MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina reaffirms Malvinas’ sovereignty; blasts UK reluctance to discuss sovereignty
Argentina reaffirmed Monday its “imprescriptible” sovereignty rights over the Malvinas and other South Atlantic islands and considers “incomprehensible” the British negative to find a peaceful and definitive solution to the controversy as mandated by the international community. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo..............
Jan 06th, 2011 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please go and leave the keys on the lock.
Thanks
The Cancillería is being just a little economical with the truth again, and hoping that if they repeat the “all Argie inhabitants were kicked off” lie often enough someone might believe it. I'm sure their NBF Chavez does...
Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” ... “British forces occupied the Malvinas Islands ousting by force Argentine inhabitants and authorities legitimately established ...
Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now that's a rather more muted statement. No use of the word 'all'!
There were a couple of settlers that left and the garrison was required to leave .... wow, Argentina starting to correct the errors in its claims ??
Red, it's still a lie. Argentina as we know it did not exist in 1833. They weren't “Argentine inhabitants” - even the ones who stayed...
Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haven't we heard all these bleatings before? Can't they come up with something a little more original to break the monotomy of their self-pitiful ramblings.
Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, A nation that promises much but delivers little.
Think - you tried to steal the keys in 1982 and we released the hounds. The bite marks act as a reminder!
Haha, it's just the same thing every time.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I bet they have to recite it at inauguration day and have it memorised.
“permanent and sincere willingness to resume the bilateral negotiation process with the UK to find a definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute and put an end to the anachronistic colonial situation incompatible with the evolution of the modern world”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why is it not colonialism when it's Argentina doing the colonising? is Argie neo-colonialism somehow better than the old fuddy duddy institutions such as British Overseas Territories...from the point of view of the local population?
“Argentine government reaffirms once again its imprescriptible rights over the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands and its surrounding maritime spaces, which are an integral part of its national territory”.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not detecting much room for negotiation here. It seems to me that the Argentine side has already decided what the outcome will be. So there isn't much point is there.
Maybe there should be a meeting of some kind. It would be very short and would fulfil the requirements of the UN. Something like.....
' We demand that you leave our territory right now'
'No'
Interesting view from Pravda -
Jan 07th, 2011 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ .... Argentina ... In two words: collapse, war or maybe more likely war and collapse. Argentina's economy is in the gutter and the Falklands are looking awfully nice again. Sure they made noises all year long but they are now pretty sure that the US will back stab the UK and the UK itself just announced that it will be cutting its military in half, so while the UK burns this summer in protests and economic collapse, the Falklands and all the oil around them, are going to find new owners, whether they like it or not....”
http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/06-01-2011/116445-2011_dark_year-0/
(9) Redhoyt
Jan 07th, 2011 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same Article....... a bit further down :-)))
United Kingdom:
The sick man of Europe is on its death bed. With a deficit as bad or worse then Greece's, with some hundred old folks a day dieing from the cold in the worst winter in its history, with one in three families having to choose between feeding themselves and heating themselves, the UK will find itself in very serious waters, this year.
First will come the mass riots and demonstrations as the right of center government tries to bring the insane spending down to within normal means. The Student riots of last December were only a foretaste. The civil unions will close the cities down with critical supplies blockaded, till the military is called out and bloody clashes ensue.
At the same time, the British National Party will be ruled illegal and its leadership, to include its Euro MP will be arrested and imprisoned. This in turn will start a low grade civil war by the BNP who will now see no civil or political course left to them. The Islamics will also increase their activities and much of the low grade civil war will be between these two groups and against the authorities as a whole.
Immigration out will skyrocket, as experts and even farmers flee. Interestingly, many will head towards Russia, now that the UK business community has gotten over its Russophobia.
The final blow, that will bring about governmental collapse and at least a short term of absolute anarchy, will be the total loss of the Falklands to Argentina.
J.A.Roberts, the UK as we know it today, didn't exist in 1833. Another step closer to getting our Islas Malvinas back.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0xbarilox argentina was a squabbling civil war mess , which is pretty much what it still is today, you do make me laugh with your statements though, at least you match your nations raw stupidity.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 01)No carrier
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 02)No oil at Malvinas
3)No fishes
4)Thousands of soldiers defending the penguins from nothing... spending a ton of money.
The benefits to UK:
Eternal hate from LatinAmerica , meaning “NO Business”
What would the future of the Malvinas look like after transfer of Sovereignty to Argentina? Argentina would get the wonderful gift of an English-speaking province. Stanley would be transformed into a retirement community for retired civil servants from UK, USA and Australia as a result of Argentina's open immigration and retirement residency program. Transfer payments from all over the world would ensure the Malvinas' financial health making risky undersea oil development unnecessary. I doubt that the current residents would leave, start a guerrilla war, or commit mass suicide. They would try to make the best of the new situation and probably, no inevitably, end up coming out smelling like roses.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0At least that's my idea of what it would be like. I'm sure there are other visions of an Argentine Malvinas that might be based on something other than optimism. I think the people who live there will make the place whatever it will be regardless of what nation's flag flies above.
Stanley has the potential to be at least a 20k populated city under post colonial freedom.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0@13 :1)No carrier
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 02)No oil at Malvinas
3)No fishes
4)Thousands of soldiers defending the penguins from nothing... spending a ton of money.
The benefits to UK:
Eternal hate from LatinAmerica , meaning “NO Business”
then why do you want it so badly ya moron, even willing to invent history to get your hands on it!
@ Roberts, Erm Malvinense. The Nootka Sound Convention was an agreement between Spain and Britain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not even exist when the agreement was signed. And since Argentina was not granted independence by Spain it gained no rights or title from Spain. Argentina took its independence and what territory it could by force. Time to get over the FACT that the Falklands have never been Argentine.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain ceded the territory to Argentina that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de Plata. Look article 1 www.dipublico.com.ar/instrumentos/72.html
United States also won their independence by force and territory too
All the chatter collapses to the simple logic:
So why not occupied Puerto Deseado, San Julian, for example?
So why did not occupy the Patagonia?
So why not occupied southern Chile?
So why did not occupy half a continent if you do not recognize the succession of states and Nootka Sound allowed to do?
So why no other British colonies in the Atlantic and Pacific? Malvinas only occupied by force
Because its the only matter they can wave to get attention at the UN , they country has nothing else and has to go saying ' Palestine and Argentina share a common problem' ....As Cristine struggles to stay in power now th sympthy vote on Nestor Kirchner is vanishing, she will raise the Rhetoric by making her ministers look absolute prats, hence the articles we are all commenting in now....expect an awful lot more b*llshit til the elections, trying to gain the ' patriotic' vote
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Polacandino, Quite agree with your idea. I know there are many islanders who believe that we must seek ways of rapprochement with Argentina. But they are afraid because there are many pressures and are a small community. I know that are people of good heart.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why can not we get something like this.
Remove from the video what you do not like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwA2QhVGTQ
Thanks Think ... that fella has a wonderful view of the world :-)
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin, Dab has already shown you that nothing was ceded to Argentina by Spain. Uti Possedetis Juris was an ill formed concept in 1833 and did not apply.
Ergo - the island's dispute was only between Spain and Britain and Argentina's actions made them a 3rd party for the purposes of Nootka assuming that Nootka applies!
Still relying on school text books?
the marxist guide to the Falklands
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“United States also won their independence by force and territory too”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The united states did not win all the the UK's territory. Unless im missing a chapter of history where the US owned india, australia, canada?
Wait, if what you say IS true the USA also has a claim on the falklands. Your own logic bites you in the ass a bit.
“British forces occupied the Malvinas Islands ousting by force Argentine inhabitants and authorities legitimately established. This action of force was immediately protested & never consented by the Argentine Republi.”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0False. An absurd propaganda statement. All inhabitants of all nationalities were invited to stay by the British & the majority freely chose to do so, whilst 4 Argentines freely chose to leave on the Sarandi, as the Argentine historical record show:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Soldiers_and_Civilians_who_left_Port_Louis
The remainder of Argentines who were ordered to leave were temporary members of the 2 month old Argentine military command which had collapsed in rebellion
Britain had formally diplomatically protested the Argentine order for the formation of the Argentine command in November, 1829 & its despatch to the Falklands in September, 1832 & ordered the Argentine forces to leave in January 1833
The Argentine Republic consented to the 1833 British assertion of sovereignty in May 1850 when it ratified the Convention between Great Britain & the Argentine Confederation for the Settlement of existing Differences & the re-establishment of Friendship
Argentine fails to use the proper organ of the UN, the ICJ to argue its self-made claim & chooses to employ a systematic policy of political persecution & repression against the Falkland Islanders
Argentina forgets it made an unprovoked attack against a peaceful fellow UN member in 1982 & caused the death of many people who should be alive today
Argentina has never apologised for the deaths, injury & damage it caused
Argentina's claim to Falkland Islands, South Georgia, the Sandwich Islands & British Antarctica is absurd & without merit because its claim is much too late after the British established sovereignty
Argentina is required to accept free choice of British sovereignty by the Falkland Islanders to under UN resolution 1514(XV) & Article 73 of the UN Charter
Shame on Argentina
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell
Jan 07th, 2011 - 05:13 am - Link - Report abuse 01965
“Britain proposed a thirty-year moratorium on discussions of sovereignty, according to then secret Foreign office papers; British negotiators had accepted the principle of British renunciation of sovereignty subject to certain conditions and a transition period before withdrawal”.
The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell (Page 200)
1833' The British commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the British takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
Still using OLD textbooks :-)
Jan 07th, 2011 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yet no one at the time recognised Argentina as a state (not even argentina) or its claim on the Islands!
Jan 07th, 2011 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt, they don't even believe the British Government's official history and pressure to change it.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of ”serious“ errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
THAT official history was flawed as the author subsquently admitted. Embarrasing for him!
Jan 07th, 2011 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sure...
Jan 07th, 2011 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain ceded the territory to Argentina that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de Plata. Look article 1 www.dipublico.com.ar/instrumentos/72.html ”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense. I assumed you were hispanohablante but now I'm not sure...
Article one does not cede the former territories of the Viceroyalty to Argentina (if it did, then how do you explain Uruguay, Paraguay etc, which were all independent in 1859 themselves?). That articles does NOTHING MORE than recognise Argentina as it existed in 1859 and does not define any territory other than that mentioned in Argentina's constitution of that time (which by the way does not include the Falklands, South Georgia, Sth Sandwich etc).
You either need to get glasses or go for lessons in castellano my friend.
more desperation from the Argentines.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 14 polacandino. as for a Port Stanley under them, more like a paco-slum shanty town. no thanks, we like it as it is.
@billy
Jan 07th, 2011 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Stanley has the potential to be at least a 20k populated city under post colonial freedom.”
You state that as a fact Billy, care to let us know how you come to that conclusion?
Beef !?!?!?!?!?
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0don't deceive (betray) on your father origin please !
we know that your island obsession comes from your mother side !
Westi - Billious thinks that the islanders are sex mad ! He has other dreams to ..... :-)
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0One simple answer, stop trumpet blowing and take the issue to the ICJ.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately Arg will not do this as it will open up the lies and fabricated history it has fed it's population for decades. The result would simply be the downfall of any Arg Government who has the balls to do so.
However, please carry on Argentina, you are good for a laugh if nothing else, even Chavez is probably laughing behind the scenes.
@westisbest
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Stanley has the potential to be at least a 20k populated city under post colonial freedom.”
You state that as a fact Billy, care to let us know how you come to that conclusion?”
Look around mate; look at west; look your region:
Usuhaia & Rio Grande, both cities in the other south atlantic archipielago, with similar resources and industries; 60K & 65k respectively.
Rio Gallegos, turism, wool & fish; 90k.
Punta Arenas, your malvinchil source, 120k
Comodoro Rivadavia, south atlantic main city, 200k
Trelew/Rawson, 140k
Port Desire (Puerto Deseado), 30k
Stanley with her 2.3k colonial subjects is a anomaly in south atlantic. To imagine a 20k stanley in a post colonial era is a conservative number.
Sounds ghastly !
Jan 07th, 2011 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT. ZETHE.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the same history of every year, in spite that we all know that we wont never arrive to any solution for this question, we must keep on claiming for the islands, because it's a fair cause.
And like i said in many oportunitys, as long as the u.k. and the f. i. g. continue rejecting to discuss with my country about finding a fair solution, we will have surely more problems in the future like in 2010, so guys, dont complain if it happens, and be responsable for your own intransigence..
JASON AND ZETHE.
I have to answer you here because the other articule is already closed.
ZETHE: This is evident that you dont want to understand that even the U. N. never invoked self determination to finish with the dispute, i am not to keep on insisting you to read other resolutions from the U. N., ¿if that principple is a basic human right, then why wasen't it never invoked for this question?, you wont understand that in some cases self determination is not applicable, meantime, believe whatever you want.
On the other hand, vernet didn't need any licence from the british to occupy the soledad island, maybe it was more convenient for him that the islands were british, the u.k. dint' have any right on that island, it never occupyed it untill 1833.
JASON: I already answered you that question last year in diferent oportunitys, if uruguay, paraguay, and part of bolivia decided to separate part from the united provinces, that was because they were not interested on having any sovereign link with us, and that's all, it does not prejudice our claim on the islands, i respect if you think the oposite, but i really think that it's a very weak argument, beside, if spain didn't protest for our occupations, didn't have anything to do with the fact that it haden't recognized us a country, i think it's also a worthless argument.
We didn't need the consent of spain to declare our indpendence, or to occupy a territory that belonged to the former viceroalty.
“if that principple is a basic human right”
Jan 07th, 2011 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not if. Axel PLEASE, PLEASE Show me any evidence point to the fact that self determination is NOT a human right. This is one point you continue to ignore this in the face of pure facts.
The principle of self-determination is prominently embodied in Article I of the Charter of the United Nations(In BOTH the ICCPR and ICESCR). Both read: All peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
“recognizes that all peoples have the right of self-determination”
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c99406d528f37fc12563ed004960b4?Opendocument
“The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer's allowance of self-determination”
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c99406d528f37fc12563ed004960b4?Opendocument
The UN charter itself:
“This is evident that you dont want to understand that even the U. N. never invoked self determination to finish with the dispute, i am not to keep on insisting you to read other resolutions from the U. N., ¿if that principple is a basic human right, then why wasen't it never invoked for this question?, you wont understand that in some cases self determination is not applicable, meantime, believe whatever you want.”
In the UN, axel. Human rights are assumed. The article also didnt mention the islands other human rights that they are entitled to:
-All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights
-Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
- No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
-Everyone has the right to a nationality.
None of the above were mentioned, are you going to sit there and tell me that because that article failed to mention them, the islanders aren't entitled to them?
Time for Argentina to drop its colonial and territorial ambitions and walk boldly into the real world.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Time for UK to drop its colonial and territorial ambitions and walk boldly into the real world.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@11 xbox. Acts of Union 1701. Acts of Union 1800. Wales was annexed in the 16th century. So much for your crap.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 And so you can see, at 15, the intentions. Another over-populated Argentine cess-pit.
@17. “Spain ceded the territory to Argentina that formed the Viceroyalty of the Rio de Plata.” What a prat. Spain ceded nothing until after the death of Ferdinand VII. By which time, the Falklands were under British control again. Spain couldn't cede anything that didn't belong to it.
@38. Oh look, alex the dimwit is back. Still no survey then, moron?
@41. Time for Argentina to comply with Chapter 11 of the UN Charter.
Gallup Poll in UK --2009 --
Jan 07th, 2011 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0here was the one of questions ;
Q -- Where are Falkland Islands ?
optional answers are ;
(1) .. at the Atlantik Ocean anywhere,
(2) .. at the South Pasific Ocean anywhere,
(3) .. at the Indian Ocean anywhere,
(4).. at the North Sea.
A --
(1) ..15%
(2).. 36%
(3).. 27%
(4) ..22%
It's rather hard to believe your polls were conducted in the UK when you spell atlantic wrong.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either way it has no relevance to what's right and wrong.
South Pasific LOL
Jan 07th, 2011 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee ...I am glad to see you know Falkland Island where is at AtlanticO.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but %15 will be short to defend Falkland Island !
Thats ok, Argentina only knows where the next corrupt source of income is coming from, they still think they were a nation in 1833 never mind lecture us on a poll no doubt conducted in the Daily Star
Jan 07th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Zethee ...I am glad to see you know Falkland Island where is at AtlanticO.
Jan 07th, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but %15 will be short to defend Falkland Island !”
I do apologise arquero but i don't speak insane. Could you please translate?
Source of the Poll...its catchment area...numbers in the Poll?
Jan 07th, 2011 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I feel the poll should be more Pasific :-)))))))
Jan 08th, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0More relevant in the Atlantik i think :P
Jan 08th, 2011 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0These wikileak cables make for interesting reading:
Jan 08th, 2011 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/02/10BUENOSAIRES95.html
”While the GoA seeks to prevent companies from participating
in oil exploration activity in the waters off of the
Falklands/Malvinas, it is not clear how much it is willing to risk
real harm to the Argentine economy as it exploits a nationalistic
issue for political gain. For now, the GoA is being scrupulous to
couch its actions in terms of adherence to UN resolutions and
international law. In the absence of an (unlikely)
British-Argentine accord on the Islands, the GoA will, in all
probability, continue to ratchet up economic pressure on Falkland
Islands residents, for whom tourism is an important cash generator.
An aggressive position on the issue unites Argentines behind their
unpopular government, and there is still a long way to go before
the steps contemplated by the GoA cause any real damage to the
Argentine economy. Current ship traffic between Argentina and the
Falklands (as well as the other islands) is limited, and the impact
of the decree on U.S. and other companies will likely also be
limited for now. However, this could change if the GoA ups the
ante and imposes significant sanctions on companies such as tour
cruise ship operators with current activities in both the Falklands
and Argentina, harming both the companies and the Argentine
economy”
Yup as we all thought, big words for domestic consumption...
Another card in argentine hand; perhaps next turn?, or first lan chile card?
Jan 08th, 2011 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cutting your nose off to spite your face is hardly a 'card' Billious !
Jan 08th, 2011 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Axel
Jan 08th, 2011 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“if uruguay, paraguay, and part of bolivia decided to separate part from the united provinces, that was because they were not interested on having any sovereign link with us”
So why are Uruguay, Paraguay etc allowed to make their own choices yet you don't allow this for the Falkland Islanders?
Gallup Poll ( 2001) in USA ;
Jan 08th, 2011 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Q : USA is in which military pact ?
optional answers are :
(1) : Nato Pact...(2) : Warsaw Pact... (3) Independent...(4) : no idea.
A :
(1) : 10
(2) : 42
(3) : 31
(4) : 17
Most americans dont know where Canada is, so whts your point? I wonder if your average peasant in Argentina will know where Chile is
Jan 08th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Never mind Chile, most RGs don't know where their meal is coming from.....
Jan 08th, 2011 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or the next cash machine that has actual cash in it!
Jan 08th, 2011 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0meant to say *next* meal... but next..one after next..etc ad infinitum...
Jan 08th, 2011 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0their whole country is a shambles and they have the audacity to attempt to take over ours! we don't want to be anything like you, amigoes AND we ARE staying in OUR land.
Jan 08th, 2011 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can someone please explain why they want the islands anyway...?
Jan 08th, 2011 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Twink tells us there is no oil... Twink really knows 4/5th of not very much about oil exploration does he...
Seems there are no fish...Diego overfishing has seen to that it ...
No money in sheep....
I guess when pigs fly and they get the islands they could always run RG's at maybe 4 to the acre....
'Last night I walked through the bunkhouse and one private house the Argies had used. They are little better than animals and undisciplined ones at that'
Ewan Southby-Tailyour, Fox Bay 1982.
(57) -- let alone other countries they ---US americans -- don't know even own states..they don't deserve cheap oil ...what a pity !
Jan 08th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(62) -- i think that they insist on prestige away from UK
not on worthless islands ! they could be right .
You two get out much ?
Jan 08th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT. ZETHE. TYPHON.
Jan 08th, 2011 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON: I can't believe that some one smart like you makes such an insignificant comparison like what you typed.
What happened in the islands in 1833, wasen't based on the decition of the population of the islands, who decided to separate part from the united provinces, because they were not interested on having any sovereign link with us. What happened in 1833 was an act of usurpation, the u.k. didn' have any sovereign right on the soledad island, it never haden't occupyed it untill 1833, it's rights were only on the west falkland island.
ZETHE: You know that i will always respect your posture, i only dont agree in absolut with it.
You still didn't answer my question, ¿if self determination is applicable to your british citizens from the islands, then why, none of the resolutions from the general assembly invoke that principple for this cause, like it does with other resolutions regarding decolonization issues?, it's simple, because in some cases, it's not applicable, territorial integrity is also an important principple, and in some cases this is the principple that prevails, even diferent jurists who worked in the u. n. or in the hague some of them, like gross spiell or gristescu affirm it.
TYPHON: I have a question for you, ¿who is actualy the dimwit, some one who still could publish hes survey, or some who underestimates it with out having rode it yet?, answer me please, maybe when you know how much times takes a to do a survey, you'll be able to give a serious opinion, meantime, you''l keep on being as moron as you are now.
“ ... the u.k. didn' have any sovereign right on the soledad island, it never haden't occupyed it untill 1833, it's rights were only on the west falkland island ...”
Jan 08th, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong again Axel, the British crown has asserted its right over ALL the islands in 1771.
Axel, as for self determination, turn it around ... where does it say in the UN Charters that there are any exceptions to the right to self determination?
“You still didn't answer my question”
Jan 08th, 2011 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YES, i did. And you again, for the 400th time managed to bypass the fact that it is stated in the UN mandate that self determination is a human right and is applicable to all humans on this earth
The entire time you contine to ignore this fact you just show your self to be an unintelligent bigot. I have given you the links, i have pasted you the proof, how long can you contine to ignore the fact that self determination is a human right?
How can you expect anyone to even bother to read your “survey” when you REFUSE to look at facts that are given to you? These aren't my personal oppinions axel, it's there on the UN website..in the UN charter..
Untill you are able to grasp this basic fact it's clear to me that you're just another one of these malvinas idiots and are not even worth discussing this with.
Axel,
Jan 08th, 2011 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You state that the events of 1833 were not the decision of the population of the islands. This is incorrect, Vernet repeatedly urged the British to intervene and set up a permanent garrison.
On self-determination:
Keerawella, Gamini, Formless as Water, Flaming as a Fire-Some observations on the Theory and Practice of Self-Determination, IDE Discussion Paper. No. 13. 2004.10, Institute of Developing Economies, JETRO, 2004
On territorial integrity:
“It is not the territory that defined by historical title but the will of people. If the will of the people are ascertain through a referendum it is only of the people who live in that territory. When it applies to the issue of merge or demerge the Eastern Province in Sri Lanka, if it is decided through a referendum, only that of the people of the Eastern Province alone, not the people of the entire Northeast, decides the fate of the Eastern Province.”
On territorial integrity:
Thomas D. Musgrave, Self-determination and national minorities, ISBN 9780198298984, Oxford University Press, 2000
”Since the Second World War a number of states have laid claim to territories which they allege to have been detached from them as a result of colonisation. As legal justification for such claims Paragraph 6 of Resolution 1514(XV) has been cited. Paragraph 6 provides that any attempt “aimed at partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter”.
Many states reject this interpretation, arguing that paragraph 6 cannot be read to justify territorial claims. The purpose of paragraph 6 they contend was simply “to ensure that acts of self-determination occur within the established boundaries of colonies, rather than within sub-regions”. ”
It has to be noted Axel, that scholars of International Law will tell you that the arguments put forward by Argentina won't hold up in the ICJ. Enjoy the reading.
Axel can not discuss this farcical discussion or he is not Argentine !!
Jan 08th, 2011 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@30 Roberts, Spain formally ceded to Argentina the territories that had belonged to him included the Malvinas Islands.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The former viceroyalty was divided at that time in various countries.
Paraguay and Uruguay were separated from the central government constituted in Buenos Aires. Malvinas Islands belonged to the Viceroyalty, acts of government and juridic therefore taught from Buenos Aires. Both at the time of the old viceroyalty as at the time of the independent Republic of Argentina.
True, when Spain formally recognized the independence of Argentina, the islands had been seized, this fact in no way negates the fact that the islands had belonged to Spain and were occupied by his successor legitimately Argentina, therefore, as the islands had belonged to in Article 1 are included the islands. The islands were usurped in time of peace, to a friendly nation . Acknowledges his friendship in the treaties of 1823 and 1825.
@ 67 Wrong again Axel, the British crown has asserted its right over ALL the islands in 1771.
Wrong again Red, only Port and Fort Egmont in the little island Saunders (Trinidad)
Rochford to Masserano to change the documents: would Never come to war over the Falkland Island, whose preservation was not interested the country and experience the Spanish would see the truth of everything he said.
George Fitzmaurice 1936: “Our case for sovereignty in the Falklands Islands has certain weaknesses”
“@30 Roberts, Spain formally ceded to Argentina the territories that had belonged to him included the Malvinas Islands.”
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is clear you have no idea what 'formally' means as the word 'Malvinas' does not appear anywhere in the treaty of recognition. Spain simply was not in a position to cede to anyone something that it did not possess.
Nothing new, British sleeping peacefully while desperately trying to prove las Islas Malvinas belong to London haha See ya.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Dab, Malvinas were administered from Buenos Aires. That the islands have been occupied by UK in that moment, does not mean that they does not belonged to Spain.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin, if you read the instructions to the Captain receiving restitution you'll find that the British claim was to ALL the islands. Quite clear.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain could not give you in 1859 what it had not had since 1833. The issue was ONLY between Spain and the UK and Argentina was irrelevant.
Now I've told you ablout quoting from school text books :-)
@Now I've told you ablout quoting from school text books :-) hahahaha
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Red, it was just a fomalismo, Argentina was independent from 1816 and Argentina took the Malvinas in 1820. The islands have been stolen. This does not mean that does not they belonged to Spain.
“@ Dab, Malvinas were administered from Buenos Aires. That the islands have been occupied by UK in that moment, does not mean that they does not belonged to Spain.”
Jan 09th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi,
Since you say that they were Spanish when the UK took possession in 1833, that means you accept they were not Argentine.
The Spanish were administering Puerto Soledad from Montevideo when they left, not Buenos Aires. Buenos Aires Province was not part of the Argentine confederation in 1859 and, after Buenos Aires rejoined in 1862, Spain and Argentina renegotiated a new treaty of recognition to include Buenos Aires. The Spanish negotiating delegation, prior to going to Argentina, spent 6 weeks in the Falklands as guests of the British governor, thus they accepted that the Falklands were British.
And there is no mention of the Falklands in the 1863 treaty, either.
Just a formality :-) hahahaha
Jan 09th, 2011 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really? Of course not!
Dab's the man, and Jewett was a joke so no, nothing in 1820 :-)
@ Dab, the islands belong to Argentina before 1833 before 1820 before 1816, perhaps before the revolution of May 1810.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Spanish were administering Puerto Soledad from Montevideo when they left” The Spanish ordered the evacuation of Puerto Soledad from Montevideo, because there resisted the revolution.
“Buenos Aires Province was not part of the Argentine confederation in 1859 and, after Buenos Aires rejoined in 1862, Spain and Argentina renegotiated a new treaty of recognition to include Buenos Aires.”
Correct.
thus they accepted that the Falklands were British. No... Why?
Claims for the islands made Argentina much earlier.
And there is no mention of the Falklands in the 1863 treaty, either.
No matter. It is understood that giving up sovereignty of all territories that had belonged.
@Red, todavía no sé cuáles son los derechos británicos a las islas Malvinas
todo se basa en la llegada clandestina de Byron y en unos pocos años en Port Egmont que no sirven siquiera para perfeccionar su título.
¿Cuáles son los derechos británicos para haber intervenido en 1.833?
Marvin - this is an english forum, so please try to keep to the civilised language!
Jan 09th, 2011 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I repeat, Spain lost in 1771, Spain however maintained its claim until the British reasserted theirs in 1833. Spain didn't pass anything on to a foreign country (ie Argentina) and by the time that Spain recognised Argentina's existence, she didn't have the Falkland Islands and so could not pass them on. And as I noted before Uti Possedetis Juris was not an accepted norm of international law in 1833. It wasn't generally accepted in South America until 1848.
Simple enough.
It was only ever a matter between Spain and Britain ... nothing to do with Argentina or indeed BA. Palmerston's surprise that Argentina should actually think that it had any claim at all is quite evident in his letter to Moreno.
I'll repeat some of Dab's words, because I think that they are not only worth repeating but ably demonstrate the mind set of the various parties at the time - “ ... The Spanish negotiating delegation, prior to going to Argentina, spent 6 weeks in the Falklands as guests of the British governor, thus they accepted that the Falklands were British ...”. Now that's good evidence of acceptance !
It's taking things out of context that aids distortion!
:-)
@Malvinense
Jan 09th, 2011 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Spain did not formally cede anything to Argentina. Where in the 1859 treaty of recognition does Spain cede Spanish territory to Argentina?
- The former viceroyalty was divided at that time into various countries because each of those parts which became countries took their own independence (and sometimes fought for it, sometimes against BsAs).
- The last seat of the Viceroy was in Montevideo, not BsAs.
- BsAs did not inherit anything from Spain, least of all the right to dictate laws to any part of the former Viceroyalty.
- Yes, when Spain formally recognised Argentina there Falklands were not Argentine territory. Had they belonged to Spain before that this had nothing to do with Argentina because Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain. Argentina has never been a legal successor to Spain. Argentina took its independence by force and eventually gained legitimacy through recognition by the world's countries.
- Article 1 is too vague to say that Spain recognises the Falklands as Argentine. It's open to interpretation.
- Yes, the islands were usurped in a time of peace, by a friendly nation, when BsAs sent a garrison to the Falklands. This garrison was correctly protested by Britain and then removed when BsAs refused to do so. So much for a “friendly” nation, particularly since Britian was one of your first friends and one of the first countries to recognise Argentina. None of the of civilians who wanted to stay were removed. Their descendants still live on the Falklands today.
Please get your facts right Malvinense.
#63 ---- not just prestige .. certainly these are worthless islands.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK plays the finals of her game ..
when collapsed into many republics then we 'll need some booties.
don't cry for me UK !!
ed (banger) stop smoking that stuff!
Jan 09th, 2011 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. - sorry but Marvin has a problem with 'facts'. Comes of relying on school text books :-)
80, Red I repeat. 1171 British defeat connfirmado for what happened in the House of Lords and Commons. Confirmed by the British withdrawal. Confirmed by the many acts of sovereignty held by Spain and then Argentina and confirmed by the British silence.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The interpretation of an agreement is essential to take into account the subsequent conduct of the parties. The behavior of both Britain, which finally withdrew in 1774 and Spain, which continues its occupation on the eastern island, and subsequently destroy the remaining symbols of the British presence on Puerto Egmont confirm the physical abandonment of the claim UK, whether this attitude is the result of a secret deal behind reciprocal declarations of 1771. When the text to be interpreted not enough for frame presumably situations within it, the subsequent conduct of the parties indicates a valid way to interpret the real desire of them. Moreover, beyond the scope of interpretation of a particular agreement, the common will of the parties expressed in the coincident behavior of these after the conclusion of the treaty would presume the existence of a new tacit agreement or a particular custom plays that are not only but supplements the existing scope of the agreement.
“And as I noted before Uti Possedetis Juris was not an accepted norm of international law in 1833. It wasn't generally accepted in South America until 1848.” Of course, I do not understand the divisions of the countries of South America and its existence. Not yet told me. What are the British rights to intervene in 1833?
“What are the British rights to intervene in 1833?”
Jan 09th, 2011 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should read the Nootka Sound Convention Malvinense. It's all there. Spain's title to the Falklands was not unlimited. Britain retained rights there and on top of that there is the famous secret clause.
And since you asked. What were Buenos Aires' rights to intervene at the end of 1832?
Roberts, The treaty of 1771. British withdrawal. The Treaty of Nootka Sound. All the chatter collapses to the simple logic:
Jan 09th, 2011 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So why not occupied Puerto Deseado, San Julian, for example?
So why did not occupy the Patagonia?
So why not occupied southern Chile?
So why did not occupy half a continent if you do not recognize the succession of states and Nootka Sound allowed to do?
So why no other British colonies in the Atlantic and Pacific? Malvinas only occupied by force. The succession of states. Upon the succession of these states remain in the ownership of the territories acquired by those who were within the jurisdictional area claimed by the new state. The Malvinas were in the jurisdiction of the antecessor state. The taking of possession in 1820. The treaty of 1823 with UK. The treaty of 1825, UK Argentina recognize the independence, the islands had population and authorities. The 60 years of silence as Spain and then Argentina ruled the islands.
“What are the British rights to intervene in 1833?”
So why no other British colonies in the Atlantic and Pacific? Malvinas only
Jan 09th, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Canton and Enderbury Islands (1939 to 1971) - Now a part of Kiribati.
Cook Islands (1893 to 1901) - Now a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand.
Fiji (1877 to 1952) - Now independent.
Gilbert and Ellice Islands (1916 to 1971) - Now independent as Kiribati and Tuvalu.
Nauru (1914 to 1921) - Now independent.
New Hebrides (1906 to 1971) - Now independent as Vanuatu.
Savage Island (1900 to 1901) - Now Niue, a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand.
Pitcairn Islands (1898 to 1952) - Now a British overseas territory.
Solomon Islands (1893 to 1971) - Now independent.
Tonga (1900 to 1952) - Now independent.
Union Islands (1877 to 1926) - Now Tokelau, a dependent territory of New Zealand
Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Bermuda (pronounced /bɜrˈmjuːdə/; officially, the Bermudas or Somers Islands) is a British overseas territory in the North Atlantic Ocean.
Gone for a couple of days, and still arguing over the past,
Jan 09th, 2011 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you will never get the falklands unless you fight for them ?
you are hoping that as britain gets sold into the EU, they will pressure us to let them go,
this will not happen, besides we are caimpaining to get out of the EU,
when this day comes we will remember all the cheating/lying/you have been doing, one day argentina will have to stand up and be punnished for all this shit you have been throwing, WE will remember,
and you will regret , ??????????????
Malvinense. What treaty of 1771?
Jan 09th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read the Nootka Sound Convention. Article VI. Spanish title was not unlimited. Britain retained certain rights. And that's only if you consider the Falklands to be “adjacent”.
So what about Port Desire, San Julian, Chile, Patagonia, etc? What about them???
“So why no other British colonies in the Atlantic and Pacific? Malvinas only occupied by force.” I'm not quite sure what you're asking here? Are you suggesting no other colonies in the Atlantic and Pacific were taken by force and the Falklands are the only one?
Firstly the Falklands were taken with the treat of force, but not BY force. Not a single shot was fired. Secondly just one example of another colony taken by force: New Zealand. Not that any of this has any relevance anyway...
Argentina was never a legal successor to Spain, so save your energy and stop typing crap. Argentina did not take possession of the Falklands in 1820, that's a latter-day myth, just like the “all Argentines were kicked off” myth. Argentina had not established any kind of authority in the Falklands in 1825 so that's irrelevant and the 60 years of silence you mention was a matter between Spain and Britain and had nothing to do with Argentina.
Speaking of NZ, the Chatham Islands were given to the maori 'by right of conquest' after they had killed and eaten half the original moriori population and enslaved the rest.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and also...
I always thought possession was 9/10ths of the law... what part of that don't the diegos understand?
Marvin - you are attempting to use unconnected facts to prove your case for 1771. None of these are evidence of any 'secret' agreement. Spain lost that encounter and non of your window dressing can make it otherwise.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... interpretation of an agreement is essential to take into account the subsequent conduct of the parties....”
What utter rubbish! Your application of subsequent events fails to prove the existence of a 'treaty'. It was clearly denied by Palmerston in 1834 and you have no documentary proof of any such agreement. Your circumstancial evidence also fails to explain why the British left the accepted marks and signs of sovereignty when the garrison withdrew.
And it was only the garrison. British shipping continued to use the islands without let or interference from the Spanish clearly showing that British sovereignty remained intact.
'Coincidence' and 'presumptions' prove nothing .... your own terms!
The British right in 1833 stems from the continuing British sovereignty claim which was undisturbed by Spain's squatting.
Uti Possedetis Juris is now a legal concept based on new states adopting the border that existed when they broke away from their colonial masters. It was not accepted law in 1833 and the British were not in breach of it. Therefore British action in 1833 was quite legal!
We only re-took the Falkland Islands BECAUSE they were already ours.
And dont forget there was no indigenous population to give the islands back to, the Falkland Islanders are now the Indigenous peoples and they have been given the option to decide thier own fate, weirdly enough it will never choose to be Argentinean.
Jan 09th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there or isn't there? THAT is the question -
Jan 10th, 2011 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Sticking with the oil and gas theme, take a look at Rockhopper Exploration, the oil prospector focused on the Falklands Islands, which enjoyed quite a run over the past 12 months. Despite some uninspiring news in October, when Rockhopper warned it lacked data for a planned technical report to support its initial resource estimate at its closely followed discovery at the Sea Lion well, the stock was up nearly 500 per cent over 2010. .... be drilled in the current campaign, adding significant shareholder value,” Panmure explained. “Should Sea Lion prove to be commercial, smaller discoveries could be inexpensively tied into any infrastructure that is put into place. ...”
ZETHE. JUSTIN KUNTZ.
Jan 10th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JUSTIN: Diferent jurists of international right like those who you typed have diferent opinions if you compare them betwen other jurists, in fact, i have the opinion of gross speil, who worked in the hague, and he thought the oposite to what you say, my conclution is that the best that we can do is to take the case to the i. c. j., in the past argentina had offered in three oportunitys to take the case to the int. arbitration, and the u.k. rejected that posibility, it only accepted to discuss before a court, the cause of the dependences, in case that argentina decides to take those causes to the arbitration.
Beside, read resolution 2353, which reffers the question of gibraltar, in one of it's paragraphs, it's signalized what's the thought of the u. n. regarding territorial integrity.
About what vernet did, in case that he really asked the u.k. to form a settlement in the port soledad, that was maybe because it was more convenient for him that the islands were british, but the point is that the u.k. didn't have any sovereign right on the soledad island, because it never occupyed it untill 1833.
The articules from the nootka were very exigous to affirm that the islands were british in 1833.
The united provinces had legitimate rights also to occupy unless the soledad island.
ZETHE: I respect your opinion, but i really think that your answer has very weak arguments, i insist that if self determination is applicable to our cause then the general assembly would invoke it in all the resolutions, the charter from the u. n. can say whatever, however that right was never invoked in none of the resolutions, like it was for many other cases of decolonization, i rode many resolutions from the general assembly for my survey.
Beside guys, no one is the owner of the truth, if there are no negotiations, like the u. n solicits, or if the case is not toke to the arbitration, we will have much more of these discutions, intransigence never helps.
Axel,
Jan 10th, 2011 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please cite any occasion where Argentina has sought to bring the matter before the ICJ. It never has, please don't try and obfuscate the point by referring to the events of 1885. Argentina will not go to the ICJ, I would put money on it.
Argentina did not inherit any rights from Spain and any title it might have developed from Vernet's settlement is fundamnentally hold below the waterline by the fact he sought British permission. Whilst I find our discussions interesting, it remains obvious you don't approach matters with an open mind.
“but i really think that your answer has very weak arguments”
Jan 10th, 2011 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL! I quoted the UN charter, with links. Proved my argument.
How is that weak?
Your argument is that they failed to put the term in a resolution when its already stated in the UN charter, the very meaning of the values that the organisation represents? It's your argument that's weak.
“Beside guys, no one is the owner of the truth”
Wrong, In this argument I AM the owner of the truth. You say it's not a human right, i say it IS a human right. I have proof, you have NO evidence whatsoever that the self dtermination is not a human right.
The proof is there axel, in the UN charter. On the forming of U.N. Special Committee of the 24 on Decolonization it was stated that:
“the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.”
“2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Axel will say anything at all to support his wacky case. he knows he is wrong but will not admit it. when criticised he calls people“morons”. l don't take too much notice of him.
Jan 10th, 2011 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... i. c. j., in the past argentina had offered in three oportunitys to take the case to the int. arbitration, and the u.k. rejected that posibility,..”
Jan 10th, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Axel? 1885? What international tribunal existed then? You are talking rubbish!
Britain offered to take the issue of South georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the ICJ (limited because of an Argentine declaration) but Argentina refused to recognise the court. You are just trying to confuse, and still talking rubbish.
I've said this before but, the Britsh claimed ALL the islands in 1771 and Kosovo has more recently dealt with the issue of territorial integrity!
ICJ
Jan 11th, 2011 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge of the same nationality to complete the term
Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court.”
Very democratic isn't?
Yes! Argentina has had judges on it too ... but then, why does a court have to me democratic?
Jan 11th, 2011 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is a joke and shows itself the instrument of the powerful.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ICJ is only a joke when you don't think that you can win! Argentina was happy enough to take the pulp mill case there. Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean that it wasn't a proper judgement!
Jan 11th, 2011 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Like it or hate it ... the ICJ is the only hope you've got :-)
Macro's - the ICJ is the only international court which can sort out state to state disputes.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you did take it to the ICJ the UK judge would not be on the case for obvious reasons.
Then again it's easier to insult everything when you know you can't win.
“If you did take it to the ICJ the UK judge would not be on the case for obvious reasons.”
Jan 11th, 2011 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, he would be. And Argentina would have its own ad hoc judge.
I know about the ad hoc judges. What i was trying to say is that the ICJ would not automaticly be compromised of british people and be biast towards us.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not an expert in ICJ but i thought the ad hoc judges are rather irrelevant in the court case and are just there to add to the nations perspective on the matter?
“If you did take it to the ICJ the UK judge would not be on the case for obvious reasons.”
Jan 11th, 2011 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong.
If the UN and the ICJ is so biast and wrong marcos, why is Argentina part of it? why does Argentina use the ICJ?
Jan 11th, 2011 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, ad hoc judges are there to take part in the decision making process, not to present their country's case. For that each country in a case has its own team of government agents, counsels, advisers, etc.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are 15 permanent judges, all can take part in deciding, though a judge may decide not to take part. Plus a judge ad hoc if a country is not included in the 15. So there may be 15 judges in a case if none step down and no judges ad hoc are needed, fewer than 15 if any judge decides not to sit and no judges ad hoc are needed, or more than 15 if every judge sits and judges ad hoc are needed.
I'm not an expert either. I just read the ICJ web site.
“If you did take it to the ICJ the UK judge would not be on the case for obvious reasons.”
Jan 11th, 2011 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, if you find that statment to be truth please post the link, thanks.
“Zethee, if you find that statment to be truth please post the link, thanks.”
Jan 11th, 2011 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not, which was apparent three posts ago. But continue to keep quoting it to avoid questions you don't want to answer if you like.
dab14763:
To be honest i never knew all 15 judges were present for each case, never read much into it. Either way both the UK and Argentina would have a vote on the ICJ as a ad hoc judge would be treated same as any of the other judges then?
JUSTIN KUNTZ. REHOYT.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JUSTIN: Idont know if my country will accept or not to go to the i. c. j., i am just suggesting, beside, your country never proposed mine to go to the arbitration, respecting the sovereignty of the malvinas.
Like it or not, during the end of the decade of the 80, in 19 century, argentina offered the u.k. to go to the arbitration, if that's irrelevant for you, that's your problem.
Regarding our rights on the islands, i am not going to discuss with you all the time, i respect if you dont accept our arguments, what matters for me, are te opinions of academic people, and they dont coincid with you.
REDHOYT: I dont know exactly what international arbitration existed in 1885, the point is that my country offered yours to take the case to the arbitration, and the u.k. rejected that posibility because it considered that the case was already closed, which was false.
On the other hand, if you think that a plaq in 1774 wa enough to clame for a territory that shows how little you know about international right, untill 1833 your country never occupyed the soledad island, during all thsoe years there were just sporadic settlements of british and american sailors, but it dos not give any sovereign right to the u.k., the only one fact that gives sovereign rights, is the permanent occupation.
Regarding territorial integrity, every cases are not the same, our case is not simillar to the kososvo cause, kosovo joint the territory from serbia, and it decided to separate.
The malvinas dont join the argentine territory since 1833 unfortunately, they were occupyed by another country, and argentina was deprived by the u.k. from the islands.
I already explained it to you in another oportuninity.
Have to admite axels pure determination to ignore the fact that self determination is a human right entirely, completely disregarding facts that are given to him which he can see with his own eyes because they conflict with his viewpoint.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...Don't you teach children? it's shameful, really..
110 Zethee, it can be fewer than 15 if a judge decides not to sit. And yes ad hoc judges are treated the same as permanent judges.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0111 axel arg, Argentina inherited nothing from Spain, so it's pointless you arguing whether Spain or the UK had the stronger claim.
Argentina tried to establish itself on territory which according to you and your government was Spanish and which Spain at that time had not yet relinquished. Argentina never established effective control on that territory. Now, it is simple common sense, you don't need 3 or 4 Phd's in international law to work out that Argentina could not possibly have established any sovereignty in the Falklands under those circumstances.
Axel - there was no international tribunal at that time so the Argentine gesture was an empty one - nothing unusual in that.
Jan 11th, 2011 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And yes, the plaque and flag were recognised ways of indicating a contined sovereignty which is why Spain left the same when they removed their garrison.
And who says that temporary settlements are insufficient? Opinions do not matter unless they have been tested in a court.
It is important to note that Spanish forces did not attempt to interefere with those British ships, the Spanish authorities were not being asked for permission by those British ships and no taxes or other charges were levied.
Sound to me like Spain acknowledged their RIGHT to be there!
I suspect your attempt at marginalising the Kosovo decision is flawed. So lets go to the ICJ and find out :-)
@111. In fairness, French, British, Spanish, private venture settlements by Vernet and the Argentine command were all sporadic & ineffectual; all unable to exercise complete control
Jan 11th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only effective settlement of the Falkland Islands has been British post-1833, for which the British can claim sovereignty by prescription & Argentine acquiescence of to British sovereignty due to Argentina's ratification of the Convention of Settlement
Britain has exercised de facto sovereignty continuously since 1834, apart from the short period of the Argentine invasion & occupation in 1982, which was successfully resisted and overcome in less than three months
In the 178 years since 1833, Britain has ruled the whole Falklands for 177 of them & UK sovereignty has long been recognised
As far as I can tell, the Argentine claim has been artificially revived by Argentine nationalists in the 1930s & 1940s long after Argentina had renounced its tenuous claim in 1850
I find it strange that Argentines expect the Falklanders & British to negotiate after Argentines mounted a surprise attack against Britain by invasion of the Falklands & South Georgia in 1982, when Britain was a friendly nation & fellow U.N. member too
Argentina has never done anything to put right the wrongs it committed in terms of the death & destruction it caused, & gives no reason for the British or Falklanders to forgive them for their act of unprovoked aggression
Also since then Argentina has reneged on all its agreements of cooperation with the Falklanders & is actively pursuing a policy of political, cultural persecution & racial discrimination on the grounds that the Falklanders do not have equal rights as other South American European immigrants simply because they are not of hispanic origin
Therefore I don't see why the British would be in any mood to entertain Argentine claims for sovereignty negotiations having fought against Argentine occupation and seizure of sovereignty & won. It's illogical
They don't understand us .............. :-)
Jan 12th, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting - http://sartma.com/art_8333.html
Rotted “They don't understand us ”
Jan 12th, 2011 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0G o h o m e t o y o u r i s l a n d i n E u r o p e c o m p r e n d e?
MoreCrap - the British have islands all around the world .... haven't you noticed ............... we are EVERYWHERE :-)
Jan 12th, 2011 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Jan 12th, 2011 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The intransigent dominant group in the Islands is getting exactly what they want……
sartma.com/art_8333.html
Total isolation for “Little Britain” in the South.
Let’s just hope that things continue to go Argentina’s way:
No oil……
No fish……
No tourism…...
In short, no economic viable future for the Islands; a situation that hopefully should result in:
The emigration of the brightest….. First the “foreigners” then the “belongers” and last but not least, the islanders.
The posh British garrison being trim down but surely complemented by “state of the art” missile batteries, drones and other advanced automatic military paraphernalia…….to defend nothing from nobody.
To sum up; An aggressive, anachronistic and antipathic little bunch of 1st class British squatters, totally dependent of their “Great Britain” in the North.
Then, and only then, it will be the time to begin” thinking” about approaching the ICJ
@117. Lol. But exactly the same argument can be said to Argentine European immigrants, especially those recent ones holding dual nationality & EU passports, i.e. “Go home to Europe & stay there!”
Jan 12th, 2011 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's an unpleasant thing to say & misguided, because of cause their home is Argentina not Europe just as the Falklanders home are the Falkland Islands. Both European Argentines & European Falklanders are already at home & need to go nowhere else, whatever any one else says. To say otherwise is bigotry, plain & simple
I found it highly ironic when President Da Sliva asked: “What is the reason geographically, politically and economically for which England is in the Falklands?” in a political speech, when the reason for this is exactly the same reason why he was in Brasil speaking Portuguese, i.e. European emigration to the region
Sadly there is a lot of racist discrimination against the Falklanders because they are a different culture, speak a different language & have different political views and make different choices & are systematically persecuted because of these differences
In the modern world, one might hope peoples and states, especially so0called democracies would refrain from such odious criminal behaviour, especially when the UN Charter and resolutions 1514(XV) expressly forbid such conduct, but sadly, years of indoctrination & bigotry combined with petty greed & nationalist ideology turn into a selfish realpolitik which overcomes the high ideals of the UN and member states commitment to them and regional governments succumb to their own narrow political agendas for short-term gain
Rather than continue the economic and political persecution against the islanders, all those involved would do themselves credit by making good use of the UN ICJ to help resolve the matter
In the modern world, all sides should find a common interest in peace, friendship & cooperation & let go of the past obstacles of previous generations & chose a better future for each other
Have to get rid of the people before you show the bottle to go to the ICJ Think ? Lol
Jan 12th, 2011 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0But then it would be a military base defending British interests in the south Atlantic and Antartica. Argentina would be unable to starve out the military and your economic measures would be meaningless.
Purely strategic and with no population to defend then there's no point Britain going to the ICJ.
And with the ICJ it takes two to tango.
So nothing changes even then ... in the unlikliest of circumstances.
(121) Hoyt
Jan 12th, 2011 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Purely strategic and with no population to defend then there's no point Britain going to the ICJ.
And with the ICJ it takes two to tango.”
I say:
Sorry lad but………
The UK has recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as Compulsory.............
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3
Argentina has not done so, but is fully entitled to present her case before the Court as she sees fit...........
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3
In short, dear Hoyt, Argentina can drag the United Kingdom to the ICJ at any moment she deems fit.
United Kingdom can’t ................ :-))))
“ ... For example, the United States had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946, but in Nicaragua v. United States withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the U.S. to ”cease and to refrain“ from the ”unlawful use of force“ against the government of Nicaragua....”
Jan 12th, 2011 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing to stop us withdrawing though Think ... it's been done! And that SC veto is a useful thing to have.
@115 & 120 Domingo, Hear hear, agree completely.
Jan 12th, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@117 Marcos, get lost, loser. Go back to Spain(or wherever you came from).
@119 & 122. You are living in a dreamworld M Think.
( 123 ) Hoyt
Jan 12th, 2011 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmmmmm……
If your contempt for the I.C.J. is so big…………………..
Why do you keep mentioning it? :-)
(124) Isolde
I’m maybe “living in a Dreamworld” cher Isolde but……………..
Your little community is certainly entering a Nightmarish one.
No contempt ..... just countering your spurious argument :-)
Jan 12th, 2011 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The island's remain British and I doubt that the irritation that Argentina can cause will be sufficient to change that.
Keep it up islanders ... show the Argies your British side :-)))
@125 Think.don't think so cher Think. all is quite peaceful here and will be for the forseeable(& profitable)future. don't be jealous
Jan 12th, 2011 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”In short, dear Hoyt, Argentina can drag the United Kingdom to the ICJ at any moment she deems fit.
Jan 12th, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0United Kingdom can’t ................ :-))))“
Great that you think thats something to brag about...From your own link:
”at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court
Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court”
It says nothing about any of the compulsory states having to go before the court should a state whom does not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ ask them to.
Then again, we wouldn't back down from the ICJ ;-)
All this impending disaster for the Islands eh? When only 10% of the present economy depends on the Southern Cone?
Jan 12th, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think's whole 'nightmare' must start when significant Hydrocarbons are found by exploration, because that industry will only ensure the further reduction of the Islands dependence on the Southern Cone; this means the tenuous impact of Argentine policy towards the Islands will reduce from irritation to none existent.
Great foreign policy.
120, “Sadly there is a lot of racist discrimination against the Falklanders because they are a different culture, speak a different language ”
Jan 12th, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL
http://articles.cnn.com/2011-01-08/world/argentina.beatles.museum_1_collection-of-beatles-memorabilia-new-museum-buenos-aires?_s=PM:WORLD
ZETHE. REDHOYT. DAB14763.
Jan 12th, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REDHOYT: I insist that you know so little about international right, investigate, and then we can debate.
The fact that my country offered yours to take the case to the arbritration, is unquestionable, i repeat that i dont know what kind of arbitration there was at that time, but the point is that your country rejected that posibility.
Regarding the plaq, that was an usuall practice during the times of colonialisem, but it was not enough to clame for a territory, i have a very interesting bibliography about that in my survey, it's imposible to explain it here
Beside those settlements didn't give any sovereign right to the u.k., because the international rigth exacts that the occupant has to exclude other nations from the archipelago, those settlements were actualy part of the nootka sound convention, signed by spain the u.k., but that agreement was very exigous to affirm that the islands were british in 1833.
Respecting kosovo, i am mot going to discuss it with you again, i respect your opinion, but i only take as valid the knowleadge of academic people, and that's not your case.
ZETHE: I could argue the same from you, when you affirm that there was no any international right at that time, the diference betwen you and i, is that you dont teach anyone.
You know weel what is relevant for me, i am not going to discuss it with you all the time, you are not an academic, so, your opinion is just respectable, but it worthlesss for the knowleadge that i need to acquire.
DAB: I know that spain never ceded anything to the united provinces, in fact, it haden't even renounce to the sovereignty of the archipleago, but we didn't need the consent from spain, to occupy unless the soledad island (east falkland), according to BRITISH professors, Akehurst from the university from keele, and professor Deas, when one state declares it's independence, it has right to occupy all the territory inside of the ex colonial limits.
@130: LOL. Ok, so perhaps Argentines, Brits & Falklanders *do* have something in common, i.e. they probably all like the Beatles!
Jan 12th, 2011 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, the fact is the Argentine and Unasur governments, states and peoples are pursuing a policy of systematic economic & political persecution of the Falklanders because of their ethnicity, not because the Falklanders themselves have done anything wrong
Rather the people living peacefully in the Falklands today are being persecuted for no reason at all, other than state indoctrinated bigotry against a defenceless minority all because of a revanchist irrendist state educational propaganda system started in the Argentine dictatorships and shamefully continued in the Argentine democracy which scapegoats the Islanders and wrongly blames today's peaceful islanders for acts of the British government 178 years ago.
Shame on Argentina!
Axel - you consider yourself an academic but rely on school text books written by a British professor. However you cut it the issue of sovereignty ONLY lay between Spain and Britain .. Argentina was not a party to Nootka or any other part of the dispute.. Therefore in 1833 the matter was STILL between Spain and Britain. Britain went back and Spain did not. End of story.
Jan 12th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are quite right about one thing. I am not an academic. My teaching days are over and the LL.B(Hon) and M.Phil were a long time ago. The experience however does allow me to question the opinions of your so called 'experts'.
And whatever you believe Kosovo IS important. If nothing else it shows which way the ICJ will go on issues of territorial integrity.
Argentina has no case, and I rather suspect that the intelligent people in the Argentine government know that full well.
“diference betwen you and i, is that you dont teach anyone.”
Jan 13th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0How do you know that i don't teach anyone? Have i told you that i don't teach anyone? The fact that you teach people and blantently ignore facts that are presented to you just shows that you are at best, a terrible, awful teacher.
“your opinion is just respectable, but it worthlesss for the knowleadge that i need to acquire.”
It's not an oppinon axel, human rights are fact the proof is there you need only read it.
Still avoiding the evidence that self determination is a human right i see.
132, You are blaming the wrong country.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 01:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0135, You are blaming the wrong country.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0135. Someone once wrote the following and then used it himself to control the people; Argentine Government Policy and Educational Indoctrination towards the sovereignty claim against the Falkland Islanders seems to echo this, since even when you're presented with facts and proofs you reject them;
Jan 13th, 2011 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0'All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true in itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large−scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes.'
The author? Adolf Hitler.
137. Someone once drew the following:
Jan 13th, 2011 - 05:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
@135: Argentina is responsible for its own acts alone. No-one else. Argentina is not compelled to persecute the Falklanders, it consciously chooses to. It is wrong for a state to persecute an ethnic minority, yet Argentina persecutes the Falklanders
Jan 13th, 2011 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina should refrain from its widespread systemic economic & political attacks directed against the Falklanders because of their ethnicity
The fact that Argentina purports to be a fair-minded democracy & is also a full member of the United Nations makes its actions all the more shameful
There is no need for Argentina to harm the Falklanders at all in Argentina's dispute of sovereignty with Britain, yet Argentina chooses to follow a policy of economic & political persecution against the Islanders & incites bigotry against the Islanders by the Argentine population to gain political support for its discriminatory policies, which are unconstitutional according to Argentina's own self-declared beliefs & rights set-out in the Argentine Constitution & in direct contravention to UN general assembly resolutions 1514(XV), 2065(XX) & UN Charter Article 73
Argentina should recognise that its acts of oppression & violence against the Islanders & refusal of Argentina to abide by its solemn promise to abide by the UN Charter & resolution 1514(XV) which Argentina voted for, is very much the reason & justification for the Islanders refusal of further negotiation under intimidation, coercion and duress by Argentina & its misguided allies
Argentina's proper course of action is to cease oppressive acts against the Islanders, to pursue a policy of normal relations, friendship & co-operation with Britain & the Islanders & to take Argentina's dispute to the ICJ for an advisory opinion or judgement on further negotiations, or indeed if Argentina chooses, Argentina's claim of sovereignty
To paraphrase Jose Luis Borges this dispute is “a fight between two bald men over a comb”. Everyone needs to be reasonable & civil for progress
Argentina is like a castrated fly ... bloody irritating but otherwise impotent !
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0REDHOYT. ZETHE.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REDHOYT: I know that Argentina was not part of the nootka sound convention, but if i invoke it, is only to argue that it was an exigous source to affirm that the islands were british in 1833, and that's all.
You never occupyed the soledad island before 1833, if you had any sovereign right, it was only on the gran malvina.
Respecting the kosovo case, i agree that it's a precedent, but what we can't do is to think that every cases will have the same result, during my monthes of investigations, i could read about other judgements from the i. c. j., and they were not like the kosovo case, this is why i repeat that we can't affirm that all the cases on decolonization will have the same end.
On the other hand, ¿if the u.k. has a better case than our's, then why doesen't it propose my country to take the cause to the i. c. j.?, i dont think that your government is less inteligent than mine.
ZETHE: For the last time, when i read unless one resolution from the general assembly where it invokes self determination for the inhabitants from the malvinas, then i will have to recognize that my country wont be able to keep on claming for the islands, it's obvious that the islanders are not going to choose to be argentine.
During my monthes of investigations i could read many resolutions from the general assembly about decolonization issues, it invoked self determination in many oportunitys for diferent cases, however it never happend with the malvinas cause, the charter from the u. n. can say whatever, but for some cases like the malvinas, and gibraltar, it never invoked self determination.
It only has always called both countries to negotiate, and that's all.
I will always respect your opinion, and everyone else's, no matter if we agree or not, no one is the owner of the truth.
“then i will have to recognize that my country wont be able to keep on claming for the islands, it's obvious that the islanders are not going to choose to be argentine.”
Jan 13th, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which is why you continue to ignore the fact that self determination is a human right. :-)
Beware! We're watching...we have agents infiltrated the secretary of intelligence among its residents. This news did not know wikileaks! jaja!
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@141 Axel:
Jan 13th, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...when i read unless one resolution from the general assembly where it invokes self determination for the inhabitants from the malvinas, then i will have to recognize that my country wont be able to keep on claming for the islands, it's obvious that the islanders are not going to choose to be argentine.”
Try UN Charter Article 73, UN GA Resolution 1514(XV) & 2065(XX) which confirms resolution 1514(XV) applies to the case of the Malvinas.
UN Chart Article 103 as well Domingo, remember that one.
Jan 13th, 2011 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think Axel meant those .. would ruin his thesis :-)
Jan 13th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After all, like Think, he's a company man !
It's in the UN charter.
Jan 14th, 2011 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0News is a little slow these days, but something is happening - http://www.pennenergy.com/index/petroleum/display/1172729530/articles/pennenergy/petroleum/offshore/2011/01/rockhopper-begins.html
Jan 15th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@141: The British & Falklanders have a good case under the principles of territorial integrity of UN Charter Article 2(4):
Jan 15th, 2011 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state”
i.e. Existing territorial entities are agreed to remain intact and inviolable by other states at the formation of the UN.
The Falklands Islands have been an integral part of British territories for 178 years, the Islanders are culturally, politically and ethnically unified with Britain and for others to force their secession against their will would be a clear attempt at “attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”
Furthermore the British view the forcible transfer of the Argentine Command of 1832 to the Falklands and the arbitrary implantation of an Argentine population does not form the basis of an Argentine claim for sovereignty because the Argentine objective was to destroy the territorial integrity of the U.K. by its illegal occupation which was formally diplomatically protested before action was taken to stop it because the U.K. had a prior sovereignty claim and agreement of Sovereignty with Spain through the Nootka Conventions.
Furthermore Argentina formally acquiesed to British sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the 1850 in the Convention of Settlement.
Furthermore in recent history the UN demanded the withdrawn of the Argentine invasion forces and cessation of Argentine hostilities during the 1982 in its Security Council Resolution 502, a further explicit recognition of British territorial integrity and the status quo.
The UN recognises that Argentina disputes extant British territorial integrity and sovereignty in resolution 2065(XX) & requests both parties to resolve Argentina's dispute peacefully.
Argentines prefer dark glasses ... so dark that they cannot see the truth !
Jan 15th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry that I am late for the party!
Jan 15th, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So to sum up the article, lies, lies, lies and some more lies. It is good to see Argentina is sticking to its guns!
It is very comforting that Argentina stick to the lies. As soon as they accept that the lies then their whole arguement crumbles.
Any more nails Think, or have you grown tired of that weak analogy? Think and the rest of the Argentine MP cronies...The Falklands will forever remain British. It is a simple fact. You can lie to yourselves as much as you want. But I do enjoy to see the desperation and failure on a daily basis!
ZETHE. DOMINGO. JUSTIN KUNTZ. REDHOYT.
Jan 15th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, i want to express that i really hope that this is the last time that i mention this assertion.
I knew perfectly about all those articules that belong to the charter from the U. N., which were typed by domingo.
Like i said in planty of oportunitys, the charter from the u. n. can say whatever, however self determination was never invoked in none of the resolutions from the general assembly, respecting the malvinas case.
The general assembly invoked that principple in many oportunitys for diferent colonial situations, to finish with colonialisem, but it never happened with the malvina cause, and gibraltar, the general assembly still calls both sides to find a pacefull solution, i suggest you AGAIN, and for the last time, to read diferent resolutions from the general assembly, and you'll see that i am saying the truth, and i suggest you also, AGAIN, and for the last time, to read resolution 2353, which reffers the gibraltar question, in one of it's paragraphs, you'll read what's the thought of the general assembly regarding territorial integrity.
I repeat that when i read unless one resolution from the general assembly, where self determination is invoked, then i will recognize that surely my country will have lost the posibility of keep on claming for the malvinas.
I must say that some times i wish the general assembly to invoke self determination for the inhabitants from the islands, to finish once and for all with this anacronic and painfull dispute, but as long as it does not happen, i will keep on defending strongly the rights of my country, beside, like me or not, it's obvious that the u.k. wont never renew the negotiations with my argentina.
I wont never stop saying, that i will always respect your opinions, no matter if we agree or not, what i dont like from some of you, is that some times, some of you makes fun at my country, thats' why i used some times hard languages in some of my answers.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!