MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina surfaces three Spanish Malvinas documents from 1767
Argentine former vice president and currently Senator of the ruling coalition, Julio Cobos has announced the discovery of three letters dated 1767, revealing an exchange of information between then Buenos Aires city governor, and Felipe Ruiz Puente, described as the first Malvinas Islands governor. At the time was part of the Spanish colonial empire. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWhen did Argentina have 'an unopposed settlement of some years?'
Nov 07th, 2017 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse +5Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Hmmm. So what have we got?
Nov 07th, 2017 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse +81. On February 18, 1767 Governor Bucarelli writes to the soon to take-over from the French, Governor Puente - who is in MONTEVIDEO - to offer some prisoners as labourers at Fort Louis. Please note that Puente did not sail from Montevideo until February 28 and did not arrive at Fort St, Louis until March 24; a day after Bougainville got there (and who recorded it all).
2. On April 25, Governor Puente, thinking that the French arrangements are poor (I'm being polite), writes to Governor Bucarelli asking for a chapel, a religious icon and some ornaments etc. Presumably because there were no shops open and he was feeling isolated (you should see the letter he wrote on the 27th)
3. In December, Gov. Bucarelli writes to Gov. Puente to say he'll send a chapel, an icon and some religious ornaments etc., as requested.
During the same 11 months, the British completed around Port Egmont (which is not on Saunders Island by the by), a fort (Fort George) a settlement (Jasons Town), an observation platform and a fishing pavilion.
While the Spaniards huddled around their fires. Did you know that the Acadians laughed at them? Well, after Canada, the Falklands were downright balmy.
All of which means, that these letters, mildly interesting as they are (and yes Think, they'll feature in the next update) are in fact completely inconsequential with regards to the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Cobos does not appear to know his arse from his elbow; or should I say his artifact from his evidence?
Have I ever mentioned, in passing perhaps, that Argentina is not Spain? Yes?
Great! We look forward to the Republic of Argentina presenting these, plus any other supporting documentation in their possession, before the fifteen Judges at the United Nations International Court of Justice in Den Haag, Netherlands.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse +8I am not holding my breath though ;-D
What fantastic news if true, now Argentina can take those letters to the ICJ with ALL the other evidence or alternitivley shove them up there arse. As Stoker says we will not be holding our breaths.Com'on Argentina grow up and grow a pair. Exactly a quarter of a Century ( 250 years for our Argie readers ) come on get real, April fools day has not yet arrived for 2018
Nov 07th, 2017 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse +6deluded fantasy from a fantasyland of deluded brainwashed people.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 10:27 am - Link - Report abuse +6Great letters... they prove nothing however..... It's really in the best interest of Argentina to get on with life and quit wasting time and money on something that will never happen....
Nov 07th, 2017 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse +6“The three letters are now in custody of Argentina's National Archive”
Nov 07th, 2017 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +5So are documents from 1833, except Argentines don't read them.
As Roger says Spain is not Argentina.
What is especially hilarious from Cobos is that these documents were from a time when Britain was also present on the Falklands, as RL points out.
Again, RL/Brit Bob put things into context, Cobos has nil historical peripheral vision.
“It is with great pleasure that we must mention the recovery of this heritage evidence, a further step in again confirming the solid reasons brandished by Argentina's unrenounceable sovereignty claim“
So what?
We all know Spain had a garrison on the Falkland Islands.
This does nothing whatsoever to counter the UK's claim.
”The Islands have been, are and will be Argentine, and today with these three documents we are three steps closer ”
'Have been'=dubious,' are'=in denial ? and 'will be', even more ridiculous than the 'are'.
Three steps closer to........ an adjudication against by the ICJ?
“only “official” document in which the name Isla Soledad”
This 'definitive evidence' is hilarious. This guy has apparently been a vice president, though did he get educated at ding dong school?
No need to watch any comedy today. Thanks, Snr Cobos.
While the English pirates were building Fort George clandestinely, the French were established there 2 years before!
Nov 07th, 2017 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse -4An English discovery that did not exist.
A clandestine settlement when another power already occupied the islands.
An abandoned plaque without a subsequent claim.
An abandonment with another country occupying the islands.
The islands were never British.
Thank you Mr. Cobos, we have the documents that the English can not show.
November 6, 197 years of the Argentine occupation without British claims.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Gaceta_de_Madrid_-_Toma_de_posesi%C3%B3n_argentina_de_Malvinas.jpg
Malvi -
Nov 07th, 2017 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The English discovery was long before 1767.
Byron's voyage was clandestine because of its object of discovering the north-west passage. MacBride took out 100 settlers. How clandestine is that?
The 1774 lead plate? Have you not read the 1789 Board of Trade Enquiry? The 1801/02 Treaty of Amiens rejections? Where was the need to go on about anything - Spain was hardly a threat after all.
Spain only ever occupied East Falkland, and not much of that.
The Islands were never Argentine - simply because Argentina is not Spain.
You have nonsense.
197 years of Argentine occupation? What are you smoking?
Where is your English map of discovery? No English has presented it.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -46 Noviembre 1820 - 6 Noviembre 2017
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Gaceta_de_Madrid_-_Toma_de_posesi%C3%B3n_argentina_de_Malvinas.jpg
Smoking? ;-)
Yes I will have some of that stuff Malvi is smoking, obviously leads to halucinations at best.We have been there longer than you thats for sure
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Hello, I do not smoke, golfie and they are not halucinations, you can see the link.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Malvi -
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I can guarantee that that, in 1593, Davis was the first Englishman to discover the Falkland Islands. Take it as read. Guaranteed.
Hawkins was the first Englishman to claim them.
MacBride was the first Englishman to accurately chart them.
Hunt was the first Englishman to tell a Spaniard to “go away” (I'm being polite again).
Farmer was the first Englishman to defend them
Weymouth was the first Englishman to threaten war over them
Rochford was the first Englishman to sign a convention about them
Clayton was the first Englishman to nail a lead plate to a door there
Durie was the first English-woman to give birth there
Jewett was the first American to claim the islands for a country that did not exit.
Maps - I have hundreds. English, French & Spanish plus a couple of German. I do have one Spanish map from 1748 which shows that Spain had never been there. How? Because they had nicked the drawing of the Island (singular) from the Frenchman Frezier.
Malvi, if you are not smoking something weird then you need help. My best advice is to come back when you actually know something - and are not relying on two lying lawyers
;-)
(what can I say, I'm in a flippant mood)
The indoctrinated believe that they inherited the Falklands from Spain and all they have to do is turn up at the international courts and claim uti possidetis juris. Hm.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands – Uti Possidetis Juris (II):
https://www.academia.edu/33316156/Falklands_Uti_Possidetis_Juris_II
Sod, got an exit instead of an exist...... my typing skills do not improve.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Jewett was the man who made a claim, sailed away without leaving anything behind, and then forgot to report what he'd claimed to his masters. All a bit confusing really.
Or are you suggesting that the islands were terra nulius Malvi?
You may need to speak to a lawyer first :-)
Wikimedia, Let's see if the ICJ read Wikimedia, haha you certainly must be smoking pot or something
Nov 07th, 2017 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Perfect Roger, there is no map of Davis's discovery, but we have his word as a guarantee of that historical fact.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -5You mention many maps, but you can not mention any of the English discovery.
Hawkins pure fantasy, made mention of the “alleged discovery” 28 years later. He mentioned bonfires in a completely uninhabited place.
Byron, Macbride, arrived clandestinely and absolutely late.
Rochford, Weymouth, could not do anything at all before the reserve of Spanish sovereignty.
Liars Lawyers? have the opportunity to leave them in evidence: We are at disposal of any person or entity willing to organise a serious and respectful debate on Argentine-British sovereignty dispute over the islands and offer to organise similar in Buenos Aires.
We are also confident that those seriously interested in the matter will read both publications and will then be in a position to judge for themselves.
Professor Marcelo Kohen
Facundo Rodríguez, Advocate.
@ golfie, There you have Wikipedia: Argentina surfaces three Spanish Malvinas documents from 1767, Mercopress, today.
TWIMC
Nov 07th, 2017 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Funny how aroused the Anglo Falklandists all get when yet more documents surface that strenghten Argentina's legitimate claim over the Malvinas Islands...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
No map of the discovery of Davis in Mercopress comes to light simply because that fact ..... never existed!
Nov 07th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -5As Mr. think says: chuckle, chuckle
I always think it’s hilarious when some idiot suddenly produces “evidence” that someone 250 years ago could actually write and suggest that it constitutes “proof” that a territorial claim that has been ongoing for 234 years has some justification.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2We can all look back and see when the French sold their settlement to the Spanish. Note that they only sold the settlement. There is no record that I know of that shows the French actually claimed anything. Where is the document showing the French transferring sovereignty to Spain? There are various legally acceptable methods of acquiring sovereignty. Neither France nor Spain appear to have used any of them. Moreover, as has been explained many times, a colony or ex-colony cannot legally acquire territory or sovereignty by “inheritance”, even in the 19th century. And certainly not when the colony is a thousand miles away. Argies forget that argieland wasn’t the size it is today. They had to murder a lot of native people before they could move outside the current Buenos Aires province. And there would be considerable doubt over who could make a claim. Firstly because the Islands were already acknowledged to be British, as witness Vernet’s application for British permission to go there, but also because the ex-colony had already fractured. Vernet’s so-called “rights” were agreed by the “United Provinces” but the proclamation that he was the “civil and military commandant” was issued by the short-lived “Republic of Buenos Aires”. By the time Spain acknowledged the new “country” it was 1860 and there’s no sign of Spain ever transferring the sovereignty it never had. Spain acknowledged British sovereignty in 1771. When it declined to go to war. See the Falklands Crisis 1770/71.
There’s also the small matter of the provenance of these documents. You’ll need laboratory tests by a non-argie and nonpartisan forensic laboratory acceptable to Britain and the Falkland Islands. And you still have to take your “claim” to court.
No Think, I would suggest rather, that it is extracting the urine from over excited Malvanistas....
Nov 07th, 2017 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I mean, come on, who actually gives two funkies mucks about some 250 year old letters (if they are genuine or not). They are totally, 100%, completely irrelavent.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The only thing that matters is what the Falkland Islanders themselves want and no weasel words and semantics and dodgy translations by desperate Argentines will change that.
When is Argentina going to grow up???????????????
The RGs dont seem to get it? There is no way they will ever get sovereignty. Its an impossible dream cooked up by desperate Peronists to marshall the masses. They are too collectively stupid to see it, which explains why the place is in such a poor state. Better to emigrate like Rique and Think and live the rest of your lives in a safe decent and prosperous country.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Irrespective of how many letters or other documents come out of the woodwork the fact remains that the Republic of Argentina signed the UN Charter on 26 June 1945 and, under that Charter, the people who live on the Falkland Islands have the right to choose for themselves who governs them and to whom they freely give their allegiance.....as any of those fifteen Judges sitting at the UNICJ will tell you.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Still not holding my breath ;-D
Think
Nov 07th, 2017 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Where are these documents that strengthen Argentina's claim ?
Argentina's “claim” consists of Blah, Blah, Blah. It's ours because we want it !
I noticed today that Denmark is the country with the happiest and most contented people.
What keeps YOU in Argentina or wherever else you dwell when you could return there with your Scandinavian passport.
When we leave the EU then you will have to ask permission to enter the UK. How will you live !
A fair and equitable solution would be for Spain, the mother country, to secede its historical claims to Chile, the rightful inheritor of Patagonia and of course the Malvinas. Chile could then in turn sell its rights to the entire lot for a reasonable sum granted by the current residents. I'm sure we could find a map and a few letters to back our legitimate claims...
Nov 07th, 2017 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It's odd, this alternate Argie history.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2They claim the Falklands as belonging to the Spanish, the country that BA revolted against.
They claim to have inherited them from Spain, though UPS is 1,000 miles away from the Islands.
Then they claim they are in the Argentine Sea on their continental shelf adjacent to the Argentine coast of Patagonia.
Of course, when pressed about the Indian genocide to occupy Patagonia, the Argies will tell you it was a majority of British ranchers who did the killing and occupied the land.
Does that make them British?
I'm confused.
@Conqueror:
Nov 07th, 2017 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Just a few points so as not to make the discussion long:
- In many history books you can find the incorporation of the islands to the Kingdom of France, letters of the negotiations of the French cession to Spain, the communication that was made to the British ambassador in Spain, finally the Bougainville note. Look for it and you will find it.
“a colony or ex-colony cannot legally acquire territory or sovereignty by “inheritance”, even in the 19th century.”
- You can not acquire sovereignty by inheritance, but it is possible to acquire sovereignty with a “supposed discovery” (Davis) and leaving a plaque abandoned.
-“Spain acknowledged British sovereignty in 1771.”
But the country that remained on the islands was Spain, and the one that left the place was Great Britain, does not it seem a recognition of sovereignty strange ?
“Firstly because the Islands were already acknowledged to be British, as witness Vernet’s application for British permission to go there.”
Argentina is always showing the documents, now show the proof:
Where is the document that shows Vernet's recognition of British sovereignty?
Regards.
In any case, it all belongs to Chile.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Everyone forgets however that ”possession is 9/10ths of the law.
Think - I had assumed that you, at least, would read my words carefully.
Nov 07th, 2017 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“.... the first ENGLISHMAN to ...”
As I said, I was feeling flippant.
The newly found documents are of no importance, simply because whatever happened in the 1760's was changed by the events in the 1770's. Was changed by the events in the 1800's
The base line is simple enough. There was a dispute between Spain and England. By 1811 it was looking like a draw, with Britain's title to the western island ragged but effectively unchallenged, ans with Spain leaving and only claiming ONE island.
A surprise move by the British right-wing in the dying moments of the game (1833) caught Spain unawares and the game was won - by Britain. To be fair, we had had to wait until Spain was exhausted.
Argentina, on the other hand, may have been in the stands, but they were never in the game.
The myth of inheritance is simply risible.
Lying lawyers malvi - who distort, quite deliberately - what they know does not fit. I can say it to you because I've said it to them.
And that game is not yet over.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 08th, 2017 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse +4“While the English pirates .,. “
The only piracy that has existed in the South Atlantic was sanctioned by the independent former Spanish colony that became Argentina.
“There is scarcely a Buenos Ayrean privateer which has not committed piracy of every description - it appears that at Buenos Ayres itself commissions of Artigas have been sold to the Captains of the Buenos Ayres privateers, who have gone to sea, and used one or the other commission as suited their purposes... There is not a day passes but we hear of new crimes of this description committed under the flag and commission of Buenos Ayres ...”
John Quincy Adams July 20th, 1820
Malvi 1833 - if Britain had “left the place”, what were we doing surveying Port Egmont in January, 1786?
Nov 08th, 2017 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse +51767? Not only was was this at least 40 years PRIOR to any notion of Argentine independence but Montevideo, not Buenos Aires, was the “sede” of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata - so how did this document suddenly “surface” in Buenos Aires? And what did the SPANISH city governor of Bs As have to do with the Falkland Islands(Malvinas).
Nov 08th, 2017 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse +4Smells a bit, doesn't it?
@Terence Hill - Lightning
Nov 08th, 2017 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Pirated? Who? genocide indian? who?
Those that pirated the World's Oceans abd shores against the rest of us for centuries on end...
Those that also pirated the whole of Australia and New Zealand from the natives....
Those that also pirated ~ 90 of the North American continent from the natives...
Those that also pirated ~ 50% of the Middle East from the natives...
Those that also pirated ~ 50% of Africa from the natives...
Those that also pirated ~ 40% of Asia from the natives...
Those that also pirated ~ 2% of SA from the natives...
All rights reserved © The Think....
YOU SAY:
“They claim to have inherited them from Spain, though UPS is 1,000 miles away from the Islands.”
I SAY:
They affirm their sovereignty with the United Kingdom at 7,982 miles.
chuckle, chuckle...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row
Nov 08th, 2017 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Nuestro objeto al conquistar la India, el objeto de todas nuestras crueldades, no fue otro que el dinero... Se dice que de la India se han obtenido unos mil millones de libras esterlinas en los últimos noventa años (1756-1846). Cada uno de estos chelines se ha extraído de un charco de sangre; se ha limpiado a conciencia y ha ido a parar a los bolsillos de los asesinos. Sin embargo, por mucho que se limpie y se seque el dinero, esa “maldita mancha” no saldrá nunca.
Nov 08th, 2017 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -7“In 1842 Napier was in India commanding a British army in Sindh. ”Our object in conquering India, the object of all our cruelties, was money,“ he wrote. ”Every shilling of this has been picked out of blood, wiped and put into the murderer's pocket … We shall yet suffer for the crime as sure as there is a God in heaven.”
Sir Charles Napier (1782-1853)
Tell us Malvi, what has India got to do with THE FALKLANDS?
Nov 08th, 2017 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Historically, Britain has blood on its hands. So does Argentina.
Nov 08th, 2017 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +2There is no high moral ground - just the sh*t we all walk in.
People in glass houses, etc ............
@golfie: Nothing, it is simply surprising that Britons want to teach morals.
Nov 08th, 2017 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Malvinense 1833
Nov 08th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Pirated? Who?”
“Buenos Ayres itself “ Said U.S. Secretary of State. Who served as the sixth President of the United States from 1825 to 1829.
So you don’t deny that Buenos Ayres engaged officially in piracy. Nor can you show any support for your claim that the British engaged in piracy in the South Atlantic. So thanks for the confirmation that you are a liar. So keep dragging those goal posts around.
M.1833
Nov 08th, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +4I see you rely on “thinkism statistics....more fool you !
”those that pirated the World's Oceans abd shores against the rest of us for centuries on end...“
Who are ”us“.
Do you mean the England preyed against the Spanish thieves who systematically raped and plundered S.America.. Typical Argie double standards
HAVE A LOOK AT THE MAP
wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas#/media/File:Spanish_America_XVIII_Century standards.
The ”English” colonies were a small strip of the east coast. The Spanish and French had much more of the territory. Anyway, after 1775, it was the Americans who pushed into the west and south. THEY were an amalgam of British, French , Dutch, and German Americans. The UK had moved out.
As for Africa, the French, Belgians, Germans and Portuguese had huge chunks of the continent and even Denmark had its own colony.
Your figures are risible and are plucked from his febrile imagination.
The two largest pirate fleets were on the Barbary coast and in the Malay peninsula,,,not the UK.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 08th, 2017 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You really must improve your efforts here - you are barely literate insofar as your knowledge of history is concerned. For example, the behaviour of Spain towards the native populations of the West Indies and Central and South America was nothing more than genocide and a worse example than the Nazis and Hitler during the 1930s and 1940s. Then, of course, one of your presidents was also responsible for la Conquista del Desierto - Julio Argentino Roca, a “bestia”!
Captain Joshua Slocumbe was attacked by indians in canoes whilst sailing through Tierra del Fuego in 1899 on his round the world voyage. I note that the RG Navy have currently been reduced to using the same craft!
Nov 08th, 2017 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +2He thwarted them by covering the decks in tin tacks at night and was roused by their cries to see them off with his gun.
The Royal Navy are ready for another canoe invasion.
Any relation to Mrs Slocumbe of the famous pussy ?
Nov 08th, 2017 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@The Voice.
Nov 08th, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Whats that, the Argies were thwarted by a couple of pricks on an English ship
:-))))))))))))))))))))))
Nov 09th, 2017 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1:-))))))))))))))))))))))
:-))))))))))))))))))))))
@Malvinense 1833
Nov 09th, 2017 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse -3Tengo un concepto para generar un mapa particular.
Podrías contactarme por correo o por facebook?
patrick.regini@yahoo.com
y facebook: Patrick Edgar Regini
... y gracias por el aguante hombre!
O sino uníte a cualquiera de los siguientes 4 grupos:
Amigos del Museo Malvinas e Islas del Atlántico Sur,
Islas Flk/Mlv Propuestas Argentinas,
Falkland ~ Malvinas Islands territorial rights discussion,
British War and Political Conflicts in South America
Clyde, you would enjoy Capt Slocumbes account of his voyage in his book “Sailing alone around the world”. Even his prose has a rolling motion. At one stage after sailing across the Atlantic from Americs he is attacked by pirates off the Canaries and decides to go around the other way instead and then heads for Brazil!
Nov 09th, 2017 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE: Falklands and Chagos – A Tale of Two Islands”
Nov 09th, 2017 - 04:41 am - Link - Report abuse -5By Peter Presland(UK)
”The Islands lie about 250 nautical miles off the East coast of Argentina and some 7,000 nautical miles from London. The UK claim to sovereignty dates from 1833 following settlement by small groups of British Nationals. At various earlier and concurrent times there have been French, Spanish and Argentine settlements on the islands. Argentina’s sovereignty claim is based on inherited and well documented earlier claims by Spain prior to Argentine independence in 1816 and has been continuously maintained ever since.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/britain-and-the-empire-falklands-and-chagos-a-tale-of-two-islands/29884
Mr. Presland has not done his research then. So what's your point? Far too many authors are too keen to get published, and then end up looking daft.
Nov 09th, 2017 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse +3Want a book?
Take you choice - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/15-bibliography.pdf
You don't get any brighter MoreCrap
Marquitos Alejandrito
Nov 09th, 2017 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse +2Nene - do tell us more about TRANSCEND MEDIA SERVICE and also who is Peter Presland. Once more you fail to tell us the source of your contributions to this debate.
What a plonker!
And check out his references - Wikipedia !!
Nov 09th, 2017 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse +2Roger Lorton. Of the nine pages of bibliography, is there ONE book that you can recommend as giving an objective, well-written history?
Nov 09th, 2017 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marq.
Nov 09th, 2017 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse +1“and no allegations of mistreatment by the civilian population.”
As soon as I read that I knew it was a piece of crap journalism. He didn't bother to check with any of the locals suffering under the occupation at that time.
As to this “site” it is totally anti-UK in all its aspects as with the USA. Funnily enough it seems to be sympathetic to Russia.
Venezuela...“On 8 of June, I had the privilege to attend a press conference hosted by the Venezuelan Ambassador in Bern, Switzerland”
Not anti western bias ?
I wonder who is bankrolling this propaganda machine. Hmm ?
Felipe Ordóñez de Rivera
Nov 09th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse +1No, sadly.
There are some very good works covering particular aspects of the history, but the only work that extends from 1480 to 2017 is mine.
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/chapter-pdfs/
And I freely admit that it is unfinished. Only today I have found a book from 1791 dealing the the Nootka controversy - blow by blow. It is enlightening in its detail, but will not find its way into my work until the next update in March, 2017. As for objectivity, I try, but leave that to the reader to decide.
Marcos Alejandro
Nov 09th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina’s sovereignty claim is based on inherited..”
You were explicitly barred under prior Anglo-Spanish treaties from ever holding sovereignty. Under Utrecht and Nootka Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833 to wit:
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN
“...Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the
Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest
as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either
based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession,
presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty
of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.10 That the tribunal's decision in this
arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish
a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states
as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...”
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
Marcos
Nov 09th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1This wouldn't be the same Peter Presland who set up/was involved with the 'Deep Politics Forum' would it?
If so let me quote from it's home page:-
“An online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems. We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.
Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows”.
In other words a forum for conspiracy theories nuts.
@Terence Hill: At the moment of the usurpation, not only were the parties not at war, but they had concluded a treaty of peace and friendship. As we will explain below, mutual respect for territorial integrity had to be observed. Besides, a simple act of force did not in itself imply belligerency between the parties. It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war. There was no state of belligerence between Argentina and Great Britain when commander Onslow expelled Argentine agents from the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833. Nor did this fact imply the outbreak of a war between the two countries. The concept of conquest does not therefore apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas. As Sharon Korman explains in her book on conquest as a means of acquiring territorial sovereignty:
Nov 09th, 2017 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -4It is reasonable to suppose that if the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest, BRITAIN WOULD HAVE APPEALED TO THAT TITLE AS A MEANS OF PUTTING AN END, ONCE AND FOR ALL, TO THE DISPUTED STATUS OF THE TERRITORY(...). But Britain – contrary to what would have been the advice of some present-day international lawyers – did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.
All rights © reserved Marcelo Kohen - Facundo Rodríguez.
Malvi - tell me where it was writ, that war had to be declared before trespassers could be ejected.
Nov 09th, 2017 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Britain's sovereignty went back to 1765. Spain's to 1767.
Spain did not complain in 1833.
Argentina was as irrelevant then, as it is now.
Kohen & Rodriguez distort reality to make it fit. Lying Lawyers.
Argentina was never in the game.
Roger Lorton
Nov 09th, 2017 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Argentina was as irrelevant then, as it is now.” I really support you on this - very well put - succinct and accurate!
They even think they can claim the invention of Biro pens - were you aware of that?
Now that I didn't know. Do you have a date? Surprised I haven't received any complaints about not including that in the Timeline. :-)
Nov 09th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Which is due for update in March, 2018 by the by........... my typing skills get worse
Roger Lorton
Nov 09th, 2017 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_B%C3%ADró
The inventor of the BIRO was born in Hungary and emigrated to Argentina and it was there the BIRO was first marketed although he had patented the pen in Britain BEFORE emigrating.
As I have said many times before, it is the detail of history that confuses them. :-)
Nov 09th, 2017 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hey, Roger, do not you know how to read? Did not you read about the British argument of the Conquest?
Nov 09th, 2017 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -5British sovereignty does not go back to any date. 1765? The islands were already occupied.
The sovereignty of Spain dates back to 1764.
Argentina was in possession of the islands in 1833 and if complained.
The islands were never British.
Ah Roger, add to your timeline all the documents that reaffirm every day the Argentine sovereignty over the islands.
The moon is made of cheese
Nov 09th, 2017 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Pigs can fly
Nissman committed suicide
And...
“The Falkland Islands are Argentinian”
There you are Malvinonsense 1833, your quote is in good company !
Malvinense 1833
Nov 09th, 2017 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war.”
Not according to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes: “if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
“Britain would have appealed to that title ..” No! they wouldn’t they would hold their cards close to their chest and say no more than is necessary. Dropping that little bomb-shell if and only when needed.
THE FALKLANDS are a BOT end of. Incidently I hear they are going to make THE FALKLANDS a tax haven as they would do very well with the Argies as clients. What about it ?
Nov 09th, 2017 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvi - perhaps it is you that cannot read. Spain did not get to the Falklands until 1767 and went to great lengths to show that France had not ceded them.
Nov 09th, 2017 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Argentina was trespassing in 1833. Buenos Aires had been warned twice to stay off - 1829 & 1832. BA should have listened.
As for the joke of these newly found documents; I continue to be surprised that Argentines can be so gullible. They are worthless with regard to the issue of sovereignty.
Have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain? Thought so :-)
Except that Spanish claims to the Falklands are irrelevant and have no bearing on Argentine claims. By Argentine logic, Argentina should rule Jamaica since (a) Jamaica was once a Spanish possession in the New World, and (b) the current Jamaicans are an 'implanted' population put there by 'England' and so the Jamaicans should have no say in the sovereignty or government of Jamaica.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 04:35 am - Link - Report abuse +7@Marcos
Nov 10th, 2017 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse +6“BRITAIN AND THE EMPIRE: Falklands and Chagos – A Tale of Two Islands”
By Peter Presland(UK)
Actually he means two island groups .Many Islands in both Falkland and Chagos Island groups.
”The Islands lie about 250 nautical miles off the East coast of Argentina “
More than 250 nm miles surely?
”and some 7,000 nautical miles from London.“
More than that, but he doesn't explain that there are British islands throughout the Atlantic, therefore a continuum.
”The UK claim to sovereignty dates from 1833“
Bllx- at least back to 1765 and probably 1690, as he forgets the diplomatic protest of 1829 and 1832.
”following settlement by small groups of British Nationals.“
Yes, Irish, Jamaican, Scots and English, Gibraltarian and St Helenian but also Germans/French/ Uruguayans/People from the River Plate area/Danes/USA originated citizens plus the rest.
Not very thorough is he?
” Argentina’s sovereignty claim is based on inherited and well documented earlier claims by “Spain prior to Argentine independence in 1816 and has been continuously maintained ever since. ”
Well documented?
Except it has not been maintained continuously ever since 1816.
I don't remember seeing this berk him at the Chagos Island Support Group and his history is the usual broadsweep 'let's-not-include--the -most-detailed -context' dross.
Another whiner quoting Chagos but doing sweet jack squit to help the Chagossians get home as far as is possible to deduce.
And I doubt he has ever stepped on the Falkland Islands.
Believe him if you like Marcos, he's spouting crap.
@ Terence Hill: Thanks Terence for admitting it !! The author that you quote clearly gives the reason to Argentina. Please explain to Roger Lorton that the Falkland Islands were never British.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -3You must necessarily admit that the islands belonged to the Argentine state. Now you understand why the United Kingdom can not even for a moment sit down to discuss with Argentina?
@ Hola Patrick Edgar Regini, cómo estás, gracias por la invitación y por lo que veo eres nuevo aquí, posiblemente me sume a esos grupos, espero que tú puedas sumar a toda esa gente para debatir aquí.
Muchas gracias y espero que continúes por acá. Saludos.
Malvi
Nov 10th, 2017 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Boringggggggggggggg. Who cares about what happened (or not) 200 years ago.
The only thing that matters is the RIGHT of the Falkland Islanders to
self-determination here and now in 2017 .
Sophistry and verbal diarrhoea Malvi just doesn't cut the mustard nor persuade anybody of anything.
Hola, Patrick Edgar Regii!
Nov 10th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Siga adelante con Malvinense 1833! Se lo recomiendo si es que desea aprender falsedades inventadas por los señores Marcelo Kohen y Facundo Rodríguez y cuyas interpretaciones son nada mas que cuentos de hadas, mas falsedades y mentiras.
Malvi - there was no conquest in 1833, just the peaceful ejection of trespassers and as I keep stating, there is nothing to negotiate, nothing to discuss. The matter is settled.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +4There was a dispute between Britain and Spain. Argentina was never in the game. Argentina's claims are entirely spurious.
I suggest that you read more Malvi - and improve that reading comprehension. Stop just seeing that which you want to see.
I must have mentioned that Argentina is not Spain? .......................... no?
@ darragh: Who cares? Mainly to Argentina and of course also to the United Kingdom and to the people who live on the islands.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Self-determination is not applicable to the Malvinas case. If it is established that the islands belong to the United Kingdom, I will be the first to support the self-determination of its inhabitants.
@ gordo1: Hola, dónde vive usted? En Londres? En Stanley? Usted puede invitar a Kohen y Rodríguez para un debate, allí tendrá la oportunidad de desenmascararlos.
Saludos, espero que sigas bien y tengas un buen día!
Malvi - the UN recognised the Islanders as a people in 1952 and had listed the Islands as a Non-self-Governing Territory in 1946. The UN is quite clear. ALL the peoples of ALL the NSGTs have the right of self-determination. No exception has been made for the Falklands.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Self-determination is a right that supersedes sovereignty. Sovereignty is subservient to that right. This is recognised in international law. The ICJ has also said that the right of self-determination belongs to ALL the NSGTs.
Argentina lies to its people about that. The Argentine people must be so gullible.
The matter is settled. The Islanders won.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 10th, 2017 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Typical Argentine intractably you promote arguments, that when blown out of the water by international law experts opinion you are still in denial. You’re unable to refute that Argentina could not have any inheritance of the Islands as the two nations that had legal claim had signed two treaties that specifically excluded any third nation claim.
That conquest was legally valid without ‘a state of war’.
So thank you for confirmation that the UK holds irrefutable sovereignty. Since you are unable to show any facet of international law that indicates the otherwise.
@ Roger Lorton:
Nov 10th, 2017 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Many British contradictions, that shows that they can not sustain the lie.
Above they say conquest. You say it was not conquest.
P & P your favorite authors say there was no expulsion.
You say that there was expulsion, peaceful but expulsion at the end.
I must mention that no expulsion is peaceful.
Therefore, if there was expulsion as you mentioned, there was a replacement of the Argentine population by the British.
Consequently the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case.
Consequently, nothing is resolved.
Did I mention that the United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence therefore the succession of states?
Malvinense 1833
Nov 10th, 2017 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“Above they say conquest.” What a piece of work you are, what was said was “But even if these prior conditions didn't exist and the UK simply sailed over the ocean blue and took them, it was perfectly legal in 1833” Which as a hypothetical is correct amongst a number of other facets of international law that completely support the British claim.
While the only claim that Argentina makes is a fictitious claim of inheritance which is refuted by two treaties by the only parties that had any claim.
You have to hand it to Malvi, he never gives up. But then again nor will the FALKLANDERS. They have decided their future and no ranting or raving by Malvi is going to change that. Take all the document you have Malvi and take them to the ICJ or shove them up your harris.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Is no one else wondering what kind of map Patrick Edgar wants to make?
Nov 10th, 2017 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@Malvi
You can't just expect people you find here to go and do a debate; anyone can comment on a website and give their opinion, but that's a long way from having sufficient knowledge and skills to debate a subject properly.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 10th, 2017 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Anyone can comment on a website and give their opinion” You mean like yourself. Like I stated earlier on your unsupported commentaries. “Stated by one whom is driven only by his own personal agenda. Who hasn’t got the faintest inkling of subject he makes pronouncements on. Thereby, displaying the most appalling ignorance.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/10/14/argentine-teenagers-travel-to-falklands-in-high-school-graduation-trip/comments#comment475664
Yes, like myself and many others here. I've never claimed to be an expert though I know bullshit when I see it.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are not a lawyer or a historian, but if you feel so confident then go ahead and arrange a public debate with Kohen and Rodriguez. It should be entertaining - albeit painful - to watch.
Malvi - there is no law that says that historians or researchers have to agree.
Nov 10th, 2017 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +5In my opinion, in 1833 two things occurred:-
a) the peaceful removal of trespassers from Argentina
b) the peaceful annexation of East Falkland island from Spain
Of course expulsions can be peaceful. Ridiculous to say otherwise. Argentina needs an aggressive take-over to support its contention that UPJ applies. Without that aggression, Argentina has no chance of demonstrating that the British action breached international norms. I recognise that trap and I, for one, will not step into it.
And why would you think that P&P are my 'favourite' authors? They have no published work currently available. At the moment my 'favourite' author is a man named Burges, who is teaching me a lot about the 1790 Convention; although Manning's work comes in a close second.
What any of that has to do with self-determination eludes me. Res 1514 was not retrospective and the UN clearly stated in 1952 that for a territory to be listed as a NSGT it had to have a 'people'.
I quote - “The territories which are covered by Chapter XI of the Charter are those territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government.”
No people = no NSGT.
That is why, for example, South Georgia is not listed at the UN as a NSGT.
So simple, even a Malvinista could understand it.
So tell me, when did Britain recognise Argentine independence?..................... Exactly?
Careful now ........... the answer is not so easy.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse +3“I’ve never claimed to be an expert” You don’t even have a rudimentary understanding of the issues yet criticize others that have bothered to inform themselves. A perfect example is “You are not a lawyer or a historian”. When you have absolutely no idea of who am, but you’ve never let your lack of knowledge prevent from opining.
What you do rather well is ingratiate yourself with any and all who proven to be liars. Hence the title ‘Slavish ‘which describes perfectly your toadying tendencies.
Is that Terry confusing Conquest with Annexation again....he never understands what he reads...
Nov 11th, 2017 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse -2Crimea was annexed by Russia, but they never conquered Ukraine...
Still considered to be illegal though...
Terry.....BRITAIN NEVER CONQUERED ARGENTINA...SO THERE WAS NO CONQUEST...
VOICE
Nov 11th, 2017 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse +5Britain NEVER even invaded Argentina! It did unsuccessfully invade the Spanish colonial city of Buenos Aires.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 11th, 2017 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse +2Amazing that you would want to raise an issue that was another of your many humiliations. If this isn’t so then you will have no difficulty in indicating the contrary. I wait with bated breath.
Did anyone understand what Terry actually said there...?
Nov 11th, 2017 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse -3I take it back Terry...not only do you not understand what you read...
..but also what you write...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 11th, 2017 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Confusing Conquest with Annexation again”
Not at all as Previously stated: ”So now that I've schooled you on the application of 'intertemporal law' you won't be misapplying your Kelsen observation of modern law to Islands again. It's still noted that you could not refute Argentina's culpable admission that the ”United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833...”; or that the UK holds the legal sovereignty of the Islands. Nor that 'taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's was once possible in time of peace.' All that sophism and so little to show for it.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/uk-has-no-doubt-about-sovereignty-over-the-falklands-and-islanders-right-to-
decide-their-future/comments#comment393192
@TH
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse -1“A perfect example is “You are not a lawyer or a historian”.”
I notice that you're not denying I'm right. Even a rudimentary knowledge of the issues is enough to tell that you are quoting sources without understanding them, or whether they apply to the situation in question. Voice has also made it clear that you sometimes only quote the part of a source that says what you want it to say and ignore the part that disagrees. That is just dishonest, Terry.
As for your slavish whatever, it's obviously an ad hom. “An ad hominem attack ..is nothing else than an open admission by “the other side” that they have no more reasonable arguments, …that they have lost not just the plot but also the debate. ...” Terence Hill
So thanks for your admission. I guess you won't be arranging that debate either, will you?
@Voice
Is there a legal difference between conquest and annexation? I know most wars did not end in conquest in the past, but often territory was still exchanged.
“Is there a legal difference between conquest and annexation?”
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1Now that is a good question.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse +2You were the one that made the assertion so you bear the burden of proving. There is no obligation for me to disprove your claim. “You are quoting sources without understanding them” Again an assertion with no proof. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens. Thank you for confirming your toadying tendencies in supporting a proven liar. Birds of a feather flock together. So that makes you a defacto traitor in your support of your countries enemy. Is there no level you won’t stoop too?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
I have always understood conquest to be an action of military force against a people.
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3Annexation can apply without force. You can annex an uninhabited piece of land or island simply by claiming it.
However, the words appear to be synonymous.
@TH
Nov 11th, 2017 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Now what are you on about? What assertion? What do you want me to prove exactly? That there is a big difference between commenting on a website and being able to take part in a debate? It's self evident. That I'm not an expert? Don't be absurd, that's the opposite of claiming something.
And now you are accusing me of being a traitor because I don't agree with what YOU say? A fine display of arrogance. I support Britain, and I think giving wrong and disingenuous arguments only hurts our case.
@Clyde15
That's a good point, but probably not what Voice was talking about since the Falklands weren't uninhabited in 1833.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Now what are you on about? What assertion?” Your claim : “You are not a lawyer or a historian”
I accuse you of being a traitor because of you’re fawning up to two sophists, who are proven liars on this thread. Who simply present their own unsupported personal opinion as fact. That runs completely counter to your own countries proven legal position. As further evidence your unsupported claim of: “I think giving wrong and disingenuous arguments”. I rest my case as you prove my assertions better than I.
@TH
Nov 11th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Your claim : “You are not a lawyer or a historian””
Oh, I see. I ought to quote your favourite 'he who keeps silent consents' phrase, but since that is TOTAL BOLLOCKS I won't.
You don't appear to have the necessary knowledge or skills to be a lawyer or historian, but that's not conclusive. However, you've never claimed to be either, and aren't claiming to be one now, so the balance of probability suggests you are not.
As for the rest:
1. I'm not 'fawning up to' anyone, I'm simply agreeing with people I think are right, and disagreeing with you when you are wrong (which is often but not invariably).
2. Even if I was, that has nothing to do with being a traitor.
3. They are not proven liars, except in your deluded imagination. You already admitted to me you don't understand the concept of proof, and you've amply demonstrated your lack of practical grasp of the idea.
4. You simply present other people's opinion as fact. All your arguments are an appeal to authority (which is another fallacy, look it up), and usually an out-of-context and irrelevant one at that.
5. “As further evidence your unsupported claim of: “I think giving wrong and disingenuous arguments””
Now you want me to prove that I think what I say I do?! Are you barking mad?
D.T.
Nov 11th, 2017 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I was looking at the words purely in the context of semantics without reference to any case under discussion.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2In the case of Malvinense 1833
“English pirates; it was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war;the principle of self-determination does not apply;”
Is according to you truthful and the contrary evidence from renowned jurist Hans Kelsen is therefor false.
You are unable to provide one example of me “giving wrong and disingenuous arguments” So give your head a shake since you’re unable prove any of your claims.
The greatest sophist of them all Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major is shown to be a liar ”So now that I've schooled you on the application of 'intertemporal law' you won't be misapplying your Kelsen observation of modern law to Islands again. It's still noted that you could not refute Argentina's culpable admission that the ”United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833...”; or that the UK holds the legal sovereignty of the Islands. Nor that 'taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's was once possible in time of peace.' All that sophism and so little to show for it.” “UK has no doubt about sovereignty over the Falklands…”
“English pirates; it was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war;the principle of self-determination does not apply; Is according to you truthful”
Nov 11th, 2017 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Wrong. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I have to agree with Malvinense.
And I didn't say your arguments are wrong and disingenuous, that was a general statement. In fact I don't believe you are disingenuous, I think you are always totally convinced that you are right, and don't realise how you are ignoring or misinterpreting evidence that doesn't agree with you. Or how selectively you apply your own 'rules', eg when other people make ad hominem attacks you claim it's an admission they have lost the argument, but when you do the same it is somehow justified. Or when you claimed Jack Bauer lies about absolutely everything, you say silence means consent, but when I say you are not a lawyer you demand that I prove it, because silence does not mean consent.
Can you really not tell that your own favourite quotes contradict each other?
@Voice
Look what I found while I was hunting for Terry's silence nonsense:
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/04/23/rousseff-s-bid-for-international-support-backfiring/comments#comment438790
It has your picture, but it's not your usual account, which also posted in that thread. It's also not the real Lucifer. So who is it?
Malvinense 1833
Nov 11th, 2017 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Hola, dónde vive usted? En Londres? En Stanley? Usted puede invitar a Kohen y Rodríguez para un debate, allí tendrá la oportunidad de desenmascararlos.
Saludos, espero que sigas bien y tengas un buen día!”
Yo - ¿invitar a los falsos expertos Kohen y Rodríquez? Mi tiempo me vale mucho - ¡demasiado para estar en la compañía de semejantes boludos!
Gracias por sus buenos deseos, los que no devuelvo, idiota!
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“It has your picture, but it's not your usual account,” No it doesn’t it has name Voice on the logo.
“You claimed Jack Bauer lies about absolutely everything” That’s correct he does. If I’m wrong should be simple enough matter to find something in the main stream press that confirms anything he has opined about.
“All your arguments are an appeal to authority” Rubbish! I am simply meeting my burden of proof, and therefore proving my argument. If what you claim was correct it would have been refuted by a bona fide authority. You will not find one instance of this ever occurring. There has never even been a counter authority that has undercut any claim I have made.. All that has been proffered is unsupported personal opinions, which is simply sophistry. Just like your present claim.
“Take nothing on its looks; take everything on evidence. There's no better rule,” Charles Dickens
Ignoring the Burden of Proof, … he who asserts must prove. Since you haven’t an adverse inference can be drawn.
“Knowledge of the world depends on the power of drawing general inferences from individual examples; and he is the most likely to be correct who has the greatest number of facts at his command.” CHARLES WILLIAM DAY,
@TH
Nov 11th, 2017 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That's what I said, it has Voice's logo but the name on the post is 'Lucifer'. Further down the same account impersonates you. It's quite clever really, I wonder who it was?
And you are missing the point. Since you claimed Jack Bauer lies about absolutely everything, it is you who must prove it. 'He who asserts must prove;' you have it said a million times. And showing he lied about one thing is not enough, you have to prove everything he's ever said is a lie. Good luck with that.
As for “If what you claim was correct it would have been refuted by a bona fide authority. You will not find one instance of this ever occurring.”
Firstly, I certainly have seen instances of this occurring, and secondly you just prove my point. You quote things without understanding them, and ignore the experts who disagree with you, even things said by the same person sometimes.
Here is a good example: http://en.mercopress.com/2017/10/14/argentine-teenagers-travel-to-falklands-in-high-school-graduation-trip/comments#comment475587
Same book, same expert author, but one part you quote endlessly and the other you try very hard to ignore.
DemonTree
Nov 11th, 2017 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -3That is a strange one...
Yankeeboy is not not himself there he is Lucifer, but is the Lucifer further down... with the oldest ID, the one posing as me with the name Lucifer 43850 and Yankeeboy 43851 is the same person...
Sounds like a Yank too...probably Chronic...
Your point above about the difference between Annexation and Annexation through Conquest is explained quite clearly by Kelsen, but it needs to be read in context and not by part quoting like Terry...
It is here...
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4dAr24lK4BEC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=if+the+conquest+is+firmly+established.+Taking+possession+through+military+force+of+the+territory+of+another+State+against+the+latter's+will+is+possible,+however,+without+any+military+resistance+on+the+part+of+the+victim&source=bl&ots=tqIUUX7uU2&sig=q5oMvW8VUronSphJPe2K8Zg_1Wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQt7fAprXXAhWBlxoKHakcBx0Q6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=if%20the%20conquest%20is%20firmly%20established.%20Taking%20possession%20through%20military%20force%20of%20the%20territory%20of%20another%20State%20against%20the%20latter's%20will%20is%20possible%2C%20however%2C%20without%20any%20military%20resistance%20on%20the%20part%20of%20the%20victim&f=false
He does make it clear that Annexation without Conquest is possible, but it also implies a violation of International Law and the guilty State exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular International law...
A route that the UK has never wished to follow because annexation in this context is taking possession of another States territory by force...the UK would have to admit that the territory was taken from Argentina...ergo..their territory...
Terry hasn't got a Scoobies...
20 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Nov 11th, 2017 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As I stated at that time. Your correct as to not 1945 as he uses the term “implies a violation of international law”. Which must be predicated on The Kellogg–Briand Pact, which had not been universally accepted. But regardless, it is still an interpretation of international law as it was in 1934 that could not be applied retroactively. My claim of the legality conquest in 1833 is supported by numerous legal writers, and is further supported by the PCA ruling in the Island of Palms 1928. You have failed to produce any authority to refute this contention. You have still failed to produce any authority that supports the proposition that 'there has to be a war for there to be a Conquest'. Argentina's claim “the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.” Is still a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim.
As to “A route that the UK has never wished to follow ..” Some writers have so claimed, but as it’s only a hypothetical. It’s only proffered by way of illustration that there is not one facet of known international law that is supportive of an Argentine claim, since both Spain and the UK were joint claimants. That Argentinas acknowledgement was indicated by her failure to respond to two diplomatic notes. Her belated attempt of unilateral action allowed the UK to put into motion her treaty rights with Spain. It is a patient absurdity to ignore any and all diplomatic attempts at a resolution. Then when your unilateral action fails you want to reset the clock. As the UK stated they were not going to allow Argentina what they had denied Spain.
You spout nonsense...
Nov 11th, 2017 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“My claim of the legality conquest in 1833 is supported by numerous legal writers,”
What Conquest.???
No one was conquered...show me one credible Legal expert that has claimed that Argentina was conquered...
Just one...
btw.
There was no treaty rights with Spain that allowed annexation of former Spanish territory....
You are also merely assuming that Kelsen was referring to the Kellogg–Briand Pact when he mentioned General or particular International Law...
You have no proof of that...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 11th, 2017 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If Kelsen was’t referring to the Kellogg–Briand Pact then what did he have in mind given the ruling of the PCA Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928)? “You have no proof of that…” and you have no proof to contrary.
“No one was conquered..” Various terms that are equally valid are used in the Palmas decision to wit: “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, ..”
“There was no treaty rights with Spain ..” That allowed Argentina to assume any claim to the Islands to the detriment of the UK. Nor was there anything in international law that prevented the UK from reciprocating unilateral action in protection of her treaty rights with Spain.
News item:
Nov 11th, 2017 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Argentine scholars have unearthed previously unknown documents from 1491 in which Arab leader Boabdil insists on a “dialogue” with King Ferdinand to settle the question of sovereignty over certain disputed territories. According to the Argentine interpretation, Boabdil insists that the yet-undiscovered Falkland Islands be ceded to the yet-unimagined argentos, a primitive tribe shrouded in legend after distant sightings by Moorish submarines in the 14th century.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 11th, 2017 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“I certainly have seen instances of this occurring” You mean where your bosom buddy’s sophistic claim “He believes the Convention of Settlement (Peace Treaty) extinguishes the Argentine Claim despite never being mentioned by either party…” Which it is as I have shown the ten authorities I rely on as true. While you insist we have to accept carte blanche his unsupported interepretatation, give your head shake, its no brainer.
You obviously either can’t comprehend you’re being conned, or don’t care as you seem to be blindingly indifferent. § 11 and 12 are not interdependent on one another. They are separate entities, the former relates to private losses, and the latter is the legally binding constraints on nations, as to their post treaty entitlements.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” Harlan Ellison
“He who asserts must prove;' you have it said a million times.” Which I have on each and every occasion I have made a specific assertion. My posting is not for your personal edification but to maintain a correct historical record on these threads. Further, to show the historical record as to vilification of the body politic by a revealed fascist. You’re not that interesting enough to expend any further effort on what has been more than adequately responded to. If you want try and find fault then address specific occasions and then I’ll be more than happy to straighten you out again,
@Voice
Nov 11th, 2017 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -2That's all very confusing, and I don't know Yankeeboy or Lucifer anyway. The comments do sound like an American, and unpleasant enough to be Chronic, but to be honest I wouldn't have thought he was smart enough to come up with the Cyrillic trick.
That book is hard going. The author seems to to think possession is nine tenths of the law, as he says even a treaty doesn't actually transfer sovereignty, it just makes it legal to occupy the territory which is what actually gives sovereignty.
And those legal sanctions he mentions, these are “the State whose right is violated by the illegal occupation is entitled to resort to war or reprisals against the State responsible for the violation”?
I suppose Argentina did resort to war eventually, VERY belatedly. But I can see why the UK would prefer not to use this argument.
@gordo1
There's no need to be rude.
DemonTree
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I remember now what was going on and who was responsible...takes some explaining...
Yankeeboy aka Fred Bates was messing about, he had changed his name to Lucifer and was denying it was him...
I think I have mentioned before of a strange poster that appears now and then and claims he is a self appointed moderator because Mercopress doesn't have one...
I don't know how he does it, but he can as you can see copy anyones identity, he was becoming tired of Yankeeboy's antics and so he copied his new name (Lucifer) and posted as him...messing him about, then he took the original name Yankeeboy and posted as that as well...
He then took Terry's ID probably annoyed with Terry's inane repetition and took the piss out of him...
Terry always blamed me for that and now refer to me as “sock-puppeteer extraordinaire”
I did once fall foul of him too and lost my A_Voice ID, because not only can he use your ID, but he can also remove your post and block your account...
All this was before the use of avatars, so what is worrying is I've seen that article not too long ago and there was no Voice pic attached to the Lucifer post, so that means he has posed as me since the avatars...
I wonder what I have been saying...? and I thought we came to an agreement that he wouldn't post as me again...
He also posted as himself in that article...MuppetPaster
If you read the full passage from Kelsen you will have seen how Terry uses the bits he likes and either doesn't understand what he is reading or thinks he does...;-)
@Malvinense
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“there was a replacement of the Argentine population by the British.”
By who exactly, were the 'Argentine population replaced?
And do you mean replaced in January 1833?
There was no British military force that replaced the expelled militia in 1833 as the Brits did not leave a military garrison at Port Louis in January 1833.
Incidentally, the only violence perpetrated against the UP militia in 1833 was by the Buenos Aires authorities as they tried and shot 10 of them, in Buenos Aires, not Port Louis.
“Argentine population”
Who exactly were the Argentine population in 1833?
Pinedo's British born sailors crewing the Sarandi?
The United Provinces military force ?
All of Vernet's settlers?
Or..... Vernet's settlers from:
Brazil?
Uruguay?
Britain (i.e. Scotland, England, Ireland and Jamaica)?
Germany?
France?
The United Provinces?
So do you regard Antonina Roxa, Antonio Rivero and Ventura Pasos as originating from the United Provinces, or as you would describe them, as Argentine population?
Or,as they were not replaced by British settlers in 1833 but chose to stay under the British flag, do Argentines regard Antonina Roxa, Antonio Rivero and Ventura Pasos as British?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 11th, 2017 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“You will have seen how Terry uses the bits he likes” You will see how this Argentine apologist returns to issues that are not as simple as he pretends. In this previous encounter you claimed there had to be a war for conquest to be legal. Since then he's moved the goal-posts.
“Kelsen's continuum is obviously specific to only post 1945(1934) and not to international law of 1833. As there is a bar on applying international law 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.
This is the applicable international law that was in force prior to the The Kellogg–Briand Pact.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/uk-has-no-doubt-about-sovereignty-over-the-falklands-and-islanders-right-to-decide-their-future/comments#comment392301 But, could conquest take place without a a war? and Kelsen says it can. Which is further supported by John Fischer Williams…“writers it is true have treated the annexation of ... Cracow in 1846 ...as instances of acquisition of title by conquest ...the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor...” p.101 THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
May the force be with you.
@Voice
Nov 11th, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Okay, so account 1172 (a very early one) was posting as yankeeboy in 2015 but had switched to Lucifer by that thread in 2016. The original yankeeboy I guess.
In that thread:
Account 43850 posted twice as Lucіfer and twice as Terence Hіll. Account 43851 posted many times as yankeeboy and once as MuppetPaster.
Account 43989 posted as Conqueroʳ.
Consecutive accounts like that were surely registered at the same time by the same person.
In other threads, accounts 7190, 43850, 43851, 48022, 48122 all posted as Condorito.
Here is where you spotted him posting as yankeeboy, and he changed his picture on 43850 to match yours:
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/06/10/theresa-may-stays-on-but-with-a-shaky-coalition-ulster-unionists-and-scottish-tories/comments
So I think you don't need to worry too much about that.
Have you worked out how he spoofed the names yet? If you haven't I'll explain, and also change my name back. :)
You do realise what post means...?
Nov 11th, 2017 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kelsen wrote that in 1934...so it can not be post 1945...
In 1934 he mentions “General or particular International Law” what General or particular International Law is he referring to...
Also we are not taking about Conquest...he specifically mentions that acquisition of territory by Conquest states that Conquest has to be “firmly established”.
That was not the case...
He does not state anywhere in his article that acquisition of territory by Annexation without conquest (war) is legal...in fact he specifically implies that it is not...
I want to test something...
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now I can make a seemingly consecutive post.
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unicode characters that look like ASCII characters..?
yeah you got that right MuppetPaster was all those ID's on that article except Lucifer aka Fred..
His original ID is the 7190...
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/02/01/chile-to-provide-gas-to-argentina-in-winter-months-enap-and-ypf-will-increase-production-in-magallanes/comments#comment429528
Yes. Turns out there is a character called 'dotted і' in the Cyrillic script, which looks identical to the Latin i, at least in the font Mercopress uses. However, he server sees it as a different character and so allows the seemingly identical name. If you try searching for the names in that page you can see that it doesn't find the fake versions.
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse -2Conqueror of course has no 'i's, so he had to use a different and more obvious substitution.
And I see our faker is picking out English mistakes, so probably not really from Chile.
What was that about A_Voice in your link?
A_Voice was my original account...
Nov 12th, 2017 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse -1I had a run in with MuppetPaster and he was removing my comments almost as fast as I was posting them...
Then I was locked out of the account...
No idea how he did that....
I always suspected that he worked for MercoPress...
I think that Mr. Think also had the same problem with him...had his account removed, but went to the boss and got it reinstated...
I couldn't be bothered and created a new one...
....but thinking about it in retrospect....he had a point, I was a little over zealous and ill tempered and needed to calm down somewhat...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 12th, 2017 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Kelsen wrote that in 1934...so it can not be post 1945.”
When I originally wrote the post I just followed his mainstay which was the UN. Which is why I put in brackets the date of publication the book we are referencing. So you can jump up and down on your pogo stick all you want. It doesn’t alter his assertion which is just following an earlier legal writer’s opinion that I showed in my last post from The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by Sharon Korman. “Conquest has to be “firmly established”. It couldn’t be more so since the British have occupied it shortly after 1833 and repelled Argentine undeclared military aggression. “In fact he specifically implies that it is not..” According to you which would put him at variance with an earlier legal scholar like John Fischer Williams. So that if it wasn’t so, you otherwise would have been specific.
@Voice
Nov 12th, 2017 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Removing your comments like completely gone, or where it says 'Comment removed by the editor”? Some comments do get removed now, but I don't know how they were reported. I tried to report a comment and it told me the email address didn't exist.
Maybe he did/does work for Mercopress. I found a thread where he says Think is not a troll and you are not V0ice. What were you saying that was so bad?
Also, do my comments earlier appear to be consecutive to you? They are not and it should be apparent by tomorrow.
@TH
Are you now saying that this author, whose words you have quoted hundreds of times, is not relevant to events in 1833 because his book was published in 1934?
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Are you now saying that this author, whose words you have quoted hundreds of times, is not relevant to events in 1833 because his book was published in 1934?”
“Stupid is as stupid does” As I have clearly shown he writes about both historical law, prior to the twentieth centuary, and post 1934. So I am referring to the historical connotation as we are referring to 1833. Do try to keep up.
Now who does this remind you of?
Nov 12th, 2017 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.clarin.com/politica/kelper-quiso-dni-argentino-dice-malvinas-violaron-derechos-humanos_0_SJ3F9KmyM.html
What if?
Clarin avoids saying that James Peck is back living in the Islands.
@RL
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's a sad story. I wonder what really happened and why the British authorities couldn't help him and his partner? Social work is such a difficult area, on the one hand we're always hearing about good parents who have their children wrongly taken away from them, and on the other we get children murdered because they were left with their abusive parents. This couple must be pretty desperate if they are turning to Argentina, and I doubt that country will be able to do anything to help them.
Who does it remind you of, though? It doesn't mean anything to me.
Also, did you notice that he was born in 1974 but his birth wasn't registered until 1977? I'm surprised that was allowed, even in such a remote place.
@TH
You have been the very opposite of clear.
Please tell us which sections refer to past, and which to then future law, in your not-so-humble opinion, and how you tell the difference.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Please tell us which sections refer to past,”
If you disagree give the why and the wherefore. As I’m not available to do the personal bidding of a troll that’s to lazy to do his own work. For $50 which is my minimum stipend I may reconsider.
Reminds me of 'Whatif' from a week or so ago. The Islander with issues.
Nov 12th, 2017 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There are at least two stories muddled together here.
Firstly, Anderson claiming to have had his human rights violated - something to do with being accused of some kind of abuse which may or may not have been proven.
Secondly the story of the girl taken into care. Something which is never done lightly. That girl is now 15 years old, still in the Islands and likely to be aware of the news reports. Anderson is not related to the child but is attempting to get her an Argentine ID. There is no suggestion that she actually wants one. Her mother's views are not recorded.
All that is known about her is that she had a child taken into care and has since taken up with a man who seems to have been investigated/prosecuted for some kind of abuse.
Too many facts are missing.
This is actually shoddy reporting by Natasha Niebieskikwiat, who claims to be a friend to the Islanders but is far too ready to sell crap like this to Clarin to attempt to make the Islanders look bad.
My heart goes out to the lass who is seeing her life made into news.
@TH
Nov 12th, 2017 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I can hardly disagree when you can't even explain what you're trying to say.
To make it easier, look at the section beginning:
“Traditional theory admits that annexation of conquered enemy territory...”
and ending with:
“...The fact that the act of annexation is illegal does not prevent, however, the annexed territory from becoming part of the occupying State's territory, provided that the annexation is firmly established.”
And tell me whether it applies to events in 1833. Yes or no.
If you refuse to clarify then I will draw my own conclusion: that you are bullshitting.
@RL
Oh yes, I remember him now. I'd say there's a strong possibility they are the same person, and it explains what his grievance is with the Islands.
I read the story as saying the daughter was taken by social services after they got together, and possibly the police investigation and court case in the UK for him 'reprimanding' one of his step-children had something to do with it. But it does say she was taken when she was 11 and is now 15, and they got together in 2014, which suggests it happened before that. It's true there are too many facts missing to know what really happened, and I agree the publicity is a shame for the girl who has already had so much disruption in her life.
I wonder what they hope to achieve by getting the IDs? There's no suggestion they want to live in Argentina, and even if they get her Argentine nationality she'll still be British as well, so AFAIK the Argentine authorities won't be able to do anything.
Demon Tree
Nov 12th, 2017 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which is ruder - “boludos” or “idiota”?
I am trying to find out more. There is no hint of surprise so far from the Islanders with regard to him or the mother, although I have turned off commenting on the Facebook News page as I am concerned that the girl may read disparaging comments about her mother - the page being a Public one.
Nov 12th, 2017 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as I can tell this report is based mainly on a couple of ranting telephone calls to the Clarin journalist. I'll let you know if more info comes my way.
@RL
Nov 12th, 2017 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...this report is based mainly on a couple of ranting telephone calls to the Clarin journalist.”
Perhaps they do just want publicity? And probably a good thing you turned off the comments, I just had a look at the ones on Clarin and they are not complimentary. The one complaining they had to give Argentine documents to 'la white trash inglesa' was one of the milder ones.
@gordo1
You would know that better than me, but I would guess idiota is ruder since I believe boludo can be used affectionately.
Now, why do you think 'white trash' is treated as feminine by that commenter? Because trash is basura in Spanish?
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I re-installed a copy, but the search doesn’t work. So I have recall from memory an exchange, as I’m not manually taking on a tasking search that holds no further interest for me. Kelson did state what I posted as I kept that text on file. Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, referred to a later section that referred to such action as being illegal. As I pointed out at time it wasn’t an error, the earlier section had dealt past practices of international law while the later reference was to contemporary practices. But you’re asking me to resurrect an exchange from three years ago. Which is a done deal. If you’re that interested read it yourself and draw your own conclusions, like I’ve drawn mine.
Moreover, a search of this site hasn’t revealed the exchange either.
@TH
Nov 12th, 2017 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Here, I quoted the whole section for you:
”Traditional theory admits that annexation of conquered enemy territory, whether of the whole (subjugation) or of part, constitutes acquisition of the territory by the conquering State, if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not. (Occupatio bellica, the belligerent occupation of enemy territory, is a specific aim of warfare; it does not, in itself, imply a territorial change.)
“If the extension of the efficacy of a national legal order to the territorial sphere of validity of another national legal order, the efficacious annexation of the territory of one State by another State implies a violation of international law, the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law. The fact that the act of annexation is illegal does not prevent, however, the annexed territory from becoming part of the occupying State's territory, provided that the annexation is firmly established.”
Now you can tell me whether you believe it applies to events in 1833 or not.
Demon Tree
Nov 12th, 2017 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I don't find the word “trash” in my english/spanish dictionary - I believe it is the American word for “refuse”. “Garbage”, perhaps?
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean if the events of 1833 were only dependent on the hypothetical I suggested. Then only the first part as it mirrors traditional international law could be.
While latter like I correctly stated its a creation of post the Kellogg–Briand Pact therefore 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
But since the event is prefaced with its own set of legalities and the action was accepted by the international community. We will never know, because in its finality its moot isn’t it.
@gordo1
Nov 12th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That'll be because it's an English-Spanish dictionary and not American-Spanish. I bet boludo isn't in there either.
'White garbage' doesn't have quite the same ring to it though, does it?
@TH
Ah, so according to you the first paragraph applies to 1833, but the very next paragraph doesn't, despite the author not mentioning this and making no distinction between them. Does anyone else find this a tad implausible?
Since any normal person reading the book would not know which bits apply when, perhaps you could explain how you know one sentence applies to 1833 and the very next one doesn't, since otherwise we might be inclined to think it's all wishful thinking and wilful blindness.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Mirror means there was no change at that point from the applicable international law of 1833.
While the second clearly shows a diversion from the accepted norms century since the Kellogg–Briand Pact
a treaty renouncing war as an instrument of national policy and urging peaceful means for the settlement of international disputes, originally signed in 1928 by 15 nations, later joined by 49 others.
You do understand “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. ..” That the writer had sufficient credentials as a writer and judge of international law.
Sorry your subjective personal nuances as “tad implausible ..might be inclined to think it's all wishful thinking and wilful blindness.” Don’t carry any weight what’s so ever. The international law is as I stated. Your welcome try and refute it, you won’t find any judges of the statue ICJ or the like in opposition to what I have claimed.
Certainly I understand ”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. ..” And that the writer had sufficient credentials as a writer and judge of international law.
Nov 12th, 2017 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kelsen says annexing territory is against international law, you say it isn't. I'm inclined to believe Kelsen, especially as you have given no evidence for your implausible claim.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Kelsen says annexing territory is against international law, especially as you have given no evidence for your implausible claim.”
Written in a book published in 1945 so in this instance he can only be speaking contemporaneously as unless his view is in accord prior to his writing it is barred from being applied retroactively to 1833 as Robert Yewdall Jennings states.
So can believe what ever choose it doesn’t impact on the reality of situation one iota.
If his view is barred from being applied retroactively then why do you quote him?
Nov 12th, 2017 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It would be more true to say YOU can believe whatever nonsense you choose, but it doesn't impact the reality of the situation, and the reality is that the UK has never claimed conquest as a basis for sovereignty.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 12th, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“If his view is barred from being applied retroactively then why do you quote him? “
You are incredibly stupid or being deliberately obtuse. As I have already stated the first paragraph mirrors international law of 1833, As is confirmed thus: “…John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
'Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
“writers it is true have treated the annexation of ... Cracow in 1846 ...as instances of acquisition of title by conquest ...the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor...” p.101 THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice Sharon Korman
“The UK has never claimed conquest as a basis for sovereignty.” Correct, but they could as a point of illustration. Or as is more frequently used as “in the alternative”.
“The UK has never claimed conquest as a basis for sovereignty.” Correct, but they could as a point of illustration. ”
Nov 12th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I thought you just said that International law could not be applied retroactively to 1833....
Soooo.... as Britain has never claimed Conquest which could have been applied in 1833..(Applicable 1833 International Law) they couldn't now claim Conquest (Applicable 1833 International Law) retroactively....
So in fact Britain now cannot claim Conquest...
So scrub Conquest off your list Terry....
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 13th, 2017 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1“So in fact Britain now cannot claim Conquest…” Of course they could your seedy sophism is slightly over shadowed by ”...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
Perhaps I may just add with regard to “The UK has never claimed conquest as a basis for sovereignty” that the UK has, as far as I am aware, only ever addressed the issue of historical sovereignty on two occasions (if we ignore the oft repeated “The UK has no doubts .... etc, etc”).
Nov 13th, 2017 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse +3These were in 1834 ( Palmerston's reply to Manuel Moreno) and 2012 (Ambassador Lyall-Grants letter to the UN).
Both are available here - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/resources/
Malvinense 1833
Nov 13th, 2017 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse +3As you appear to be the puppet for those eminent ventriloquists, señores Kohen y Rodríquez are you able to advise us what is their situation viz a viz the International Court of Justice? Do they believe that Argentina should take its case to the ICJ? Because clearly Argentina is not advancing with its current tactics concerning the Falklands, is it?
Kohen was pushing for his Government to go to the ICJ some 10 years ago. I doubt he has changed his view. Fancies a moment in the sun I suspect. BUT, he hasn't yet convinced his Government - who may use more than one lawyer.
Nov 13th, 2017 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +1Another pointless discussion Stanley....
Nov 13th, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Terry...
Nov 13th, 2017 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did a Google search of STATES conquered in 1833....
...then Conquered STATES 1833...
Getting desperate, I tried Provinces Conquered 1833...
I guessing you know what the whole world Wide Web didn't find...;-)))
Apparently you are unique and appear to be the only person in the whole world that thinks a State was conquered in 1833...
Could you remind me which State was Conquered in 1833...?
I needed to refresh my memory of how Conquest was “firmly established”...
“It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government.”
That has to be the politest Conquest of a State in the history of mankind...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 13th, 2017 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Getting desperate..” obviously, and your going to get even more since I have never claimed the Islands were a state.
Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
“writers it is true have treated the annexation of ... Cracow in 1846 ...as instances of acquisition of title by conquest ...the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor...” p.101 The Right Of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice Sharon Korman
“How Conquest was “firmly established”…” By occupation and exercise of sovereignty. The inverse of what Argentina can claim.
Truth will always prevail over sophism.
A truth that's told with a bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent. William Blake
May the force be with you.
”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace”
Nov 13th, 2017 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Which two STATES are you talking about...?
...;-)))
Kelsen clearly differentiates between acquisition by Conquest or by Annexation...
There was no conquered State involved so you are describing Annexation not Conquest...
The distinction is further reiterated here...
”Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the administrative action and concept in international law relating to the forcible transition of one state's territory by another state. It is generally held to be an illegal act. It is distinct from conquest, which refers to the acquisition of control over a territory involving a change of sovereignty. It usually follows military occupation of a territory.”
btw. Did I ask Which two STATES are you talking about...?
..and which State had a change of Sovereignty...?
“A truth that's told with a bad intent Beats all the lies you can invent.”
Nov 13th, 2017 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting quote. What do you think it means?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 13th, 2017 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Getting even more desperate. You can’t uphold your claim of which state was conquered as it was an invention of your own sophism.
Kelson provided some insight for his time, but his mainstay was the UN and world order not conquest. Where as Korman’s expertise is, she states: ”All human history is pervaded by the struggle of two principles:..embodied in the so-called 'right of conquest.' Robert Langer, Seizure of Territory, 1947
Gentlemen, if you contest the right of conquest, you cannot have read the history of your own country. It is thus that states are formed... Otto von Bismarck, ...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.
“writers it is true have treated the annexation of ... Cracow in 1846 ...as instances of acquisition of title by conquest ...the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor...” p.101 The Right Of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice Sharon Korman
So notably she had the same access materials as Kelson her focus has been entirely on clarifying the topic.
“the most up-to-date study ..“ -- Stanford Journal of International Law
“..it is hard to imagine a better written analysis”--War in History (Oxford)
“An impressive and deeply analytical book.”--International and Comparative Law Quarterly
“...immensely stimulating.”--British Year Book of International Law
“..brilliant”—French Yearbook of International Law
“excellent doctrinal history...”--American Journal of International Law (Harvard Law School)
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-right-of-conquest-9780198280071?cc=us&lang=en&#
Cracow...by title of Conquest...
Nov 13th, 2017 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sooo...the free republic of Cracow annexed by Austria...a change of Sovereignty to Austrian...?
That is your example..?
“It is generally held to be an illegal act. It is distinct from conquest, WHICH REFERS TO THE ACQUISITION OF CONTROL OVER A TERRITORY INVOLVING A CHANGE OF SOVEREIGNTY. It usually follows military occupation of a territory.””
To follow suit it would be the new Republic of Argentina Conquered by the UK and became British...
There was no conquest...
You are flogging a dead horse Terry me ole son...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 14th, 2017 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse +1“You are flogging a dead horse Terry me ole son” Hardly from someone who drags goal-posts all over the map.
You can quibble about unimportant nuances all you want as Korman gives the most definitive definition, “.. the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor.”
May the force be with you
Demonstrator the slavish follower
You’re back trying to do your best Lord Haw Haw impersonation again. Don’t know how you find the time with all that sucking you do.
@ Terence: The author that you quote also gives the reason to Argentina, Mr. Demon Tree and Voice explained it well.
Nov 14th, 2017 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The fundamental fact that shows that you are wrong is that the United Kingdom never argued as a basis to end the conflict with Argentina, or cession, or conquest, or annexation.
Now you understand why the Argentine claim is not illogical?
Now you understand why the United Kingdom refuses to enter into talks with Argentina?
Regards.
Malvi - Argentina has no claim. Argentina's mythical pretension is founded upon a non-existent inheritance. Pure fantasy. Unrecognised outside South America..
Nov 14th, 2017 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The UK does not refuse to talk, but there is nothing to talk about. The matter is settled. The Islanders get to choose. End of .
Malvinense 1833
Nov 14th, 2017 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Now you understand why the Argentine claim is not illogical?”
So we go from one troll to another. Argentina has no claim that is recognizable under international law. The UK is well aware of this fact, so she just ignores her fraudulent claims, as Argentina has no claim she could legally prosecute. International law supports the UK’s position. “there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
Fiddlesticks. Most countries of the world, especially European ones, have been owned, or part owned by their neighbours. The documents created at that time have been eclipsed by events. So Norman documents, and Roman documents or Viking documents have no bearing at all on the boundaries of Great Britain, as with the rest of the world. However, in the case of the Argentine, I think you would find, if any historical documents had been written, then the Argentine belongs to the Ameri-indians
Nov 14th, 2017 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense 1833
Nov 14th, 2017 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“The author that you quote also gives the reason to Argentina, Mr. Demon Tree and Voice explained it well.”
Are you brain dead or what? Their sophism has been totally vanquished. What is it about “.. the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor.” that in your wildest dreams you imagine aids an Argentine fantasy quest?
Surely there is no evidence that Argentina inherited anything from Spain. And, anyway, how on earth can Argentina inherit the Falklands which were never Spanish.
Nov 14th, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Spain recognised the independence of Argentina in 1863 and no mention was made of the Falkland Islands in the Treaty of Peace and Amity.
Comments, please.
Now you understand why the Argentine claim is not illogical?
Nov 14th, 2017 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvi
Claiming inheritance of sovereignty over any territory without the existing sovereign's consent via a law that did not yet exist at the time is totally illogical.
dab14763
Nov 14th, 2017 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Claiming inheritance of sovereignty over ….”
You cannot claim inheritance over a territory were Spain didn’t hold complete sovereignty. Where two Anglo-Spanish treaties specifically barred any claims by third parties,
@ Terence Hill: “You cannot claim inheritance over a territory were Spain didn’t hold complete sovereignty.”
Nov 14th, 2017 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Explain to me then how the United Kingdom can claim sovereignty where it had nothing?
“Where two Anglo-Spanish treaties specifically barred any claims by third parties”
In 1790, the Latin American independence movement had not yet been born. When the independence movements did burst onto the scene, they were considered to be part of a civil war within the Spanish Empire. Great Britain was unable to invoke the secret clause, whether in its own favour or against Spain or Argentina, as explained below.
The key point is that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 clearly demonstrates that at the moment the Argentine independence process began in 1810, the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain and that Great Britain both recognised this fact and undertook to respect Spanish sovereignty.
In spite of the fact that the islands were under Argentine possession in 1833, Great Britain could not possibly ignore the fact that for Spain the islands, as indeed all the territory of the newborn Argentine nation, were still part of its empire of the Indies.
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
Right, I've been awaiting an opportunity for this. Malvi - the 1790 Convention did NOT apply to the Falkland islands. Try reading it in the original French, and it becomes very apparent that Articles 3 & 4 are restricted to the Pacific Ocean & South Seas (south Pacific). Art. 6 is restricted by the word adjacent.
Nov 14th, 2017 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +3No application to the Falklands in the 1790 Convention which, in any case, contained a 'sovereignty umbrella' in the preamble, laying aside the issues of sovereignty.
There won't be enough characters here, but I'll make a start:-
“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,
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.
Article 3: … it is agreed that their respective subjects shall not be disturbed or molested either in
navigating or carrying on their fisheries in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas, or
in landing on the coasts of those seas in places not already occupied,
for the purpose of carrying on their commerce with the natives of the country or of making establishments there; the whole subject, nevertheless, to the restrictions and provisions which shall be specified in the three following articles.
Nearly out of character so I'll cut down the explanatory notes & ask that you show me a Chart from the 18th century with the words Mers du Sud (original) or South Seas over the South Atlantic.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse +1“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” Sorry unless that was specified specifically in a treaty that is just more Argentinian pretensions.
Moreover, Argentina acknowledged British rights by acquiescence in ignoring two diplomatic protests. 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
Lord Ton
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you finally accept that which I have claimed for years...why the change...?
Apparently Terry doesn't appear to agree with you...and never will...;-)
Thank you for letting me back in TH. As you may have guessed by now I have spent some time looking into the 1790 Convention recently. A life ..... that's what I need, a life.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse +2Art. 4 is also restricted to the Pacific Ocean/South Seas, so I'll add my notes with regard to that, which are -
”South Sea(s) has a particular meaning for mariners, ie. the southern Pacific (named by Spaniard, Vasco de Balboa in 1513). However, while the English language translation of this accord used 'South Seas' the Spanish version stated “los mares del Sur” - the seas of the South – capable of a wider interpretation. Reference to the original document (in French) finds the term - “Mers de Sud” - employing capital letters mid sentence and indicative of a specific place. “
To that I can add from the American Manning's 1905 work -
”In the fourth article, regarding the limit of 10 leagues within which English vessels should not approach Spanish establishments, Floridablanca pressed very earnestly for extending the distance to 15 leagues. As a precedent for his contention, he cited the treaty of 1763 between England and France, which fixed 15 leagues as the distance within which French fishermen might not approach the coasts of Cape Breton. He suggested the insertion of the words “ in the said seas ,” which would confine this restriction to the Pacific. Fitzherbert embodied the last mentioned suggestion, since he conceived that it might be of advantage to the English fisheries on the Atlantic coasts of Spanish America,...“
The term ”already occupied“ were not defined, although from the outset Spain recognised that it could interpret the phrase any way it wanted.
”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.... ” [Floridablance Nov 21, 1790]
Run out of characters again ...... sod
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Continue please
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse +3Voice - A good question, and one I'll answer after I've looked at Art 6 if I may.
Article 6: 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.“
The important words have to be ”respective subjects“, ”adjacent“ and ”future“ as I have already dealt with occupied.
'Future' speaks for it self.
”respective subjects” = both Spanish and English
My notes on adjacency however are long, but here goes -
In October, 1767, Spain's Ambassador Masserano claimed that; “... all islands within a hundred leagues of the Americas could be considered such,” additionally arguing that the America's were so large that a league should have a different meaning. Both Britain and France rejected the notion that a hundred leagues could be 'adjacent' and so it would seem unlikely that Art.6 can be applied to the Falklands due to the inclusion of this word.
Eighteenth century dictionaries define the term as meaning, 'lying near', 'near or bordering upon', 'contiguous or touching', 'meeting so as to touch', etc. See Egmont to Grafton July 20th, 1765 in PRO SP 94/253 State Papers, Spain Supp 253 where it was stated that the islands could not be considered 'appurtenant' to South America. With both sides so apart on the meaning of the term, and with Spain refusing to consider issues of demarcation, it would seem likely that the issue was deliberately fudged by both sides.
Out of space again & need to walk the dogs. I WILL be back, as Arnie once said
Continue
Nov 15th, 2017 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0There we go. Old boy's arthritic, so it's more of a hop than a walk.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse +2To finish my notes on Art. 6 -
Currently, West's Encyclopedia of American Law (2nd ed.) 2008 defines 'adjacent' as meaning “.. not widely separated,..”
Proximity was also considered by the International Court of Justice in 1969, concluding - “To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely 'adjacent to', it is evident that by no stretch of the imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast be regarded as 'adjacent' to it.” - North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands Judgment of 20 February 1969 para.41 p.30.
See also Case Concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras) Judgment of 8 October, 2007 para.162 p.54 where islands some 40 miles from the mainland coast were described as “.. not obviously adjacent.”
As the Falklands lie over 300 miles from the coast of South America, and, in 1790, over 800 from Spain's southernmost settlement on that coastline, it does not seem that this article can be applied to the archipelago.
That said, it is also apparent that opinions have varied over time; for example the USA's interpretation some 50 years later was - “... 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.” (Memoir, historical and political, on the northwest coast of North America, and the adjacent territories, illustrated by a map and a geographical view of those countries Robert Greenhow, United States Dept. of State 1840).
Parliamentary debates are in the Timeline. FI only mentioned as comparison with 1771 Convention.
Out
Nov 15th, 2017 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse -1Sorry for the delay - wife insisted I shift my ..... well, it was in Thai, but you get the gist.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse +3To your question Voice.
I have long denied the application of Art.6 of the Convention due to the issue of 'adjacency,' but had generally accepted the application of Arts. 3 & 4 without having put too much thought into it. Comments on Mercopress (possibly from you) plus finding references to expeditions sailing THROUGH the Magellan Strait INTO the South Seas piqued my interest so I started to dig more.
That led me to the excellent consideration of the NSC by the American Manning in 1905 -
Manning W. R. 'The Nootka Sound Controversy' 1905
I then discovered - Burges J. B. 'A narrative of the negotiations occasioned by the dispute between England and Spain in the year 1790' 1791
Both deal with the negotiations in great detail and both are available on the internet.
On top of that, I have stared at a lot of charts - mostly seeking out the name South Sea(s)/Mer(s) du Sud. One excellent collection of charts, mostly of the Americas, can be found here - http://eprints.ucm.es/37926/1/T37329.pdf
I have yet to give it the attention it deserves but the charts are informative as to the application of names.
Taken altogether with what I already knew it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the NSC did not apply, at all, to the Falklands. Throughout the whole negotiation, the name came up once, from Floridablanca, and obliquely as a comparison (Burges 1791).
When Fitzherbert went into the final negotiation he had 2 versions of the Convention. One to be detailed as to claims and with gaps for the insertion of latitudes etc. The other one vague and leaving issues of demarcation and sovereignty to another day. Floridablanca chose to be vague - he was, after all, playing for time.
I do not expect everyone to agree with my conclusion; but I would suggest that it is well-grounded.
The most effective article in the NSC is Art.7. In case of complaint - write in
Out again
Roger Lorton
Nov 15th, 2017 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was aware of your reticence towards interpretations of Nootka. I had accepted such interpretations as Grieg’s as being correct. While some vagueness may have been added by the Spanish that may seem to undermine its purpose. Which was the prevention of stepping on one anothers toes. My only reservation is such a dismissal of the conventional view would leave Nootka apparently purposeless. The only source I’ve seen that supported such a view is in the German Yearbook of International Law 1983
JÖRG FISCH: The Falkland Islands in the European Treaty System 1495—1853 “article 6 ..did not apply to the Falkland Islands. It was restricted to territories lying farther south.” But I had assumed that it was just an anomaly.
I think with your well developed historical nose that if there is something definitive to be discovered you will find it,
I believe that your investigation should stay focused on the principal players to maintain more certainty. But congratulations, and lots of luck.
Nootka's purpose to to keep the peace a while longer - in that regard, Article 7 was entirely successful.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse +4And it didn't end there. In a similar way that the 1771 Convention issues drifted on into 1775, I am picking up hints of further conversations through 1791-1793. There is even some suggestion that much of the NSC was abrogated by orders from Madrid in 1792 which made whalers & sealers welcome in Spanish ports provided they paid their way. Early days on this, and I'll have to keep digging.
There was a US/Spanish treaty in 1795 which gave protection to American vessels also; in effect giving them similar rights to the NSC.
I am intending to put some effort into the period 1791 to 1801 as Spain's situation went through some massive changes, not the least in seeing the Family Compact roll away with Louis XVI's head. Of course, by the time we get to 1801, we have the situation where France is demanding an establishment on the Malouines - from England.
As for the Germans, I can quote Kohen's friend Dolzer - “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).”
But then I have a variety of quotes:
“ ... It was evident, that no claim had been conceded ... “ [ William Pitt (the Younger) quoted in Parliamentary History of England from the earliest period to the year 1803 vol. XXVIII printed by Thomas C. Hansard 1816 ]
”… the most remarkable treaty on this subject, is that entered into between Great Britain and Spain in 1790, by which the LATTER power stipulates not to make any settlements on either the Pacific or the Atlantic shores of America further south than those which were then made. ... ” [US Secretary of State Livingston 1832]
On 3 January 1833 a British Royal Navy corvette with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement.' And 'The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic...'
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1Falkland Islands – The Usurpation (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/34838377/Falkland_Islands_The_Usurpation
What happened to malvi ?
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1:-)
Roger Lorton
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Here in the UK it is 12.57HRS GMT - it is only 09.57 in Bs As - Malvinense 1833 hasn't had his breakfast yet nor has he contacted Kohen for his daily instructions(brain washing!).
After extensive discussions now, the Nootka Sound treaty does not apply to the Malvinas Islands.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Roger, you make me laugh.
Terence: Like Roger, it does not matter what you say, important people in your government do not think the same way you do.
I'm sorry to say it, but those who live in a fantasy world are you, I do not mean to offend you, but it's the truth.
You do not offend me Malvi - I merely find your ignorance amusing. So remind me - which ”important people in (our) government” do not think the same way I do?
Nov 15th, 2017 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +4If the British Parliament had thought that the 1790 NSC had applied to the Falklands, there would have been blood in the Chamber in December, 1790.
As it was, the only mention of the Falklands was as a comparison between the 1771 Convention and the 1790 Convention.
Go learn - it's all in the documents.
Perhaps I can sneak in a few more quotes?
“… the great question of the southern fishery is finally established, on such grounds as must prevent all future dispute. The line of limitation is marked, advantageous permission is given us to erect temporary buildings; but by a stipulation of the utmost importance, all violence, in cases of infraction, are prohibited; no officer must venture to seize a vessel which he may deem to have infringed the treaty, but he must content himself with writing home to his court. By this prudent provision the seeds of future war are prevented ..” [Duke of Montrose, House of Lords, Dec 13, 1790]
“... in the end (Spain) had to yield to the ills of an inevitable war, in which Spain could not enter with all those forces that could give it the probability of triumph. This transaction was therefore viewed as a necessity, even if it were harmful to Spanish interests and the rights of the crown were considered to be diminished,..” [ Tratados, Convenios y Declaraciones de Paz y de Comercio que han hecho con las potencias estranjeros los monarcas espanoles de la casa de Borbon. Desde el ano de 1700 hasta el dia … Por Don Alejandro del Cantillo 1843 p.632 ]
“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]
Have I mentioned that Argentina is not Spain? Yes? Thought so
What we have? Long words and investigations carried out by Roger Lorton. The evidence is concrete and irrefutable.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Do you know something Roger? In 1790 the islands were under Spanish sovereignty, Governor Juan José de Elizalde, therefore Great Britain could not occupy the islands, Great Britain was prevented from doing so with her own signature.
Who is the brain washed ?
You are the brainwashed.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The evidence is clear enough, that the 1790 NSC did not apply to the Falklands, despite Spain attempting to make it so.
In 1790, Soledad was under Spanish sovereignty, nowhere else in the archipelago. The Spanish garrison huddled around its fires and ventured out but rarely. The one ship that arrived each year visited Port Egmont to see whether the British had returned - we were always expected.
If the 1790 NSC applied to the Falklands, then it also banned Spanish settlements south of Berkeley Sound. And you think that that was some kind of success.
You need to break the shackles of your indoctrination Malvi - because all you look is stupid.
As for Argentina not being Spain, I have a new quote -
“The people of each of the revolted Districts of the Spanish American Provinces established their own Independence and their own Right of self-government within the Territory which they had occupied, but nothing more. If these revolted Provinces had imagined that they acquired by their Revolt all the rights of Spain, besides determining among each other in what manner those Rights were to be apportioned among them, they must also by necessity have considered themselves bound by the obligations of Spain. But they neither acknowledged these obligations nor were called upon by other States to adopt them. On the contrary when their political existence as independent States was acknowledged by other Countries, they contracted severally with those Foreign Countries such new Treaties as were applicable to their respective geographical limits and political condition; and neither they nor the foreign Powers with which they treated even thought of considering them as Inheritors of any of the Rights or Obligations arising out of the Treaty Engagements of the Spanish Crown.”
Nicaraguan agent in London in answer to a letter from the Foreign Secretary of July 16, 1847 quoted in The Law of State Succession D. P. O'Connell 1956 p.34
Grow up Malvi
You live in extreme confusion, this is the quote provided by you:
Nov 15th, 2017 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -4”… the most remarkable treaty on this subject, is that entered into between Great Britain and Spain in 1790, by which the LATTER power stipulates not to make any settlements on either the Pacific or the Atlantic shores of America further south than those which were then made. ... ” [US Secretary of State Livingston 1832]
Did I mention that the islands were occupied by Spain?
That quote says that SPAIN was not allowed to make settlements further south than those then existing. Which, if applicable to the Falklands, was Berkeley Sound.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Can't you read Malvi?
The Islands were NOT occupied by Spain, Malvi - just Berkeley Sound at the far eastern side of East Falkland. Not sufficient to claim a whole archipelago.
The 1790 NSC was the watershed, which saw Spain's pretentious claims to the whole of the America's defeated.
It was down-hill all the way from there until 1811, when Spain ONE island in the Falklands archipelago.
Go learn - your ignorance is showing.
And Argentina had nothing in 1816 but what it could hold onto. Argentina proved incapable of holding onto the Falklands.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 15th, 2017 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“The evidence is concrete and irrefutable.”
In Britain in general, most people only have the vaguest notion about the issue since their education system doesn’t subject them to compulsory indoctrination. Nor is it included as mandatory part of their constitution. In fact, it would be fair to say it is a minor footnote to their history, with the notable exception of the 1982 invasion. Unfortunately for you had discover that while they may not initiate aggression, they’re more than capable of responding to it.
With the exception I mentioned previously, the historical response to 1833 was “The natives are getting restless, send a gun-boat”. Which is of course exactly what they did.
“The people of each of the revolted Districts of the Spanish American Provinces established their own Independence and their own Right of self-government within the Territory which they had occupied, but nothing more....”
Nov 15th, 2017 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2And that was from the Representative of another South American State; and only the year before the Lima Conference decision too.
Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811 - no getting away from that fact Malvi, and you ignoring it doesn't make it go away.
I deal in facts not fantasy ..... but as it grows late, I'll leave your education to others.
Goodnight.
You Say: “The Islands were NOT occupied by Spain, Malvi - just Berkeley Sound at the far eastern side of East Falkland. Not sufficient to claim a whole archipelago.”
Nov 15th, 2017 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -3I Say: Explain then how to reclaim an entire archipelago and then stay with it, when Britain had no settlement in Port Egmont, Port Louis, Berkeley Sound, Port Howard or anywhere in the islands?
Malvinense 1833
Nov 15th, 2017 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Explain then how to reclaim an entire archipelago and then stay with it, when Britain had no settlement in Port Egmont..”
1. a result of prior treaty agreements with Spain. 2. Because of Argentine acquiescence by failing to respond to two diplomatic protests. 3. Because Britain wasn’t going to allow Argentina what they had denied Spain, and been prepared to go to war in defence of their rights.
Spain was occupying the islands, then what did Britain deny Spain?
Nov 15th, 2017 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Malvinense 1833
Nov 15th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Thank you for reminding me you are in fact a troll by being deliberately obtuse. As of 1771 climb down by Spain and her recognition of the British claim, otherwise she was going to get her ass well and truly kicked. Which was the same message that was conveyed to Argentina in 1834.
Which to make abundantly clear, she did in 1982. Any thing else your not clear on?
A commentator noted in 1934 that the issuance of diplomatic protests ''by itself was not effective indefinitaly, that ''a protest not followed up by other actions becomes in time 'academic' and 'useless' and that the protesting country nust try to take the dispute to the League of Nations (now the United Nations) and /or seek third-party adjudication. Because of this requirement:
Nov 15th, 2017 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The position now is that, if the matter is a proper one for determination by the Security Council or the International Court of Justice, failure to bring the matter before the Council or to attempt to bring it before the Court must be presumed to amount to acquiescence, even if, for propaganda purposes or other reasons, 'paper protests' are still being made from time to time. (Ocean Development & International Law, Legal Issues Relating to Sovereignty Over Dokdo and its Maritime Boundary, Van Dyke J.M. P192, 2007, quoting Verykios, Supra Note 370 at 99-109)
It is quite obvious that Malvinense 1833 is being manipulated by a source of false information - this is revealed by his responses to Messrs Terence Hill and Roger Lorton. His purposely provocative postings and denials of the facts are, it seems to me, being orchestrated in order to satisfy his twisted mindset.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2WTF!!!
Nov 15th, 2017 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I get two downticks for leaving a space with no comment for Roger Lorton to carry on his explanation...
Y'all weirdo's if you ask me...
Malvinense 1833
I'm pretty impartial in my views, but for years I've always argued (Against almost everyone) that the Nootka Sound Treaty did not apply to the Falklands...
My views are fluid as I learn more I accept without prejudice new information which I will study and draw my own conclusions without an instant dismissal...
Terry.... is everyone a Troll that disagrees with your very selective points of view...?
“Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 15th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Terry.... is everyone a Troll that disagrees with your very selective points of view…?”
Only those that raise exactly ad nauseam the same issues that have been given conclusive answers, as in already asked and answered. Such person is absolutely a troll by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.
@ Terence: ”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:
Nov 15th, 2017 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -2in 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.”
All rights © reserved Marcelo Kohen-Facundo Rodriguez.
troll obtuse?
@ Mr. Voice: I respect your opinion but it seems that the (historical) events prove otherwise.
Roger, your argument about the Nootka treaty sounds reasonable, but what about the South Sea Company (of Bubble fame)? “The company was also granted a monopoly to trade with South America, hence its name.” - Wikipedia
Nov 15th, 2017 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2@gordo1
Seriously, Malvinense is no more biased or provocative than other posters here. He has the opposite point of view but that is not surprising. He's entitled to disagree and argue his opinion as much as anyone; at least he is not gratuitously insulting other posters like Terry is.
@Voice
Yep, people are crazy. I've voted you up again to help. Who do you think is the biggest troll by Terry's definition? I vote for Brit Bob since he's always spamming the link to his site on completely irrelevant stories.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“No serious British author, nor the British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence.” For which you provide no evidence. “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
“Great Britain waived the right of establishing…” “..an extra secret article removed the restriction on new establishments if any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts alreadyoccupied” by Spain. In the late 1820s (see sections 12 and 14), Argentina did in fact form an establishment at Port Louis in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention, Britain therefore became entitled to form anestablishment in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there.
Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvina by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
What? First you claim Malvi provided no evidence, then in the very same post you quote and try to rebut his evidence. Are you for real, Terry?
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Good morning
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1DT - the South Sea Company? It's a name, not an argument.
The point of Nootka was to say to Spain that having a hut with a few soldiers in it did not give them a thousand miles of coastline, hence all the references to 10 maritime leagues. That Spain had a few huts and a chapel at the far end of Berkeley Sound simply did not give them the whole archipelago. Tellingly, there is no evidence that Spain ever raised its flag at any other place in the Falklands, and yet the simplest act of sovereignty would have been to raise its flag over Saunders Island.
They never did.
I do not dispute that Spain had effective control over Berkeley Sound. I do dispute that they ever achieved effective control over West Falkland. Remember, when Spain withdrew in 1811, they claimed ONE island. Something that Malvi attempts to ignore.
My conclusion is that the 1790 NSC did not apply to the Falklands and I have set out my reasoning. I am not asking anyone else to adopt the same position.
“Only those that raise exactly ad nauseam the same issues that have been given conclusive answers”
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Apparently the wrong answers according to Roger Lorton...;-))))
“Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind”
Then why did it specifically not mention any islands at all...only the mainland coast...
Hey...I've got this great idea...we'll put in a secret clause pertaining to the islands..
But we'll specifically omit the word islands to make it absolutely clear that we mean Islands and not the mainland coast...
Yeah that sounds good..we'll go for it....
DemonTree
....The Voice with his multiple logins...;-)
and Brit Bob and Terry Hill that repeat the same crap on any site that will tolerate their mindless paste and copy opinions of other people...
Can't think for themselves...won't think for themselves...
Forgot to add - have corrected the two unfair (IMHO) downticks. Voice was merely allowing me to ramble on.
Nov 15th, 2017 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Also - I am quite happy, keen even, to have people knock holes in my arguments. It helps me learn. It's why I'm here.
@RL
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse -1From the Wikipedia article about it:
“At that time, when continental America was being explored and colonized, Europeans applied the term ”South Seas“ only to South America and surrounding waters.”
Sadly no cite, but you might want to look into it (and learn more) if you are going to argue the term did not apply to the Atlantic coast of South America.
Your argument that the treaty was deliberately made vague also seems plausible, even if it is annoying to us now. I wish they had settled everything back then rather than leaving it as a problem for us.
Good night. :)
@Voice
Probably more politic not to go into it, but you missed an obvious choice. MuppetPaster faked other people's identities and make inflammatory posts, I don't see how you can call that anything other than trolling. Brit Bob and Terry surely believe in what they say, so I'm not sure they qualify by the usual definition.
Goodnight DT. The South Sea Company was a bit of a mess all round, so I'd rather rely upon a range of charts from Spain, France and Britain.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse +1I know Brit Bob and he surely does believe in his work which focuses on the legal arguments around the Falklands (and other) issues.
About time he was outed - Sorry Bob :-)
https://independent.academia.edu/BritBob
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Can't think for themselves.” Says a subservient,fawning,bootlicker. Who’s sole contribution is his humble opinion or he otherwise follows others debates and injects himself for a second kick at the can. I’m at least realistic enough to realize that if I behaved like you. Then, I would just be mouthing off about matters that I knew nothing about. If you enjoy revealing your ignorance, who am I to judge.
Get some glasses Terry...
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse -2Then man up and ever most humbly apologise to DemonTree....
it was my comment....;-)
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Can't think for themselves.” Was made by the Argentine apologist not you. He believes making it up as you go along is much more creative. The fact that it is wrong or fraudulent is of absolutely no concern of his. The last thing his diatribes are is a search for truth.
“claim Malvi provided no evidence, then …try to rebut his evidence” I wasn’t aware until now that you had a reading comprehension problem.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“Then why did it specifically not mention any islands at all.” Why would they, when if there’s an exclusion, it has to be professed. As it is in peace treaties.
TH - I would disagree; exclusions do not have to be professed, but then the Islands lay far outside the area being dealt with which was the Pacific/South Seas and east & west coast of Sth America. more than 100 leagues away, the islands did not need excluding.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I really can't take you seriously Terry...
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse -1You pose as a some sort of learned legal scholar and write like a high school retard...
“Who’s sole contribution”
Who is or who has sole contribution...?
WHOSE
Don't even get me started on beginning sentences with subordinating conjunctions...
Did you actually graduate High School...?
No wonder you can never understand what you read...
What part of ”specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind” would exclude the Falkland Islands...?
They were excluded because it wasn't referring to them.
Roger Lorton
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I would disagree; exclusions do not have to be professed“ Then you’er saying that is such treaties are an exception to the requirements of peace treaties. Perhaps you could elaborate a little more, so I might gain some insight into the underlying logic.
TH - an exception? Please identify those peace treaties you refer to that contain exclusions?
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1Perhaps you would do me the favour of laying out in full, your argument for the 1790 NSC including the Falkland Islands.
It may save some time.
Stop pretending you have a cohesive argument Terry...if it's beyond your favourite repetitive quotes you are a fish out of water...
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:05 am - Link - Report abuse -2Can't think...won't think...
...Great idea...exclude the subject of the treaty.........NOT...
Roger Lorton
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse -1“A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary.”
Is the general rule for them. It is your view that NSC is an exception because of distance? Sorry! you just elaborate all you want and excuse me all to blazes. I didn’t realize you’re so touchy.
Psst...Nootka Convention was not a Peace Treaty...
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1I am not in the least touchy, and I think you have misunderstood your quote.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse +1The NSC (a convention, not a peace treaty) only deals with islands adjacent to the east coast of South America, which the Falklands are not, therefore no exclusion is necessary.
What I am asking, politely, is that you lay out your reasoning for believing that the Falklands were included within the 1790 Convention.
Easy enough? No?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Stop pretending you have a cohesive argument Terry…” Like presenting Korman’s “.. the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor.” Which was enough to put and end to your quibbling. May the force be with you.
Roger Lorton
“The NSC (a convention, not a peace treaty)”. I have never thought or claimed it was. But, it was my point that with a treaty I would expect the same interpretation. But I take it there is no correlation period. “..reasoning for believing that the Falklands were included within the 1790 Convention” Why would I do that, when all I have ever posted is the conventional wisdom. If your views are excepted and become the convention wisdom I’ll be more than happy to give you the credit for them. Or is your belief that as your opinion differs therefor I shouldn’t post such interpretations?
TH - I am happy to see all your opinions; which is what I was asking for.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse +1England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse -3It's been a busy night! First Terry attributes Voice's comment to me and writes his usual insult-filled reply. Then he accuses ME of lacking reading comprehension. He didn't apologise either.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@RL
“Easy enough?”
I wouldn't hold your breath. Welcome to the club of people who have dared to disagree with Terence Hill. :)
@TH
A good argument requires reasoning as well as evidence. You have only the latter. I can teach you some of the principles of logic if you like?
d) Pascoe and Pepper recognise that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 was applicable to the Falklands/Malvinas
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British pamphlet makes a considerable, though unsuccessful, effort to undermine a key treaty for the recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands and Britain’s obligation to respect it.
This is the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial of 1790, also known as the Nootka Sound Convention, signed by Great Britain and Spain at El Escorial on October 28th, 1790. Notwithstanding their efforts, Pascoe and Pepper have no choice but to recognise that the Treaty in question applied to the Falklands/Malvinas and that consequently Great Britain undertook not to occupy the islands.
The dispute arose in 1789, when a Spanish naval officer, commissioned by the Viceroy of Mexico, apprehended two British ships at Nootka Sound (near Vancouver Island) and ordered the transfer of their captains and crews to San Blas port, in Mexico. Spain claimed that the British subjects had violated the laws of the Spanish Crown, and Great Britain requested a salute to their flag before discussing the substantive issue. In order to find a solution to this incident and avoid similar incidents in future, the two nations concluded the Treaty 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.
Demon Tree
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you have some connection with Argentina?
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.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 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.”
Unable of deny the evidence, the British authors attempt to split hairs. In order to do so, they come up with the idea of emphasizing an aspect that not only does not justify the British position, but in fact further bolsters the Spanish/Argentine thesis. It is Article VI, which reads:
It is further agreed, with respect to the Eastern and Western coasts of South- America, and to the islands adjacent, that no settlement shall be formed hereafter, by the respective subjects, in such parts of those coasts as are situated to the South of those parts of the same coasts, and of the islands adjacent, which are already occupied by Spain: provided that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands to situated for the purposes of their fishery, and of erecting thereon huts, and other temporary buildings, serving only for those purposes.
This clearly not only reaffirms the prohibition of navigation and fishing, but also the prohibition of establishing settlements on the coasts and islands already occupied by Spain.
The 1790 Convention does NOT apply to the Falklands malvi - regardless of what you can copy and paste from either P&P or Goebel.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The South Seas lie to the west of the South Cone, and the islands are not adjacent to the east cost of South America.
You merely repeat the nonsense we already know; ignoring the fact that the 1790 NSC laid sovereignty aside and affected both signatories.
'Respective Parties' - you need to dwell upon that term
It may help you break through your indoctrination.
@gordo1
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None whatsoever.
@Malvinense
I don't see how an article banning fishing affects Britain's prior claim of sovereignty.
The 1790 Convention does NOT apply to the Falklands malvi - regardless of what you can copy and paste from either P&P or Goebel.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The South Seas lie to the west of the South Cone, and the islands are not adjacent to the east cost of South America.
You merely repeat the nonsense we already know; ignoring the fact that the 1790 NSC laid sovereignty aside and affected both signatories.
'Respective Parties' - you need to dwell upon that term
It may help you break through your indoctrination.
As for Pascoe & Pepper - what did they say................ exactly?
The British authors endeavour to affirm that by virtue of this section of the Treaty of 1790, British subjects were granted the authorization to disembark and build cabins, etc.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -1However, this authorization in no way supports the British thesis. It proves three points: 1) that the Falklands/Malvinas were Spanish and that this was recognised by Great Britain; 2) that it was Spain which authorized British subjects to temporarily perform activities of a private nature in its possessions, and that 3) such activities were not in any way connected with the exercise of sovereignty over the Spanish territories.
In this regard, the most eloquent contradiction in the British pamphlet can be found in the analysis of the secret article of the Treaty of 1790. This clause lifted the prohibition on Great Britain to settle south of the coasts and adjacent islands already occupied by Spain, if another nation did so. According to the authors of the pamphlet “Getting it right:...”, as Argentina occupied the islands “in the late 1820s”, and the islands had been occupied by Spain since 1790, the secret article would apply and Great Britain would be able to settle in the Malvinas islands as “Argentina had become established there”.
As we will see below, the same British pamphlet which recognises that Vernet’s settlement was an Argentine public settlement tries to prove otherwise only a few pages later, in an attempt to portray the settlement as a private operation carried out with the prior consent of Great Britain! The pamphlet claims that the secret clause was put forward by the British with the Falkland/Malvinas islands in mind. In order to prove this, they quote the work of an Argentine author, a collection of three personal letters addressed to the Chilean journalist and diplomat Conrado Ríos Gallardo. This is merely his own speculation.
Wonder what happened there? I am tired. Fumbled some keys or something. Hey ho :-)
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +11) P&P wrote a paper 9 years ago in response to an Argentine paper. They only wrote a short section on Nootka (albeit slightly too big for here). Their last paragraph said -
”Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain’s reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 (see sections 18 and 19) was an exercise of Britain’s rights under this clause.6 In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain,which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.“
”Molinari believes...“ K&R can rarely be trusted to get any facts aright, And Dolzer was among the panel that presented the Argie paper. Lawyers, eh?
A few years ago, I had a Facebook exchange with Doc. Kohen in which he was quite dismissive of the importance of the 1790 NSC. So much so, in fact, that I have put down the K&R's book entry to Rodriquez, who is not much of a lawyer. Dolzer remains an associate of Kohen's.
I disagree with P&P's assessment. They know I disagree. I told them. 9 years later do they still hold the same opinion? You know, I don't know. Perhaps, one day we'll find out.
I am not obliged to agree with them when I see the evidence point another way. I am certainly not impressed by any quotes from Goebel, who's 1927 book has long been debunked.
Unlike you, I am my own man and quite capable of reaching my own conclusions. You will have no idea what I'm talking about due to the level of indoctrination that you have suffered. One day, perhaps, you'll be able to think for your self. Maybe.
A quote:- ”In the 4th article... (Floridablanca) suggested the insertion of the words “in the said seas,” which would confine this restriction to the Pacific.” [Oct 19, 1790]
Said seas = Pacific & South Seas
Even if this speculation were proven to be correct, it does not change the clear and concrete impact of the Treaty with respect to the question of sovereignty: Spain was the nation exercising sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas in 1790, and Great Britain undertook not to interfere with its possession.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Aside from its blatant contradictions, Pascoe and Pepper´s reasoning is not pertinent. Following their argument, what Great Britain feared in 1790 was a resettlement of the islands by France, or their control by the new-born United States, since most of the fishermen and hunters operating in the area were citizens of the new American nation.
In 1790, the Latin American independence movement had not yet been born. When the independence movements did burst onto the scene, they were considered to be part of a civil war within the Spanish Empire. Great Britain was unable to invoke the secret clause, whether in its own favour or against Spain or Argentina, as explained below.
The key point is that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 clearly demonstrates that at the moment the Argentine independence process began in 1810, the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain and that Great Britain both recognised this fact and undertook to respect Spanish sovereignty.
In spite of the fact that the islands were under Argentine possession in 1833, Great Britain could not possibly ignore the fact that for Spain the islands, as indeed all the territory of the newborn Argentine nation, were still part of its empire of the Indies.
Sovereignty? Which part of the preamble to the 1790 NSC confuses you?
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Sovereignty was 'set aside,' and BOTH SPAIN & BRITAIN subject to the restrictions. If SPAIN was prohibited from making settlements, how does that indicate that Spanish sovereignty ruled supreme? How does that indicate that Britain recognised it?
You talk nonsense.
And how does the 1790 NSC “clearly demonstrate” that “ the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain and that Great Britain both recognised this fact and undertook to respect Spanish sovereignty.” ???????? How ??????? Where did Britain ever undertake that?
IMHO the 1790 NSC did NOT apply to the Falklands as was clearly demonstrated by the wording used and the events at the time. As for any application to Argentina, even pro-Argentine German lawyers have said that it does not assist Argentina in ANY way.
Malvi - Argentina is not Spain; there was no inheritance and you are talking through your rear-end. Argentina was NOT the Empire of the Indies. Risible.
“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]
In 1833 Argentina was trespassing. Buenos Aires had been warned in 1829 ans 1832. Buenos Aires should have listened. Buenos Aires should have noted that if the USA could kick them off, then the British would undoubtedly do so.
Quite how 1833 came as a surprise to BA is a mystery to me. The trespassing garrison was ejected peacefully while the legitimate settlers remained.
But that's a whole other argument.
Go learn Malvi - your indoctrination is showing
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.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1British 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.
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 Malvinas.
Malvi - try thinking
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1a) If I don't believe that the 1790 NSC applied to the Falklands then I don't believe that the secret clause was relevant. That claim came from Molinari - an Argentine politician and historian. If you have any complaints - take them to his graveside.
b) I am a “British Source” and I do not concur. The only establishment that Spain had was a small base at the far end of Berkeley Sound. IF the NSC had applied to the Falklands then that establishment could not have been approached and nor could any territory within 10 MARITIME LEAGUES either side of it. That's 30 miles. 48.28 km. That's all. Not enough to get out of Berkeley Sound.
c) Deas was giving his (biased?) opinion TO the British Government. He was not a part of the Gov, and became a member of the South Atlantic Council which has long been considered - rightly or wrongly - as pro-Argentine. The British Government has never expressed an opinion re. 1790 and I AM serious.
d) You obviously have an inability to read. Try it again. Quite simply the 1790 NSC does not say what you suggest.
“Article 6: 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. ”
Respective Subjects = Spain & Britain
Future = old establishments are not included
Parts = not all
Occupied = physically
Spain did not occupy the whole of the Falklands archipelago which, in any case, did not fall under the Convention. I can't make it much simpler. It's a bit like plaiting fog with you lad. As for clerks!!
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:
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It 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.
In 1810, the relevant year for Argentina’s succession to Spain’s rights, the Falkland/Malvinas islands were undoubtedly Spanish. Great Britain was prohibited from occupying and claiming sovereignty over the islands. Argentina’s acts on the islands after independence could in no way affect a British sovereignty that did not exist at all.
“which will be the topic of the next chapter.” ? LOL
Nov 16th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +2You are just quoting the K&R joke book and not actually listening, are you? And you try to suggest that we are indoctrinated :-)
I'll restate it one last time, and then head for bed.
IMHO the 1790 NSC did not apply to the Falklands. That said, I accept that Spain attempted to apply it to those islands mainly due to a mis-translation - deliberate or otherwise - from the original document which was in French.
Also IMHO Dolzer was correct, and in no way can the 1790 NSC benefit Argentina.
Argentina did not exist in 1810. Argentina declared its independence in 1816. When it actually attained that independence is moot. Somewhere between 1825 and 1862 depending upon the criteria applied. Don't forget, Buenos Aires declared itself an independent country in 1853 - separate from the rest of the Confederation.
Strange country. Strange people.
Disinclined to listen to anything that doesn't suit them.
Fortunately, ostrich-like behaviour doesn't work. Pretty much leaving Argentina and its fanciful pretensions impotent. Now, before the wife takes to rendering me impotent, I'd better go join her.
Goodnight Malvi - you are a true Malvinista. Indoctrinated to your core.
@Malvi
Nov 16th, 2017 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are very fond of quoting. What do you think of Roger's argument about the South Seas and which islands are considered adjacent?
So when it's not convenient for the Falklandist on line NSC does not apply.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Spain only had a small settlement in Berkely Sound. Great Britain had nothing, but NSC benefits Great Britain.
Spain did not occupy the entire Malvinas archipelago.
Great Britain occupied absolutely no part of the archipelago, but even so, according to Roger, the islands are British.
Sources from his own government confirm that Britain was prevented from occupying the islands (not online bloggers).
Strange country? Strange people?
@ Hello Demon Tree: The Malvinas Islands are clearly adjacent.
In the South Pacific of South America there is no British settlement and in the South Atlantic of South America there is a British settlement after a usurpation.
This shows that the Nootka Sound treaty was applied.
Malvinense 1833
Nov 16th, 2017 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You say “
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.” This is totally NOT true!
Roger Lorton, quite rightly, says “Argentina did not exist in 1810. Argentina declared its independence in 1816. When it actually attained that independence is moot. Somewhere between 1825 and 1862 depending upon the criteria applied. Don't forget, Buenos Aires declared itself an independent country in 1853 - separate from the rest of the Confederation.”
May we have Mr Kohen's comments?
Malvi, I'm afraid people are not obliged to all share the same opinion, even if that makes it harder for you to argue with them.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I have heard that the Faroe Islands are the same distance from Britain as the Falklands are from Argentina, and I have never seen them described as adjacent, or even particularly close. The Isle of Wight is adjacent. This is a word that is very much open to interpretation.
Demon Tree
Nov 16th, 2017 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Are the Channel Islands adjacent? What about the Isle of Man? I don't think so but Anglesey is, of course, adjacent - very close! The Falklands, by any reasoning, are definitely NOT adjacent.
Malv
Nov 16th, 2017 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Oxford dictionary :- adjacent- ‘lying near to’
In English use, it means in close proximity. A distance of 400 Km. would not be considered adjacent . I presume that you also think that S.Georgia is also adjacent at a distance of 1807Km. as you have put in a claim for that also.
Look at a map of the East Mediterranean, there are many Greek islands almost touching the Turkish mainland but proximity to Turkey does not give them sovereignty.
So, proximity does not give sovereign rights.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 16th, 2017 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Voice …“Then why did it specifically not mention any islands at all…”
TH “Why would they, when if there’s an exclusion, it has to be professed. As it is in peace treaties.”
RL “I would disagree; exclusions do not have to be professed,”
Here is some further information the implies inclusion like I stated to wit:
“An international treaty may be said to contain an exclusion clause if it provides expressly for the treaty to be transformed into law by a national law”
Page 415 History of International Law * Foundations and Principles of International...By Yong Zhou
My position has always been clear about the Convention not applying to the Falklands despite Pascoe and Peppers views...
Nov 16th, 2017 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The treaty quite specifically only applied to future settlements not existing...
Why would they apply to the Falklands when an agreement had already been reached between Spain and Britain and a status quo existed...
I am quite surprised that Malvinense 1833 is keen to support Pascoe and Peppers opinions on this whilst maintaining their opinions on everything else is wrong...
I would be seriously disappointed if I thought I was going on holiday to a South Sea Island paradise and arrived at the Falklands...;-)
tinkle “ ...disappointed if I thought I was going on holiday to a South Sea Island paradise and arrived at the Falklands....”
Nov 16th, 2017 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2There are people who, if given a bar of gold, would complain that it is too heavy.
Does anyone understand what Terry is trying to say...?
Nov 16th, 2017 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Does he...?
I doubt it...
tinkle...???
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 16th, 2017 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Does anyone understand what Terry is trying to say…?”
Pretty simple for everyone other than you trying to hide your blunder.
1. you ask Q
2. I Answer
3. 3rd party denies my Answer.
4. I provide evidence of an expert that appears to support my claim
Conclusion: If you don’t like the answer. Don’t ask the Q, stupid.
“An international treaty may be said to contain an exclusion clause if it provides expressly for the treaty to be transformed into law by a national law”
Nov 16th, 2017 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Explain what this means and how it applies to the Nootka Convention...
What Country transformed the Nootka treaty into a National Law...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 16th, 2017 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Explain what this means “ The short answer is there isn’t an exclusion of the Islands vis-à-vis Nootka under international law. Assuming the application of conventional wisdom on the matter.
The Treaty of Nootka applies to the Malvinas Islands, precisely because after having lost part of its empire at the hands of the ambitious Great Britain in North America, Spain tried to protect the South of America.
Nov 16th, 2017 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The proof is that Britain was not established in the South Pacific and in the South Atlantic it was established after a force action.
Facts, not words.
@ Malvinense
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“and in the South Atlantic it was established after a force action.”
Who did Britain kick out of Port Egmont?
Or Tristan Da Cunha?
Or South Georgia?
Malvi said -“Sources from his own government confirm that Britain was prevented from occupying the islands.”
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Who Malvi? Which sources? And please, don't quote me any minor civil servants from nigh on a century ago.
The point remains, Spain occupied a small part of one island in the Falklands and the Nootka controversy was all about Spain NOT being able to claim huge tracts of territory on the basis on a small garrison with a few soldiers. as for being established, you have never explained why France in 1801 demanded an establishment on the Falklands from Britain.
French recognition of British sovereignty over the Falklands. We declined to give them base in an act of sovereignty published for all Europe to see. Spain did not protest.
Spain also did not achieve effective control over all the Falklands, which is why they only claimed that one island when they left in 1811.
Another fact you are inclined to avoid responding to Malvi.
The 1790 NSC did not apply to the Falkalnds, and I suspect I am only one letter away from proving it.
@gordo1
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Channel Islands definitely are adjacent - to France. They're still British though. Not sure about the Isle of Man. It is at least visible from England.
I heard a saying that might be relevant here: “In America, 100 years is a long time, and in Europe, 100 miles is a long way.”
@Voice
“Does anyone understand what Terry is trying to say?”
Do you remember Eliza? It would pick up keywords in what you said and give a superficially sensible reply? I think Terry just failed the Turing test.
Oh dear Terry do you know what an exclusion clause is in law...?
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1An exclusion clause is a term in a contract which seeks to exclude or limit the liability of one of its parties. For example, it may state that a party has no liability if the contract is breached or, alternatively, seek to limit the range of remedies available or the time in which they can be claimed.
Your quote was referring to contract law and the example was about the General agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the European Social Charter...
It wasn't about excluding the Islands from a treaty....they were excluded from the secret clause because it wasn't about them...
BTW Malvinense 1833...that is a fact not just words, there is NO mention of any islands adjacent or otherwise in the secret clause...
So how could the secret clause be applicable...?
Spain was trying to protect its interest in the Pacific and South Seas by preventing Britain from establishing any future (New) settlements..that is exactly what the treaty states...
Britain had already abandoned any interest in the Falklands a status quo existed.... the new interest was the Pacific...hence the Nootka Crisis...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“do you know what an exclusion clause is..” The antithesis of an inclusion clause according to the precepts of Yong Zhou a bona fide expert. Which rather overshadows your sophism on the matter.
“An international treaty may be said to contain an exclusion clause …”
You are right Malvi - Britain never established itself in the South Pacific. Except for -
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Gilbert and Ellice Islands (1892 to 1971)
Canton and Enderbury Islands (1939 to 1971)
Cook Islands (1893 to 1901)
Savage Island, also known as “Rock of Polynesia” (1900 to 1901)
Phoenix Islands (to 1939
Pitcairn Islands (1898 to 1952) - still a British overseas territory
Tonga (1900 to 1952
Union Islands (1877 to 1926) - now Tokelau
Nauru (Pleasant Island) 1914 to 1921
Fiji (1877 to 1952)
British Solomon Islands (1893 to 1971)
New Hebrides (1906 to 1971)
Does New Zealand count?
DemonTree
Nov 16th, 2017 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You are right...he is just stringing words together that don't mean anything...
and certainly not in relation to the points I have made...
I noticed that Roger gave up and dismissed him very quickly...perhaps I'm a glutton for punishment...
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!