MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, December 1st 2021 - 17:47 UTC

 

 

Falklands’ military tests: CFK complains to UN; UK says it’s 28 year routine

Tuesday, October 12th 2010 - 01:02 UTC
Full article 73 comments

Argentine Ambassador to the United Nations Jorge Argüello confirmed Monday that a copy of the formal verbal complaint to London was channelled to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon as a way of deepening the protest over the military exercises being deployed by British forces in the Falklands/Malvinas Islands. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Hoytred

    “ ... Speaking with the official Argentine news agency Telam, Argüello said that “we are going to ask the UN Secretary General to distribute a copy of the complaint among members of the organization as testimony of this new violation of UN resolutions” by the United Kingdom.... ”

    So, Ban Ki Moon is now a postman :-)

    Although he may struggle to identify quite which UN Resolutions are applicable.

    I note that the UN's 4th Committee rounded up its oversight of C-24 yesterday. No Resolution being put forward on the Falklands and the UK's Representative making one thing very clear -

    “ ... the representative of the United Kingdom said his delegation found the proposal unacceptable, as the resolution failed to recognize the progress that had been made in the relationship between the United Kingdom and its territories. He repeated that the United Kingdom would support the move to independence when that was an option. His delegation strongly considered the “Special Committee of 24” to be outdated and strongly believed that the United Nations should devote its resources to more urgent issues....”

    He also reiterated that “ ... his delegation had no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands ... ” and that “ ... no civilian population had been removed before they settled on the islands over eight generations ago. They had been the only inhabitants of the Falkland Islands. He also stressed that all peoples could, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources, and in no case could a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence...”

    Funny how Argentina tried to re-interpret the variious Resolutions going through so that the didn't affect the Falkland Islands ... although the legal effect of their definitions is a moot point.

    There's always next year :-)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    Wow Hoytred. Anything else that you wish to copy and paste?
    You missed this one: “pirates for ever”

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (1) Hoyt
    General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • jerry

    It seems that the K government is doing the same thing that the military government did in 1982. When the country is falling apart, use the Malvinas/Falklands as a smokescreen to get the population thinking about another “problem”.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beef

    I think Mr Ban has more pressing things on his mind than the complaints of a Twitter president who writes “pirates forever” (aaarrgghh). That must be truly embarrassing for an Argentine with an IQ of more that 3!

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Pirates Forever

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Argie hopefuls for the 2010 Mr Malvinas contest

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Argentina-Protests-British-Military-Exercises-on-Falklands-104661999.html

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Thanks for that Think .... nothing since 1988 then !

    Well ... maybe next year :-)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beef

    They are likely to be the rent-a-mob or ex-soldiers who didn't see any fighting in the Falkland Islands. Any Argentine soldiers who actually fought spend most of their time coming to terms with what they went through and can't give a toss about the political or soverign status of the Islands.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (8) Hoyt
    Same procedure as every year.........
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lzQxjGL9S0&feature=related

    (9) Beef
    .................and Aids can be cured by a Garlic-Parsley smoothie.......

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    No new General Assembly Resolutions since 1988 ...... yup, same as every year.

    Apparently there's now a build up of forces on the Falkland Islnads .... maybe we're intending to invade the neighbour :-)

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jz5rfy3RfXvdm1HacHUF1dPNVRBQ?docId=CNG.3af003c84a71aeca2db44ba857bb01cc.81

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Idlehands

    I'm starting to think that CFK is as daft as a brush. Her propaganda is starting to resemble the guff that comes out of North Korea. Her arguments d0n't even stand up to the most basic tests. Stretching the truth in your favour is one thing but making comments that can easily disproved by the facts on the ground makes the rest of the world just roll its eyes. Who does she think she is kidding? Only herself and a few of her countrymen by the look of it.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    That Mr Argüello looks like he's about to cry. Not surprising when you think who his boss is, trout-pout Fernández, the proud grandaughter of Spaniards. It must be his embarrassment at her cheek - telling 8th generation Falkland Islanders what they should do...

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    Pity about Twinky's inability to read and understand. Not much better than axel.

    ”General Assembly resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25”

    Trouble is 31/49, 37/9, 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19 and 43/25 aren't resolutions. They are documents. So nothing really since 1973. And even 2065 and 3160 are only GA resolutions, and therefore non-binding.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    A little more madness reported in the Buenos Aires Herald, although I suspect that some of the translation is off again ... eh Think ?

    http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/47919

    “ ... ”Argentina requested UN Secretary-General to hand a copy of the formal complaint to every British employer working in the island, as a way of stating the claim, which we consider a violation to the United Nations resolution.......”

    Now, is the Sec-Gen likely to do that, or will he give them a look and chuck it in the bin? Answers on a post card please :-)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Postman Moon and his black and white baboon...

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (15) Hoyt

    No more free translation.... but yes, that translation is a scandal :-)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beef

    I don't know about Mr Ban Ki-Moon but CFK should rather have sent the letter to the Moon. There are likely to be more people there who give a toss. No wait, Argentina will probably claim soverignty of the moon as they were the first to send a letter to a peice of rock with no inhabitants when the Americans first set foot there.

    Yep CFK is a space cadet!

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Even Thingy is struggling to back this latest cobblers from BA, next she'll be saying she's caught Jack Sparrow and is using his compass to determine Foreign Policy...

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Uruguay them selves said that it had nothing to do with Argentina, that kinda makes your entire point useless.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Seeking viable alternatives has been a forte of the Falklands and I am sure we can weather the petty complaints about routine missile firing in our own waters

    Got one thing right think (Argentina can do nothing)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yaghan

    So that is the basis of your sovereignty? Superior firepower? That's really civilised!

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    once again the argies shout and scream like children,
    if they had ant guts , they would do something, send in your military,
    but then again, argentina will do NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING.
    just a load of wind , put up or go away.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Sparticus

    Just hope it's not windy for the Typhoons to take off!!

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Or too humid :-)

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Or they might not be able to fight the argentine air force.

    Do they even have any aircraft that can fly?

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    GUYS, maybe this makes understand why do we consider as iligal some of the actions made unilaterally by the u.k.
    Resolution 39/41, forces both countrys to avoid to do unilateral acts in the territory in dispute, untill the negotiations process start, wich was indicated by the u.n.
    We all know about the uniltaeral decitions that the u.k. and the f.i.g toke, with out any consultation with argentina, so, moreover the cheap nationalism and stupidity that some of you have, you should have unless one line of objetivity, and recognize the mistakes that your country made, in the same way that recognize the serious mistakes that my country made.
    Like it or not, it was not argentina the country wich became the islands into a colony, anyway i know that some of you who dont have not even one solid argument to hold what you say, you'll keep on slandering, or using some rediculous ironys, because that's the only one thing that some of you can do.
    That's actually one more show of the imbecility of some of you.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    I'm quite confused, am i reading the right Resolution, because from what i've seen both resolutions apply to Pakistan and Kashmir. It says nothing that i can personally see about any other part of the world.

    I think i have the wrong information, can you send me a link?

    “Like it or not, it was not argentina the country wich became the islands into a colony”

    Technically, if argentina was to take controll of the islands it would also become a colony. Effectively you are accusing us of owning colonys while trying to create one.

    Oct 12th, 2010 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    39/41 = http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r041.htm

    Couldn't see anything about unilateral action there Axel.

    However, let me point you to a statement last week before the UN's Fourth Committee regarding the islanders development of their oil industry - “ ... On the issue of development of the hydrocarbon industry, that article 1.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights supported that right. It stated that all people may dispose of their natural resources and wealth, and in no case, may people be deprived of their own means of subsistence....”

    The FIG is under NO obligation to negotiate with Argentina. And Axel, the UK no longer considers the islands a 'colony'. From Monday's UN session - “ ... the representative of the United Kingdom said ..... the text failed to recognize the progress that the United Kingdom had achieved in its relationship with its overseas territories, which was now a modern one. He expressed support for the move to independence, where that was an option and if it was the clearly expressed wish of the people concerned. He stressed that none of the United Kingdom’s overseas territories should remain on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories....”

    As Think says ... nothing Argentina can do ;-)

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “Resolution 39/41, forces both countrys to avoid to do unilateral acts in the territory in dispute, untill the negotiations process start, wich was indicated by the u.n.”

    Axel and others,

    It's 31/49 not 39/41

    http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution3149.html

    and it doesn't say anything of the sort. What it says if for neither of the two parties to do anything unilaterally while negotiations are in progress, not the period before negotiations start or any period outside of negotiations :

    4. Calls upon the two parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while the islands are going through the process recommended in the above-mentioned resolutions;

    Since there are currently no negotiations in progress, the article is not applicable and in any case refers to the UK and Argentine governments and not to the Falklands government. Note also that no further mention of unilateral actions was made in any UNGA resolution.

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    31/49 is also dated 1976. Now it's a bit of a reach for Argentina to try and rely on resolutions that predate its invasion of the islands in 1982!

    Now, Axel tries to rely on Uti possidetis Jursi which is arecent, and arguable, development in international law. Whereas Uti possidetis ('as you posses) is an established principle in international law. According to the Great God Wiki, this states - “ ... that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty doesn't include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail..”

    Now the war of 1982 was a 'conflict' ...... :-)

    I also note that UNASUR's statement was along the usual lines - “ ... ”firm support for the legitimate rights“ of Argentina over the archipelago, and the regional interest for a peaceful resolution to the dispute.... ”

    But of course that's more diplospeak, because if Argentina hasn't got any 'egitimate rights' then UNASUR appears not to support them :-))

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Hoytred is quite right, the unilateral invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina in 1982 negates 31/49 dated 1976. Legally, 31/49 is dead in the water, it cannot be referred to by Argentina as they have already breached its terms of reference.

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frank

    You really must take a look at this morning's BA Herald, Timerman ( who looks like he buys his mangoes at the same shop as the Kirchner woman ) reckons they are going to ignore the missile tests which they weren't told about anyway.... FMTT these people really are from Joke City

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    I fear for your “survey” Axel...

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    Gentlemen. You are wasting your time. axel is a time-waster. If you look carefully at a number of things he comes up with, they are not resolutions. They are documents. For instance, his A/64/106 is actually a document listed as follows:”Appointment of members of the Joint Inspection Unit: note by the Secretary-General (A/64/106)”

    Again, strongly recommended that he is simply ignored from now on. Just don't respond to any of his comments.

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    Hi there stickup, shove it up yours rather. We have a newborn baby of this kind every day with regard to oil, fishing, you-name-it. As Jorge Luis Borges stressed in 1982, it is the fight of two baldmen for a comb. Neither the UN or any other world organisation would keep this warm potato in sight for long. It was hot in 1982 because both our governements needed local support for their regimes, but it's cold now, and none of us has a budget to light anything but a few rockets saved from the past 5th November to send up the sky. No government would stop the nonsense without losing face but, fortunately, Mr Madoff (and Iraq to the UK) did enough to our economies as to stop all useless spending. The likelihood of having another hard confrontation is nil now. Try another excuse, please, or, better still, come off it. Cheers!

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    #37 - anybody understand anything of what Argie is saying ? Mystery to me!

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    @38 Not a clue.

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Argie, product of Care in the Community

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    something abt ?? I think

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    HOYTRED. DAB14763.
    HOYTRED: You have no idea about what you are saying, beside your comparisons are as rediculous as you are.
    I wont deny that the invation of 1982 didnt respect any of the resolutions of the u.n., dont forget that the it was ordered by an irresponsable moron who had napoleonic ambitions, so there is no so much to add regarding that fact.
    About the utti possidettis, it's a role of international right, wich holds that when one territory declares it's independence, it inherites the territory inside of it's ex colonial limits, this is one the reasosn why my country argues that it's a sucessor of the spanish kingdom, anyway the explanation is much longer, but i have no space to type it here.
    My country had legitimate rights to occupy malvinas, it was just one more part of the ex viceroalty, the islands were submitted to it's jurisdiction, i already explained it to you twice, on the other hand, even the british experts who i included in my survey, and who defends the posture of the u.k., dont refute the rights of argentina as a succesor of spain, the only argue that islands are britsh because the u.k. has a long permanence in the islands, there is a lot to add about that, in my next comment i will try to tell you more.
    Finally, like i told yuo before, if you want to make a serious investigation, you can't take something that you got from wikipedia, any of the arguments that included in my survey is based on wikipedia's words, internet is not a reliable source.
    DABT: The information that i have is not the same that you have, i think that you are wrong, anyway , if the f.i.g is not forced to negotiate with argentina, is irrelevant, it's perfectly expectable that we take a hard measure to defend what we considerr as our resorcies, some day the islanders will have to understand that the islands are only their's, untill it does not happen, we will keep on having this kind of problems.

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    Unasur,,,,,,,,,should it be UNASURE,
    because there unsure abt everything

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Axel - I've told you this before, don't get your Uti possidetis mixed up with your Uti possidetis juris :-)

    From the Great God Wiki -

    1. Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty doesn't include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail.

    2. Uti possidetis juris is a principle of international law that states that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence. The application of uti possidetis juris has had mixed success as it often ignores ethnic and political differences in and between regions.

    Come Axel, I thought you were claiming to be a serious researcher !!

    Oct 13th, 2010 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Axel, Two questions.

    How could Argentina have “inherited” the Falklands in 1816 from Spain under UPJ, or any other principle for that matter, if Spain did not recognise Argentine independence until 1859?

    Can you explain how UPJ would be applicable, and how it could be applied retrospectively, considering it was first agreed as a way to settle borders in South America at the Congress of Lima in 1847 (which Argentina did not attend) and several decades after Argentina declared its independence?

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Axel - found this ” ... the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) concerning a border dispute in Burkina Faso v. Republic of Mali (1986). [FN31] In this case, the ICJ stressed that uti possidetis juris serves to freeze the title over territory at the time of independence,...”

    So what was the time of independence for Argentina - 1810, 1815 or 1859 ?

    And why wouldn't uti possidetis (without the 'juris') apply to 1982 ? Or indeed 1833 .... or 1771 ???

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @ axel#42 don't even bother reading this utter rubbish. they are not your resources, cher axel because the Falkland Islands do not belong to you. your country has no legitimate rights in the islands. you did not inherit the islands from Spain because Spain did not own them either. why don't you claim the Philippines? Spain ruled them for 400 years. do you own them too? l must hasten to warn my Filipino friends just in case you think that is agood idea too! get real, amigo/amiga?

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    Please everyone. We need to stop encouraging that pillock axel. I know he's funny. But he's not THAT funny! He is, at best, a moron without courtesy. Perhaps best consigned to an asylum. I was going to say “funny farm” but I didn't want to use “funny” too often.

    Can you not see that, in his own puerile mind, you offer him some spurious legitimacy?

    His meaningless meanderings have no cogency and, incidentally, become more incoherent on a regular basis.

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    Peter Cook and Dudley Moore came back from the grave and are discussing their parts here. It's a miracle!

    Briton (and other Q's subjects), have you tried to teach ravens to fly under water?

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “The information that i have is not the same that you have, i think that you are wrong, anyway”

    The resolution is here in Spanish:

    http://www.dipublico.com.ar/instrumentos/138.pdf

    See para 4. It says exactly the same thing as the one in English. I suspect you had never read the resolution until now and had referred to an Argentine 'interpretation' of it.

    , if the f.i.g is not forced to negotiate with argentina, is irrelevant, it's perfectly expectable that we take a hard measure to defend what we considerr as our resorcies,

    Yeah right. Act like a bully against a small nation. Yet Argentina's too cowardly to have its claim tested in a court of law.

    “some day the islanders will have to understand that the islands are only their's, untill it does not happen, we will keep on having this kind of problems.”

    The islands ARE only theirs. Nobody else's. They already understand that. It's Argentina that doesn't understand that and is trying to annex territory it has never owned.

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    “Who are they firing these missiles against? Are they aimed to the Antarctica? This is nothing but a clear act of provocation against Argentina. Anyway, our citizenry should remain calm and know that we will not react against these kind of provocations.” Héctor Timerman

    Since they don't have enough diesel fuel, jet fuel or parts I guess they don't have any other choice bot not to react. What a clown.

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Frank

    It would appear that Hector has decided to ignore what he said about ignoring the missile tests.....
    ”Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman assured today in radio conversations that Argentina is “a victim of a colonialist attack of the United Kingdom,”

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Oh, and another question Axel, if this “About the utti possidettis, it's a role of international right, wich holds that when one territory declares it's independence, it inherites the territory inside of it's ex colonial limits” is true, then why does Argentina not claim Uruguay, Paraguay and most of Bolivia as well???

    That's three questions Axel. I'm looking forward to your replies.

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    49 Argie (#)
    Briton (and other Q's subjects), have you tried to teach ravens to fly under water [answer] yes, and they work very well thank you.
    question, can you gat the falklands, [answer][no] . axel,please get back under the car, the rear needs you., you argies should stop looking in the mirror

    Oct 14th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    a victim of a colonialist attack of the United Kingdom

    http://www.victimsupport.org.uk/

    might of come in handy during the dirty war

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Cadfael

    Timidman should pick up his lower lip before he trips over it and looks even more of a buffoon!

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    HOYTRED. DABT. J. A. ROBERT.
    HOYTRED: I can't believe that you insist on searching information on your wikipedia, i wont answer your question, i alreday told you that internet is not a reliable source, i am not an expert in inernational right, i only interpret what i read, and like i told you before, not even the britsh experts refute that argentina had rights to occupy malvinas in 1833 because it was a sucessor of the spanish kingdom.
    JASON: The fact that spain didnt recognize our independence untill 1859 was irrelevant, we didn't need the concent of spain to declare our independence, even the u.k. recognized the independence of the u. p. in 1825, like i told you before, as a sucessor of the spanish kingdom we had right to occupy the islands in 1833, in fact british professor, mr akehurst argue that utti posidettis was applicable for former jurisdiction of the viceroalty, including the malvinas, he made an very interesting memorandum about the history of the islands.
    Beside, dont mix the situation of bolivia, paraguay and uruguay, with the malvinas's issue, those nations joined the viceroalty, but they decided to separate, we have nothing to claim, in the case of the malvinas, the u.k. deprived us of our rights, this is why we claim them.
    DABT: Thanks for your information, i will search it, on the other hand, i respect your opinion but i dont agree on what you say, as long as both sides keep on behaviouring with intransigence, the solution of the conflict will be so far away.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    You didn't answer my question Axel!

    Utti posidettis (without the juris) concerns conflict ... so why doesn't it apply to the 1982 conflict?

    I should add that there are no 'experts' in international right! Any court, including the ICJ, has the right to decide who is an expert. Until a court decides that the witness is able to give 'expert' opinion, then they are only people with opinions.

    You need a better understanding of legal principle before you can start laying claim to 'expert' support.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Hang on Axel - Michael Akehurst's textbook on International Law is a student textbook which is actually written by a Professor Malanczuk .

    You are using student textbooks ??!!

    I can see where your 'survey' is headed :-)

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “we didn't need the concent of spain to declare our independence, ”

    No, but a unilateral declaration of independence does not by itself establish any rights over territory. In the case of unilateral secession title to territory is over territory the seceding entity manages to secure effective control.

    even the u.k. recognized the independence of the u. p. in 1825,

    Recognition of a state does not imply recognition of all that state's territorial claims. In the case of unilateral secession recognition is over territory the seceding entity effectively controls. The UP exercised no effective control over the Falklands in 1825

    “like i told you before, as a sucessor of the spanish kingdom we had right to occupy the islands in 1833, ”

    In 1833 Argentina was not a successor of the Spanish Kingdom, not even in Argentina itself because Spain had not yet relinquished sovereignty over the territory of the former Viceroyalty

    “in fact british professor, mr akehurst argue that utti posidettis was applicable for former jurisdiction of the viceroalty, including the malvinas, he made an very interesting memorandum about the history of the islands.”

    Mr Akehurst is wrong. Possibly because he is not aware that there was no uti possidetis juris in international law during the period in question. New laws do not have retroactive application without the consent of the parties involved.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    Mr Akehust's opinion is difficult to challenge ... he died in 1989! Another dead Internation Law 'expert' ....... Axel's survey is looking like a collection of 'dead' opinions :-)

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    Much like axel!

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    HOYTRED. DAB.
    HOYTRED: I still can't believe how moron you are, the fact that some of the experts who i included in my survey are dead, does not mean anything, i sopose that many of them must be already dead, but i can incorporate their knowleage, i dont think you can talk to john davis, however your side argues that he descovered the islands.
    Regading mr akehurst, he was a profesor of right, at the university of keele, that's the only data about him that i found in the bibliographys that i used, beside what's wrong if i use students textbooks wich are wrote by others profesors?, there is another british profesor, who argues the same than mr akehurst, i mean profesor deas, but i dont know where he worked.
    On the other hand, your analisys can't be more rediculous, if you argue that only a court can legitimate the opinions of experts, do you think that a court is not already composed by experts in international right?.
    About your question, you should wonder why, in spite that argentina lost a war, it still can keep on claiming for the malvinas, beside since november of 1982, the un calls arg and the u.k.n to renew the negotiations, in my next comment i will tell you more about some resolutions of the un regarding decolonization issues.
    DAB: You are very misinformed, argentina was already occupying the malvinas in 1833, there was a small garrison, wich was desmantled by the british when they toke possession of the islands, even all the british experts who i included in my survey, dont refute that my country had legitimate rights as a sucessor of spain, i dont think you know more than an expert, beside my question is, what right had the u.k. to deprive us of our rights on the islands in 1833?, what legitimate right had the u.k. to do what it did when it toke control of the malvinas?, i have a lot to argue about it, but i have no so much space, in my next comment i will try to tell you more.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    There are NO binding UN resolutions.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argie

    More Derek & Clive, by the hour.

    I'll tell my friends about this place where one can get superb fun for free.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    “DAB: You are very misinformed, argentina was already occupying the malvinas in 1833, there was a small garrison, wich was desmantled by the british when they toke possession of the islands, ”

    I am fully aware that there was an Argentine garrison at the time. But it never managed to secure effective control of the Falklands. It never even managed to secure effective control of Port Louis.

    “even all the british experts who i included in my survey, dont refute that my country had legitimate rights as a sucessor of spain, i dont think you know more than an expert”

    If your experts are not aware that Argentina achieved its independence by force, without Spain's consent, that at the time Spain had not yet relinquished its own claim to the Falklands or even to Argentina itself for that matter, and that uti possidetis juris was not part of international law, then, yes, I do know more than your experts.

    beside my question is, what right had the u.k. to deprive us of our rights on the islands in 1833?,

    You cannot be deprived of something you don't have.

    “what legitimate right had the u.k. to do what it did when it toke control of the malvinas?”

    If the UK did not have legitimate rights, it was Spain's prerogative to complain, not Argentina's. And Spain never did.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “even all the british experts who i included in my survey, dont refute that my country had legitimate rights as a sucessor of spain”

    By your logic the USA has claims over India, Canada, Austrailia and countless other nations of the old empire.

    An inheritance is something that is given, not taken.

    Oct 15th, 2010 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    “ ...On the other hand, your analisys can't be more rediculous, if you argue that only a court can legitimate the opinions of experts, do you think that a court is not already composed by experts in international right?....”

    For my sins Axel I've an Honours in Law and a Masters in Philosophy, and you display no real understanding of the position of 'expert' in any legal system. The only way to avoid some false expert from proclaiming from a poor knoweldge base in a court, is for the court to have the right to decide who, and who is not, an 'expert'. Few judges would claim to be experts as to do so would merely cause others to highlight their failings.

    In any court case the judges will hear opinion and argument from both sides. They will listen to the supposed 'experts' from both sides and then consider their judgement with reference to the relevant legislation.

    To fail to understand this is to fail to understand the position of supposed experts. Many have opinions, not all will be called. And the dead only have 'old' opinions which cannot change with recent movements within international law, for example the Kosovo ruling by the ICJ.

    As an old Tutor I would suggest that you are operating at a superficial level and that your research requires more depth.

    And don't get me going on the term 'Rights' ... I spent a whole year on that bloody awful subject !!

    #66 - I would add to Dab's comments that the ill founded Argentine garrison never managed to gain effective control over themselves let alone the islands as they mutinied. A busy, but ineffective 2 months work for them. I suspect they were glad to leave :-)

    Oct 16th, 2010 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    NOW can we stop giving axel credibility? It may be amusing for some, but he's getting on my tits!

    Oct 16th, 2010 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Hola,… Axel Arg

    Even if we have quite different “approaches” about quite a few things, it is clear for me that you are not a fake, a “double-talker” or a hypocrite as so many others in here.

    Keep being yourself………
    Your credibility is much higher than most of your critics would wish it to be :-)

    Cordiales Saludos
    El Think

    Oct 16th, 2010 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Hoytred

    The lad certainly needs encouragement ... he's a long way to go !

    Oct 17th, 2010 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    “Your credibility is much higher than most of your critics would wish it to be”

    Indeed it is, I would say it's now somewhere between that of a cockroach and that of a sewer rat....as you say....much higher than most of your critics would wish it to be.

    Oct 18th, 2010 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Axel, I have yet to see your argument for how Argentina inherited any rights from Spain. I've asked countless times but you never reply...

    Oct 21st, 2010 - 08:58 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!