MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, November 12th 2018 - 20:44 UTC

Falklands' lawmakers ready for a robust presentation before C24

Monday, June 18th 2018 - 08:44 UTC
Full article 81 comments

Falkland Islands lawmakers have pledged that their presentations before the United Nations Decolonization Committee or C 24 this year in New York will be as robust as ever, despite the improvement of relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Brit Bob

    The militant, unconstitutional and ineffective committee.

    Falklands – UN C24 Committee (2 pgs):-
    https://www.academia.edu/11274445/Falklands_-_UN_C24_Committee

    Jun 18th, 2018 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Voice

    If you really want to make an impression on the C24...don't turn up...

    Jun 18th, 2018 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • DemonTree

    I don't know, Voice. That's all very well for the UK; we don't want anything from them. But that committee is supposed to represent the interests of the NSGTs, and as far as I know is the only international body they can appeal to directly. That might be a bridge they don't want to burn.

    Jun 18th, 2018 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Roger Lorton

    It would make no impression at all if the C24 didn't turn up. Not as though they achieve anything. One decolonization in 20 years? And that would have happened without them.

    Jun 18th, 2018 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +5
  • FRodriguez

    It is interesting how they try to diminish the C24 but year after year they spend thousands of pounds to be there. On the other hand, in regard with the fallacies regarding its functioning, it is important to highlight the fundamental role that the C24 is carrying on in the decolonization process of New Caledonia. Last March, i.e., they were in situ supporting the preparation of a self determination referendum (correctly and in accordance with international law, unlike other propaganda attempts made in other parts of the world) to be carried out this year and they were monitoring the implementation of the '98 agreements .

    Jun 19th, 2018 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -3
  • DemonTree

    @FRodriguez
    I see they are allowing the implanted French and other non-native population to vote in the self-determination referendum in New Caledonia. The territory may well remain part of France as a direct result.

    Jun 19th, 2018 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • darragh

    FRod

    So 4 members of the C24 had a week long jolly to Paris and New Caledonia 3 months ago.

    Why then is the C24 so terrified of visiting the Falkland Islands, they've been invited often enough.

    Which 'International Laws' were broken by the referendum in the Falkland Islands?

    Jun 19th, 2018 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Facundo Rodriguez

    Many thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars are spent by the UN on the C24 despite them achieving little or nothing in 30 years.

    That the Falkland islands Government send representatives of the Falklands people to speak there is their decision. An opportunity to express themselves before the Committee that is supposed to support their rights. As the C24 has not recommended its own Falklands resolution to the General Assembly for adoption since 1988, perhaps the attendance of the FIG representatives is achieving something?

    Why doesn't Argentina, or indeed any of its supposed supporters, ask that the question (should there still be one) be raised before the General Assembly?

    Until such time as it does, Argentina will remain the Sisyphus of South America.

    Jun 19th, 2018 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Pete Bog

    @Frod




    “they were in situ supporting the preparation of a self determination referendum (correctly and in accordance with international law”

    How exactly did the Falkland islands referendum break international law?

    Don't you mean the islanders broke Argentine law (which is irrelevant as Argentina does not currently govern the Islands)?


    Are you aware of what the C24's actual mandate is?

    Jun 20th, 2018 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    PB - Facundo is playing the usual Argentine game of dissembling. The Relevant UN Resolution is 637 (VII) A of 1952 which states:-

    “The Member States of the United Nations shall recognize and promote the realization of this right of self-determination of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories who are under their administration and shall facilitate the exercise of this right by the peoples of such Territories according to the principles and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations in regard to each Territory and to the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, the wishes of the people being ascertained through plebiscites or other recognised democratic means, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations;...”

    NB - “preferably”.

    The 2013 Falkland islands Referendum was perfectly legal under that UN Resolution. I would be fascinated to see Snr. Rodriguez explain how the Islands referendum breached so-called International Law.

    Jun 20th, 2018 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • darragh

    Frod

    You said “Last March, i.e., they were in situ supporting the preparation of a self determination referendum ” yet the whole of their trip (all 4 of them) only took 7 days including flights to and from and including a stop-over in Paris.

    Now an Argentine might consider that to be 'supporting the preparation... but to me it looks like a few days out with the boys. Please enlighten me..

    Several people have now asked you what 'international law' was broken by the Falklands referendum.

    but no answer - I wonder why.

    I can only assume then that as you fail to respond you are either ignorant or in the habit of making things up.

    Jun 20th, 2018 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    Far be it from me to defend Rodriguez, but he didn't actually say the Falklands referendum was illegal. That would be pretty silly. He may have meant that it doesn't have the force of international law, since it wasn't officially recognised by the UN in the way the New Caledonia one will be.

    What I find interesting is that the referendum is not limited to 'natives' of New Caledonia. There are extra requirements on top of those for a normal election, but they certainly don't bar the descendants of French and other immigrants (who form over 50% of the population) from voting in the self-determination referendum.

    The rules are here:

    http://www.nouvelle-caledonie.gouv.fr/Politiques-publiques/Referendum-2018/Les-electeurs/La-liste-speciale-pour-le-referendum-LESC

    From what I have read, the natives strongly support independence, while the newer population mostly want to remain French.

    So according to the C24, after France controlled immigration to the territory for many decades, encouraging/allowing settlers from France to move there - mostly against the wishes of the original population - the descendants of those settlers will now be allowed to vote on the sovereignty of the territory, giving them a significant and likely decisive voice on its fate.

    How is that different to the Falklands, exactly?

    Jun 20th, 2018 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • darragh

    DT

    Frod actually said “correctly and in accordance with international law, unlike other propaganda attempts made in other parts of the world” - If that's not a reference to the Falkland Islands and the legitimacy of the referendum then what is it? He doesn't have to use the phrase 'Falkland Islands' for it to be obvious what he is talking about.

    What's different from the Falklands 'exactly' is that there were no indigenous peoples on the Falklands - 'exactly' so immigration could not be against the indegenes wishes - 'exactly'.

    Jun 20th, 2018 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • DemonTree

    @Darragh
    Sure, he was referring to the Falklands, but illegitimate isn't the same as illegal. For example, suppose you made your will but did it wrong and didn't get it witnessed properly or whatever. You haven't broken any laws, but it won't be considered valid by the courts when you die. International law is pretty much whatever enough countries agree to and are willing and able to enforce, and the UN is a big part of it.

    “there were no indigenous peoples on the Falklands - so immigration could not be against the indegenes wishes”

    True. The penguins probably had some objections though. ;)

    Anyway, my point was that the descendants of French settlers are being allowed to vote on whether the territory remains French or not, and the C24 is endorsing this. So how can they reasonably object to the Falklands referendum?

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Falklands referendum ... it doesn't have the force of international law, since it wasn't officially recognised by the UN.”
    There is no such requirement, since their referendum relied totally on the UN Charter, and numerous rulings by ICJ. It is ultra vires for any other UN organ, except the UN Security Council to make determinations as to international law.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    It doesn't matter what it relied on, what is important is how many countries and international organisations recognised the result. A law that isn't recognised or enforced by anyone isn't a law.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “What is important is how many countries and international organisations recognised the result” If “a law that isn't recognised or enforced by anyone isn't a law.” Then its even less likely that an erroneous opinion will have any effect, as it enjoys zero enforcement.
    As the Referendum is based on the UN Charter, and further endorsed by subsequent ICJ rulings. So it is well beyond the reach of vox populi opinions.
    UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...
    The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...” The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
    Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    You've got it completely backwards. The Falklands want the referendum to have some effect, or there was no point in holding it. And the effect they want is for the UN and other countries to recognise it. It's irrelevant whether their opinions are erroneous or what the UN Charter says as long as that doesn't happen. Vox populi is exactly what is important, just ask the Republic of Somaliland.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    If the UN objects to a referendum it will say so as can be seen by the resolution protesting the Gibraltar referendum in 1968. The UN did not object to the Falklands referendum which has been raised - often - in the Decolonization Committee and the general Assmebly. Even, on one occasion, the Security Council, by the Russians who used it to defend their referendum in the Crimea.

    The 2013 Falklands Referendum is fully recognised by the UN and may help to explain why no nation, including Argentina, has asked for the issue to be discussed bu the General Assembly in the years since.

    Argentina's protestations to the contrary are quite irrelevant. There is no indication that the situation will change.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “The Falklands want the referendum to have some effect,” It has the desired effect under international law. With the completion of the Referendum UK has for filled all of it's legal obligations under the Charter, as the Islands are now “decolonized”. It's therefore irrelevant who doesn't accept the affirmation of international law, as it is not the UK's problem, as there is nothing on earth to compel them to do anything else. “UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
    53 Article 1(3) grants peoples of dependent territories (non-self-governing and trust territories) the right freely to decide their international status, in other words, whether to form a State or to associate with an existing sovereign”
    Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination. The Falklands are on the list, so therefor they enjoy the right to self-determination to perpetuity.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    “The 2013 Falklands Referendum is fully recognised by the UN”

    Can you tell me in what way it is recognised by the UN? The C24 haven't done anything differently since 2013, have they?

    @TH
    Don't be daft, the Falklands aren't decolonised. That would require a change in status from NSGT, and they voted to keep the same status as before.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “The Falklands aren't decolonised” They are as far as the Charter is concerned, and therefor their actions would pass scrutiny under the aegis of the ICJ. Which is where it counts, if push came to shove.
    The UK and the Falklands have complied with all the requirements that binding international law i.e. that Charter has placed on them. C24 is a sub, sub committee of the UN which is not imbued with any powers that can counter Charter rights. To wit: UN Charter, Article 103. “In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. ...” Which means they're not even in the picture, as the they cannot make decisions that impair Charter provisions, as that is ultra vires.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    You're wrong. The UN has 3 criteria for how a territory can be decolonised and the Falklands doesn't fit any of them.

    What do you think, Roger? Can a colony be decolonised by voting to remain a colony?

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    The only criteria that passes muster is what is recognised under the Charter and therefore since, their self determination is Public international law; globally accepted standard of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens)” International law; In other words binding.
    The belated sub, sub C24 committee's doesn't even get in the ball-park. As its recommendations are just so much none-effective political waffle.

    Jun 21st, 2018 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Brobinson

    England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I thought I was plain. Perhaps not. The UN does not issue a resolution to recognise a plebiscite, but it has in the past issued a resolution to reject a referendum. The 2013 Falklands referendum gets mentioned every year at the UN without objection by the UN. That is quite sufficient recognition.

    Since 2013 there have been no obvious changes at the C24/UN in the way it deals with the Falklands. The C24 issues its own sub-Committee resolution every year - without a vote - but then does NOT recommend that resolution for adoption by the General Assembly in its annual report to the 4th Committee.

    Why must remain the subject of speculation.

    There are actually 4 ways in which a NSGT can be decolonized, the last being added in 1970 by UN GA resolution 2625 -

    “The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State OR the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
    (Capitals are my emphasis)

    In 2013 however, Prof Willetts of the South Atlantic Council noted that the fourth option had never been defined and appeared to have been forgotten.

    The last Falklands UN Resolution was in 1988. Its terms were addressed by Argentina and the UK in 1989/90. It called for talks and there were talks. The UN appears to have been sufficiently satisfied that it has not since felt the need to issue a UN resolution on the subject.

    To all intents and purposes, the matter is settled.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    So the UN hasn't done anything positive to recognise it, they merely haven't gone to the trouble of denouncing it in a resolution. Catalonia recently held a referendum on independence, in which 'yes' got the most votes, and the Catalan government even declared independence. I don't think the UN passed a resolution rejecting that referendum either. Yet the UN has not recognised Catalonia's independence, as they will New Caledonia's if they vote for it in November.

    “... the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”

    That's nice and vague. I suppose as long as the C24 refuses to define it further, no NSGT can be declared decolonised by that option. I gather that the UK claims all the BOTs have been decolonised by giving them internal self government, but this is not generally recognised (rightly, IMO). As long as the UK government has the power to revoke all their self government (and it does), and they have no say in it, they are not really decolonised.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “As long as the UK government has the power to revoke all their self government and they have no say in it, they are not really decolonised.” So you, C24, and Argentina are of the view that your opinions supplant the obligations of the UN Charter, and override all ICJ rulings. How remarkably modest, don't fret the UK is not going to invoke a legal determination. As there is no necessity, since the status quo is correctly maintained. Moreover, “there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes.”
    Ian Brownlie

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yeah, I think I'm entitled to my opinion, and so are you, but only a fool would believe their opinion on the matter overrides the UN's.

    BTW, your mentioning the UK need not seek a legal determination strongly implies you don't think we'd win if we did. Is that what you believe?

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    My opinion is firmly based on what Charter requirements are, plus at least four judgments from the ICJ that all favour the UK and the Islanders. Whereas, there is nothing in the Charter or from the ICJ that supports an Argentine claim.
    “Strongly implies you don't think we'd win” I believe the UK would win hands down. But, with no obligation under international law, and holding the winning hand. They can afford to to take an overview of the situation.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Okay, if you think we'd win then you might want to stop boasting about how we needn't go to court. It gives the wrong impression.

    As for your opinion, since you are no kind of expert and have no training in law of any sort, I'll give that all the consideration it deserves.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Then you might want to stop boasting about how we needn't go to court. It gives the wrong impression.”
    I'm not, it's simply another of many facets of international law that favours the UK. It's not my fault that the party you have chosen too favour doesn't have any aspect of international law they can place a reliance on.
    “Since you are no kind of expert and have no training in law of any sort” Since you have absolutely no idea as to what my background or experiences are, I'll give that all the consideration it deserves.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Oh, but I do know something, Terry. I know you've claimed to have served in the RAF, to have lived in Brazil, and to have married twice. You also said your first wife had a degree in history. You're not going to tell me you lied about those things, are you?

    You've never claimed to have a degree yourself, much less one in law, or to have worked in that field. And you haven't denied that I am right, either, you just don't want to admit it's true.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “But I do know something,...or to have worked in that field.” You would have remembered the 'wrongfully convicted” issues that I have followed since 1995. But, regardless I have one heck of a lot more experience and knowledge on the subject than you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have conceded the present exchange to me, since your unable to refute the legal points I have raised.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    What are you on? I haven't conceded anything to you. This is the other reason I don't trust your opinion on anything: your delusional belief that you are right even when you are very clearly talking bollocks.

    You, however, have conceded that I do know something about you, and 'following' miscarriage of justice cases, even for a long time, certainly does not make you an expert on international law.

    Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an expert, but I can certainly spot bullshit when I see it.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Reason I don't trust your opinion on anything” Is your mistaken belief that everyone else behaves as you do, and your obvious lack of knowledge about international law. Whereas, I have researched my knowledge of the subject to fully understand, and respond on this and other Falkland sites over the last six years.
    “I don't pretend to be an expert, but I can certainly spot bullshit” Oh the old subjective you know routine. If that was true you would have in this instance been able in a few minutes, to have researched what I claimed and refuted it. But you cannot and therefore have revealed that what you claim is not true.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    I don't need to refute your claim, dummy. It's your burden of proof.

    Anyway, it doesn't matter how many facts you research, you don't know how to make a valid argument so your conclusions cannot be relied on.

    Most people have at least an intuitive understanding of logic and reasoning, I don't know if you really lack that completely or whether you prefer to ignore whatever you do understand in favour of 'proving' your foregone conclusions.

    For example, can you explain what is wrong with this argument:

    All Mercopress posters are human.
    Donald Trump is human.
    Therefore, Donald Trump is a Mercopress poster.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “It's your burden of proof” Which I have clearly met by my citation of the relevant UN Charter articles that support both the UK and the Falkanders. Additionally, ICJ ruling that supports their right to self-determination.
    So over to you Ollie as its now your burden to refute those contentions. So stop trying to drag the subject off topic. Since you can't refute what I claim, you've lost.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Do you mean this: 53 Article 1(3)?

    What is that supposed to mean? Article 53 is about the security council, and only has 2 parts.

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    Let me reiterate more completely what binding international law you have so far been unable to refute.
    UN Charter
    2. To develop friendly relations among nationsbased on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
    55. With a view to the creation ..and self-determination of peoples,
    56. All Members pledge themselves ...for the achievement of the purposes set forth in Article
    73. Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...“
    103. In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

    ICJ and Self-determination
    ...opinion on Kosovo's declaration ...
    ”is that the right of self-determination, which the ICJ found to be jus cogens in the East Timor case, is a right of all peoples, not only of those in a colonial context. ... “
    Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
    The Case Concerning East Timor and Self-determination
    ”By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of people ...”
    The United Nations, Self-Determination and The Namibia Opinions

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    'Reiterate' means say something again, not change what you are referencing and add a whole bunch of new stuff. Was '53' a typo? And how is any of that supposed to show the Falklands is decolonised?

    Also, you didn't answer my question. In your own words, what is wrong with this argument?

    All Mercopress posters are human.
    Donald Trump is human.
    Therefore, Donald Trump is a Mercopress poster.

    Come on Terry, it's for science. ;)

    Jun 22nd, 2018 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    I have no reference for 53 but I believe it was part of Self-determination of people: a legal reappraisal by Antonio Cassese.
    “And how is any of that supposed to show the Falklands is decolonised” It's not, its intention is too show that the UK and the Islanders are in complete compliance with binding international law. Which trumps Argentina, C24, and yourself as none of you are in compliance as decolonisation is merely a political term. Not a requirement of binding international law. Oops you're certainly defeated yet again as you cannot rebut such an obligation.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Sorry for the delay DT - been away.

    Catalonia was/is not listed as a NSGT. Big difference.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    Neither is the Crimea, and the UN condemned the referendum there. There is a big difference between not actively condemning a referendum, and actually recognising the result.

    @Terry
    I'm going to take that as meaning it was a typo.

    And now you're claiming I am not in compliance with international law? WTF? You get crazier with every post. You've totally failed to prove your claim that the Falklands is already decolonised, too.

    And it seems you are still unable to find the flaw in my argument above. Does that mean you believe Trump posts on this website?

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Was there a UN Resolution condemning the Crimean referendum?

    Can you produce any UN Resolution actually acknowledging a plebiscite on any NSGT in the last 30 or 40 years?

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Yes and yes. UN resolution on Ukraine:

    https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/68/262

    “5. Underscores that the referendum held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol on 16 March 2014, having no validity, cannot form the basis for any alteration of the status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or of the city of Sevastopol;”

    UN resolution supporting the independence referendum in Bermuda in 1995, which similarly to the Falklands one produced no change in status:

    https://undocs.org/en/A/RES/68/262

    “1. Expresses the view that the referendum on the future status of Bermuda is an appropriate means for the people of the Territory to decide their own future;”

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Yes - I didn't wait, but looked it up.

    Interesting that the Bermudian referendum comment confirms it as an appropriate means - not acknowledging either the actual referendum or the result.

    Either way, the UN has not rejected the Falklands Referendum and does not raise any objection when the referendum is mentioned every year.

    Recognition enough.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “You've totally failed to prove your claim that the Falklands is already decolonised”
    Decolonisation is a mere political term not a legal one. What I've proved is that the UK and FG have competed every leqal requirement, so the right is on their side.
    ”In the context of decolonisation, the 'political' moment in international law is repeated several times over. ... begins in 1960 with the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, an initiative taken by the Third World at the United Nations General Assembly (GA Res. 1514).“ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sundhya_Pahuja/publication/322381803_Decolonization_and_the_eventness_of_international_law/links/5a56be0e45851547b1bf25db/Decolonization-and-the-eventness-of-international-law.pdf
    Which, while a worthy goal, is merely an advisement, and not international law.
    ”Is the fact that GA resolutions are merely recommendations, not laws, and thus not binding on member states.”
    Why Have Resolutions of the UN General Assembly If They Are Not Legally Binding?
    CELINE VAN DEN RUL, JUN 16 2016,

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    That resolution dates from just before the referendum was held, so they weren't able to comment on the result. The next one I can find says:

    “Noting the results of the independence referendum held on 16 August 1995 in Bermuda”

    and later

    “1. Requests the administering Power, bearing in mind the views of the people of the Territory ascertained through a democratic process, to keep the Secretary-General informed of the wishes and aspirations of the people regarding their future political status;”

    http://www.refworld.org/country,LEGAL,UNGA,RESOLUTION,BMU,,3b00f33f8,0.html

    I daresay you are right that there was some agreement between Britain and Argentina, and that is why the Falklands referendum has not been mentioned in a GA resolution. Ignoring its existence may be recognition enough for you (what low standards you have), but it doesn't help the Falklanders, and it didn't help the Catalans.

    Do you mind answering the question I asked Terry, to explain the flaw in the argument that Trump posts on Mercopress? I'm sure you'll have no problem doing this.

    @Terry
    It's irrelevant whether it's a political term or not. You made a claim and have completely failed to prove it. If you can't prove claims about political terms then don't make them, and more especially don't pretend you have proved them when you are actually talking about something completely different. You've moved those goal posts so far they are on a different planet.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    ”You've totally failed to prove your claim that the Falklands is already decolonised”
    They are as far as the Charter is concerned and therefor their actions would pass scrutiny under the aegis of the ICJ. Which is where it counts, if push came to shove.
    Is what I claimed and what I have proved. It is you who have failed to prove your claim “Falklands referendum ... it doesn't have the force of international law, since it wasn't officially recognised by the UN.”

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    “They are [decolonised] as far as the Charter is concerned”

    Bullshit. You haven't even attempted to demonstrate that.

    And I see you're quote mining again. Here's the full quote ('He' being FRodriguez):

    “He may have meant that it doesn't have the force of international law, since it wasn't officially recognised by the UN in the way the New Caledonia one will be.”

    That was my guess at what another poster meant, not something I am claiming myself. I suspect it is true, but since it has never been put to the test that is just my opinion.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Not something I am claiming myself.” You can't have it both ways.
    “but illegitimate isn't the same as illegal... You haven't broken any laws, but it won't be considered valid by the courts?...It doesn't matter what it relied on, what is important is how many countries and international organisations recognised the result. A law that isn't recognised or enforced by anyone isn't a law.”

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Low standard are easy when all we are dealing with are advisory resolutions.

    Son from your work on Bermuda we have - a) confirmation of Res. 637 regarding plebiscites; b) a note of the result and c) a request that the UN be kept informed? Hardly amounts to an acknowledgement, now does it?

    What was the question regarding Trump?

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @TH
    Did you understand my example of the will? I was trying to explain the distinction between something that isn't valid according to the law (the improperly made will), and something that breaks the law.

    As for the rest, I am talking about politics and not law. As Roger has said, international laws are really more like guidelines.

    @RL
    It shows the UN has recognised referendums in GA resolutions, contrary to what you said earlier. The first resolution endorses the idea of holding one, and the second instructs the administering power (UK) to take note of the views expressed.

    I'd say that counts as rather more than an acknowledgement.

    The Trump question was to say what is wrong with this argument:

    All Mercopress posters are human.
    Donald Trump is human.
    Therefore, Donald Trump is a Mercopress poster.

    Just a description of why it is invalid logic; doesn't need the name of the fallacy. I want to show Terry that people generally are able to analyse an argument and spot errors.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - are all Mercopress posters human?

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Heh. Do you think we have aliens or robots posting? Anyone in particular? (That's not the error, by the way. The conclusion is wrong even if the first two lines are true.)

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    What I've proved is that the UK and FG have competed every leqal requirement, so the right is on their side.
    “I am talking about politics and not law” That must include the the acts of an ad hoc politicaly constructed C24 devoid of any legal legitimacy.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - and yet in so many cases I have to tick a box confirming that I am not a Robot. Not sure about the commentator who keeps going on about 25 years :-)

    Returning to the conversation regarding the Falklands referendum. I accept that the Bermuda referendum was an acknowledgment. So we have an acknowledgement with Bermuda and a rejection of the first Gibraltar referendum, but nothing for the 2013 Falklands referendum.

    I need to take a look at the origins of those resolutions. If they started life in the C24 it may mean that the 1989/90 agreement is preventing the GA from either acknowledging or denying the Falklands referendum - “All C24 resolutions on UK OTs reach the UNGA, except that on the Falklands (a position agreed by the UK and Argentina since the resumption of bilateral relations in 1989/90)”

    There's always more work to do ;-)

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    I've never had to tick a box to comment here, but Hepatia IS pretty robotic. She must be posting those tedious comments with a script, since she posts her 'why is this appearing...' thing on any story tagged UK, even if it is eg about UK ministers visiting Uruguay and therefore obviously relevant.

    I haven't seen the resolution on Gibraltar, but it's pretty clear the ones on Bermuda came from the C24, and no other part of the UN is likely to take an interest in the Falklands unless there is another war there (let's hope not). Anyway, judging by the C24 meetings each year, they would inevitably reject the referendum if they were to say anything at all, but they don't.

    Jun 23rd, 2018 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “Judging by the C24 meetings each year, they would inevitably reject the referendum if they were to say anything”
    Since they are a mere political committee, and not legal tribunal they would have no authority to pass judgement on those who are legally exercising their UN Charter right of self-determination

    Jun 24th, 2018 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    That's beside the point, Terry. We're talking about what they have and haven't said, and why, not what authority they have to say it.

    But like it or not, as the committee in charge of decolonisation they do have some authority. As was pointed out at the start of this comment section, the FIG still thinks it worthwhile to attend every year to make their case.

    @RL
    I wondered if there had been any GA resolutions on the second referendum in Gibraltar. I've been looking but I can't find anything. Is Gibraltar typically omitted from the GA resolution, like the Falklands?

    Jun 24th, 2018 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    There do appear to be separate arrangements in place for Gibraltar. The same document that mentions the agreement with Argentina, goes on to say:-

    “On Gibraltar the C24 adopts a consensus decision, which both Spain and the UK support. The Fourth Committee debates and adopts the consensus decision, and the UNGA simply takes note of the decision.”

    I understand that the 'consensus decision' is actually written by Spain and the UK, and not the C24.

    Yet again, details are hard to find.

    Jun 24th, 2018 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “FIG still thinks it worthwhile to attend every year” Possibly to protect themselves from an Argentina claim that they had acquiesced, and because politically it is a perceived benefit, not to allow Argentina to go unanswered in a public forum. Moreover, it establishes their right to respond on their own behalf. “They do have some authority” They are a sub, sub, committee created by the UN GA which can only issue an advisement, and so C24 has no authority in law. So they have no power to dictate anything to anyone, they are the King with no clothes.

    Jun 24th, 2018 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Odd. What consensus exists between the UK and Spain on Gibraltar? And it seems highly dubious, to say the least, to allow the two countries who claim the territory - one of them the administering power - to write the decision.

    After reading some of these resolutions, the C24 seems remarkably inconsistent. Spain claims Gibraltar, so they complain because the UK doesn't hand it over, and refuse to even consider other ways of decolonising it. Morocco claims Western Sahara, and they complain because Spain did hand it over, and refuse to declare it decolonised and take it off the list.

    You'd think that after producing nearly identical resolutions for so many years, they'd want to start looking at different ideas. For example, could the UN create a fund for developing the infrastructure and economies of these small islands, so they wouldn't have to rely on the administering powers to do it?

    Jun 24th, 2018 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    “UN create a fund for developing the infrastructure and economies of these small islands, so they wouldn't have to rely on the administering powers to do it?” “The UN Charter prohibited the interference in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations by other sovereign nations ... Matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any nations were not therefore to be interfered by the global body or UN.” https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/the-issues-of-intervention-in-domestic-affairs-international-law-essay.php
    Unless that country requested them too. Furthermore, it would directly contravene a Charter mandated stipulation.
    ”73. Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...“

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - I believe that it is called 'politics' - a devious business at best :-)

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @Terry
    I don't think colonies are within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation, if they were they wouldn't be included in the C24's list. Besides, I wasn't proposing the UN do this without the agreement of the administering powers. They would really have no reason to object.

    @RL
    Sure, but it would be nice to know what is behind it. I guess Gibraltar isn't your area, though.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    But the Falklands is, yet I'm as much in the dark about that agreement as everyone else. Kohen & Rodriguez try to pass it off as a 'gentleman's agreement' which makes no sense at all. Cristina Kirchner was no gentleman and broke every other agreement, so why not that one? I have been banging my head against this particular brick wall for 4 years and all I've got is one sentence and two vague references from the Chair of the GA in 1989 & 1991. Something about 'discussions'. Nothing. I can't even find out who knows.

    I doubt I'll be around long enough to resolve this particular mystery.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    DemonTree
    According to UN document A/RES/36/103 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States'
    It states clearly “Recognizing that full observance of the principles of non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external affairs of sovereign States and peoples, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, is essential to the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

    Reaffirming further the fundamental principle of the Charter of the United Nations that all States have the duty not to threaten ... against the sovereignty, political independence or territorial integrity of other States,”
    “I don't think colonies are within the domestic jurisdiction of any nation”
    So it would appear that my factually based observation eclipses your intuitive based opinion. There must be “non-interference in the ..external affairs of sovereign States and peoples, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, ..”

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    -“... the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”

    That's nice and vague.-

    On the contrary DT, the phrase ‘any other’ makes it clear and unambiguous. It means that it doesn't matter what the political status is provided it’s freely determined by the people of an NSGT

    -I suppose as long as the C24 refuses to define it further, no NSGT can be declared decolonised by that option.-

    If the C24 defined 'any other' 'any further’ (ie limited it) it could no longer be ‘any other’

    -I gather that the UK claims all the BOTs have been decolonised by giving them internal self government, but this is not generally recognised (rightly, IMO).-

    Yet a few territories have been removed from the list without applying any of the other 3 means of decolonising. Eg Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and the Dutch Territories are not Independent, Integrated with any State or an Associated State of any other State.

    -As long as the UK government has the power to revoke all their self government (and it does), and they have no say in it, they are not really decolonised.-

    But if an NSGT integrated with another State (a means of decolonising), that State may well have the power to revoke self government without consultation. In any case I'm not sure the UK government has that power by itself. The suspension of the Turks and Caicos government was approved by UK parliament. Likewise, I think, the power to suspend the self government of Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands by the US.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    @RL
    I tried googling in Spanish instead. Didn't find anything useful but did find some weird conspiracy theories about the treaty.

    I agree with you about CFK; if there was an agreement she must have had some good reason to stick to it. Either Argentina are not so confident of support in the GA and would prefer to keep it in the C24, or they got something in exchange that they can't afford to give up.

    @dab14763
    If you were right then wouldn't any territory that has held a referendum and opted for the status quo be regarded as decolonised and removed from the list? Bermuda and Tokelau have definitely had them, but are still listed.

    Yes, some territories were removed despite not satisfying the (then) 3 criteria. The C24 has never been very consistent.

    If the NSGT was integrated with another state, they would have elected representatives in that state's government so would have a vote on it. Still, for very small territories that would be a correspondingly small say, and that is assuming the country they join IS a democracy. What the UN didn't consider is that for these small island countries, remaining a colony is not necessarily worse than the alternatives.

    I don't know if the vote in parliament was necessary to suspend T & C's constitution or not. The courts confirmed the government had the right to evict all the people from the Chagos islands using the royal prerogative, don't know how that would apply to other colonies/BOTs.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    DT - the agreement appears to bind the whole of the UN. Every year, on the provisional UN agenda, there is an option for a debate on the Falklands within the General Assembly. All it takes is one of the 193 members to ask for it.

    This is dealt with in the very last paragraph of the annual Working Paper produced by the UN on the Falklands NSGT. This year, as every year, the last paragraph says -

    71. In its resolution 58/316, the General Assembly decided that the item entitled
    “Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” would remain on the agenda for
    consideration upon notification by a Member State. As at the date of the issuance of
    the present working paper, no such notification by a Member State to the Assembly
    had been received.

    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/falkland-islands-malvinas-working-paper-prepared-by-the-secretariat-march-14-2018.pdf

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Hmm. No way could any agreement bind all of the UN member states. But there is no reason any third party would want to start a debate in the GA if Argentina and the UK are both opposed. If one them did want to, I suppose they might ask an ally to bring it up, but they could just do it themselves.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Think about - Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador, Venezuela. All Argentine supporters - even rabidly so. All their leaders rant and rave on Argentina's behalf, and yet not one has called for a GA debate. However it works, the result is ................ silence.

    There's a confidence trick being played. As far as I can tell, it's being played on the people of Argentina, but I might be wrong. It may be us that are being conned.

    Jun 25th, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    That's just what I meant. If Venezuela etc are allies of Argentina then they won't bring it up as long as Argentina doesn't ask them to. And if they aren't then they have no reason to do so. Unless, I suppose, they wanted to embarrass Macri.

    By trick on the people of Argentina, do you mean their government making a lot of noise about it in international forums, but not bringing it up in the GA or other places where it could make a difference? And how would we be being conned?

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Yes, I suspect the Argentine people are being conned in exactly that way. We could be also be being conned if, for example, the deal was time limited and the quid pro quo for an extended period of no UN GA Resolutions was an eventual cession. There is no indication of that but not knowing the details of the agreement rather fuels conspiracy theories I'm afraid.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Hmm. That would certainly explain why CFK didn't break the agreement! No GA resolutions seems like a really small concession in return, though.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Hard to figure what the quid pro quo could be.

    Jun 26th, 2018 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • DemonTree

    Do you have any other ideas?

    Jun 27th, 2018 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Still discussing the king with no clothes?

    Jun 27th, 2018 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Something so great as to effectively tether Argentina at the UN for the last 30 years, and perhaps more?

    No idea.

    Jun 27th, 2018 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

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