MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ MLA Summers takes the oath: “a pleasure and a responsibility” to be back
The Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly has eight members once again. Mike Summers, a veteran of Falklands’ affairs was sworn in as an MLA at an official ceremony held at Government House this Monday morning. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMr Summers backs?? ohhh how old turn the Malvinas again! remember me Di Tella era and his relation with islanders... the islanders arent our friends because they are the invasors in our own house.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very democratic, indeed. Which political party does this UK guy belong to? (Over)fishing centre right for democracy? Great, the campaign is then that Argentina is lying. Too late guys, you can't change history now. Too late. Mr Summers, democratic leader. Interesting...
Jul 12th, 2011 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0There are no 'parties' on the Falkland Islands ... every prospective candidate stands alone. No 'pirates' either :-))
Jul 12th, 2011 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina IS lying.
It is Argentina that has tried to reinterpret history, without much success it has to be noted. The Falkland Islands have been British since 1765. Any dispute was with Spain, and finished in 1833. Argentina never established any sovereignty, and inherited nothing. Job done !
Never too late for the truth :-)
you can't change hostory that is something the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo know only to well Estimates for the number of people who were killed or “disappeared” range from 9,000 to 30,000 or is that a lie. All so Mr Summers is not a UK guy but a Falkland Islander. as for the Islanders not being your friends who is Uruguay Paraguay nore Chile they done like you so you dont have tomany friends at all.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Apart from the convention of 1850 that settled all differences, Vice-President Marcos Paz, opening the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1866, said: “The British Government has accepted the President of the Republic of Chile as arbitrator in the reclamation pending with the Argentine Republic, for damages suffered by English subjects in 1845. This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been settled”. (from: British and Foreign State Papers 1866-1867 (printed London 1871), p. 1009; original in Heraclio Mabragaña, Los Mensajes 1810-1910, Buenos Aires 1910, vol. III, p. 238: “Este mismo gobierno [= el gobierno británico] aceptó por árbitro al Presidente de la República de Chile, sobre perjuicios sufridos por súbditos ingleses en 1845. Aun no se ha resuelto esta cuestión que es la única que con aquella nación subsiste.”) so in 1866 according to the Argentine Goverment that was the only thing to be settled between the British and Argentine Goverments that shows they accepted the islands were not theirs
Jul 12th, 2011 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0MLA Summers is a sixth generation Falkland Islander. Not even Argentine lies can disabuse such a fact. There are many others like him in the Islands with a long history of family residence. That is why the universal concept of self determination is the only one that can be used to judge the political affiliations of the Islands people
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0that long smile is of overfishing that is making you rabamillonaires new richs would say my father with exquisite and wild paladar according to the british press here mentioned ....its all uk today MP
Jul 12th, 2011 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0never mind we are happy up to saturday....
Mad'un - you make no sense, but I am happy that you are happy!
Jul 12th, 2011 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It is Argentina that has tried to reinterpret history, without much success it has to be noted”. ARE YOU SURE? WHAT LED YOU TO SAY THIS? Too obvious a thought my dear! REINTERPRETING, that's your strategy but too late. Ask your “politicians” to work hard as history is history. Full stop. End of story.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0The truth will out Alek... I AM sure :-)
Jul 12th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's lies will be exposed ... I AM sure :-)
End of story !
Argentina just cannot stop lying.!!!! Like a naughty child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. oh well, we know our lslands are ours!
Jul 12th, 2011 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Truth is out: you are NOT a people distinct from the colonial power but subjects of the same crown and hence not entitled to self determination. The day you prove you're subjected to alien domination, then you might have a case. Change your origins in any case, but history will remain the same. End of story. That's exactly it.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, the standard Argentine statement regarding self-determination. For some unknown and unverified reason, the people of the Falklands are not entitled to self-determination, even though the UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear), and not once have they ever inserted a condition, an exception or an exclusion. The UN even rejected the proposed changed to this particular right, the proposal was that people involved in sovereignty disputes do not have this right.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely Alejo, you can see through the lies and misinformation you are spreading. The evidence for our arguement for self-determination is there, no exceptions or conditions, and you have consistently failed to produce any evidence supporting your claim, but you continue to state that it is true. If anything you are lying to yourself, protecting yourself from the unbearable truth that you are incorrect and everything that has been taught to you is a lie.
Prove that the people of the Falklands do not possess the right of self-determination, or just accept that the world you believe you live in is a lie.
“ ... There is not yet a recognized legal definition of ”peoples” in international law. Vita Gudeleviciute of Vytautas Magnus University Law School, reviewing international law and UN resolutions, finds in cases of non-self-governing peoples (colonized and/or indigenous) and foreign military occupation “a people” is the entire population of the occupied territorial unit, no matter their other differences. ... Other definitions offered are “peoples” being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by “ties of mutual affection or sentiment”, i.e. “loyalty”, or by mutual obligations among peoples. Or the definition may be simply that a people is a group of individuals who unanimously choose a separate state. If the “people” are unanimous in their desire for self-determination, it strengthens their claim ...”
Jul 12th, 2011 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are full of wind Alek .... a 'people' does NOT have to be subject to 'alien' domination.
End of story .... for Argentina!
poor argentinw bloggers
Jul 12th, 2011 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they cant tell the truth
they dont know the truth
they dont understand the truth
so they make it up, and tell lies,
for them the world belongs to argentina, and the rest of us are all lies,
poor argentine bloggers the fairies are still in their dreams
and the dreams are still in their heads,
and their heads are still stuck in the sand.
next .
12 BAWAHAHAHAAHAHA
Jul 12th, 2011 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nice one :) so you have to be oppressed in order for you to have self-determination....really? did you not look at the UN charter?
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace”
I see no mention of having to be oppressed or under Alien domination in order to be entitled to it :)
You do speak through your arse my dear chap.......
”UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear), and not once have they ever inserted a condition, an exception or an exclusion. ”
Jul 12th, 2011 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quoted for truth.
TWIMC
Jul 12th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wish to correct a misconception that is being repeated tirelessly by certain British turnip…………
1) “Self-Determination” is not even mentioned in the “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”……. Ergo it is not an UN recognized human right.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
2)The United Nations states that “Peoples” (as in populations, not as in persons) have the right to “Self-Determination”.
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
3) The squatters in Malvinas are British citizens…….. Ergo a British “People” (as in population, not as in person) that have Self- Determination rights in Britain but not anywhere else.
Quoted for documented reality……………
#18
Jul 12th, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Possibly not, but it is mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations, sections 55 and 73 esp.
2. Correct
3. Wrong. The people of East Timor before independence from Indonesia were Indonesian. The people of Southern Sudan before independence were Sudanese. Ones nationality before the exercise of the right to self determination is not relevant.
Desperate attempts by RG's to discredit the idea that we are a people have always failed, and will continue to fail. Rest uneasy, your colonial ambitions will fail.
so argentinians have Self- Determination rights in argentina and-not anywhere else, that includes the falklands,
Jul 12th, 2011 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but as the fact remains that it was argentina that broke the law in the first place, by invading the falklands, thus in fact makes all there arguments irrelivent,
you cannot quote the rules on others, when you your selfe breaks them,
either you all obey or you dont,
this then makes argentina two faced does it not ..
(19) Stillakelper
Jul 12th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) “Self-Determination” is not an UN recognized “Human Right”..... Period.
2) Correct.... Period.
3) East Timor and South Sudan are the worst examples you could have chosen to defend your case, lad.
Both untenable situations where created by the haughtiness and ignorance of the retreating colonial powers and their disrespect for ethnical, historical and geographical boundaries.
Malvinas is one of the last unresolved colonial blemishes in the World.... Period.
argentina is nothing but a bunch of lies, a banana republic, thinking about it, pathetic to the cause, all you argie bloggers come up with this crap about rules and the law, then what do you do,
Jul 12th, 2011 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[The sale of power from landlocked Paraguay to Uruguay continues to be delayed because Argentina has come up with more demands
again when it suits you,,,you dont give a toss about international rules or law, or peoples right, you are just criminals , two faced and a bloody discrace, argentina should be thrown out of the OAS and the UN .
ignorant jumpt up jack boots lead by a totaly deluded woman, followed by totay deluded bloggers,
and you call your selves civilised,
“Self-Determination” is not an UN recognized “Human Right”..... Period.“
Jul 12th, 2011 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Human rights are: ”basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.“
”All peoples have the right of self-determination”
Oh yeah. “is not an UN recognized”
Jul 12th, 2011 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is recognized as a right in the ICCPR and ICESCR and in chapter 1 of the UN charter....As a right all peoples are entitled to.
Yes, it is a human right.
As usual with turnips....
Jul 12th, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No documentation...
No references...
No links...
Just PPOW (Personal Points of View)
Easy to prove.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Human rights are basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language, or other status.”
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics
”All peoples have the right of self-determination”
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics (ICCPR)
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics (ICESCR)
“To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples”
http://www.amnestyusa.org/research/human-rights-basics
Now.
No documentation...
No references...
No links...
Care to provide your UN links proving that Self Determination is not a human right? Or are you willing to accept that it is you whom is the turnip who is just expressing his PPOW (Personal Points of View)?
No documentation...
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No references...
No links...
DYOR THINK, aint that your mantra? when asked for evidence of your fibs
LOL, So true.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is not UN recognized....
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then why include it within resolutions 1514 and 1541 and the UN Charter.....nugget :)
(26)
Jul 12th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not one single UN paper has ever stated that ”Self-Determination” is a ”Human Right”
But, of course, thousands of UN papers state that ”Self-Determination” is a ”Right”
Not one single UN paper has ever stated that ”People” (as in individuals) have the right to ”Self-Determination”
But, of course, thousands of UN papers state that ”Peoples” (as in populations) have the right of ”Self-Determination”
Small words …big differences, lad.
You seem to have huge problems understanding those simple political concepts and definitions.
Educate yourself.
And Argentina seems to have problems with lawful intent,
Jul 12th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0She breaks all the rules in the book.
Then demands the UN indorse the same bloody rules
a nation with no morals is a nation without pride
And as you are the government mole, that is colluding and encouraging your fellow bloggers with deluded crap,
you are more sadder than my honest fellow bloggers thought .
People,
Jul 12th, 2011 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britannica Concise Encyclopedia:
self-determination
Top
Home > Library > Miscellaneous > Britannica Concise Encyclopedia
Process by which a group of people, usually possessing a degree of political consciousness, form their own state and government. The idea evolved as a byproduct of nationalism. According to the UN charter, a people has the right to form itself into a state or to otherwise determine the form of its association with another state, and every state has the right to choose its own political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Moreover, the administering authorities of dependent territories are enjoined to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government in those territories.
For more information on self-determination, visit Britannica.com
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/self-determination#ixzz1RvxMwzRu
they wont understand it
Jul 12th, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No I doubt they won't.
Jul 12th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you use the word “peoples” you are referring to several groups of people and each group shares a common culture.
- the many and varied peoples of West Africa
This usage of peoples is relatively rare and, generally speaking, when a learner of English says “peoples” instead of “people” they are usually simply making a mistake.
@22briton,
Jul 13th, 2011 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't pussyfoot around the subject, briton.
Don't pull your punches,
Tell it like it really is!!!!! lololololololol or looooooooooooooool'
smirk,
Think, If you are so convinced that we are NOT:
Jul 13th, 2011 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0a people
a population etc etc
and thus have no rights under the UN Charter.
Please explain WHY does Arg not take the issue to the International Court of Justice - Why Not?
Islander, you are intellignt enouth to understand why argentina doesn´t go to UN justice burocratic organ, remember that uk is a superpower country with veto powers.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0argentina prefers to have the conflict in her own hands waiting for the moment instead in third hands.
malvinas conflict about south atlantic is so complex that only way out possible is political, only possibility is a win-win scenario for argies and bennies; bye bye britain in future.-
TWIMC
Jul 13th, 2011 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Posts No.32 and No.34 are more than perfect examples of sheer British ignorance and ethnocentrism…………..
To those of you with any doubts of the meaning and use of the word “Peoples” in the United Nations context, I would suggest reading the corresponding UN documents in any other language than English.
Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, any Scandinavian or Slavic language……. even Russian would do.
Poster RGRLiars argument against the United Nations carefull wording seems to be:
--“When a learner of English says “peoples” instead of “people” they are usually simply making a mistake.” --
What a TURNIP !!!
But engish is THE language Think! It's the language that the UN uses. It's the language the ICJ uses.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's OUR language :-)
(39) Hoyt
Jul 13th, 2011 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets clarify so the turnips don't get all excited…............................. Shall we?
”Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish shall be both the official and the working languages of the General Assembly, its committees and its subcommittees.”
http://www.un.org/en/ga/about/ropga/lang.shtml
Engish! A little known dialect of engLish. Originates near Birmingham and usually associated with an inability to type! :-)
Jul 13th, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, you are right Think. Explains why there are so many misunderstandings , but as there is no definition of a 'people(s)' in international law problems in translation don't appear to be the issue. Remember politicians like things written 'vague'.... leaves wriggle room!
#21 Self determination is a fundamental right of all peoples under the Charter of the UN (see Articles 55 and 73). Whether or not it is mentioned in the UN Declaration on Human Rights is simply an irrelevance. The HR declaration supplements the Charter, it does not detract from it.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your point was that since the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are British, self determination does not apply. The examples of East Timor and Southern Sudan prove this contention wrong - the nationality of the people exercising their right to self determination does not qualify that right under the UN Charter.
Ah I see the logic in thinks madness.....because the UN doesn't specifically put self-determination and human right together....means it isn't a human right....
Jul 13th, 2011 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0So using Think logic, because no UN resolution on the islands mentions the words: squatters, transfer to Argentina, violation of territorial integrity etc etc.....
We can therefore assume that the above phrases must be Thinks......
PPOW (Personal Points of View)
Billy, UK does not have any veto at the Int Court!! That is why it is a Legal Court - not even USA or Russia or China have a veto there either! Its a panel of international judges - and they rotate - so at times there may be a UK judge on it and or an Arg judge as well, or both - or neither.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Small words …big differences, lad.”
Jul 13th, 2011 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Prove it. Find me one single UN document that states there is infact a difference between a person and peoples.
No documentation...
No references...
No links...
The Turnip at 45 keeps coming for more…………………
Jul 13th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He says:
”Prove it. Find me one single UN document that states there is infact a difference between a person and peoples.”
I say:
What about an UN document he himself linked to at (26)…..:
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Let’s first look at the English official version:
Article 1
All peoples have the right of self-determination……………………..............................
(“Peoples” means, in this case, populations, not persons)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
Let’s now look at the French official version:
Pacte International relatif aux Droits Economiques, Sociaux et Culturels
Article premier
Tous les peuples ont le droit de disposer d'eux-mêmes………………........................
(“Peuples” in French means populations, not persons)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
Let’s finally look at the Spanish official version:
Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales
Artículo 1
Todos los pueblos tienen el derecho de libre determinación…………......................
(“Pueblos” in Spanish means populations, not persons)
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
Enough?
Think, there is nothing in international law that says that if a people has the same citizenship as their metropolitan state they are not entitled to self-determination. If that were so, none of the NSGTs would be entitled to self-determination, because every single one of them has the full citizenship of its metropolitan state.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Falkland Islanders are a people in their own right. They are not English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, French, Spanish, Argentine, Italian, Uruguayan, Brazilian, German, or any other people, they are Falkland Islanders.
Yes, you've clarified that the word person means one person, while the word peoples means more than one person. This is evident in the english versions of the words. Very well done Think.
Jul 13th, 2011 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I should have stated my question better, clearly you've missed the point. Find me a UN document that states that in regards to Self Determination there is a difference between a person and peoples and a UN document that clearly states that a person is not entitled to Self Determination while “peoples” are.
While you're at it, find me a document from the UN that might suggest that the islanders aren't a “peoples”.
Zethe,
Jul 13th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'people' can be a plural noun in which case it's the plural of person. As a singular noun (plural peoples) it means community, nation, ethnic group, etc as in the English, the Scots, the Falkland Islanders, the French, etc
Think you stopped being an historian, perhaps you should not try to be a lawyer :-)
Jul 13th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not one single UN paper has ever stated that ”Self-Determination” is a ”Human Right”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/480/57/PDF/N0848057.pdf?OpenElement
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/480/57/PDF/N0848057.pdf?OpenElement
(49) dab14763
Jul 14th, 2011 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
And Falkland Islanders are a people in their own right. They are not English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Irish, French, Spanish, Argentine, Italian, Uruguayan, Brazilian, German, or any other people, they are Falkland Islanders.
I say:
You ommited one nationality in your above list: British.
PS:
You have quite a nerve speaking to me after “backing out” of our little bet about Peru's election result
You Sir .... are just a Turnip
I haven't backed out.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the British are not one nation. We are 17 distinct nations
United Kingdom
England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland
Crown Dependencies
Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey
Overseas Territories
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha), and Turks and Caicos Islands.
You forgot British Antartica there Dab :-)
Jul 14th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course legal questions about definitions, i.e. what constitute a 'people', can be resolved. There is one place that has the power to clarify such issues ..... ooops, there I go again! Like a modern day Rome, all roads appear to lead to ............ the ICJ :-)))
Just to summarize:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The turnips wrote:
13 M_of_FI Jul 12th, 2011
………the UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear)…………
17 zethe Jul 12th, 2011
”UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear)……….,
I wrote in responseto the above ”misconceptions”:
”18 Think Jul 12th, 2011
1) “Self-Determination” is not even mentioned in the “United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights”……. Ergo it is not an UN recognized human right.
www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/
2) The United Nations states that “Peoples” (as in populations, not as in persons) have the right to “Self-Determination”.
untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/dicc/dicc.html”
Just plain documented facts…………………………….
This document mentions self determination and individual human rights.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0General Comment No. 12: The right to self-determination of peoples (Art. 1) : . 13/03/1984.
CCPR General Comment No. 12. (General Comments)
Convention Abbreviation: CCPR
GENERAL COMMENT 12
The right to self-determination of peoples
(Article 1)
(Twenty-first session, 1984)
Not an historian, nor a lawyer Think!
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0To a lawyer, there are no 'plain documented facts', just words to be argued over and eventually defined by a court of law.
The Peoples of the Falkland Islands ...... it has a ring to it. Don't you think?
;-)
Yet another time for the Turnips….
Jul 14th, 2011 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Turnips write:
………the UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear)…………
The fact is that:
………the UN clearly states (repeatedly) that the right of self-determination is applicable to Peoples. (PEOPLES, as in populations - just to be clear)…………
Can you ”spot” the diference?
53 dab14763 “And the British are not one nation. We are 17 distinct nations”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas and a dozen other small remnants of the British Empire around the world, were called Crown Colony, and later, in a terminological manoevre to deal with the fact that the tide of world opinion had turned against colonialism, the British Crown Colonies were re-named by an act of Parliament as the British Dependent Territories; and they were subsequently re-named AGAIN as the British Overseas Territories.
Some Brits are so brainwashed that they believe their own lies.
GB is a dead kingdom nothing else.
Well done MoreCrap, you've just proved that the Falkland Islands were a colony and therefore its 'people' must be a 'people' (ie population) for the purposes of the UN Charter. Therefore, they are entitled to the right to self determination.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you don't believe me ... take me to court :-)
Rotted, The principle of self-determination does not apply to the Malvinas Islands.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 04:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0If is not a colony like you said, why then the Governor is the former British ambassador of Estonia and the former British Consul General of Basra Iraq, not elected and sent from London?
http://www.bfbs.com/news/falkland-islands/falkland-islands-swear-new-governor-40258.html
51 dab14763 (#)
Jul 14th, 2011 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll try with better links
Not one single UN paper has ever stated that ”Self-Determination” is a ”Human Right”
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-63-163.pdf
Reaffirming the importance, for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights, of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and embodied in the International Covenants on Human Rights,1 as well as in the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples contained in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960,
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-63-163.pdf
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-63-163.pdf
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-63-163.pdf
Recalling the relevant resolutions regarding the violation of the right of peoples to self-determination and other human rights as a result of foreign military intervention, aggression and occupation, adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its sixty-first2 and previous sessions,
http://www.undemocracy.com/A-RES-63-163.pdf
MoreCrap - the Falklands Islands WERE a colony! And as a colony they WERE included on the UN list of colonies. And as a COLONY they ARE entitled to self determination. THEY are the peoples of the Falkland Islands.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The PEOPLES of the Falkand Islands have DETERMINED that they wish to be a British Overseas Territory. When/if the PEOPLES of the Falkland Islands DETERMINE that they wish to be a seperate nation, then they will be. That is their RIGHT.
Some of you idiots are so THICK!
Think believes that the Falkland Islanders are not a PEOPLES.Think is WRONG :-)
Think is wrong about a lot of things!
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think's error is to consider the islanders as British. But the islanders are, of course, like me, British 2nd!
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am English 1st, and the English have a right of self-determination. As do the Welsh, the Scots and the Irish of Northern Ireland.
The Falkland Islanders have the same right to self determination as did the Canadians before independence (Canadian 1st, British 2nd), the Australians before independence (Australian 1st, British 2nd) and the New Zealanders before independence (etc,etc). The indigenous populations of Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not seem to have been very relevant to that process. Fortunately, there was no indigenous population on the islands before the British arrived in 1765.
Falklander 1st, British 2nd.
It is a concept that eludes those with so little history that they've had few opportunities for 'mergers' :-)
Rotted you are beginning to avoid facts like Mr Barrow, You did not answer so I ask you again:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If is not a colony like you said, why then the Governor is the former British ambassador of Estonia and the former British Consul General of Basra Iraq, not elected and sent from London?
http://www.bfbs.com/news/falkland-islands/falkland-islands-swear-new-governor-40258.html
Idiot MoreCrap - I DID NOT say that it wasn't a colony!!
Jul 14th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falkland Islands had not been a colony, then it would not be on the list of territories to be DECOLONISED.
You really are STUPID!
Rotted, Ahhhh finally you said it, Malvinas is a British colony.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An like you said above“I am English 1st, and the English have a right of self-determination” I agree, English have a right of self determination...in England.
Go tell that to your Queen :-)))
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
You are slaves.
Dear think:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the...represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles >>>which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties
Annoying bug.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think says Self Determination is not a Human right, ok.
The International Bill of Human Rights is an informal name given to one General Assembly resolution and two international treaties established by the United Nations. It consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted in 1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) with its two Optional Protocols and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
And the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(ICESCR)
Both state that:
“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The ICCPR is monitored by the Human Rights Committee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Bill_of_Human_Rights
”The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)...represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. It consists of 30 articles which have been elaborated in subsequent international treaties...The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights..
Eagerly awaiting your rebuttal and solid proof that none of this is true.
68 Marcos Alejandro (#)
Jul 14th, 2011 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
You are great..
MARCOS for the first time the world agrees with you.
I always said you were a secret brit admirer, mmm
(70)
Jul 14th, 2011 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing to rebut.
You got it right this time.
That’s what I have been saying from the beginning:
”The UN clearly states that the right of self-determination is applicable to Peoples.” (Post 58)
Compare it now with your previous, misguided, version:
”The UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone” (Post 17)
Lots of ugly mistakes in this one……….. Huhhhh?
Self determination is a pathetic excuse the majority of Falkland pirates are 95% of English background so of course there legion is to Britain.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think. I've just proven that Self Determination is a human right, it states it right there. Human rights are applicable to all humans.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong.
Also just going to point out that you seem to be confused you keep quoting M_of_FI and calling it “my” own misguided view.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(74) says:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I've just proven that Self Determination is a human right, it states it right there”
I ask:
Where exactly did anyone “prove” that?
The closest any of you Turnips have come to “prove” that “Self Determination” is a “Human Right” are some phrases where both concepts are present, mostly separated by a comma.
What a turnip…………
Try reading post 70.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where in post 70?
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a declaration on human rights, along with the other two that make up The International Bill of Human Rights.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All rights in these treaties are human rights. One of them being the right to Self Determination.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is monitored by the Human Rights Committee.
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is a declaration on human rights......”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Says who? Where?
“All rights in these treaties are human rights. One of them being the right to Self Determination.”
Says who? Where?
“The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is monitored by the Human Rights Committee.”
Bingo,..... you got one right!
argentina will just never understand the meaning of rights.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Says who? Where?”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The International Bill of Human Rights.
”The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and in force from March 23, 1976. It commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals“
Jul 14th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights“
”recognises the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right to “freely determine their political status””
“Says who? Where?”
Jul 14th, 2011 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the beginning, different views were expressed about the form the bill of rights should take. In 1948, General Assembly planned the bill to include UDHR, one Covenant and measures of implementation.[1] The Drafting Committee decided to prepare two documents: one in the form of a declaration, which would set forth general principles or standards of human rights(Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
The other in the form of a convention, which would define specific rights and their limitations(International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights). Accordingly, the Committee transmitted to the Commission on Human Rights draft articles of an international declaration and an international convention on human rights. At its second session, in December 1947, the Commission decided to apply the term “International Bill of Human Rights” to the series of documents in preparation and established three working groups: one on the declaration, one on the convention (which it renamed “covenant”) and one on implementation.
Correct:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Recognises the right of all peoples to self-determination, including the right to “freely determine their political status””
Compare now wit your previous misguided opinion At post 17:
”17 zethe Jul 12th, 2011
UN clear states (repeatedly) that the human right of self-determination is applicable to everyone (EVERYONE - just to be clear), and not once have they ever inserted a condition, an exception or an exclusion. ” “Quoted for truth.”
A couple of foul mistakes in the above.... huhhhhhh?
PS:
Biiiiig difference between “Rights” and “Human Rights”……For example:
Every Bruton has the legal right to hit, smack and spank their children...........
That is, according to Brutish Law, their right….
But I wouldn’t call it a human right…..
Would you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#United_Kingdom
I didn't say that at post 17. I've already explained this to you.
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See 13 M_of_FI.
I see you're back to the tried and tested method of changing the subject when you realise you was completely wrong.
Chuckle chuckle™
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You claim:
”I didn't say that at post 17.”
I ask:
Who was it then, that wrote post 17 ???
Who was it then, that wrote “Quoted for truth.” at the end of post 17 ???
What a Turnip!
Every Bruton has the legal right to hit, smack and spank their children
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems the Argies like to hit,smack spank and murder their other halfs 40% more than 2009
Domestic Violence Deaths Rise 40% in Argentina
BUENOS AIRES – A total of 126 women died as a result of domestic violence in Argentina during the first half of this year, 40 percent more victims than during the same period in 2009
Beef, Jambhala is asking this question:
Jul 14th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Has the Ocean Guardian sunk?”
Why have they not spudded?
$0.8m per day. They are throwing your cash into the sea lol!!!!
:-)
Some are suggesting that they are all drunk at the at the Victory Bar in Stanley
http://www.newsof-theworld.co.uk/
What do you think?
:-)
Jul 14th, 2011 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 089 Marcos Alejandro
Jul 15th, 2011 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0What I think is that the News of the World has just been closed for being the cesspit of the journalistic world.
Chuckle on, if that's what floats your boat.
As interesting as I find the history of the Falkland Islands to be, I do recognise that the formation of the UN was a game changer. So I have a question for the intelligent amongst you.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is Argentina in breach of the legal committment to the UN which it accepted when it signed the Charter and specifically is Argentina in breach of Article 74?
Think
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you are saying that the Falkland Islanders are not entitled to Self Determination because self determination only applies to “Peoples”?
So are the Falkland Islands not “Peoples”?
They certainly believe themselves to be.
They believe themselves to be Falkland Islanders, a distinct peoples who have chosen through an act of self determination to have free association with Britain.
As a “Peoples” they have this right.
For your arguement to work you would need to establish the Falkland Islanders are not a “Peoples”.
You claim they are not a “peoples”. Prove it.
Think
Jul 15th, 2011 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry I notice that you already accept the Falkland Islanders as a “Peoples” in #18 but then go on to state:
”3) The squatters in Malvinas are British citizens…….. Ergo a British “People” (as in population, not as in person) that have Self- Determination rights in Britain but not anywhere else.”
So they have the right to Self Determination in Britian only? Says who?
Anyway as the Falklands are British sovereign territory the Falkland Islanders have the right to chose via an act of self determination to chose either free assocaitation with Britain, free association with another sovereign state, or independance.
Think, still sticking to your story the Self Determination is not a human right in light of what i've posted? you seem to be quiet on this subject.
Jul 15th, 2011 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They only know how to confuse,
Jul 15th, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the truth elludes them.
Hmm ... interesting. No response over Article 74 ??
Jul 15th, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 73 places a number of obligations on a colonial power such as the UK. One of these oibligations, indeed a 'sacred trust' is to promote ' ... the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories,...“, another is ” ... to develop self-government ...”. The UK appears to be meeting its obligation.
Just as well, as the Articles are legally binding. This is because the UN Charter is a multilateral Treaty, enforceable in international law.
Article 74 on the other hand, places an obligation on all of the Members of the UN (inc. Argentina) in respect of all self governing territories, (inc. the Falkland Islands).
Article 74
Members of the United Nations also agree that their policy in respect of the territories to which this Chapter applies, no less than in respect of their metropolitan areas, must be based on the general principle of good-neighbourliness, due account being taken of the interests and well-being of the rest of the world, in social, economic, and commercial matters.
Are Argentina good neighbours?? Are Argentina in breach of their Treaty obligations?
Can we sue? :-)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!