 1514 was not retrospective/retroactive. And is only applicable to cases after 1960.

    Go learn some law.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • golfcronie

    Mary-Jane, you have been indoctrinated since birth , what would you know. SELF -DETERMINATION is paramount in this context.THE FALKLANDERS have spoken, they wish to be a British Overseas Territory so be it. No amount of dialogue will change that until the FALKLANDERS wish it so.You can go back a thousand years and you will get the same result, the FALKLANDERS want nothing to do with Argentina and why would they?

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • gordo1

    Mary Jane Attorney

    Surely the United Nations' Decolonisation Committee is concerned with “decolonisation” not with sovereignty. Sovereignty has always been vested in the UK never in Argentina.

    Therefore, for Argentina to utilise this committee to further its “sovereignty” claim is useless. It should take its claim to the International Court of Justice.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • MaryJane Attorney

    All of you;
    That Great Britain has not accepted the territorial claims of Buenos Aires does not mean that they do not have such rights. Great Britain retired completely from the islands in 1774, by an agreement made with Spain, after the restitution of the settlement in Port Egmont.
    However, when Spain left the islands in 1810, and Britain at that time did not own them, did not administer them, did not govern them, the islands remained “Res Nullius” and were legally owned by Argentina and governed until 1833.
    It was also public knowledge of the takeover of Argentina, and the United Kingdom did not object at the time, even recognized the Independence of Argentina in 1824 and signed a Treaty of friendship, trade and navigation, in which neither objected.
    On the other hand, the expulsion of the government and the inhabitants was done by the use of force, justifying with this act the null possession of sovereign titles by Great Britain.
    By the way, the entire international community,(except Canada & “familiar” States with the United Kingdom), strongly support the Argentine position, also the whole region, Including the entire region and the Decolonization Committee.
    The case of Falklands/Malvinas in the C24 is framed within the following exception that says ”A dispute exists between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great
    Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas). ”
    Within this framework C24 calls on both nations to negotiate sovereignty. And it is the Committee that does not recognize the right of self-determination to the inhabitants of the islands. Nor did he accept the referendum. I estimate that by recommendation this will pass to the General Assembly (setting a precedent) and finally to the ICJ.

    Jun 24th, 2017 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Terence Hill

    MaryJane Attorney
    You may not want to accept the confirmed legal sovereignty of the Islands. By the way, 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.
    “Customary international law; Silence as consent;
    Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern...
    “Within this framework C24 calls on both nations to negotiate sovereignty. And it is the Committee that does not recognize the right of self-determination to the inhabitants of the islands” To bad, since they are not invested with any legal authority. In fact, since the UK does hold the sovereignty and is in complete compliance with international law. “There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
    “To discuss sovereignty over the Falkland, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and their surrounding maritime spaces.” Since Argentina refused an offer on three occasions to use the ICJ over all territories, but the Falklands. If I was the UK I’d tell them to go and fly the proverbial kite.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Marti Llazo

    Argentina's claim to “territorial integrity” including the Falklands prior to 1833 is wholly without merit. Prior to that date, just about everything south of the middle of Bs As province was disputed territory, i.e., not an integral part of the country. In fact, much of Argentina's southern frontier areas were not even established until the 20th century. Until the 1880s, Argentina considered much of the area south of Bs As province (as well as areas elsewhere within its current boundaries) as “indominable” indigenous territories that were not a part of the nation of Argentina. These southern territories, which included the unpopulated Falklands, could not be considered any sort of “integral” part of the country nor can Argentina allege “territorial integrity” in 1833. The absence of any valid claim to territorial integrity allows for the United Nations to accept the premise of self determination by a long-standing population.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Terence Hill

    MaryJane Attorney
    Western Sahara, ICJ October 16th, 1975
    “… the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
    Judge Dillard, in his explanation, adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • MaryJane Attorney

    Territorial Integrity refers to all air, sea and land territories that depend on an established State.
    The islands from the legitimate Spanish possession, (possession which Britain recognized, otherwise would never have withdrawn from the islands, would never have allowed the Spanish administration), belonged to the Viceroyalty of the River of the Silver and are administered from Buenos Aires. All the “Royal Orders” that concern the islands were sent from Buenos Aires - Malvinas - Spain. Later the May Revolution took place in the Viceroyalty (continue taking into account the territory that comprised said Viceroyalty) and in 1816 the Argentine Nation was born and its territories were taken in possession by that State. The title of Uti Possidettis iure is the title of sovereignty of all Latin American states independent of Spain, a title that gives the right to inherit all the lands possessed so far by the colonizing power.
    Title that the ICJ will take into account. In addition to the Title of Res Nullius.
    The International Community does support Argentina. OAS, MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC, IBEROAMERICAN SUMMITS, ARAB COUNTRIES, G77 + CHINA, RUSSIA.
    The United Kingdom has the support of the EU “for the moment”. In addition Spain has a territorial dispute with the United Kingdom, I doubt that it supports.
    On the other hand the C24 specialized in decolonization, is who does not recognize the right of self-determination. (Because he does not consider them as a people. “People” in reference to the definition in International Law). It only calls for the resumption of sovereignty negotiations and respect for interests (not desires). Everything is very explicit in the opinions. And the negotiations that were carried out, were based on these premises.
    Also, do not trust so much, you saw the setback you had in the General Assembly this week, for another territorial dispute...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse -12
  • Terence Hill

    MaryJane Attorney
    “Territorial Integrity refers” to post 1945 international law. Which a former president of the ICJ clearly indicates Argentina is barred from any reliance on it.
    “The title of Uti Possidettis iure is the title of sovereignty of all Latin American states independent of Spain,” No it’s not it was for settling the boundaries only.
    Uti Possidettis iure is unattainable as the UK was not a signatory and it was not formally acknowledged prior to 1848. So it couldn’t be applied retroactively.
    “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
    “C24 … who does not recognize the right of self-determination.” Unfortunately they are out-ranked by the UN Charter and by at least four ICJ rulings to the contrary. Kosovo, East Timor, Western Sahara and South West Africa.
    As for what ever the international community wants has legal bearing what so ever as they have no legal standing. Regardless, what about OAS Charter Article 3,11,12,13,19 and 20? Or “the preamble to UNASUR’s charter asserts “unlimited respect” for state sovereignty”? Or CELAC’s “commitment of member countries with the Purposes and Principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter and International Law“?
    Also, do not trust so much, the UNGA as they are not empowered with any authority under international law.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marti Llazo

    Territorial integrity does not apply to the Falklands since the islands were not an integral part of Argentina prior to 1833, just as the land to the south of present-day Bs As province was not an integral part of what later became known as Argentina (such territory was later divided between Chile and Argentina and it was not until the beginning of the 20th century that the divisions were recognised. Territory distributed in this manner cannot be considered to have been “integral” to one country or the other prior to the two countries' negotiations concerning the division. In failing to qualify the islands as integral territory prior to 1833, Argentina is obliged by the UN precepts to accept self-determination.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Just Mary

    Britain definitely has no title of sovereignty over the islands (would be simply to expose them and end this dispute).
    UK “seizes” the right of “self-determination” that the Committee rejects, as rejected the illegal referendum, which was not endorsed by the C24. That the United Kingdom is not a signatory of 'Uti Podsidettis iures' does not mean that the title has no value. The islands were territorialy part of the Viceroyalty, they were administered from Buenos Aires. Territorial “connectivity” is not the same as territorial integrity.
    With regard to the question of Chile and Argentina, both countries agreed on new limits, signed by consensus, avoided a war, then Pinochet (another Fascist) helped Thatcher with the War for mutual benefit, but now, with healed wounds, Chile supports Argentina for the Malvinas issue. In fact, Chile submitted the draft resolution to the United Nations.
    Argentina has legal titles of sovereignty, and can defend her position perfectly, if the United Kingdom has better must show them. In addition the region is committed to the cause, and rejects the British territorial colonialism. This means that the islands depends on Argentina for access to the region. The region rejects the territorial colonialism of the United Kingdom. For now the only thing UK can get is to employ a few Latinos who need money for their “support” in exchange, nothing else. That is the only support they will have. Because the States are committed to Argentina. Diplomatically they will not get anything in Latin America. They have already requested to enter diplomatically and were rejected. Not easy.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse -10
  • Roger Lorton

    Just Mary appears to know as little as the other Mary. Britain's titles to the Falkland pre-date Argentina's very existence. There was a dispute between Spain and Britain but that was resolved in Britain's favour in 1833. Spain did not pursue the matter after that.

    Argentina had no involvement in that, inherited no rights, and Uti Possidetis Juris is quite irrelevant - merely being an agreement between South American states as to their borders.

    What the region accepts or rejects is also totally meaningless.

    At the UN the C24 has listened for 2017; but undoubtedly not heard. If this year goes as previous years, the C24 will eventually put together a report in which they DO NOT recommend their Falklands resolution for adoption and the matter will be dropped at the Fourth Committee hearing in Oct/Nov.

    Same old pantomime.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • Just Mary

    Roger Lorton I use both names. Do you have any problem? Mary is Mary! OMG
    “There was a dispute between Spain and Britain but that was resolved in Britain's favour in 1833. Spain did not pursue the matter after that”.
    Spain didnt pursue the matter after that because Argentine Independence was in 1816 and Britan recognizes in 1824. Argentine took legal possession of the so called “Viceroyalty of the River Plate” territory (the island were part of the Viceroyalty) and administrated them until British usurpation in 1833.
    The pretensions of Great Britain (since Cook's recommendation) are not a title of sovereignty. Pretending is not the same as having rights over a territory. That is why Great Britain expelled by force the inhabitants of the islands under the Argentine sovereignty.
    Uti Possidetis iure is a legal title, That Great Britain does not recognize it does not mean that it is not valid. In fact, all the Latin American states make use of the same title and base their rights of sovereignty on these title. In addition, after the Spanish abandonment of the islands, and without any other State claiming another right at that moment on sovereignty, Argentina took legal possession. Therefore it is also backed by the Res Nullius title.

    “What the region accepts or rejects is also totally meaningless” so why they are begging to Argentina for more flights or cooperation? The region rejects british territory colonization.
    What for you is a pantomime downthere is a headache.
    If Britain has titles must show them and end the dispute.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse -9
  • gordo1

    Just Mary

    But Spain did not recognise the independence of Argentina until 1863 when a Treaty of Peace and Amity was signed and thus established diplomatic relations between the two nations.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse +7
  • golfcronie

    Mary, SELF-DETERMINATION is the key here, what happened 200 years ago is irrelevant, it is what is happening NOW that is important. The Argentine will never hold title to the FALKLANDS no matter what. Tell me why does Argentina not go to the ICJ to clear the issue. If I don't hear an answer I know that you do not know. The person that owns property does not seek to see if he owns it or not. It is up to the seeker of said property to seek a solution.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Terence Hill

    Just Mary
    “The Committee rejects, as rejected the illegal referendum, which was not endorsed by the C24.” Is acting ultra vires, since it has no authority to reject essential components of international law. Namely the UN Charter and subsequent ICJ rulings on this very issue.
    “Argentina has legal titles of sovereignty,” No she doesn’t.
    The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
    “...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors 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.”
    The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
    “The only thing UK can get is the is” the absolute unrefutable legal sovereignty. Which is permanent, and not reliant on the variances and uncertainties of politics.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • darragh

    Is it just me or does (In)Just Mary sound an awful lot like a certain Marcel Kohen??

    Anyway who cares what did or didn't happen 200 years ago. We are now in the 21st century time for Argentina to grow up.

    The only thing that is relevant is the wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves.

    If Argentina doesn't like it, as has been said several thousand times on here, take it to the ICJ.

    Oh by the way Marcel when making reference to the UN you might want to take into account the statement by the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon on Wednesday May 19th 2010 when speaking at a forum on de-colonization in Noumea, New Caledonia -

    “The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status”

    He didn’t say “with the exception of the people of the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar’

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Roger Lorton

    The date of Argentina independence is moot Just Mary. It was declared in 1816. When it was 'attained' however would be at the earliest 1825 and the latest, 1863, depending on the criteria applied. Nothing was recognised in 1824 and the 1825 treaty was purely commercial - as we assured Spain.

    Argentina is irrelevant.

    Spain had not dropped its claim to East Falkland island - the ONLY island it claimed in 1811. Argentina had not 'legitimately' or otherwise, taken over Spain's claim. Indeed Spain confirmed its claim to the USA in October 1833. It just did not complain to England.

    Uti possidetis juris is a series of agreements founded after 1839 and has no applicability to the Falklands. That Britain rejects it is entirely relevant as Argentina cannot rely upon it at the ICJ/PCA without Britain's acceptance.

    No 'inhabitants' were expelled in 1833. Just a trespassing garrison from BA which had been warned in 1829 and 1832.

    And no, while the Islanders (some) would like another flight they do not wish it to go anywhere near Argentina. there is certainly no 'begging.'

    You need to learn a lot more. May I suggest - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/

    Better you learn, before you spout old Argie propaganda.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Just Mary

    Self-determination does not apply in the case of the Falklands. Argentina has well-founded arguments, and therefore receives the full support of the C24 specialized agency, created by the United Nations. In the resolutions, it requests both nations to resume negotiations for sovereignty, taking into account INTERESTS (not desires). Interests and wishes are not the same in international law. The recognition of Spain, arrived after the recognition of the United States and Great Britain, countries that did not object in due time the Argentine possession of the islands. In this case Spain was the colonizing power, its belated recognition does not take away any territorial right to Argentina, nor does it remove the right to any Latin American country that holds the same title. And Roger if everything is “irrelevant” as you say, should show better possession titles and end the eternal dispute. Parliament should be asked to bring this dispute to the ICJ. And finally finish. Otherwise the islands are unfeasible, an unsustainable whim. While the NHS needs millions of pounds per week and it does not have them.
    You have to “read and learn” from whom? from you? A vile servant of the Majesty? That I do not repeat your arguments, does not mean that I do not know about the matter. And yes, I have read the arguments that were used historically, FCO papers, and also historical records that can not be erased, although some would prefer, I have read from both sides, and Argentina has better legal support regarding this controversy.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • gordo1

    Just Mary

    You really an obstinate lady. Your arguments are false and you have no proof to present. The Argentine claims to sovereignty of the Falklands archipelago are nothing more than baseless aspirations, lies, myths, fairy stories and misinterpretations of historical events and, of course, brainwashing by the authorities.

    Kindly enlighten us with an explication for the alleged connection there might be between the NHS and the BRITISH Falkland Islands?

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    Argentina has no case, and no desire to have its vacuous and flatulent imaginings exposed in court.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Just Mary

    Oh ... Roger... almost forgot. In the islands there were inhabitants, they were gauchos, natives, Creoles, Europeans, living peacefully and trying to carry on to the islands.
    The same family of Mr. Vernet left writings on the situation of the islands, the daily life, the administration, the signed permissions, etc. Papers of important value, ancient, that prove just what you deny.
    It is worth remembering what happened with Gaucho Rivero, one of the many that remained in the islands to carry out forced labor, forced labor that were carried out the British company. Since the settlers did not have labor hands. Then... the guys like you, call a man “Beast”, a man who killed to defend himself from the abuses suffered and free himself. A man who did not recognize the sovereign British, and it is a fact.
    I will be stubborn, like a few of you who live from a lie, to keep a whim.
    The UK should invest the pounds in NHS instead of sustaining the millionaire defense of a colony, whereas Britain suffers important needs, even in security matters. Where hundreds of innocents are dying every year, for terrorism. Where are the eyes of the British people?

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • darragh

    Marcel (Bloody Mary) or whatever your name is I will repeat my previous statement as you seem to have ignored it.

    When making reference to the UN you might want to take into account the statement by the UN Secretary General Ban-Ki-Moon on Wednesday May 19th 2010 when speaking at a forum on de-colonization in Noumea, New Caledonia -

    “The world’s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status”

    He didn’t say “with the exception of the people of the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar’

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says

    By the way your comments about Rivera are hilarious try doing a bit of research about this 'hero'

    ‘When he was about 20 years old, he was taken to the Falkland Islands by Luis Vernet, to work as a gaucho. Conditions of employment caused discontent among Vernet's workers. They were paid with promissory notes which Matthew Brisbane, Vernet's deputy, devalued following the reduction in Vernet's fortunes. On 26 August 1833, five Indian convicts and three gauchos led by Rivero embarked on a killing spree which resulted in the deaths of Brisbane and the senior leaders of the settlement. Thomas Helsby, a clerk in the employ of Vernet, wrote an account of the murders …Subsequently, Rivero has acquired the status of a folk hero in Argentina, where he is portrayed as leading a rebellion against British rule. However, all five of the victims of the massacre were employees of Vernet’.

    http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says

    Some hero!!!

    Also who are these 'hundreds' dying from terrorism every year? There have been deaths caused by terrorism but 'hundreds dying every year' - do get a grip of your imagination. However many have died as a result of terrorism in the UK it is nowhere near as many as died in 1982 because of Argentine terrorism

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Terence Hill

    Just Mary
    “Self-determination does not apply in the case of the Falklands. Unfortunately your opinion is over-ruled by the UN Charter and by at least four ICJ rulings to the contrary. Kosovo, East Timor, Western Sahara and South West Africa.
    Judge Dillard, “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
    “As ...Dame Rosalyn Higgins, former President of the Court, ... noted, the Court was the forerunner in recognizing self-determination as a legal right. ... The erga omnes character of this right in the framework of the decolonization process has been acknowledged and emphasized several times in the jurisprudence of the Court,”
    Self-Determination through the Lens of the International Court of Justice, Gentian Zyberi
    Whereas, C24 is a UN sub-sub committee with advisory powers subject to oversight restraint.
    “Parliament should be asked to bring this dispute to the ICJ”
    “..Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision …In 1977, Argentina, having accepted ...arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
    http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
    “Argentina has better legal support regarding this controversy.” Absolute sophistry.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • darragh

    Apologies to all.

    The second link in my previous post should be:-

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Rivero

    I forgot MP's peculiar admin of multiple links....

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Just Mary

    Self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islands, as expressed by the UN Committee. In addition to tirelessly repeat that this right does not apply to the islands.
    The Committee rejected the “self-referendum” that they carried out down there without consent, and without the observation of this organism. It was an event to exacerbate the British nationalistic spirit, based on PROPAGANDA.
    In addition the C24 considers that it is a particular case of TERRITORIAL colonialism. And the british who are there carry on such colonialism.
    You can divert the conversation to the “self-determination” side because it is the only thing that justifies your stay in the islands.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • gordo1

    Just Mary

    “Self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islands, as expressed by the UN Committee. In addition to tirelessly repeat that this right does not apply to the islands”

    Your statement contradicts the statement of the former Secretary General of the UN Ban Ki-moon viz The world“s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a forum on decolonization today.

    ”Our common challenge remains the full implementation of the Declaration,“ he told the three-day Seminar in Noumea, New Caledonia, referring to the General Assembly” landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which this year marks its 50th anniversary.

    “I urge all involved to undertake fresh and creative efforts toward this end. In particular, I encourage the administering Powers to work with the [UN”s] Special Committee [on decolonization] and the people in the Territories under their administration towards a genuine and action-oriented dialogue,“ he said in a message delivered by Laura Vaccari of the UN Department of Political Affairs.

    ”It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.”

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Just Mary

    “I urge all involved to undertake fresh and creative efforts toward this end. In particular, I encourage the administering Powers to work with the [UN”s] Special Committee [on decolonization] and the people in the Territories under their administration towards a genuine and action-oriented dialogue,“
    “Dialogue” that the UK refuses to have, and “Complete freedom” that the United Kingdom will refuse to give, because it would lose its pretensions in Antarctica. Therefore the British on the islands are the tool and the excuse to cover such claims. But when it comes time to “activate” the Antarctic Treaty, United Kingdom must have resolved the sovereignty dispute with Argentina. Otherwise they can not enforce that right because Argentina and the United Kingdom are both part of the Antarctic Treaty. So there must be, (there are two options); A good negotiation that benefits both parties, or resolve it definitively in the ICJ.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • HughJuanCoeurs

    @Just Mary. Any time that you think that Argentina has a case that will stand up in front of the ICJ then I suggest that you go right ahead and petition them to adjudicate... What's that? A resounding silence from the rabid Malvinistas? Could this be because they know which way the result would go? That might explain why Argentina has taken no meaningful action apart from whining like a spoiled child who can't have what isn't theirs.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Voice

    Mary Mary you are quite the contrary one....;-)

    Now don't be doing a Terry Hill and part quote something to infer that it means something else...

    “Our common challenge remains the full implementation of the Declaration. I urge all involved to undertake fresh and creative efforts toward this end. In particular, I encourage the administering Powers to work with the Special Committee and the people in the Territories under their administration towards a genuine and action-oriented dialogue. It is essential for the people concerned to understand the options regarding their political status and to be able to exercise their right to freely choose their future.

    I look forward to working with you to complete the process of decolonization on a case-by-case basis. Please accept my best wishes for a productive and successful seminar.”

    Stick to facts...there are enough about to state your case...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Just Mary

    Argentina is not the “administering power”.
    The British on the islands are just a necessary tool for the UK to have “access” to the Antarctic, therefore, all that they manifest later on the law of nations is hypocritical, because the wishes and pretensions of the United Kingdom are other , opposed to these rights, and was evidenced in the General Assembly with a clear example; United Kingdom is not interested in, nor respects the rights of peoples. When he said that when he “finished using the islands, he would return them” to the Chagosians.
    Therefore, it is a modus operandi, quite basic, understood and known all over the world. The British on the islands, are only functional to the territorial claims of the United Kingdom.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • gordo1

    Just Mary

    I repeat:

    “The world“s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a forum on decolonization today.”

    Nothing could be clearer than that statement which you seem not to acknowledge!

    The extract from his remarks that you take from my post concerns decolonisation NOT denial of the rights of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own destiny.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Just Mary
    “Self-determination does not apply to the Falkland Islands,...” Unfortunately their opinion is over-ruled by the UN Charter and by at least four ICJ rulings to the contrary. Kosovo, East Timor, Western Sahara and South West Africa.
    “Rosalyn Higgins, former President of the Court, …in the South-West Africa (Namibia) and Western Sahara cases,… Higgin’s noted, the Court was the forerunner in recognizing self-determination as a legal right. At present, the right of peoples to self-determination is widely seen as a collective human right. …”
    “The Committee rejected the “self-referendum.” Then the committee is in breach of their statuary obligation.
    “… (Higgins)THE ERGA OMNES CHARACTER OF THIS RIGHT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DECOLONIZATION PROCESS has been acknowledged and emphasized several times in the jurisprudence of the Court,”
    Self-Determination through the Lens..., Gentian Zyberi
    “They carried out ....” Your assertion. Your obligation to meet your burden of proof. Your failure is a fortiori that it’s untrue.
    “The C24 considers that…case of TERRITORIAL colonialism”. Then that is a further ‘excess of jurisdiction’, and an equally grave ‘abuse of process’ as such a a legal criteria doesn’t exist..
    “..justifies your stay in the islands” You are ignorant of the treaties of Utrecht, Nootka and the Anglo- Spanish Declaration of 1771. The consequence of signing a peace treaty, Argentine acquiescence caused by her ’silence’s in failing to respond to two official diplomatic notes. Further, possible reliance on ‘conquest’ under the international law of 1833. Continued, acquiescence giving rise to:
    “..Argentina never submitted its claim to the Court.., Its failure to do so, to take advantage of the requirements prescribed by international law, has ..ceded sovereignty to Britain by extinctive prescription. ..by 1982, Argentina's claim was extinguished” The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic /by Daniel K. Gibran.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Just Mary

    It is the Committee specialized in the matter created by the United Nations, which does not give that right to the British of the islands.
    In addition the dispute of Argentina and United Kingdom is TERRITORIAL, is by SOVEREIGNTY. The C24 attends the territorial colonization, in resolution 1514 the Territorial Integrity of the previously established states prevails over the pretensions of the British in the islands.
    That same sovereignty that the UK began to negotiate before the 1982 war. C24 therefore calls for these negotiations to be resumed.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • gordo1

    Just Mary

    BUT THE UNITED NATIONS, OF WHICH YOUR PRECIOUS COMMITTEE IS A MINOR PLAYER, HAS PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED THAT ALL PEOPLES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO PUT THE HORSE BEFORE THE CART!

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • What If

    Interesting as ever.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Just Mary

    The war did not extinguish the claim of sovereignty of Argentina. Otherwise, it would not be dealt with in the Committee. In addition, it is clear that before the successive refusals of the United Kingdom to dialogue with Argentina, by recommendation will be discussed in the General Assembly, opening to be dealt with in the ICJ.
    In addition, if the United Kingdom has the titles of sovereignty, it can request the intervention of the ICJ. If he claims to have all the evidence, in theory, he would easily win the case, and the dispute would end.
    In 1884, Argentina proposed to bring the matter to international arbitration, which was also rejected without giving reasons for the United Kingdom.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Terence Hill

    Just Mary
    Sorry your fourth rate powerless committee has been topped by someone with the credentials and necessary competence. Unlike the C24 which is purely political appointees whom are sadly completely incompetent. Try reading those big letters out loud and see if you can finally clue in.
    “… (Higgins)THE ERGA OMNES CHARACTER OF THIS RIGHT IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE DECOLONIZATION PROCESS HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED AND EMPHASIZED SEVERAL TIMES IN THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE COURT,”
    Self-Determination through the Lens..., Gentian Zyberi
    “Territorial Integrity of the previously established states prevails over the pretensions of the British in the island“ CANNOT be applied retroactively to its creation. ”...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 Jennings
    a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Just Mary

    The principle of self-determination violates the inalienable and pre-existing right of the Argentine State to preserve the territorial integrity of any external force. The principle of self-determination, like any principle, is not absolute, when it breaches the territorial integrity of existing States, as in the case of Argentina with respect to the Malvinas Islands.
    This principle is not applicable, in this case, as the British are not recognized as a people entitled to that right by the resolutions of the United Nations C24.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Terence Hill

    Just Mary
    “The principle of self-determination, like any principle, is not absolute,” It is according to one former president of the ICJ.
    “When it breaches the territorial integrity of existing States,” is a modern law that is barred from any application retroactively according to another former president of the ICJ.
    So if it’s your legal opinion versus two former presidents of the ICJ. Quick! Guess which one’s going to prevail.
    “The British are not recognized as a people entitled to that right by the resolutions of the United Nations C24.” To bad as the four judgements of the ICJ and additionally, the UN Charter are binding on them.
    UN Charter Article 103
    “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.” No, doesn’t appear to be any exemptions there.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Voice

    A lot of opinions being bandied about here and very little facts...

    The UN does not have a definition for “people” and therefore who would or would not be recognised is pure speculation without any source...

    ..but it's fun watching two wannabe lawyers pretending they are trading facts...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    “The UN does not have a definition for “people” To bad as the ICJ has rendered it’s opinion through four judgements. Kosovo, East Timor, Western Sahara and South West Africa. In addition to the UN Charter articles on the same.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • darragh

    In actuality the UN does have a definition of what is a 'people' or at least UNESCO does, a part of the UN with far more credibility than the C24:-

    The UNESCO International Meeting of Experts for the Elucidation of the Study of the Concepts of Right of Peoples, in 1989, provided a detailed and standard description of “people”.

    According to the description which is some times referred to as the “Justice Kirby definition”, a ‘people’ is:

    “a group of individual human beings who enjoy some or all of the following common features:


    (a) a common historical tradition;
    (b) a racial or ethnic identity;
    (c) cultural homogeneity;
    (d) linguistic unity;
    (e) religious or ideological affinity;
    (f) territorial connection;
    (g) common economic life.

    All seven of which, (with the possible exception of item (b)) clearly apply to the Falkland Islanders

    In addition to the above description, the UNESCO Experts added that: “the group must be of a certain number which need not be large…but which must be more than a mere association of individuals within a state”; the group as whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people…”; and “the group must have institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity.”

    Again, this clearly applies to the Falkland Islanders

    I notice that Bloody Mary has continually failed to acknowledge the comments of Ban-ki-moon presumably because he/she/it is unable to refute them. He/she/it has also failed to answer my question about 'hundreds of innocent people being killed by terrorists in the UK” every year. Has failed to respond to my comments about the Argentine 'hero' Rivero or my comment about the Argentine terrorists who caused the deaths of nearly a thousand persons in 1982.

    No more need be said.

    The Falkland Islanders wishes and desires are the only relevant ones - Argentina has no say in the matter.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Voice

    The UN does not state what constitutes a people...
    That is a FACT...
    Prove me wrong by showing me where it states...what constitutes a people...simple...

    ...I won't hold my breath...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @Marti Llazo: “Argentina's claim to “territorial integrity” including the Falklands prior to 1833 is wholly without merit. Prior to that date, just about everything south of the middle of Bs As province was disputed territory, i.e., not an integral part of the country.”
    Short answer: selective memory, the islands were in Argentina possession.
    Only that, collapses all his blah blah blah

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Just Mary

    The resolution to which the british of the islands are concerned is at 1514 C24, if you say that it is not valid, why do they attend the Committee every year? To be rejected by the 24? In addition, I have previously commented that international support for Argentina is greater than the United Kingdom, OAS, MERCOSUR, UNASUR, CELAC, IBEROAMERICAN SUMMITS, ARGENTINE COUNTRIES, G77 + CHINA, RUSSIA (SPAIN after Brexit probably supports Argentina).
    You also want to put the UK as a victim when:
    1) the world colonizer is United Kingdom not Argentina. (2) 10 out of 16 colonies to be decolonized by C24 are from the United Kingdom, (3) at least if UK is interested in the rights of the peoples, then UK must return the territory to the Chagosians.
    Also if it is not important the C24 should inform the British attending every year, at least it would be a good gesture on your part, do not you think?
    Pd: I do not know what problem you have with my name ... it's a fairly common name, but they still waste time with that ...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Voice

    UNESCO is just another toothless committee like the C24 it does not have the authority to define what constitutes a people in relation to the UN charter and self determination legislation..in fact both the US and the UK withdrew their support from it in 1984 and 1985 and are no longer members...
    So in 1989 it was hardly representative of the UN...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Just Mary

    “ARAB COUNTRIES ” instead of “ARGENTINE COUNTRIES” =D

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Voice

    Mary...
    The United Kingdom does not attend the C24 every year...
    They can't be bothered...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Just Mary

    Voice, the British representatives go to the Committee every year...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Voice

    No the Islanders do...
    Show me the last time the United Kingdom addressed the committee...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Just Mary

    They are British ...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Voice

    They are not the United kingdom....

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Just Mary

    I said that the UK should give Chagos back. That is the world colonizer. And that if you consider yourself good guy you should tell the British that attend every year, do not do it, because it is a useless Committee.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Malvinense 1833

    If the United Kingdom wishes that its citizens in the Falklands/Malvinas should decide the fate of the territory they inhabit, that territory should be British. On the contrary, there is a dispute over sovereignty with Argentina. According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination”.48 In other words, according to the distinguished British jurist, the Anglo-Argentine territorial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory. This clearly means that the alleged “self-determination” of the British inhabitants cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.

    The British argument of self-determination in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas is also seriously undermined by the United Kingdom’s indisputably inconsistent policy. There was no “self-determination” when they expelled two thousand native inhabitants from the Chagos archipelago.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Voice

    I don't know how many ways I have to tell you that the United Kingdom do not attend every year...
    The British Islanders do not represent the UK...

    Who are the UK going to give those islands in the Pacific back to...?
    They were empty of indigenous people when they acquired them... the workers were imported...
    I agree it would be a nice gesture to perhaps give them to the workers that were imported to work there, but it's not a case of “giving back” it's a case of gifting them...

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Just Mary

    I posted this... read it 100 times...
    “The resolution to which the british of the islands are concerned is at 1514 C24, if you say that it is not valid, why do they attend the Committee every year? ”

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Voice

    They don't attend...
    BRITAIN does not attend...the Islanders do...
    Do I have to write it 100 times...?
    will this quote help..?

    “In a blatant attempt to shift the focus from Britain’s victory celebrations,Cristina Fernandez is expected to attend this year’s C24 meeting, usually only a venue for Foreign or junior Ministers. Britain does not attend the C24, although Falkland Islanders go every year to state their wish to remain British. Their desires are ignored by this discredited Committee.”

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Just Mary

    They call themselves British. So everyone can do it. On the other hand, the British who are in the islands are a transplanted population as well.

    Jun 25th, 2017 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Voice

    The Islanders are representing themselves at the C24 to states their wishes...
    The UK believes it is meaningless...

    Everyone in the Americas is a transplanted population unless they were indigenous...
    So what...?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Britain’s manipulation of the principle of self-determination is clear for a number of reasons: 1) because the General Assembly of the United Nations, and not the colonial power, is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation, and the highest organ of the United Nations has never applied such a principle to the current inhabitants of the islands; 2) because this is a special case of colonialism in which the victim of the colonial action was a recently established State; 3) because after the dispossession of Argentina, the British government established their own settlers; 4) because since then, it has controlled the migration policies of this isolated and scarcely populated territory; 5) because the current residents do not constitute a separate “people” who is a victim of colonial actions; 6) because the United Kingdom, after evicting Argentina and introducing its own settlers, rejected all proposals to negotiate and arbitration put forward by Argentina, while consolidating its presence in the islands.

    Accepting that the British subjects living in the islands may themselves decide the Anglo- Argentine dispute would mean a flagrant and arbitrary example of imposing a fait accompli. If there is a people who is a victim of colonialism to whom the principle of self- determination can be applied here, that people is the Argentine people.
    Kohen, Marcelo
    Facundo Rodríguez.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse -8
  • Voice

    “The United Nations has never applied such a principle to the current inhabitants of the islands; ”

    You are wrong the UN has not taken the Falklands from the list because they have not achieved (in their opinion) the required level of self government...
    ..and that is the only reason...

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Just Mary

    “Everyone in the Americas is a transplanted population unless they were indigenous...” Right! These indigenous people also mix themselves with creoles, mestizos, blacks, europeans and made a multicultural society. So in America, 90% have mixed blood, they are not pure europeans. Then each one has a little bit of a land that belongs to each one.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    The legal term “territorial integrity” is a statute of the UN Charter and is barred under international law from being applied prior to its creation. ”The islands were in Argentina possession” An admission of trespassing does not give good title.
    Just Mary
    “If you say that it is not valid, why do they attend the Committee every year?”. Simply legally protecting themselves from any shenanigans
    that would be attempted in their absence. That later could be claimed they had acquiesced. So they have reserved the right as as none-participating observers to invoke the right to reply.
    World colonizercorrectly was United Kingdom. Which has steered more former-colonies to independence and to the development of self-determination than any other nation. As for the one’s that are too small to be self-sustaining, it is not the UK that is hindering their political development.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Malvinense 1833

    Pardon Terence of what admission do you speak if the British did not occupy the islands?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination”
    She had answered that question in 1982. “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.” ICJ president, Dame Rosalyn Higgins. “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982
    “What admission do you speak” The trespass of Argentina without colour of right. Their guilt shown by acquiescing to the British position by failing to respond to diplomatic notes.
    Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
    UN has not taken the Falklands from the list because they have not achieved (in their opinion) the required level of self government...
    No because C24 is playing the obstructionist card at the behest of Argentina. The UK and the Islanders have complied with all their requirements under the Charter. So they have fore filled all their legal obligations.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse +8
  • Just Mary

    Vicious discussion

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Malvinense 1833

    Terence: In the same way that we discuss these issues in the forum why the two countries can not discuss and solve this problems in form pacific?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Islander1

    Hi Mary- grief you do write a lot don't you? Shame most of it is fantasy.
    OK so I am implanted and all my fellow Islanders as you claim.
    my family has 8 generations here and we govern ourselves internally and spend our money running our country- not UKs money.
    UK spends about £100million a year on our defence- about 0.5 of 1” of its total annual defence budget. If those British forces were not here there would be NO real saving to the UK taxpayer and those troops and aircraft etc just get based somewhere else in UK or Europe.
    Sorry Mary - those are FACTS.
    And Argentina does not control all our moves- we have sea trade with Uruguay, we have
    an airlink to Chile which yes flies over you so you can indeed stop it - but if you do you know that will mean none of your 1982 Veterans nor the families of those who are buried here will ever be able to visit- so we have a card as well!

    By the way - I assume you are an Argentine of indigenous Indian descent? - otherwise YOU are indeed a Transplant Person - as are 70% of Argentina,s population - your ancestors if they came from Europe forced out and murdered the real genuine people of Argentina.
    So either you accept you have no grounds for all your historical arguments- yes I dont deny the whole European world 200 years ago were all bastards - our to grab as much as they could and fight each other over land - that is the way the world was then! Spain-Britain-France-Portugal-Holland-Germany - they were all at it!!
    But the world has moved on since those Colonial Days - well all the world has except Argentina! Today its Democracy and Human Rights and Self Determination that rule- not the sword or gun. - hey you tried that in 1982 again- sort of blew up in your face didn,t it!

    So you have a choice- either accept you have no real rights to be in your Country
    and are a hypocrite.
    Or be silent from now.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • Just Mary

    “Everyone in the Americas is a transplanted population unless they were indigenous...” Right! These indigenous people also mix themselves with creoles, mestizos, blacks, europeans and made a multicultural society. So in America, 90% have mixed blood, they are not pure europeans. Then each one has a little bit of a land that belongs to each one.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “Britain’s manipulation of the principle of self-determination is clear”
    Briton doesn’t have any say over self-determination, it is a mandated UN Charter requirement. CHAPTER I, PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES, Article 1 s2; CHAPTER IX, Article 55. In addition, the UK is required to comply with the following: CHAPTER XI Article 73; CHAPTER XII, Article 75 and 76; el al.
    “The General Assembly of the United Nations, ,,,is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation,” That is incorrect as the above articles show that the obligation is the responsibility of the state. Unless you show an article to contrary.
    Because, because, because, too bad that’s how the cookie crumbles. I hate to tell you but there is sweet Fanny Adam you or Argentina can do about it. It’s past history, because of Argentine negligence in prosecuting its claim. It is now beyond the remit of a legal hearing. As the presumption is Argentina’s claim is ‘bad in law.’

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marti Llazo

    It's time that Argentina de-colonised Tierra del Fuego and returned it to the very few indigenous folks that survived its genocide.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse +9
  • tallison46

    What a waste of time and money!

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Islander1

    Just Mary - Yes- and by your arguments - those indigenous peoples are the true rightfull owners of the land . Trouble is in Argentina your ancestors murdered most of them in wars of genocide.

    No population was ever evicted from these Islands! A few military people and their dependents who had been here just an few months were put going in 1833 yes.
    The civilian folks who had in some cases been here for a couple of years or so were all invited to stay of their own free will so long as they accepted British rule- or they could leave if they wished.
    All bar 2 couples volunteered to say on - and the last one of them - and lady from what is today called Argentina - passed away in 1865 and is buried in the cemetery here in Stanley.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:52 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • gordo1

    I think “Just Mary” should change her name to “Mary, Mary quite contrary”!

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Clyde15

    Just Mary

    Let's cut the crap.

    Argentina want's discussions with the UK about the Falklands and it's sovereignty.
    However, in the Argentine constitution, the Falklands are given the status of ARGENTINE TERRITORY.
    So, Argentina would enter the “discussions” with the UK, demanding that the UK must hand over sovereignty to them.

    Why should the UK agree to this ?

    Is it because some biased Mickey Mouse committee says so ?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse +6
  • golfcronie

    Mary, do tell us why Argentina didn't accept the judgement of the ICJ as regards the Beagle Channel as I understand you lost and you still do not accept the judgement. So why would Argentina be humiliated again by bringing the matter before the ICJ) and losing the argument.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Just Mary

    MartiLlazo
    Alexander MacLennan (canadian) killed 300 Selknams in Tierra del Fuego. Nicnamed: RedPig
    Julius Popper (rumanian) was a “selknam hunter”, he payed 1 Patacon (money) for the ears of the hunted selknams, in Tierra del Fuego.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ golfie “I have lived and worked in Argentina many years ago for your edification. In fact I worked to enhance your infrastructure but alas to no avail judging by it now.”
    Thank you golfie, you speak spanish?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • gordo1

    “Mary, Mary quite contrary”

    ”Alexander MacLennan (canadian) killed 300 Selknams in Tierra del Fuego. Nicnamed: RedPig Julius Popper (rumanian) was a “selknam hunter”, he payed 1 Patacon (money) for the ears of the hunted selknams, in Tierra del Fuego.”

    Relevance to current debate?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Clyde15 That is not a problem, in a negotiation with the UK can be motif or withdraw from the constitution if both countries reach an agreement.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -4
  • darragh

    Bloody Mary

    Funny how you quote article 6 of UN 1514 vis a vis territorial integrity yet 1514 only makes reference to 'peoples' yet you say that the Falkland Islanders are not a 'people' so clearly 1514, according to you, cannot apply to the Falkland Islands.

    Bit of a conundrum isn't it?

    But who cares.

    The Falkland Islanders wishes and desires are the only relevant ones - Argentina has no say in the matter.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ darragh The falkland islanders are not a people because they arrived after destroying the territorial integrity of Argentina.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Just Mary

    darragh
    “Funny how you quote article 6 of UN 1514 vis a vis territorial integrity yet 1514 only makes reference to 'peoples' yet you say that the Falkland Islanders are not a 'people' ..”

    It is the C 24 of united nations that does not recognize the right of self-determination, it is not me.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Malvinense 1833

    None of the more than 40 resolutions passed by the General Assembly and the Decolonization Committee of the United Nations has recognized the existence of a separate people on the territory of the Falklands/Malvinas, and these resolutions have therefore taken other paths regarding the manner in which to proceed to the decolonization of the islands. The position of the United Nations as to how to put an end to the colonial situation is negotiation between Argentina and the United Kingdom to solve the dispute over sovereignty, taking into account the interests of the population of the islands. Not only, but it is worth remembering that when the United Kingdom attempted to incorporate an express mention of the right to self-determination in what a posteriori became Resolution 40/21 of November 27th, 1985, the General Assembly rejected it outright. The reason is simple: unlike ordinary cases of colonialism, that is, the oppression of an entire people by a European power, the Falklands/Malvinas case concerns the eviction of a newly born independent State from an insular, scarcely populated portion of its territory lacking any original population, by the most powerful colonial nation of the time.
    Kohen, Marcelo
    Rodríguez, Facundo.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -7
  • The Voice

    No one was ejected, some chose to leave and the United Provinces weren't what was now Argentina. Your irrelavent argument is a load of insubstantial bollocks.

    Anyway Argentina's wet dream isn't going to happen whatever a bunch of clowns might say, 1982 should give you a clue on that.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    If no one was expelled then why should they choose to stay or leave? Ay British! They can not support their lies.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • HughJuanCoeurs

    @Malvinense 1833 Question. How many binding UN resolutions have their been on the Falklands? I can only remember one. The one telling the illegally invading Argentine armed forces to depart the islands back in 1982, which they chose to ignore.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • darragh

    Malvinonsense 1833

    As I have quoted before it is in Argentina’s own records that no civilians were forcibly expelled

    When Pinedo left the islands he was told that non-military settlers were welcome to stay which the vast majority of them did.

    Pinedo recorded this fact in his log and can also be seen in Pinedo’s report made aboard the schooner Sarandí on 16 January 1833 after returning to Buenos Aires, AGN Sala VII, legajo 60, p. 22: “los habitantes que quisiesen voluntariamente quedar, que serian respetados ellos y sus propriedades como anteriormente…”.

    Also, Bonifacio del Carril, the Argentine representative at the UN, said at the UN in 1965 that Britain had “expelled the garrison” from the islands.

    QED

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @HughJuanCoeurs
    I don't agree with Malvinense 1833 (and I can't work out what he is trying to say above), but that is a stupid question. Only Security Council resolutions are binding on UN members and the UK has a veto on those.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Terence Hill

    Malvinense 1833
    “The position of the United Nations as to how to put an end to the colonial situation” Which I have shown through the articles of the UN Charter, that the UK and the Islanders have completely complied with it in its entirety. So legally it’s a done deal.
    The UNGA, Argentina and the UK must adhere to the Charter and the legal interpretations of it by the ICJ.
    All resolutions from the UNGA are merely advisements subject to the constraints of article 103 of the Charter, from any and all interference with self-determination. As this has been ruled by the ICJ as imperative standard of international law that cannot be derogated from.... (They are) erga omnes (and) do not require ratification.
    So resolutions are not binding, whereas, the right to self-determination is mandatory on all parties. So the UK is in complete compliance with international law. Moreover, “There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • golfcronie

    Terence, you might as well talk to a wall. You have to admit they, the Argies, are stubborn buggers.SELF-DETERMINATION is all that is relevant.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • James Marshall

    Hmm I thought there was some vote or other in 2008 in the GA of the UN that was sponsored by Spain and Argentina I believe. Something about Self determination and territorial integrity and the rights of siad people/inhabitants/population etc. How did that end......... did they get that through........did the UNGA agree that such people do not have the right to self determination.

    So any other comment that suggests the Islanders do not have the right to self determination is just wishful thinking.

    If it makes you feel better about yourselves keep repeating the mantra Mary and Malvi, we know it is bollocks, you know it is bollocks and the C24 know too, that is why they never recommend the adoption of the drafts by the 4th committee.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Been travelling for 24 hours, so there's no chance of me catching up on all of the above.

    So all I'll say is that 252 years after the British landed at West Falkland Island; 188 years after we warned BA not to trespass; 184 years after ejecting the BA trespassers; 52 years after Res 2065 and 35 years since we kicked off Argie trespassers for the 2nd time ............. we are still there.

    And what has BA/Argentina actually achieved in all that time?

    Nothing

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marti Llazo

    It's 2017. Falklands are British. More resolutely British than ever. And no change in sight.

    Argentine efforts to the contrary have cost them dearly, accomplished nothing for them but their getting tightly knotted chabombas, and continue to provide endless entertainment for the civilised and successful nations.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Voice

    Decolonisation of the islands is not dependent on negotiations between the UK and Argentina, it is dependent on the UN being satisfied that the Islands have achieved the required measure of self government. The Committee was not formed to solve Sovereignty disputes.
    I have never read one piece of legislation that supports the above premise...

    If the Islands had satisfied the UN by perhaps Integration or Independence then they would be removed from the list...ie decolonised, without the sovereignty dispute being settled..
    Is this so difficult to understand...?

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    De-listing is dependent upon the UN having its requirements met.

    Decolonization is not. Decolonization is dependent upon the will of the people of the Falkland Islands.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Marti Llazo

    Actually the Falklands were “ decolonised” some time ago. There are still some who prefer deliberate blindness to that fact.

    What, after all, would Argentina be without a soapbox from which to annoy the neighbours?

    Mucho ruido; pocas nueces.

    Jun 26th, 2017 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • James Marshall

    Voice, the problem with your correct summation is that 'self determination' is not limited to the narrowly defined choices of the decolonisation committee.

    I guess those that initially produced the 'decolonisation' framework, never for one moment considered that a former colony would chose to keep the 'status quo' and not go it alone or integrate.

    It also shows a lack of willing on behalf of the C24 to move forward and accept the rights of the NSGT's to have complete freedom to choose their own path for the future. By ignoring the Islanders, the C24 become less and less effective and ultimately an impotent committee who serve no purpose. They are assuring their own self destruction.

    Jun 27th, 2017 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse +11
  • Don Alberto

    The mentally ill members of C24 strike back yet another time.

    Hepatitis will be returned to her padded cell within 25 minutes

    - probably together with prize idiot “MaryJane Attorney”, who not only thinks that the Falkland Islands is somewhere on the American continent, but also use the term “Res Nullius” without an inkling of what it means, namely “nobody's thing”. A territory which is “Res Nullius” is not legally owned by anyone. Argentina never governed the Falkland Islands.

    MaryJane, stop smoking so much maryjane, it is clearly very bad for your brain cells - all three of them.

    Jun 27th, 2017 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • St.John

    Whether or not UN states what constitutes a people is irrelevant, as the official title of the decolonisation committee is:

    “The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial countries and peoples.”

    “... and observes the Week of Solidarity with the Peoples of Non-Self-Governing Territories.”

    If the Falkland Islands belong under this committee, then the committee acknowledges the Falkland Islanders as a people.

    http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/specialcommittee.shtml

    As simple as that.

    Jun 28th, 2017 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • golfcronie

    Maybe “ simple ” for you and I, but not to the indoctrinated Argies it isn't. It is very,very difficult to comprehend.

    Jun 28th, 2017 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • gordo1

    But the members of C24 also do not comprehend it! As they seem totally biased towards Argentina!

    Jun 28th, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Marti Llazo

    If Argentina and their silly little committee were so interested in “decolonisation” then why aren't they howling to the rooftops about forcing Chile to decolonise Rapa Nui?

    Jun 28th, 2017 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Anbar

    it's always amusing when somebody pretending to be an attorney posts something like this: “That is why Great Britain expelled by force the inhabitants of the islands under the Argentine sovereignty.” .... factually incorrect, and recognised as being factually incorrect by, well, pretty much everybody in the world except Argentines and sock puppets.

    No populations were expelled, they were asked to stay and did stay. An illegal MILITARY Garrison from a bunch of Spanish Colonialists who had invaded an area fo South America, wiped out the indigenes, claimed the land as “Theirs” and sent some army chaps to the islands and also claimed those.... there were asked to leave, and they did, without a shot fired.

    If you can't get the basic history correct, how do you expect people to trust anything else you claim?

    Jun 28th, 2017 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • St.John

    Anbar, those Argentines who have been brainwashed with the assorted lies from childhood, and who never have been outside Argentina believe in the lies.

    Most of my friends (buen educado) shake their heads at the nonsense and declare the falkland Islands to be British - not “English”, but British - and they are welcome to stay that way, no Argentines in their right mind wants them.

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marti Llazo

    Anbar: “....it's always amusing when somebody pretending to be an attorney posts something like...”

    The argies excel at pretending. Expansive imaginations, unrooted in reality. The last president here in Argentina, CFK, pretended to be an attorney as well.

    -------

    St John - What a rare pleasure to have bien educado friends in Argentina. There are only a handful of them who know the difference between British and English.

    ---------

    News from Buenos Aires is that Cristina's people are involved in violent rioting there (sometimes mischaracterised as “protesting” albeit with flying rocks and staves.) The Quebracho people, the Camporistas, members of her former government. The usual criminals with hooded faces, burning tyres and blocking transit. In a way, that sort of violence is a good thing, since it reminds the populace about the true criminal nature of Cris and her thugs. Major police presence, several arrests, injuries. An insight into increasing violence from CFK's people. Film at 11. Or cycle through the images here
    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2037869-en-fotos-el-desalojo-de-la-9-de-julio

    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2037869-en-fotos-el-desalojo-de-la-9-de-julio

    Video here

    http://www.lanacion.com.ar/2037869-en-fotos-el-desalojo-de-la-9-de-julio

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Kanye

    Marti

    Thanks for the links.

    However, this site's robots will only copy your first link multiple times.

    After the initial link, any additional links need to have the http:// prefix removed or they will revert to being the same as the first one.

    Hope that helps.

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    This site has Robots!!!!?

    I want one...

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Well, there's Hepatia...

    Still want one?

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Voice

    Yeah, I hear that one comes with a 25 year warranty...

    ...that lasts forever...

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    They say tomorrow never comes. :)

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @Malvinense 1833

    “If no one was expelled then why should they choose to stay or leave? ”

    Because if they had been expelled they would NOT have been given a choice to stay.

    Is that too simple for you to understand?

    For someone who choses 1833 after your name, you don't appear to know anything about 1833.

    At least true to my name I got the tractor bogged in a field last winter (before hay bale assisted extraction).

    During January 1833:

    The slaves were freed by Onslow.

    The gauchos were paid in silver by Onslow.

    The settlers were allowed to run their settlement as before, without a penal colony.

    No British officials were landed off HMS Clio or HMS Tyne in 1833. One of Vernet's settlers who had been on the Islands several years was appointed the senior British resident.

    The settlers had more protection, with the exception of the rest of 1833, when Rivero plus amigos decided to murder the SETTLERS (mostly non British people).

    In fact it was thanks to Rivero that the Royal Navy returned in 1834 to form a presence to protect the settlers from outside threats.

    A question for you, what exactly did Mestivier or Pinedo do that helped the settlers?

    Would it surprise you to know that they probably did not want a penal colony there?

    If the United Provinces were concerned about the settlers , why did they allow the USS Lexington to expel most of them in 1831?

    And, the simplest reply to your question, the reason why most of them wanted to stay is that like the Falkland Islanders today, they wanted to live there.

    Rivero's gauchos wanted to leave, because Vernet's money was worthless, but after Onslow paid them in silver, they agreed to stay under British rule.

    I am therefore amazed that Rivero is not regarded as a traitor in Argentina today, because he chose British sovereignty in the Islands, in 1833, rather than return to the United Provinces.

    I can give you plenty more reasons why the settlers wanted to stay in the Islands, if you can't see the obvious.

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • St.John

    Malvinense 1833 asked: “If no one was expelled then why should they choose to stay or leave?”

    Only army personel and their wives (mujeres) and children were expelled, not surprising as you don't want foreign troops in your territory.

    The only settlers who left were an Uruguayan couple and a Brazilian couple, Joaquín Acuña, su mujer Juana, Brazilians according to their affidavits, and Mateo Gonzáles, su mujer Marica, Uruguayans according to their affidavits.

    You can read the list of those who left the British Falkland Islands here (Argentine source):
    Lista de la tropa, sus familias y peones de la isla de Malvinas - printed in Ernesto J. Fitte: “La agresión Norteamericana”
    http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg

    Photo of page one of Pinedo's original report:
    c2.staticflickr.com/6/5137/5533643350_7d94862ca9_b.jpg

    Jun 29th, 2017 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • James Marshall

    Now, I have been a little busy of late, so I haven't been on this forum much over the last few months, but what has happened to 'Voice', he seems to have changed his character/humour somewhat, have I missed something? Or is he just happy after the election....He even seems quite likeable....Just askin' like...

    Jun 30th, 2017 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    Voicey lost his government social plan and had to take a job as professional rock-tosser for the new Kirchnerist movement. He was last seen on yet another violent street action a couple of days ago in Bs As ... Seen here with his mates:

    http://www.cadena3.com/admin/playerswf/fotos/ARCHI_3549971200x771.jpg

    Jun 30th, 2017 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Dr.neurus

    Utis is accepted by internatinal law, the same we used in 1881 with chile, nterestng, c 24 isnt heard and the mayority again support argentina, withiut saying the dispute still on and the island is on the list.

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • gordo1

    Dr.neurus

    Surely C24 should be involved with decolonisation NOT with sovereignty or boundary disputes?

    Does it have any mandate to deal with sovereignty or boundary disputes? I think not!

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • St.John

    Our maryjane-smoker bables about Uti possidetis iure.

    Uti possidetis is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty does not include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail. This principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war.

    In 1833 the possessor of the Falkland Islands was Great Britain.

    Uti possidetis juris has not been applied before 1848 and is not valid retrospectively, thus not valid in 1833.

    To claim inheritance when the territory in question has been taken by gun point (Spanish America taken from Spain) only underscore United Kingdoms sovereignity over the Falkland islands, as in that case Great Britain inherited the islands.

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Kanye

    James Marshall and Marti,

    “Voice” is less prolific on this board now that he has found a new release for his bullying.
    It is said that he has found a small dog to kick and there are more disabled pensioners nearby to torment and jeer at.

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Marti Llazo

    Argentina will return Chubut within 25 years.

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Don Alberto

    Hepatia will be sent back to her padded cell in 24 minutes, and Patagonia will return the rest of Argentina to Spain within 25 years.

    Jul 02nd, 2017 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • St.John

    Which are the member states of C24, the UN Special Committee on Decolonization?

    Latin Americans:

    Antigua & Barbuda
    Bolivia
    Chile
    Cuba
    Dominica
    Ecuador
    Grenada
    Nicaragua
    Saint Kitts and Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    Venezuela

    Other dishonoured members are:

    Ethiopia - experienced in civil war and genocide
    Iran
    Mali - experienced in civil war and genocide
    Syrian Arab Republic - experienced in civil war and genocide

    and the rest are:

    China
    Congo - experienced in civil war and genocide
    Côte D'Ivoire
    Fiji
    India
    Indonesia - experienced in genocide in Timor-Leste
    Iraq - experienced in civil war
    Papua New Guinea
    Russian Federation - nice up and coming dictature state
    Sierra Leone - experienced in civil war
    Timor-Leste
    Tunisia
    United Republic of Tanzania

    http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/members.shtml

    Jul 03rd, 2017 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!