MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 19th 2017 - 01:52 UTC

UK reaffirms commitment to Falklands sovereignty; Argentina insists self-determination not applicable to Malvinas

Wednesday, October 11th 2017 - 15:17 UTC
Full article 104 comments

The United Kingdom had no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia Islands, South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas, and there could be no dialogue on sovereignty over them unless its people so wished, the UK representative Stephen Hickey said at the United Nations Fourth Committee meetings this week. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • darragh

    Cue Malvinonsense quoting a letter his great great great granny once saw that definitely said that maybe if the wind is in the right direction and the seaweed hanging on the doorpost stays wet then that is proof that an Argentine once saw what he thought might be the Falkland Islands but was probably a whale thereby proving Argentina's...waffle, waffle, waffle etc. etc. etc

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Brit Bob

    The Islanders have the right to self-determination:
    -
    Falklands – Self-Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_

    And the land of make believe says not...

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Stoker

    The only Court with legal jurisdiction to decide on sovereignty disputes is the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ). Why doesn't the Republic of Argentina take it's case for sovereignty over the islands before the fifteen judges at the UNICJ?*

    *Don't worry.......I know why ;-D

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • The Voice

    Cracked record... Cue Think / etc spouting more nonsense. Nothing will change.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • golfcronie

    Same old ,same old, as you say nothing will change unless the FALKLANDERS so wish.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marcos Alejandro

    The U.K. had no doubts?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • gordo1

    Marquitos Alejandrito

    You must have have kept this for several years in your toy box as this matter has been put to bed here in the UK for some 25 years. What a sad case you are - you cannot even stay up to day! ¡Idiota de troll!

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Good for you crumpet stuffer that you finally read the British official story.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -6
  • golfcronie

    Marcos, take it to the ICJ you muppet, SELF DETERMINATION is todays criteria. You burnt your bridges by going to war with the UK, and incidently got your arses kicked.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marti Llazo

    Even if Argentistan were to take the matter to the ICJ, if the outcome didn't met their every desire, they'd come up with buckets of excuses to ignore the rulings. Argentistan has a long and sordid history of failing to abide by the determinations of the courts in the jurisdictions that it itself selected! Such are the toy countries, so lacking in seriousness, that provide the world with amusement.

    Desacato, vuestro nombre es Argentina.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +7
  • Malvinense 1833

    If they did not expel any civilian population then who were they expelled?
    If they did not expel anyone, then were the islands empty?
    Respect to the population of the islands, but can not be part and solution of the problem.
    If you have no doubt of your sovereignty, prove it and end with the conflict once and for all.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -10
  • Islander1

    Malvinense 1833 - Do read Your Argentine Naval Archives of 1833 of the Sarandi - you will find there the names of the Militia and their families- the militia were indeed expelled - and their dependents naturally went with them/
    You will also find the names of the 4 civilians who left of their own free will - they NOT expelled, and the names of all the other civilians who Volunteered of their own Free Will and Choice - to stay on in the Islands and accept British rule.
    WE Islander have no doubt of our Sovereignty - its up to those who claim it from us to prove their case under International Law.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +10
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvinense 1833 - an trespassing military garrison was told to leave. BA had been warned in 1829 and again in 1832 (BA didn't answer but would later claim that they thought the matter was 'pending'). The trespassers left, quietly and without resistance - all except one.

    The only civilians that left, did so of their own volition. Two men and their wives (common-law).

    As for who proves what, I have a quote - “ It is also worth noting that juristic consensus points to the burden of proof being firmly on the side of the party contesting the current holder’s title, the plaintiff , requiring this party to show that the property was acquired via a prohibited means in order to vitiate the holder’s title”

    The current population are the only people who can decide their future.

    The UN has never suggested otherwise.

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Stoker

    “Whereas, in these circumstances, the Court finds that it has not before it any acceptance by the Government of Argentina of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the dispute which is the subject of the Application submitted to it by the United Kingdom Government and that therefore it can take no further steps upon this Application;”
    http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1956.03.16_antarctica1.htm

    Argentina is like the kid who picks his ball up and goes home when his side is losing the kickabout in the park ;-D

    Oct 11th, 2017 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    Rather more worthy of note (excuse me as I'm returning to the subject of the article) is that it appears that this will be the 29th year without a UN GA Resolution.

    Some people contend that old resolutions never die (which actually makes no sense) but then they do get reaffirmed (as 2065 of 1965 was reaffirmed in the 1970's). No reaffirmation by the GA after 29 years suggests that all those old GA Resolutions are dead & buried.

    Makes the negotiations of 1989/90 all the more intriguing.

    Oct 12th, 2017 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse +5
  • St.John

    Idiot child Malvinense 1833 spews the following nonsense:

    “If they did not expel any civilian population then who were they expelled?
    If they did not expel anyone, then were the islands empty?”

    Idiot child Malvinense 1833 has been directed to Argentine sources located in official Argentine archives (like Archive General de la Argentina) and yet Idiot child Malvinense 1833 continues his stupid scibbles.

    What is wrong in your head, Malvinense 1833?
    shot through it with a 10 gauge Brenneke?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marti Llazo

    Nearly 200 years of continuous occupancy, long ago decolonised and self-governed, and the freely expressed desire to continue .... Argentina knows that such factors pretty well extinguish any illusory hopes they may have in their incorrigible air-castle imaginings.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +7
  • gordo1

    Marquitos Alejandrito - kindly explain what a crumpet stuffer is.

    Malvinense 1833 - kindly take your nonsense elsewhere! It is hardly comprehensible!

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    I only have one word for you Marti - Usucaption

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • gordo1

    The acquisition of a title or right to property by uninterrupted and undisputed possession for a prescribed term?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Look, everybody knows that the Falkland Islands were usurped!

    Falkland Islands - the usurpation:

    https://www.academia.edu/34838377/Falkland_Islands_The_Usurpation

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    Mr. Roger Lorton...
    Ahhhhhhhhhhh...., yes....!
    The fine Latin word..“USUCAPIO”...
    You Engrish have one word for it too...:
    *************** “ SQUATTING ” ***************

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    As an Argie squatting in Patagonia Think, I can only remind you that people in glass houses should not throw stones :-)

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • The Voice

    You mean fossilised dinosaur pretending to squat in Patagonia.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Roger Lorton...

    Leaving aside your usual semantic trickery and whataboutery...

    Fact remains that the fine, old Latin word “Usucapio” you choosedto use above means no other than “Squatting”..., in Engrish...

    In the lV century BC as in the XXI century...
    Please educate yourself...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Malvinense 1833

    @Islander1: It's funny but you mentioned the most obvious proof of the British invasion.
    Why is a population living in peace obliged to choose to leave or stay on the islands?
    A civilian population on the islands is an exercise of sovereignty of a country.
    The presence of a military garrison is another clear example of sovereignty. Its expulsion is another example of the arbitrary and colonial use of force by Great Britain.
    If Britain had a claim why it did not do the same during the Spanish occupation?
    On the other hand it is a lie that only 4 people left the place by their own choice, if you read the list, 53 people were expelled.
    If you are objective you will see the colonial act perpetrated by Great Britain.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • LEPRecon

    Malvinense 1833

    It's amazing how you 'conveniently' omit the FACT that the civilian population living on the Falkland Islands were there with the permission from the British Government prior to the illegal occupation by military forces from the United Provinces of the River Plate (not Argentines...as Argentina didn't exist in 1833, and wouldn't come into formal existence until 1850).

    Just like you 'conveniently' forget to mention that the illegal UP troops, who were trespassing on British soil, mutinied against their commanding officer, Capt Mestivier. They murdered him, raped his wife repeatedly, and then ran amok on the Islands putting the CIVILIAN population at considerable RISK.

    The colonists were rescued from this murderous bunch on UP military misfits by Capt Onslow and his crew from HMS Clio. And of course, being British, the colonists were given the choice of staying under British rule (which most of them had signed up to in the first place as they knew they were on British territory with British permission), or they could leave.

    Freedom of choice.

    But please, if Argentina has a grievance with the UK, then take it to the ONLY body in the world that can actually rule on it and ORDER a change of sovereignty - the International Courts of Justice.

    But since Argentina refuses to take its case to the ICJ then we can only assume that the reason is that Argentina knows that it's sovereignty claim is bogus, and knows it will lose. And Argentina really doesn't want a ruling against it because that would put it's bogus claim to bed once and for all, so it keeps crying, crawling and begging (much to the amusement of the rest of the world) to the C24, the UNGA, the OAS and any one else that'll give them a few minutes of 'talk' time, which does, after all, help to break up the stresses of the real problems that there are in the world.

    Does it bother you that Argentina is such a pathetic joke to the rest of the world?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Marti Llazo

    Thank you, Roger, I had forgotten the term usucaption but did remember that it was acknowledged conceptually by the ICJ. In the context of such territorial possession I think the historical practice was either two or three “generations” which would place the Falklands under the protection of that concept. Under some definitions there must be the absence of an active dispute to be able to rely on the doctrine.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Educate yourself Think. ”Usucaption is a method by which ownership of property (i.e. title to the property) can be gained by possession of it beyond the lapse of a certain period of time (acquiescence).”

    Malvinense 1833 - sending a military garrison in the face of two warnings is not an example of sovereignty. It is an example of stupidity. As for Spain, there was no issue. The status quo of 1771 clearly left the British in the West and Spain in the East. Spain never attempted to raise its flag over the western Islands. Britain did not raise its flag over the eastern Islands UNTIL Argentina attempted to interfere. Remember the secret clause in the 1790 convention?

    And no, only 4 civilians left of their own volition. The rest? All trespassing garrison.

    Capitan: D. Juan Antonio Gomila Batallion de Artilleria: Cabo 1°: Miguel Hernandez y su mujer Maria Romero Soldados: José Barrera; José Gómez; Manuel Francisco Fernández; Toribio Montesuma Batallion de Rio de la Plata: Sargento: Santiago Almandos
    Soldados: José Soto; José Rodríguez Patricios de Buenos Ayres: Soldados: Juan Castro y su mujer Manuela Navarro; Antonio García Guardia Argentina: Cabo: Daniel Molina Soldados: Juan J. Rivas y su mujer Maria I. Beldaño; Dionisio Godoy; Hipólito Villarreal y su mujer Lucia Correa y dos hijos; Gregory Durán y su mujer Carmen Manzanares, con dos hijos; Benito Vidal su mujer Maria Saisa

    Mujeres pertenecientes a los militares que vienen presos en la goleta inglesa “Rapid”, y que vienen en dicha “Sarandi”: María Rodríguez, con tres hijos; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benitez Tránsita González, con un hijo
    Militares que vienen presos en la goleta “Rapid”
    Batallón de Artilleria: Soldado: José Antonio Díaz Rio de la Plata: Soldados: Manuel Delgado; Maririano Gadea; Manuel Suares Patricios de Buenos Aires: Cabo 1°: Francisco Ramírez Soldados: Bernardino Cáceres; Manuel Saenz Valiente; Antonio Moncada Guardia Argentina: Sargento 2°: José Maria Díaz

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Malvinense 1833

    Thanks Roger Lorton for demonstrating once again the British invasion, the status quo of 1771 did not leave the British in either the East or the West, the only time they tried it on the Trinidad island (Saunders), they had to leave.
    Its contradiction is evident, why then Britain interfered in the eastern islands if they were never there?
    Why did they take the entire archipelago?
    The answer we all know, simply deny what all lights is evident.
    The islands were never British. End of the British lies.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Stoker

    I know it is a little out of date but since the Argie song remains the same I'll put it up anyway.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vys78sGB7Y&t=8s
    ;-D

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The status quo after 1774 was Britain in West Falkland island (no mention of Saunders back then) and Spain in East Falklands Island (Soledad).

    What contradiction? You DO know about the secret article of 1790? Do you?

    Doesn't look like it. Allow me to enlighten you -

    “Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation 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 shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.”

    The moment Argentina stepped in - so could we.

    End of Argie lies.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Malvinense 1833

    There are a variety of reasons why the secret clause could not be invoked against Argentina. Firstly, because Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights over the Falklands/Malvinas; at the moment in which it recognized Argentine independence and the two nations established diplomatic relations and entered into a treaty of amity in 1825, Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity. Secondly, even if the secret clause were in force and opposable to Argentina – which is not the case – because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights, there was no settlement established by “subjects of other powers”, but only a continuation of Spain’s rights.
    British sources concur on the fact that the Treaty of 1790 prevented Great Britain from settling in the Falkland/Malvinas islands. No serious British author, nor the British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence. Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left.
    End of British lies.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Malvi 1833

    There was no succession from Spain. Another Argentine myth. Indeed, described at the UN in 1982 as one of Argentina's 'great' myths. Argentina did not inherit. There was no such concept back then. Spain even confirmed its own claim in October 1833 (Thank you Kohen & Rodrigiez - who got it from Quesada I suspect. :-) )

    Britain recognised no territory or the right to territory in 1825, as we assured Spain that very same year - “M. Zea concludes, with declaring that … the British Gov*., as violating existing Treaties; and the imprescriptible rights of the Throne of Spain. Against what will Spain protest? It has been proved that no Treaties are violated by us; and we admit that no question of right is decided by our recognition of the New States of America.” [George Canning to the Chevalier de Los Rios, Minister of His Most Catholic Majesty March 25th, 1825]

    You are correct in that no British historian raised the issue of the secret clause affecting the 1833 annexation of East Falkland Island. Indeed, it was all Argentine historians who did that. They recognised its importance.

    The Nootka Conventions was a success for Britain, not Spain.

    “It was the first express renunciation of Spain’s ancient claim to exclusive sovereignty over the American shores of the Pacific Ocean and the South Seas. It marks the beginning of the collapse of the Spanish colonial system.” [Manning 1905 p.461]

    That Spain chose to misinterpret it was down to the vague drafting - hence Floridablanca's letter to the Spanish nobles.

    “The word ”occupied“ did not mean nearly so much as ”inhabited“ or ”peopled“ would have meant, and ”already“ did not mean ”actually“ or ”now.” If a place had been once occupied and then abandoned this expression could be made to apply to it.“

    The Nootka restrictions also applied to Spain. Did you READ the secret convention? ”.. the respective subjects shall not..” That's BOTH of them.

    End of Argie lies

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Malvinense 1833

    “The second is a Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office written by John W. Field and dated February 29th, 1928, which reads:
    On October 28th, 1790 a Covenant was signed between this country and Spain, the section 6 of such covenant provided that in the future, any of the parties should establish any settlement in the east of west coasts of South America and adjacent islands, to the south of such portions of those same coasts and islands at the time occupied by Spain [...]According to this section becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands. This Treaty was abrogated in October, 1795, when Spain declared war to Great Britain. Nevertheless, it was reinforced by section 1 of the additional sections comprised in the Treaty of Amity and Alliance between Great Britain and Spain of July 5th, 1814, signed in Madrid on August 18th, 1814.”
    Marcelo Kohen- Facundo Rodríguez
    His own government says so. End british lies.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Brit Bob

    Malvinense1833

    Britain usurped the islands in 1833 and that was cool back then.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr. Lorton...
    Exactly..., Rodge...:
    ”Usucaption is a method by which ownership of property (i.e. title to the property) can be gained by possession of it beyond the lapse of a certain period of time (acquiescence).”... A.K.A. “SQUATTING.

    ....The slight problem with applying the classical Roman ”Usucapio“ = ”Squatting” legal principle to the windblown Malvinas Islands case... is that there must be no protests from any other part...

    And... as we all know..............

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Voice

    Slippery Roger..

    ”The status quo after 1774 was Britain in West Falkland island (no mention of Saunders back then) and Spain in East Falklands Island (Soledad).

    ...no mention of West Falkland island either...
    Did you mean Falkland Isle/Island...?
    Which Island is Falkland Isle...?
    Is it the one where the fort was?

    Also that secret article appears to only refer to the “the eastern and western coasts of South America”
    No mention of any Islands at all...
    If it specifically omits them why do we have to assume that it pertains to the Islands also...?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Marti Llazo

    Tinkle: “...... is that there must be no protests from any other part...”

    Unfortunately for Argentistan, baseless and frivolous complaints and challenges don't meet the standard.

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

    Time and time again Malvinense 1833 comes in with his verbal diarrhoea which is nothing more than repetition of the false “facts” he has presented so many times. I wonder what he is trying to do - bore us to death? Perhaps he is the crumpet stuffer to whom or which the child Marquitos Alejandrito referred to earlier.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • The Voice

    Gordo, one wonders what sort of crumpet stuffer the loon is referring to? Is it the sort that arrives in Pompey on American warships with a view to meeting up with all those ladies arriving by train from London?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    “Mr García Moritán went on to recount events following the 1833 occupation of the Malvinas, saying Britain had brought in its own settlers”

    I wish he would be more precise( I forget, being precise would invalidate their claim). Malvanistas , is he referring to replacing the garrison (10 of whom the Argies bumped off in BA by firing squad) with folks bought in all the way from Britain in 1833? Or referring to bringing settlers at a later date?

    I suppose according to the Argies I was an implant, even though I chose to go to the Falklands and don't remember being press ganged by the UK government and forced onto the Timmy in chains.

    Though my seat was bust and I had a rocking chair for 8000 miles courtesy of Crab Air.

    “And established strict migratory controls to ensure a demographic composition in favor of its interests”

    Ah, that would explain why people from Scandinavia and other nations were allowed to settle then and the 150 South American Gauchos bought in by Lafone during the 19th century?

    Oh I see, they were British people in disguise shipped from Great Britain via South America who pretended to be South American Gauchos.

    Though I thought most of Lafone's workers if not all, weren't from the British Isles.

    “as reflected in more than 40 resolutions adopted by the General Assembly ”

    Really?

    Including 502?

    “Moreover, “the 1982 conflict had not altered the nature of the dispute”.

    Yes it did, , 2065 stated that negotiations had to be peaceful and the 1982 invasion cannot in its most optimistic interpretation be termed as peaceful.

    “ and certainly had not resolved it.”

    He might have added as far as Argentina were concerned.

    As far as the Islanders and the UK are concerned the war did resolve the issue, even though Argentina think they won the war .

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marti Llazo

    That Falklands migratory policy might help explain why there are some 200 chilenos living and working on the islands, some in government positions if I remember correctly.

    Think of it..... the islands being more Chileno than Argento.

    And some 5 argies and 5 Irish, though of those two I don't know which needs to be watched more closely.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial of 1790.
    Article IV reads:
    His Britannic majesty engages to take the most effectual measure to prevent the navigation and fishery of his subjects, in the Pacific Ocean or in the South-Seas, from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and, with this view, it is moreover expressly stipulated, that British subjects shall no navigate or carry on their fishery, in the said seas, within the space of ten sea-leagues from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain.
    The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas. By that time, Spain had already appointed the 13th Governor of the Malvinas. The prohibition undoubtedly included the Falkland/Malvinas islands. As Julius Goebel asserts, “the terms of the sixth article by inference forbade any landing at the Falklands as they were a place already occupied by Spain.” This was the Spanish authorities’ understanding when they took all necessary measures to protect their shores. A concrete example that can apply to the islands is the note dated March 4th, 1794 written by the Governor of the Malvinas, Mr Pedro Sanguineto, addressing the Viceroy Nicolás Arredondo and informing him that he had performed a 41-day navigation to carry out patrol and surveillance activities over the archipelago. In the note, he informs the Viceroy of the presence of vessels of different nationalities (some British), which were cautioned and informed of the prohibition of landing and fishing, save in a situation of “wreckage or shortage of water.
    End of British lies.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Morning all

    Voice - Falklands Isle was West Falkland - as you already know. As for islands, I've long suggested that 1790 did not apply to the Falklands because they are not 'adjacent.'

    Think - a quote = ”Great Britain has a reasonably strong claim to have acquired the Falkland Islands by acquisitive prescription in the nature of usucaption consisting in its de facto possession and occupation of the Falkland Islands since the year 1833. … Between 1841 and 1849 there were spasmodic protests by the Argentine Government to Britain; protests were renewed from 1884 to 1888. From 1908 onwards there have been a series of protests. Since 1833, however, there has not been any manifestation at all of physical control by the Argentine over the Islands. The protests made by the Argentine can be described as paper protests in that they were never followed up by further positive action. Furthermore, they were punctuated by long periods of silence so far as Great Britain is concerned, during which the Argentine showed no animus either way. There was, for example, such a period of silence between 1849 and 1884 (35 years), and between 1884 and 1908 (24 years). … no positive attempt was made by the Argentine to have the matter referred to any process on international arbitration (although it is true that Dr. Ortiz suggested arbitration in 1884), even after the establishment of the League of Nations the Argentine did not bring the matter before this body.“

    Malvinense 1833 - still relying on minor clerks from the early 20th Century?

    The only occupation of a coast was 10 leagues either side of a settlement. Egmont sits to the north of Port Louis and the prohibition applied to both Spain & England, assuming that it applied to the Falklands at all due to the question of adjacency. BOTH countries were restricted by Nootka. ”inference” isn't enough. Read the words.

    One voyage a year is not enough to establish sovereignty. Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811 - remember?

    Tea !!

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    He can still lie to himself, Roger.
    With its same absurd criterion, then Britain claimed an islet, the Trinidad islet (Saunders).
    It's very early in the morning, Roger, get some fresh air.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Voice

    Malvinense 1833

    It is crystal clear that that is referring to the mainland coasts...to prevent illicit trade between British subjects and the Spanish settlements on the mainland, there was no settlements on the Falklands only a garrison...
    I imagine Port Egmont is probably less than 10 leagues from East Falkland so it could not be referring to that..as Spain had not through agreement tried to deprive Britain of Port Egmont even though the British had left...
    It is irrelevant what the Spanish garrison did of their own vocation it was a matter of treaty between the two countries no claim of Port Egmont was ever sanctioned by either...

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

    It is early Malvinense 1833. Early enough to deal with Argie nonsense.

    Ran out of character on the last. Two points.

    1) That last bit should have read - One voyage a year is not enough to establish effective control over another's sovereignty. Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811 - remember?

    Fumbled the keyboard somehow.

    2) Did you know that Argentina actually left the League of nations after 1 year, because they recognised that they would be obliged to submit the Falklands dispute to it?

    Britain started by claiming all the archipelago, and then ,after the Convention on 1771 left the question open, claimed the west in 1774.

    Be it known to all Nations, That Falkland's Island with this Fort, the Storehouses, Wharfs, Harbours, Bays and Creeks thereunto belonging, are the sole Right and Property of his Most Sacred Majesty George the third, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc. In Witness whereof this Plate is set up and his Britanick Majesty's Colours left flying as a mark of possession by S. W. Clayton, commanding officer at Falkland's Island. 1774 A.D.

    Spain acknowledged its failure to extend its effective control in 1811 when it made its claim -

    This island with its ports, buildings, units and contents belongs to the sovereignty of Sr. D. Fernando VII King of Spain and the Indies, Soledad of Malvinas 7 February 1811 Governor Paul Guillén

    The matter lay between Spain & England. Argentina could only ever be viewed as a third party power.

    Have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain?

    End of Argie lies.

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

    “Be it known to all Nations, That Falkland's Island with this Fort, the Storehouses, Wharfs, Harbours, Bays and Creeks thereunto belonging, are the sole Right and Property of his Most Sacred Majesty George the third, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland”

    Where does that say it's West Falkland...?
    The Fort was not on West Falkland are you saying that Britain was claiming more than one Island...?
    It seems obvious that Falkland Island singular is referring to the Island with the Fort and Store etc...
    That would be Saunders Island as it is called now...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Again Voice? How many times. Refer to the 1771 accord -

    SPANISH DECLARATION “His Britannick Majesty having complained of the violence which was committed on the 10th of June, 1770, at the island commonly called Great Malouine, and by the English Falkland's Island, in obliging, by force, the commander and subjects of his Britannik Majesty to evacuate the port by them called Egmont; a step offensive to the honour of his Crown; ...”

    Try to remember lad.

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

    That doesn't make sense...and defies logic, the violence did not occur on Great Malouine it occurred at Port Egmont...
    Port Egmont is not on Great Malouine (West Falkland)
    So what did the British call Saunders Island... If not Falkland Island?

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    It only defies logic with modern map making.

    http://www.britishempire.co.uk/images4/falklands1770smaplarge.jpg

    Both Britain and Spain appear to have just seen Saunders Island as part of the main western island (Great Malouine).

    Not sure when the name Saunders was given it. Hardly gets a mention back then.

    I should add that Spain wrote that declaration.

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

    Did they not realise Saunders Island was a separate island from West Falkland/Falkland's Island/Great Malouine? Is that possible? Because it sure sounds like it.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Compare the last map (date unknown, possibly late 1760's/early 1770's) with this modern one -

    https://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/b/bc/Falkland_Islands_regions_map.png/600px-Falkland_Islands_regions_map.png

    They simply did not have a clear idea of what the archipelago looked like. It's that sort of context that history has to be viewed in.

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Roger Lorton

    Compare the this map..

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Voice

    Roger

    You are not sure when it was called Saunders Island...?
    I'll just check some research by a guy that writes a bit about it...

    ”1776 – January 1st, William Clayton, the last Military Administrator at Port Egmont, describes the
    archipelago in a reading to the Royal Society in London; “... Saunders Island, on which the English settlement was made, a blockhouse erected, several spots enclosed for gardens and three storehouses, and five dwelling- houses or huts, built at different times by the ships crews who were stationed there.”
    Do you know that guy Roger...;-)))

    DemonTree

    I think you are right..the Spanish Govt or Crown really had no idea that the Fort was on a separate Island that was not Great Malouine....
    The British did though...

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse -7
  • Roger Lorton

    Wonderful - an idiot's arrived.

    Voice/Demon Tree - this is from around 1800, by which time there had been a rough survey by Macbride in 1766 and a survey of West Falkland by Edgar in 1786 -

    http://www.pahor.de/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1024x700/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/6/3/63209.jpg

    If you look for the word 'Egmont' you'll see that it could be taken to be on the main West Falkland. The descriptions that came back in the 1760's praised the 'Harbour' at Egmont which was on the east side of Saunders. Is that a harbour, or open sea?

    Need to get moving. TTFN

    Posted 6 days ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • gordo1

    Niño Marquitos Alejandrino

    The map is very interesting but it would be a good idea to publish its source. Why? Because we Brits are well known for laughing at ourselves and this example seems as though it may be from some British satiric publication. I am afraid this is just a case of “water off a duck's back”! You'll have to try again, nene!

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Thank you Voice, knowing that Saunders island had been called that BY 1776 doesn't help tell me when the name was first applied; or whether it was called that in 1771. I actually suspect it was 1766 when MacBride did his survey, but I'm struggling to find an authentic original of that.

    A few extra thoughts on the Nootka Convention -

    Art.4 – a league = 3 miles(ish). A 'maritime' league = 3 miles by sea. No mention of islands. This article only recognises coasts as 'occupied' up to 30 sea miles from any place of occupation. Also it was about illegal trading and only prohibits navigation and fisheries within those distances. EG. Does not prohibit the formation of establishments outside of 10 maritime leagues.

    Art. 6 – concerns islands although the inclusion of the word 'adjacent' raises doubts about applicability. Britain had not considered the Falklands 'appurtenant' to South America in 1765. Egmont lies to the north of Puerto Soledad & far more than 30 nautical miles. Applicable to Spain as well as England.

    Art. 7 – brought in an arbitration process in cases of complaint. There were no cases of complaint – ever. There was only a power to complain, nothing in the convention gave either side a power to act.

    Malvinense 1833 - Goebel merely repeated what Vernet/Alsina had said in 1832. Reid's 1928 opinion (who?) was based on Goebel's 1927 book. Have I mentioned that Argentina is not Spain?

    And a thought. Two incidents led to the Convention, the 1st being the Puerto Deseado incident of 1789 when two sealers were challenged. If Spain had had uncontested control of the south Atlantic for 15 years from 1774, why did the British sealers feel that they had grounds for complaint in 1789?

    Finally - nobody understood the Convention in 1790, so it's hardly surprising that we struggle with it today. Stand-offs & arguments at Deseado in 1792 resulted with each side waving the Convention. Whether it survived 1795 is, at best, moot. It was not mentioned in 1801 for example.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • DemonTree

    Those old maps are pretty inaccurate but they do show Saunders Island as separate. I don't see how the Spanish could have failed to notice when they came and kicked people out, but perhaps they didn't think it important enough to include in the message they sent back to Spain? Or it's just that no one thought it mattered at the time?

    Where was the settlement at Port Egmont? Is there much left there now? And where was the French/Spanish/Argentine settlement located?

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    I'm going to have to do some more digging, but something I mentioned earlier stands out in my mind.

    All the early reports talked about the size and sheltered suitability of the harbour at Egmont. Big enough for a fleet. Egmont was on the east side of Saunders Island. We see open sea to the east of Egmont. They saw a natural harbour as part of West Falkland. The Spanish must have too.

    I'm told that Saunders is only about a mile from West Falkland Island. wonder what it looks like if you stand there?

    You'll see the two places marked on all the map links I have provided. Egmont on the eastern side of Saunders. Port Louis in the sound on the east side of Soledad Island.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Is the harbour not the giant inlet that takes up half of the island?

    I had another look but I can't spot either place on your old maps. Too small and fuzzy. Do you know where they are on the modern one?

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    DemonTree

    You can see West Falkland in the background...
    I don't think the Spanish were concerned that it was an islet, they were probably not thinking of a future sovereignty claim and not having a name for Saunders Island placed the Fort somewhere in or at Great Malouine..
    I also don't think the British were after a land grab of the bigger Island of West Falkland they were more concerned at having established a presence...
    The only mention is singular...an Island not two...
    I am sure the claim is referring to the Island with the Port it wouldn't make sense to claim the opposite Island without the Port, harbour and stores...

    http://www.summitpost.org/images/large/604166.JPG

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Think

    Geeeeeeee.... Mr Voice....

    That place looks soooo much like the hundred of places along the Patagonian coast..., were thousands of Engrish sailormen have disembarked through the centuries..., to take a leak, a dump and a territorial claim on behalf of their Engrish King....

    Except for the pkle of rocks... that is...

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • DemonTree

    @Voice
    That makes sense. I find it hard to believe either notice was only intending to claim one island though.

    That picture looks a lot like some places in Scotland to me. There's not much left for something that's only what, 250 years old, is there?

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree - Port Egmont was on the east of Saunders. Not that inlet.

    I have Byron's description now - too large for here, so just a clip (old English)

    “... had found a fine harbour: we immediately ſtood in for it, and found it equally beyond his report and our expećtations: the entrance is about a mile over, and every part of it is perfectly safe, the depth of water, clofe to the ſhore, being from ten to ſeven fathom. We found this harbour to: conſiſt of two little bays on the ſtarboard fide, where ſhips. may anchor in great ſafety, and in each of which there is a fine rivulet of freſh water. Soon after we entered an har bour of much greater extent, which I called Port EgMont, in honour of the earl, who was then Firſt Lord of the Admiralty; and I think it is one of the fineſt harbours in the world. The mouth of it is S. E. diſtant ſeven leagues from the low rocky iſland, which is a good mark to know it by: within the iſland, and at the diſtance of about two miles from the ſhore, there is between ſeventeen and eighteen fathom water; and about three leagues to the weſtward of the harbour, there is a remarkable white ſandy beach, off which a ſhip may anchor till there is an opportunity to run in. In ſtanding in for this ſandy beach, the two low rocky iſlands, which we found it difficult to clear when the weather obliged us to ſtand off, appear to the eaſtward, and Port Egmont is about ſixteen leagues from the north end of theſe iſlands. We moored in ten fathom, with fine holding ground.”

    f = s

    A bit rough, sorry. No time to clean it up. Page 48 https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5Qacl6IGr6XItc22rdLBjIAAbeiDmkuXjyjuAllmN4oaHgaM_4lBgKk-U6n0AqR7AKQF9yqlOXY30o5DVqaKGTwkqFbsOyDYh8Oo_BlosMs4u3M9G-e99rFxkwNegce_p22tdNIFKWplmFyIpgmntYdeqabLpbQZURMfOP5OJczFmXn6rf0H5Hpn6M6DaZAWGPhc4v5jUfgJkQ6TX4zbh5P28VxvUwEl6NCVbsZDk37r-S_ZiSegL4PWEl9wNhqTbAXAZHht7C8sO-9L6ky3C7LyPMmSDysOjx_atlJUkViGfpDewAg4

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    So then their harbour must be the bit of sea between the three islands. If they sailed in from the north there are two bays on their right which both have streams flowing in. And he says they called the harbour Port Egmont, and it's that bit of sea that is labelled as such on your old maps.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    What you see is sea. What Byron saw was harbour. All part of West Falkland (Grand Malouine) - which is what the Spanish saw too. And that is why the 1771 Convention uses those terms. Britain in the West, Spain in the East. All in black & white.

    A stand-off that became the status quo, that endured until 1833.

    What Voice see's is a pile of rocks that have nothing to do with Port Egmont in the 1770's. Back then the blockhouse was a pre-fabricated wooden building. The settlement of George town was built mainly of turves. Both were razed to the ground in 1780 at a time of war. Those rocks are more likely to date to the whalers in 1817 when it was advertised that there was a store there.

    “The English again formed a small settlement in Port Egmont in 1817, principally as a place of refreshment for the Whalers.”

    [ Army and Navy Chronicle (New Issue) vol.6 January 1 to June 30 1838 p.165-166. In The Pictorial History of England G.L. Craik 1841, the reference had changed; “In 1817 some private individuals formed a settlement there …” although both appear to have originated with an entry in The Penny Cyclopedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1837 which is most accurately reflected in the Chronicle.]

    Everything needs to be placed into context. Without that, nothing can be understood.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton: The British never cease to amaze me with their lies and hypocrisy.
    One voyage a year is not enough to establish effective control over the sovereignty of another says Roger Lorton.
    The question is: What another? In the archipelago only the Spaniards were.
    If one trip a year is not enough,
    If the effective occupation of the archipelago is not enough,
    - A small plate abandoned on an islet,
    -Not having an effective occupation on an islet,
    - Not to make a single protest until 1829,
    All the above is enough to invade the whole archipelago, is not it funny Mr. Roger Lorton?
    Did I mention that Argentina succeeded in its rights and obligations to the Spanish state and was recognized by Great Britain?
    End of british lies.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    But if Spain saw no distinction between Saunders Isle and West Falkland in 1771, then maybe they also saw all the other islands as belonging to East Falkland in 1811 when they left their own plate there?

    I guess you are saying there is nothing left of the original settlement at Egmont? Is anything left of the Spanish and Argentine ones? And what did Argentina do about that settlement in 1817?

    @Malvi
    This is not relevant, I am just curious, but what obligations did Argentina inherit from the Spanish state? I assume it was not considered bound by treaties signed by Spain, or anything like that?

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Demon Tree: For example, debts contracted by the Spanish government in the former provinces of Spain (Argentina).
    It's funny but they say that Argentina did not inherit anything ;-))

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

    Malvinonsense, so what? Question is what are you lot going to do about it?

    Throw more rocks at Clarkson?

    Stage a repeat 'Malvinas' canoe invasion?

    Rant and rave impotently at the UN?

    Post more nonsense on obscure forums?

    Or, man up and take your weak claim to the International Court of Justice?

    Please advise...

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton: “Britain started by claiming all the archipelago, and then ,after the Convention on 1771 left the question open, claimed the west in 1774”.
    It is not true, Britain only demanded a reparation for the offense occasioned to Her Britannic Majesty and in the treaty it was agreed the return of the Fort and Port Egmont, in turn Spain made reservation of its sovereignty.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Roger Lorton

    Demon Tree - Argentina hardly existed in 1817. It did nothing.

    There was an archaeological examination of Egmont in the 1990's (Philpott R.A. An Archaeological Survey of Port Egmont, Falkland Islands 1992). I have the paper which was provided by the authors, but it is on a pay to view system on the internet, so I cannot post it. Basically, they found very little. Stones are not easily dated. It seems certain to me that in 1811 Spain recognised the 1771 accord. Why? Because of Napoleon. Political necessity. They had become our new best friend in 1809.

    Malvinenese 1833 - it is entirely true. I have no need to lie. In 1774 England clearly claimed only the Western Island. In 1811, Spain clearly claimed on the Eastern island. Those are facts. You can attempt to reinterpret them all you like. But they are facts non-the-less.

    Argentine did not inherit - not in 1810. Not in 1816. Not in 1825. Spain couldn't give Argentina the Falklands in 1863. Just a myth.

    Britain did not recognise more that Argentina's de facto existence in 1825. Britain only recognised Argentina's de jure existence in 1850.

    1850 - ”Art. V. it is freely acknowledged and admitted that the Argentine Republic is in the unquestioned enjoyment and exercise of every right, whether of peace or war, possessed by any independent nation; … ”

    End of Argie bullcrap

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Roger

    From England itself..

    The British Empire

    “Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.

    The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island”

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -6
  • Stoker

    The Republic of Argentina should go and tell your fairy stories to the fifteen judges at the UNICJ and see how far they get with the sovereignty claim ;-D

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton:
    William Pitt , when stating in the British Parliament, on January 25th, that the Masserano Declaration “appeared to be an ignominious compromise. It was no satisfaction; no reparation. The right was not secured, and even the restitution was incomplete; that Port Egmont alone is restored, not Falkland´s Island”.
    The Parliamentary History of England from the earliest period to the year 1803. Vol. XVI. A.D. 1765- 1771. London, Hansard, 1813, p. 1339.-
    Someone more important in history than you, he said. Those are facts.
    End British lies.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Roger Lorton

    Indeed, nothing had been secured. It remained a stand-off in 1771.

    Pitt was a politician and said many things, particularly when defending the 1790 Convention in Parliament - it being compared to the 1771 Falklands convention. I have the debate in the timeline and not just a short, out-of-context quote.

    For example - “Mr. Pitt asked, if any man would state, that the precedent of Falkland’s island was at all analogous to the case of Nootka and the convention? In that case, an island, known to have been in the possession of this country, and belonging to his majesty, had been taken possession of, though afterwards restored, but without a convention like the present one; neither was the convention in 1738 at all resembling it; on the face of both there was an apparent ground for blame; but in the present there was no such appearance. It was evident that no claim had been conceded, that our right to the fisheries had been acknowledged, and that satisfaction had been obtained for the insult offered to the Crown.”

    Pitt was defending the compromise of 1790 against accusations of a poor result by MPs.

    Mr. Ryder adds; “ .. fell infinitely short of that which had been obtained on the dispute about Falkland’s island, notwithstanding the affectation of contempt with which the satisfaction demanded on that occasion had been treated. Reparation was then the only object in view, and it was obtained in its fullest extent; for Spain agreed to put every thing in the same situation as before the insult complained of was committed, and actually did so. In that case, there was a full and complete restoration; in this, there was only a declaration of a disposition to restore, ...”

    “In that case there was a full and complete restoration....”

    So many opinions from people more important than me.

    All above from Parliamentary History of England from the earliest period to the year 1803 vol.28 printed by Thomas C. Hansard 1816

    End of Argie nonsense

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Voice

    I have to agree with Roger on the Pitt Quote it is out of context they were generally annoyed that the Spaniards had stipulated that the grant of possession shall not preclude the question of prior right...
    So in effect Pitt believed it was not a restoration at all...
    Other comments in the debates are worse such as...

    “this business ends in an inconclusive Spanish convention, dictated by French arbitration; in which the disavowal becomes an additional injury; and the restitution a snare, which lays a train for future war:.

    and this in the Lords...

    ” Because the declaration, by which his Majesty is to obtain possession of Port Egmont, contains a reservation or condition of the question of a claim of prior right of sovereignty in the Catholic King to the whole of Falkland's Islands, being the first time such a claim has ever authentically appeared in any public instrument jointly concluded by the two courts. No explanation of the principles of this claim has been required, although there is just reason to believe that these principles will equally extend to restrain the liberty and confine the extent of British navigation.
    No counter-claim has been made on the part of his Majesty, to the right of sovereignty, in any part of the said island ceded to him; any assertion whatsoever, of his Majesty's right of sovereignty, has been studiously avoided, from the beginning to the accomplishment of this unhappy transaction; which, after the expense of millions, settles no contest, asserts no rights, exacts no reparation, affords no security, but stands as a monument of reproach to the wisdom of the national councils, of dishonour to the essential dignity of his Majesty's crown, and of disgrace to the... untainted honour of the British flag.”

    It's all clear in context..

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Marti Llazo

    @Roger “End of Argie nonsense”

    There is no end to “Argie nonsense.” Nonsense is the defining national quality, the daemon seed from which all that is Argentine develops and quickly decays.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +5
  • Roger Lorton

    Parliament hasn't actually changed very much in the last 200-odd years Voice. Every MP has an opinion, and the Opposition will always attempt to denigrate anything that the Governing Party attempts to achieve.

    They are just words, and with so many opposing views, no conclusion is really possible.

    One intriguing aspect of Nootka, was that the British envoy, Fitzherbert, took to Madrid two draft Conventions. The first was very specific and focused on the demarcation of areas of sovereignty within the Americas. The other was the vague mumbo-jumbo that we actually ended up with - designed only as a stop-gap measure to keep peace going a little longer. Pitt wanted the first option; Spain declined and would only sign the second, having insisted on a few changes to make it even vaguer.

    As with so many of these things, the compromise was a mess.

    Pitt later expressed his frustration with the result in a letter to Lord Leeds. He talked of his desire to finally settle the question of Falklands sovereignty and suggested the matter be raised after the 1790 Convention.

    Lord Leeds suggested that they await the first complaint under Art.7 as that would provide the best opportunity to re-open the Falklands question.

    Spain never did complain.

    Posted 5 days ago - Link - Report abuse +4
  • gordo1

    Niño Marquitos Alejandrino

    Again you fail to identify the source of your misinformation. It could be a figment of your juvenile imagination. Kindly be more precise.

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

    Wiffle-waffle, wiffle-waffle, wiffle-waffle - who cares who said or didn't say whatever 200 years ago.

    It has no relevance in the 21st century

    The only thing that matters are the wishes, desires and rights of the Falkland Islanders.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • gordo1

    Malvinense 1833
    ”@ Demon Tree: For example, debts contracted by the Spanish government in the former provinces of Spain (Argentina).
    It's funny but they say that Argentina did not inherit anything ;-))”

    NO NO & NO what we say nay insist is that Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands! don't you read what is posted, nene?

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:

    in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left.
    It's all clear in context..... End British lies. Ah Roger,todos los derechos reservados.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    Then Deas didn't read it properly - as both Britain AND Spain were subject to the same prohibitions under Art.6

    As the Americans interpreted it - “... there was sufficient proof in the efforts made by the Government of Spain to prevent other nations from planting colonies in the Falkland Islands; from which islands, it may be remarked, both parties to the convention appear to have been excluded by the terms of the sixth article.” [Greenhow 1840]

    All British rights were reserved; as Pitt said - “ ... It was evident, that no claim had been conceded ... “

    Nootka only makes mention of sovereignty on one occasion. In the preamble when it set the issue aside.

    “Their Britannic and Catholic Majesties being desirous of terminating, by a speedy and solid agreement, the differences which have lately arisen between the two Crowns, have considered that the best way of attaining this salutary object would be that of an amicable arrangement which, setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the two parties,285 should regulate their respective positions for the future on bases which would be conformable to their true interests as well as to the mutual desires with which Their said Majesties are animated, of establishing with each other, in everything and in all places, the most perfect friendship, harmony, and good correspondence.”

    A 1790 sovereignty umbrella.

    By the way Deas was (indeed still is) a pro-Argie member of the South Atlantic Council. Just for your information.

    Nootka didn't help Spain's claim to sovereignty over the Falklands and, never forget, Argentina is not Spain.

    End of Argie bullshit.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Malvi
    ”For example, debts contracted by the Spanish government in the former provinces of Spain (Argentina).”

    Ah, I see. To be honest I am surprised they agreed to pay those. The more recent governments have been reluctant to pay their own debts, let alone those contracted by another government.

    @RL & Malvi
    Maybe both of you could agree to leave out the 'End of ... lies/bullshit'? It's getting tiresome, and clearly a lie in itself as neither of you show any sign of stopping...

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Roger Lorton

    It was tiresome before, which is why I joined in.

    Art. 4 of the 1863 Treaty took the debts back to 1810 on the basis that BA had been calling the shots on expenditure albeit declaring for the Spanish King. Debts have nothing to do with sovereignty. Spain was just protecting itself.

    End of .................. possibly :-)

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    ”Even earlier, the Memorandum issued by the Department of History of the Foreign Office dated December 7th, 1910 came to the same conclusion: “By virtue of this section (section 6 of the Treaty of 1790) becomes apparent that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Malvinas islands”.
    In short, the Nootka Sound Convention is the consolidation of Spanish sovereignty over the entire archipelago. Had the British wished to resettle Port Egmont after 1774, they could have done so by invoking the agreement signed in 1771, which will be the topic of the next chapter. From 1790, they undertook not to do so. Article VI prevented Great Britain from contesting Spanish sovereignty and from occupying any part of the coast of the islands. There are similarities to the Permanent Court of International Justice’s interpretation of the “Ihlen declaration” with respect to Eastern Greenland, except that in 1790 there was no doubt as to the conventional nature of the obligation undertaken by Great Britain:

    It follows that, as a result of the undertaking involved in the Ihlen declaration of July 22nd, 1919, Norway is under an obligation to refrain from contesting Danish sovereignty over Greenland as a whole, and a fortiori to refrain from occupying a part of Greenland.”
    Marcelo Kohen- Facundo Rodríguez.
    It is proven that Roger Lorton is the only one who makes strange interpretations of treatises with P & P. :-))

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

    TWIMC

    “The more recent governments have been reluctant to pay their own debts, let alone those contracted by another government.”... says a poster above...

    Why are we suddenly talking about BREXIT...?

    End of Engrish hypocritical haughtiness...

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Roger Lorton

    “Mr. Fitzherbert having accepted the declaration, all differences between the courts of Madrid and London were terminated with proper formality and precision, by a convention between his Britannic majesty and the king of Spain, signed at the Escurial, on the 28th of October, 1790. This settlement at Nootka Sound was restored, a full liberty of trade to all the northwest coasts of America, and navigation and fishery in the southern pacific were confirmed to England. Both nations were equally restricted from attempting any settlement nearer to Cape Horn than the most southerly plantations already established by Spain.”

    [The History of the Reign of George III: To which is Prefixed a View of the Progressive Improvements of England in Property and Strength to the Accession of His Majesty Robert Bisset vol.2 1822]

    “The political situation as it developed after the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in Latin America was entirely different from the one that existed in 1790. Therefore it will have to be concluded that the Nootka Sound Convention influenced neither the legal situation in the year 1790 nor subsequent development of the territorial status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”

    [The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present Rudolf Dolzer 1993]

    Quite the Contrary Malvinense 1833 - my interpretations are those widely accepted. Even by those paid to support Argentina, like Dolzer.

    Go learn

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • DemonTree

    @Think
    Funny, I don't remember saying the British government was any better.

    But I think those are more like the debts of the new Argentine government in that Britain is probably morally obliged to pay them, but not legally obliged. Besides that no one can agree on how much they should be.

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

    The Spirit versus The Word.

    Ever the stand-off between Common and Roman Law.

    Posted 4 days ago - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Very well, Roger, slowly admitting it with his own sources.
    You say the same thing as me:
    ”Both nations were equally restricted from attempting any settlement nearer to Cape Horn than the most southerly plantations already established by Spain.”
    Great Britain by that treaty was prohibited to occupy the Malvinas.
    The Malvinas at the time of the treaty were occupied by Spain and named its governor number 13.
    You can not read?.
    Dolzer? Many errors in his book, mentions 11 Spanish governors, I can not take it seriously. ;-))

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

    No, the garrison at Soledad was settled by the Spanish. Surrounding that site they had 10 maritime Leagues (30 miles by sea) nothing more. Let's call it Berkeley Sound.

    Both nations were therefore prohibited from making any further establishments to the south of Berkeley Sound. Egmont lies to the north of Berkeley Sound, as does a chunk of the archipelago. Neither nation were prohibited from making establishments there.

    So again, both countries were prohibited from forming establishments in any of the archipelago south of Puerto Soledad & Berkeley Sound.

    It's in the words of the Convention.

    Dolzer was employed by Argentina to fights its case in 2008. Interestingly he attended the London debate that pushed Pascoe & Pepper into writing their paper, which, in its turn, prompted Kohen & Rodriguez to attempt to debunk it and that also led - to you buying the one book that you appear to own, Malvinense 1833. The inter-connectedness of all things.

    In actual fact there were only 2 Spanish Governors at Soledad. The remainder were titled comandante-gobernadors and paid rather a lot less than Governors.

    Dolzer is an associate of Kohen................ was in 2008 and still is.

    Aren't facts fun?

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Roger Lorton: Nop Roger, the treaty is very clear do not make interpretations that do not correspond.
    The treaty never mentions Puerto Soledad, Port Egmont or Berkely Sound:
    ARTICLE VI
    It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same COAST and of the ISLANDS adjacent already OCCUPIED by SPAIN; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
    Did I mention that on the islands were the Spaniards?
    As for Dolzer: his book was written in 1993, possibly
    updated the incorrect data with Kohen in 2008. ;-))

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

    PARTS of the coasts... occupied by Spain.

    All that was OCCUPIED by Spain in the Falklands was the Soledad garrison site in Berkeley Sound. The garrison site plus 10 maritime leagues is all you got.

    Spain didn't get all the coast, or all the islands.

    Occupied means just the site plus 30 sea miles.

    (we'll leave out the word 'adjacent' for now)

    Go learn.

    Dolzer's no fool. He recognised that sovereignty was 'set aside' by the preamble.

    The Nootka Convention did not give Spain the sovereignty of the Falklands.

    And Argentina is not Spain.

    Posted 3 days ago - Link - Report abuse +3
  • golfcronie

    To me it is very simple. The FALKLANDERS want to be a British Overseas Territory and that gentlemen is the be all and end all of this. Take it to the ICJ or put up or shut up.

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse +2
  • gordo1

    All the time Argentina fails to take its claim to the ONLY forum which can make a determination then its postering has no value at all! Until the ICJ gets involved then Argentina's claim has no credence - AT ALL!

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

    “The FALKLANDERS want to be a British Overseas Territory and that gentlemen is the be all and end all of this. Take it to the ICJ or put up or shut up.”

    Want is very much like wish and wishes are very much irrelevant at the ICJ...

    Besides if it was taken to the ICJ it would be a matter between the UK and Argentina and not the Falklands...only sovereign countries can take a matter before the ICJ...
    Of course their interests would be taken into consideration...I've read that somewhere...
    Wants/wishes perhaps not...

    Posted 1 day ago - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Marti Llazo

    @tinklevoice “ ...only sovereign countries can take a matter before the ICJ...”

    In 2008 Kosovo, which was not a sovereign nation but a component of Yugoslavia, declared its independence from the latter. The UN General Assembly asked for an advisory opinion from the ICJ. Serbia asked for the ICJ's opinion on whether Kosovo's declaration of independence was a violation international law. The matter of Kosovo's lacking sovereign status was resolved by granting it “provisional institution” recognition.

    In July 2010 the ICJ ruled that Kosovo's declaration of independence was not in violation of international law. The ICJ president said that international law contains no “prohibition on declarations of independence.” The ICJ indicated that Kosovo's declaration was legal but the question of recognition was an international political matter and did not offer an opinion on obligations concerning recognition of states self-declaring independence.

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

    Did Kosovo take it to the ICJ..?
    Nope, it appears that the UN asked for an advisory opinion from the ICJ...
    Then Serbia asked for the ICJ's opinion...
    Do I have to highlight the obvious...?

    Recently the matter has been raised concerning the EU demands for money from the UK...
    The EU is not a Sovereign State and cannot take it to the ICJ each individual Sovereign State would need to take it separately or collectively...
    So give up with your near misses...

    Posted 9 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marti Llazo

    You missed the obvious, tinkle. And in doing so avoided understanding of the application of the principles of this case in analogous cases such as the Falklands or Catalunya.

    Posted 7 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Voice

    The Falklands cannot take any case to the ICJ is that clear enough for you...?
    Are you going to post some more drivel about other cases that didn't actually take their case to the ICJ...?
    What part of Non-Self Governing Territory are you failing to grasp...?
    Is it the Non-Self Governing bit or is it the bit where the UK deals with other Sovereign States for them bit...?
    ...give up you're embarrassing yourself...

    Posted 2 hours ago - Link - Report abuse 0

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