MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

A Type 42 .... I believe this is known as 'muscle'.

:-)

yep,, big muscle.
and visiting friends on the way back.

Rusty muscle

http://hughbcbone.wordpress.com/tag/hms-edinburgh/

Turkey get ready for another HMS Crap heading to you :-)))

“Rusty muscle”

Ships get rusty when they sail at sea Macros. Im sure the Argy navy looks all pretty and sparkle in the sunshine while they sit in port.

why are you always negative,
if you dont like your rowing boats fine,
by why then upset an innocent ship,
always negative always sad
always on the wrong side, and always bad .lol

4-You bet
http://cnlagoargentino.com.ar/vela/

@3 As a matter of interest, are there any argentine naval vessels that can cast off their mooring ropes without an additional 300 personnel on board to bail?

Would you like to claim that the Belgrano was rusty?

Certainly is now!

Perhaps - but if memory serves, HMS Sheffield was a Type 42 and I'm sure she's rusting quite well, thank you very much. I dare say it is apropos to compare a Type 42 in being as antiquated muscle today as a Brooklyn-class light cruiser was to the Argentine Navy in 1982. If an engagement were to happen today I would certainly put my money on a MEKO.

Come on lad's you must admit the Argentine Navy as some of the fastest ships in the world, admittedly it is when running back to port but fast all the same.

9 I wouldn't.

The Prophecy of the Fox
“Her army and her navy
England shall cast aside;
Soldiers and ships are costly things,
Defence an empty pride ...

”UK consumer confidence sapped by inflation, lack of jobs”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8651411/UK-consumer-confidence-sapped-by-inflation-lack-of-jobs.html

lack of jobs

Not in the Navy

http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/careers/

“No wonder we can't even topple a tin-pot gangster like Gaddafi”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003673/HMS-Invincible-goes-knackers-yard-No-wonder-topple-Gaddafi.html#ixzz1Sm65BXHn

WE? NATO more like

We on the other hand kicked Argie arse in 75 days

did do
can do
will do

Marcos likes to try to be clever but make himself look like a spanner every time he shows up.

Ferrous metal gets rusty Marcos. I guess as my three year old has bath toys that are the equivalent of the Argentine navy that rust is not a problem for your naval armed forces?

This is a pirate ship in Argentine national waters!

“ ... Old England's sons shall rise
The altar and the Crown.
”Rejoicing seas shall welcome
Their mistress once again;
Again the banner of St. George
Shall rule upon the main.
“The blood of the invader
Her pastures shall manure,
His bones unburied on the fields
For monuments endure.....”

http://www.rosenoire.org/poetry/prophecy-fox.php

MoreCrap - being selective again ?

FlipFlop - this is muscle in international waters ... or Falkland waters. Remember that it's there ... and then wonder where the sub is :-)

Banner of St. George?

More like the Jolly Roger. Sure, you kicked ass in 75 days - but don't delude yourself for a second as if you've danced with the full measure of Argentina's best and brightest. Remember that first a bufoon was in charge of a conscript force, and then remember Argentina's reaction when Britain makes it personal - does the name Beresford ring a bell? Even so, do keep in mind that had the Argentine recapture taken place in September, instead of April, your lads would have had a hard time getting there given the fact that you would not have had the sealift capability following planned tonnage sales for budgetary reasons. Tonnage which Argentina can easily outmaneuver. Indeed Argentina does have some of the fastest and most versatile ships in the world - how they are used is a matter of politics, and politics change in time. In case you haven't noticed, this is election year - and by all estimates, the left won't be in charge for much longer.

So go ahead, lads, have your fun...send more oil rigs, come and deploy that underwater Vickers rustbucket, and make sure you spend plenty of quid on it, getting to and fro and staying on station, soooo far from home. Hell, send two! The sooner you deplete the coffers of the “empire”, the better. Not sure how long you think you can keep this colonization BS up, but we've got all the time in the world - as well as plenty of arable land, cattle, and freshwater.

I wonder, when it all comes crashing down, whether Parliament will prefer access to a source of food for Britain or defense of a far-away colony whose residents are more “British” than britons themselves....lost in the fog of time and distance. Don't bet that Argentina will forget your antics anytime soon, for there will be a day of reckoning for your misdeeds (or, more specifically, your misappropriation).

Alejardiniho (or whatever your name is), you need to talk to someone, I am greatly concerned about your health.

Flipflop - do something about it then. You won't though.

Some need to get up to date a bit- this ship is a Batch 2 type 42- 40 foot longer and a lot more modern , extra weapons and up to date than the old 1982 era type 42,s. She would outclass a german Meko any day.

20- what cost? Falklands defence costs less than 0.5% of UK,s defence Budget. And our economy is strong, profitable and zero debt to anyone.
Just one more positive oil find and in a few years WE will be paying UK in full for defence anyway.
As for 1982 timing- your are probably right- just typical damn stupid Argies - they never change either.

Would we want the Argies to change? The world needs someone to laugh at occasionally.

@20 AlejandroArgerich,
Our coffers will be overflowing when the liquid black gold starts to flow. More than enough to buy whatever weapons we need to keep jealous plonkers like you away!
And just think, Alex old boy, you could have had part of it, if good old Nestor hadn't torn up our agreement! Poor, poor Argentina! You do't deserve any sympathy.

typicle losers statment,
when they win,you fought the best,
and when they lose, we beat conscrips, under fed starving untrained, all the crap of a losing force,
be proud argentina, you lost, exept it and move forward,
oh sorry you cant , the ICJ wont let you,
if and when you ever bother to turn up,
we keep hinting to you. but you just wont take the bait will you.
you will never get a better chance, ,,go on push you luck,
4 rowing boats , 3 planes two soldiers, and a partridge in a pear tree .lol.

@9 I see your little MEKO type destroyers are 2,000 tons lighter than a Type 42 and only half a knot faster. This is good as we won't have to shoot. We can just CRUSH them! And the MEKO class corvettes are even smaller.

For goodness sake its a ship, you Argentinians shouldn't get so worked up. She is just there to fly the flag and protect our South Atlantic territories, fellow citizens and natural resources. Whats the matter with you?

For goodness sake its a ship
ah yes,,,,but its a british ship.
and as they dont have one, the crying starts,
as you say, we are only protecting whats ours,
isnt their rowing boats protecting the harbour lol.

@21 Beef - thanks for your concern. PTSD is really a debilitating condition - you see, one is never quite the same after plunging a bayonet into some poor chav's throat...hearing all the little gurgling sounds till he bleeds out. Then again he shouldn't have been there so far from home in the first place. Personally, I blame Thatcher. Do something about it you say - why should we? The Malvinas returning to their rightful owners is an inevitibility guaranteed by time.

@Islander - no, HMS Edinburgh is a Batch 3 type 42, and her original COGES propulsion was replaced with mismatched Olympus and Tynes making 30kts, .5 less than the MEKO 360H2. You are right in that this is a type 42 with a rather big length, our MEKOs are much shorter, and if you knew your own history better you'd see the value of this. As for class, you want to compare Phalanx to Exocet? WOW....Ku Band radar guidance, the same ones cops use for traffic control, and I have a little device in my car that puts it to bed. I'll take the Exocet's 180-mile range and active TERMINAL radar guidance any day of the week and twice on Sunday. As for “Argies” never changing, it seems your knowledge of our history is about as incomplete as your knowledge of your own. In little under 30 years we've gone from totalitarian conservative dictatorship to free-market democracy to default to an ultra left-wing government made up for former guerillas. I don't know how much more change you can stuff into 20 years. Not that a dictatorship has ever happened in England, you say? Sure, mate. If English history teaches anything it is that the pendulum may swing far, but it eventually settles into a steady and unmovable center. God help you when Argentina's pendulum settles in the center.

Well I am sorry but it almost seems that these Argentinians keyboard warriors want another war, egged on by their thin skinned, whale killer, letter writing, mate.

I'm missing Jonny though, anybody know where he's gone?

@26 Conqueror

If you really want to be picky about it, the MEKO360H2 (aka Almirant Brown class destroyer) is both smaller and lighter than a type 23 frigate.

In fact the only Argentine navy ships that are bigger or heavier than a British frigate are:
ARA Patagonia (ex-French Durance class replenishment oiler)
ARA Ingeriero Julio Krause (ex-YPF oiler)
ARA Canal de Beagle &
ARA Cabo de Homos (both transport ships)
and ARA Almirite Irzar (Icebreaker)

@Briton - No, when we won you fought the POPULATION, under Lord Beresford (and others) and lost, again and again. When you won you fought an army of poorly-trained starving conscripts. It goes to the spirit of a people and its motivation to fight. Just what exactly are you objecting to, the fact that they were poorly-trained, the fact that they were conscripts, or the fact that they were starving? By the way I do “except” it, as a matter of fact I take great “exception” to it. Of course you don't seem to have even a rudimentary grasp of English vocabulary. Don't worry mate, I'll save you face - this english-as-a-second-language “keyboard warrior” won't school you in front of everyone - whoops I think I just did. Sorry about that! Do try picking up a book every now and then, they don't bite, you know...

@Conqueror - you can't crush what you can't catch up to. .5kts might as well mean infinity for Edinbugh.

@28 Englander FYI I have the highest esteem for whales. You say “our South Atlantic territories / natural resources”? You have none more than what you stole at the point of a gun, the M.O. for British 'territories'. You want to suck the oil under the ARGENTINE CONTINENTAL PLATFORM and call it yours, think again. Your citizens? Islanders have a right to their homes, cultural identity & heritage - but this does not include the right to wholesale theft of their neighbor's natural resources for the benefit of a foreign power. If they would prefer war not come to their doorstep again, they would do well to remember this.

@ 29 Briton - “they dont have one”?? Really?? Last I checked Argentina had two Type 42s. Of course these are British ships and thus, unfortunately, only good for protecting harbors. You say “protecting what's ours” - right, after all you stole it fair and square. Typical chav mentality. Well mate feel free to respond to my comments, that is, after you're finished robbing some poor old bloke in an estate somewhere in South London.

First of all I am Argentinean, and proud of my nationality.
Second, my mother's family is English and also , proud of this too.
I always look at these “almost-forums” where most of islanders fight with their keyboards to show “Hey a have a bigger ...!”, and “you are wrong!”.
As things are happening now it is clear that:
Argentinean and UK army are both inadequate for the modern world, I can't say “scrap”, but is clear that Argentina hasn't enough to invade “Martin Garcia” island , and UK has lost the capacity to defend Falklands/Malvinas.
How bad is Argentinean army.. well I think is 30% of what it once was.
UK army is 50% of what it once was, not only for the lack of carriers, but because most of the ships are old.
The most valuable ship in the south Atlantic is the submarine. But UK nuclear submarines are old and “potentially vulnerable” to fatal accidents, so they will be deactivated soon or late, perhaps not all, but most of them.
Most of this reduction in UK army forces is because of economy problems(linked to peakoil, and empty north sea wells).
Argentinean reduction of army forces is linked to a complex situation of distrust between government(people) and military forces.
-----
The future:
I doubt the UK will give the Falklands/Malvinas “by free” to Argentina.
But the world will become very though in the decades to come.
Price of oil will become ridiculous high, and, as most of Falklands/Malvinas elements come from long distances, the isolation will be destructive for the island economy.
I discount that oil will be not found in big quantities near the island. And without a big discovery is not commercially possible to extract it.
If UK economy does not recovers the future will be totally different, money from UK to the island will be insufficient.
In this context it will the moment to talk about UK-Argentinean conversations about the Falklands/Malvinas and the annexing to the Argentinean territories.
If someone think this is impossible , they should re

This debate is cringeworthy guys.

I saw the word Empire used. Every country that was part of the British Empire that wanted independence became independent. Why would Britain hang onto the Falklands? Why was Britain happy to see countries like India, South Africa etc become independent? Surely, it would be more beneficial to hang onto a country like India than small islands like the Falklands... but it is just more irrelevant, ignorant and invented crap from Argentines, who are desperately trying to justify their misplaced anger. I know you arent angry at me living in the Falklands and using my democratic right to stay British. You Argentines are just angry at years of poor and corrupt leadership that has brought Argentina to its knees many times, and will continue to do so. As your leaders plunder Argentina's resources and finances and get rich, while you the public suffer hardship, crime, poor education and lack of any wealth, and are distracted by the Falkland Islands.

I dont see why we (Briton and Falkland Islanders) have to feel embarrassed that we defeated poorly trained and under-fed Argentine consripts. It is the imcompetence of Argentina that they were that ill-prepared for war, not Britain's. The fact that Britain had to travel 8,000 miles, with much longer supply lines when compared to Argentina, just further embarrasses how poorly equiped and imcompetent the Argentine military were. And from what I have heard and read, the Argentine military hasnt progressed forward much since 1982.

Apples and oranges really, The type 42 is an air defence destroyer. The MEKO line of ships are frigates.

The type 23 easily outmatches the MEKO in every way.

Meko: 30.5 knots top speed, 4,500 miles range, 224 sailors, 8 Exocets, 24 Aspide missiles, Various close range guns on deck and main gun, Deph charges, Torpedos(number?), no decoy system, helicopter.

Type 23: 34.4 knots top speed, 9,000 miles range, 185 sailors, 8 Harpoons, 32 sea wolf missiles, Various close range guns on deck and main gun, 24 torpedos, two decoy systems, helicopter.

Few points. You don't have 180 km range Exocets. A Harpoon's range is 278 km. Meko has no decoy systems at all.

If someone think this is impossible , they should read history and see UK overseas territories 100 years and now.
So , please don't react to this “article post” disqualifying other people, it is just my view, and perhaps is going to be totally different , better or worst.
who really knows?

32
Glad you like whales.
Just so you know
Argentina and Argentinian occupied Chile is actually situated on the Falkland Islands Continental Shelf .
There is no theft of territory or natural resources. They are ours. If we “suck up” some of yours at the same time, well tough shit, you should have got out there same time as we did.
“point of a gun” don't know what you are talking about

You should never threaten war, even in jest. Its a bit pathetic when you know as well as me its never going to happen.

As for Chavs, starving conscripts, taking exception, ship speeds, Lord Beresford, South London, guarding ports and poorly trained troops - whatever turns you on.

Actually we got there long before you did, and that's the whole point. You don't know what I'm talking about by “point of gun”?

Spain first claimed the islands on 4 February, 1540. England gave the islands to Spain in the Nootka Sound conventions. When Argentina declared independece from Spain, we got a congratulatory letter from London; thereafter we publish laws asserting sovereignty over the islands and limiting UK whaling activities. In both cases, no objections raised, no complaints - NOT A PEEP from the British crown 1816-1832.

Then Palmerston gets a wild hair up his @ss and a year later here comes HMS Clio, demanding the withdrawal of Argentine forces and material. Most left - a few resisted, taking control of the government house and preventing the raising of the Union Jack for 5 months, until 2 Argentine settlers died in the British raid led by Onslow. I CALL THAT THEFT AT GUNPOINT.

Who's jesting? Never say never. As long as you choose to occupy by force a territory that isn't yours, the threat of war will always loom with future generations. What turns me on is the truth: MILITARY CONQUEST DOES NOT ESTABLISH LEGAL TITLE.

We try to be civil & resolve our issues peacefully, yet the British position is still, to quote Gordon Brown's thuggish phrase, that “there is nothing to discuss on our end”. Does Argentina have internal problems? Sure. It doesn't mean they won't be solved in the future. You think 2500 islanders will enjoy unqualified veto over British policy forever and ever? Good luck with that.

@34M, We ARE angry at our corrupt leaders - AND the UK thugs that assert dominance, kicking us while we're down, and we won't forget it. You want to see fabrications, how about the “Falklands Continental Shelf” when it's clearly ONE CONTIGUOUS oceanographical feature. You don't have to feel embarassed that you beat us and your observations are correct. What you should be embarrased about is continued theft and occupation of land that isn't yours.

“Spain first claimed the islands on 4 February, 1540”

Incorrect. 1713 Treaty of Utrecht was when they first claimed the islands.

“England gave the islands to Spain in the Nootka Sound conventions.”

Incorrect.England has never given the islands to anyone.

“In both cases, no objections raised, no complaints - NOT A PEEP from the British crown 1816-1832”

Incorrect. The British objected twice in 1829 and it was not whaling activities but seal hunting.

“Most left - a few resisted, taking control of the government house and preventing the raising of the Union Jack for 5 months”

Incorrect. This is a complete fabrication, your commander objected to the HMS Clio taking the islands but none of them resisted - most of his crew were British mercenaries who refused to fight the British. I don't know where you've came up with that story it's lunacy..

“MILITARY CONQUEST DOES NOT ESTABLISH LEGAL TITLE.”

MILITARY CONQUEST IS HOW YOU ESTABLISHED ARGENTINA.

“You think 2500 islanders will enjoy unqualified veto over British policy forever and ever?”

You clearly are uneducated and don't even know what a veto is.

“What you should be embarrased about is continued theft and occupation of land that isn't yours.”

So should you.

AlejandroArgerich
can you speak argentinian ??

@39Zethe,
Well said that man! Was going to reply to Alex but you beat me to it.
Just this Alejandro,
1) We don't care what you think.
2) We know it's our land & not yours.
3) There is nothing to negotiate.
4) They are our resources & definitely not yours.
5) We will do with our resources & our land what we like & it's got absolutely nothing to do with you or your country.
6) You say that time is on your side, l doubt it. Argentina will implode & break up into smaller countries long before you ever become a serious threat again.
Do a bit more research old bean. Ask yourself why your country will not go to the ICJ? ,-then get back to us with your“theories”.

I doubt it!

They preach us on English, and they can’t even speak Argentinian,
as we all know , they speak Spanish or some lingo,
And they think they can piss down our backs and tell us it’s raining .
But today, Argentina is a land of peace, according to her government of deluded fools,
They will obey all laws, and negotiate,
jaw jaw, instead of war war,
BUT what happens when they again get fed up of talking.

I see another of my stalkers is following me around.

The construction of Government House didn't start till 1843.

Argerish is referring to the Gaucho murders of August 1833, when one Antonio Rivero and 7 others went on a murder spree killing Matthew Brisbane, Anton Wagner, Juan Simon, William Dickson and Don Ventura.

Matthew Brisbane was Vernet's deputy
Juan Simon was the capitaz of the Gauchos
William Dixon was Vernet's store keeper

Ventura and Wagner were also employees of Vernet.

There was in fact no British presence in the Islands, the Clio left on the 7 January, the Beagle on 6 April.

The Gaucho murders effectively put an end to Vernet's venture in the islands. The 5 senior members of the settlement were murdered, of the 8 murderers, 1 was murdered by his colleagues, the remaining 7 were arrested by Lt Smith in 1834.

In the Argentine mythology this gets turned around. The murdering thug Rivero is transformed into a heroic patriot fighting the British. The innocent victims, like Brisbane who did more than any one individual for the advancement of Vernet's enterprise are forgotten. The British simple weren't there, the plan for the Falklands at this time simply envisaged an annual visit by a warship and allowing Vernet's private enterprise to continue.

There is an eye witness narrative available of these events, its on wikisource:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_Helsby%27s_Account_of_the_Port_Louis_Murders

But hey don't let the facts get in the way.

The events of August 1833 killed Vernet's enterprise and were the impetus to establish a permanent British presence in the islands and ultimately led to the decision to found a colony in the Falklands.

Ironic isn't it.

@ Justin - better get used to it. WE ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. Sooner or later you're going to have to learn that your options are limited to 1. either compromise and engage in HONEST dialogue, or 2. continue your subterfuge and deal with the consequences. I will continue to call you out on your BS, anywhere, every single time I can.

@ Zethee - point by point: 1 - the expedition commanded by Francisco de Ribera claimed them for Spain in 1520, long before that preexisting claim was AFFIRMED in Ultrecht. This is why, when Charles III or Spain learned about English settlements in the islands, he said “I would never consent to such settlements and, I would never allow them at any price”. 2 - As far as Nootka, that's another prime example what the word of an Englishman is worth: rubbish. I am yet to hear a cogent argument for how giving up ALL claims to “the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent” fails to apply. You made a deal, then you didn't like it, now you want to pretend you never made it - well that won't cut it. 3 - it's the first I've heard of 1829 objections, but ok I'll bite. Still, ZERO SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIONS between 1816-1833. 4 - fabrication? Try primary source testimony, their names were Ventura Pasos and Antonio Vehingar. You want fabrication, that's the Falklands “Continental Platform” - where's the “Falklands” continent, then, huh? 5 - Military conquest is not the same as revolution. Military conquest is how Spain established the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. Revolution is what established Argentina. 6 - I know what a veto is, I also know that when it's not used because of neo-imperialist goons in Commons it's as good as useless. Time will change that. 7 - Chile's territory's were made Argentine by MUTUAL AGREEMENT mediated by the pope. The British could learn something from that instead of simply saying “there's nothing to discuss”. 30, 50 years down the road that's what Argentines might say in a second armed conflict

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8169552/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-questions-the-mental-health-of-Cristina-Kirchner.html
Hillary Clinton questions the mental health of Cristina Kirchner
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Corruption rampant in Argentina says US, German, Spanish diplomats
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8169552/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-questions-the-mental-health-of-Cristina-Kirchner.html
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Britain’s ability to defend the islands
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8169552/WikiLeaks-Hillary-Clinton-questions-the-mental-health-of-Cristina-Kirchner.html

Wikileaks show that the US was concerned in 2009 and 2010 by the possibility of an Argentine attack. US officials wanted to know whether there was a possibility of unilateral military action by Argentina or of a joint offensive with the help of allies such as Venezuela ”. The basis for this anxiety was the Argentine government’s shift towards more aggressive rhetoric, with Fernandez de Kirchner pledging an eternal fight, combined with the economic situation within Argentina, the main reason why a military assault may remain unlikely, is, , Argentina’s military ability and unwillingness to capture and hold the islands is doubtful.

It would be unwise to rely on the argument that Argentina is now a democracy and therefore would only use peaceful means. Argentina is a democracy, but with limitations. Freedom House notes that “Fernández de Kirchner’s government has consistently limited press freedom”, including a media reform bill which “contained provisions limiting freedom of expression” and “a politically-appointed media regulatory body with control over interpreting and implementing the law”. xxix A president decreeing that there should be nationalist indoctrination of all children in support of a territorial claim is not the behaviour of a rational liberal democracy.

,,

Picking on spelling mistakes is that the best you can do.

There was no claim in 1520, whether the islands were even sighted is doubtful. Spain did not claim anything, it asserted it had rights under Utrecht, something that the British never accepted.

Nootka, well for a start tell me why it took someone nearly a century to concoct that heap of crap based on the creative interpretation of the word “adjacent”. As you well know there is already a precadent created in the ICJ that ruled islands 100 miles off the coast were not adjacent. The fact is that in 1790, there was a pre-existing agreement dating from 1771 that recognised the British right to be in the islands and I have texts from the period that note the British considered both agreements to remain valid.

The facts are that Nootka was a treaty between the UK and Spain, neither ever applied it to the Falklands. As a non-signatory Argentina derives no benefits from the treaty and you're of course ignoring the secret clause that releases Britain from the agreement when a 3rd party intervenes - like Argentina.

And it wasn't just the British who disputed Argentine proclamations over the Falklands, the Americans did too.

And the argument on the Continental Shelf, first of all Argentina never ratified the convention, funny that claiming rights on a treaty you never ratified. Secondly it is limited to 200 miles and it does not confer any right to claim land already populated.

If you spout idiocy don't be upset if we call you an idiot.

Military Conquest, like the War of the Desert seizing Patagonia from its indigenous people or large chunks of Paraguay, or bits of Uruguay or Chile? Mmm, you really are a hypocrite aren't you.

The islanders do get to decide their own future and I don't see any role for Argentina in it, you disqualify yourselves with your own idiocy. There is no need for negotiation and we won't sit and talk whilst Argentina dictates the outcome.

Get over it.

@ Isolde - I know you don't care what we think. That's the problem. That's why stupid wars have to start, because you people go around thinking everything belongs to you just because you're there, and you don't care what anyone else thinks. As I've stated...the classic chav mentality. Since there's nothing to negotiate, you'll just have to be schooled the hard way.

@ Beef - I have quite enough fun laughing at Carl Pilkington. What better ambassador for a nation of chavs and cockney-accented hooligans. If we've been unable to reason together it's because there's no one over there to reason with!

@ Briton - I don't know, do you speak kelper? I thought the languages in question were English and Spanish. I've kept to the former given that's the language of this site. What good would it do for me to respond in Spanish?

Now - is Cristina out of her mind? Probably. Is she a good leader? Not by a long shot, unlike her husband may he rest in peace. I'm not here because I've been indoctrinated since early in school (a practice which I don't agree with BTW). I'm here because I can't stand hypocrisy and lies, especially when it comes to this issue. You're absolutely right - it would be VERY unwise to rely on the argument that Argentina is now a democracy and therefore would only use peaceful means. You keep that in mind next time you want to “drink our milkshake” and give a stiff upper lip - it might just get split, although maybe you can spare another ₤3Bn on another stupid war that came about because you didn't want to sit down & compromise like civilized people do.

@ Justin - nice, another incomplete source of questionable origin, just like your wikipedia antics. Let's hear about WHY the “gaucho murders” took place. Seems to me like if a bunch of Gauchos rose up and killed the English leaders of the settlement and their collaborators, it's probably because they're not too fond of Englishfolk. I wonder why that might be...(I'll respond to your other lunacies later).

These Argies do struggle with history don't they. A potted version of the history up to 1767 -

1493 – Pope Alexander VI issues a Papal Bull dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal.

1494 – Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal agreeing the terms of the Papal Bull with some modification. Britain does not recognise Papal Bull or Treaty.

1690 – the waterway between the two islands is named ‘Falkland Sound’ by Captain John Strong from the ship Welfare.

1712 – the name ‘Falkland Islands’ is used in a publication describing the Welfare’s journey.

1713 – the Treaty of Utrecht consisted of 12 separate treaties including the peace treaty. None contained any recognition of Spanish rights in the south Atlantic other than the restoration of lands previously held by Spain. the Falkland Islands were not 'held' by Spain.

1716 – a French map refers to the islands as ‘Les Isles Nouvelles’.

1722 – a new French map refers to the islands as ‘Les Iles Malouines’.

1764 – The St. Malo company of France founds a settlement on the Falkland Islands at Port Loius but makes no formal claim on behalf of the French crown.

1765 – Captain John Byron explores the islands and claims them for King George III as the Falkland Islands.

1766 – Captain John MacBride founds the settlement of Port Egmont , named after the sponsor of the Byron expedition. Cattle, goats, sheep and pigs taken to the islands.

Still no sign of the Spanish then?

Nootka Sound is unlikely to apply to the Falkland Islands as the term 'adjacent' is not applicable. One days sailing away perhaps, but the islands are further away from the coast of south America than London is from Paris. And there was no satellite imagry in 1790.

So the papal Bull was unrecognised by Britain, the Treaty of Utrecht did not include the Falkland Islands and neither did Nootka (although the secret cause would have operated if it did!).

Where now, AilingArg ?

Try http://www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf. Learn !

@ Justin - I never said 1520, I said 1540. Read Goebbel, “The Struggle for the Falkland Islands”, 17-28. The
expedition was commanded by Francisco Ribera de Villacastin, who took possesion of the islands for the
Spanish crown on 4 February, 1540, having established a small settlement and wintering on the islands until
their return to Spain in december of that same year. Nootka? Argentina inherited the Falklands because of
the fact that at the time of Argentina's independence in 1816, Nootka was in full effect, with Spain exercising
full and uninterrupted sovereignty over the islands WITH FULL BRITISH CONSENT. Hence, the whole “non-signatory”
argument falls flat on its face.

Concordantly, the position of the British government in 1920 held that all British claims to the islands prior to
1774 were entirely null and void after 1790. Now you want to act as is that position was never held by the British
government...please.

Maybe I was born in a third world country, but it wasn't yesterday. It wasn't used before because it wasn't ever
DENIED before, for 100 years. According to your logic, a 1790 treaty doesn't apply because of a pre-existing
yet wholly unilateral agreement from 1771, 19 years earlier. First off, need I point out that agreements supercede
each other as time moves forward, not backward? Second, explain how an agreement between two parties can be
unilateral - wouldn't the British and “another party” have to agree in their consideration? Because if this
isn't the case, there's another word for your document - a “decree”. Of course, Britons think their decrees are
as good as a mutual agreement, so I suspect this is all for naught.

For the record I think the War of the Desert was a travesty, as was the War with Paraguay. Uruguay was a proxy
was against Brazil and you know it. Both Uruguay and Chile were settled by MUTUAL AGREEMENT, something that,
again, Britain seems to downplay whenever the party on the other side of the table doesn't have both a

Don't you just love it, the evidence contradicts the fiction so the evidence must be wrong.

The leaders that were murdered weren't English.

Brisbane was originally Scottish
Dickson was originally Irish
Juan Simon was originally French
Wagner was originally German
Don Ventura was from Montevideo

They were all emigres to Argentina, they were not the “English” authority, they were appointees of Vernet to run his business in the Falklands.

And the motive for the murders was quite simple. Vernet paid his employees in paper promissory notes, the Gauchos wanted to be paid in silver. They believed Brisbane was holding out on them.

Robbery, pure and simple. Cold blooded murder.

Your own mentality illustrates quite neatly why the Islanders want nothing to do with Argentina. Its the typical Macho crap of negotitate or else. We don't like bullies and we're not impressed by little men talking big.

Like big brave men who make anonymous phone calls from Jacksonville in Florida and threaten little old ladies who pick up the phone.

“the expedition commanded by Francisco de Ribera claimed them for Spain in 1520”

Expedition found the islands, did not claim them.

“I am yet to hear a cogent argument for how giving up ALL claims to”

The convention did not state that the British would give up all claims, you are mistaken. Argentina was also not a part of this convention.

“Still, ZERO SOVEREIGNTY OBJECTIONS between 1816-1833”

Both of the objections were sovereignty objections.

“4 - fabrication?”

Yes, a complete fabrication. The story you mentioned in in the league of harry potter and the legends of Narnia. There was not a five month “siege”.

“Military conquest is how Spain established the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. Revolution is what established Argentina.”

Oh i see, when it suits you(killing and stealing land) it was spain, you did not inherit this.. but when it comes to other lands you clearly did inherit that, double standards?

“30, 50 years down the road that's what Argentines might say in a second armed conflict”

Argentina can say what it likes after a second armed conflict, the result will be the same, a lot of hurt egos and the islands still being British.

” .. The expedition was commanded by Francisco Ribera de Villacastin, who took possesion of the islands for the Spanish crown on 4 February, 1540, having established a small settlement and wintering on the islands until
their return to Spain in december of that same year... '

And your evidence for this is what? Or rather, what is your author's evidence? I assume he referenced the section?

Spain never exercised full sovereingty over the Falkland Islands, if she had done so then she would have levied charges on the British and American whalers and sealers using the islands. Spain never levied such charges. In any case they were aware of the British claim and feared another war if they attacked British sovereignty.

Uti Possidetis Juris does not apply to the Falkland Islands which were held under the British Crown. Uti Possidetis Juris was not proclaimed in south America until 1848.

The agreement of 1771 that was signed by Spain and Britain - that is 'unilateral' ?? Signed by both countries!

Nootka did not apply to the Falkland isands as they are not 'adjacent' !

Even so, Alejandro is under the impression that some peice of paper signed 300 years ago has more rights than living human beings in this day and age, this is not the case.

Human rights.

49 Redhoyt

You are missing

1648 Spain signs the treaty of Münster recognising Dutch independence. In article V Spain accepts its territories consists of those it holds,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33633447/Treaty-of-Munster-article-V

“And each one, that is to say, the said Lords the King and States, respectively, shall remain in possession of and enjoy such lordships,
towns, castles, fortresses, commerce and countries of the East and West Indies, as well as of Brazil, and on the coasts of Asia, Africa, and America, respectively, which the said Lords the King and States, respectively, hold
and possess, ”

Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648. And no mention of Tordesillas. So it's irrelevant whether Spain claimed the Falklands in 1540.

And Argentina did not inherit the Falklands from Spain, so neither did it inherit any treaties that may refer to it.

Francisco Ribera de Villacastin? He was born in 1537, neat trick to sail to the Falklands aged 3.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Ribera

And Argentina inherited nothing, asserting independence it took the territory it could seize. Spain abandoned the islands by withdrawing their Governor in 1806 and withdrawing the settlement in 1811. Claiming Spain had exclusive control is specious at best, your own national archives document that the British, Americans and French were exploiting the natural resources on the islands. Spain maintained nothing more than an isolated penal settlement at Puerto Soledad it did nothing to establish control.

The Spanish settlement on the Falklands conferred no rights on Argentina, your claims of inheritance on that basis won't stand up in court.

So no the non-signatory point does not fail in the slightest and you ignore the fact that the Secret clause releases Britain of all obligations.

And no I don't argue that, the historical record is clear that the British considered both the 1771 and 1790 agreements with Spain remained extant. The 1790 agreement did not replace the earlier agreement it complimented it. Nootka did not nullify the 1771 agreement.

And you've ignored the fact that Spain unilaterally repudiated Nootka in 1795. But hey ignoring inconvenient facts goes with the territory.

And please don't even try and play the poor little 3rd world card.

The Falklands was settled with Argentina in 1850 with the Convention of Settlement.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Ribera

@ Justin - sure, let's see: the Scottish, Irish, French, German and Charruan were more Gaucho than the Gauchos. Nice reasoning. Why on earth would the Gauchos think of them as foreign? Their targets were those in charge and collaborators to the British crown. Were they not, having duly accepted the regime imposed by Onslow under orders from Palmerston? Why of course they weren't legitimate targets - and damn the Spanish accounts, because if Helsby says they were criminals, they must have been. Everybody's a criminal, except the British...right.

NOOTKA - don't come at me with that secret clause BS,the secret article only mentions establishment of any other power “ON THE COASTS IN QUESTION”. Thus, any settlements on the islands by Argentina subsequent to its independence would NOT automatically invalidate Nootka. You see how you just love to read things that aren't in the text when it benefits your position??

POINT 2: YES SPAIN DID REPUDIATE NOOTKA in 1795 when they declared war on Britain and - GUESS WHAT?? The treaty was reinstated in full after the war, according to the Treaty of Amity and Alliance between Great Britain and Spain, article 1, signed the 5th of July of 1814, it being an official document emitted by the British Foreign Office.

Hence, Nootka was in FULL EFFECT in 1814, and Argentina declared independence in 1816 when the islands were under the Viceroyalty. UTI states the islands therefore pass to Argentina. Oh no, here comes Clio, and frack international law. Like I said - THEFT.

Ribera - do you know about parents giving their children the same name as their fathers and forefathers? Must I explain every little obvious detail such that you cannot exploit it? Of course I must. By now I'm quite familiar with your argumentative style as you well know. Sure, Ribera was 3 years old and there was no 1540 landing and the 1850 Convention puts the issue of the islands to bed without ever mentioning it at all.

And I'm the queen of england.

“Hence, Nootka was in FULL EFFECT in 1814, and Argentina declared independence in 1816 when the islands were under the Viceroyalty. UTI states the islands therefore pass to Argentina. Oh no, here comes Clio, and frack international law. Like I said - THEFT.”

There was no international law before the UN, there was only conventions and treatys signed between nations. Argentina was not one of the nations who signed the Nootka convention. Nootka did NOT relenquish our claim to the islands.

“The treaty was reinstated in full after the war, according to the Treaty of Amity and Alliance between Great Britain and Spain, article 1, signed the 5th of July of 1814, it being an official document emitted by the British Foreign Office. ”

Actually, that article was added to the 5 July 1814 treaty on the 28 August 1814 along with two other articles.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1815/mar/16/treaty-of-friendship-and-alliance-with

“Three Additional ARTICLES to the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between his Majesty and his Catholic Majesty Ferdinand the 7th, signed at Madrid, August 28, 1814.

Art. 1.—It is agreed that, pending the negociation of a new Treaty of Commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to the year 1796. All the Treaties of Commerce which at that period subsisted between the two nations being hereby ratified and confirmed.”

It specifically refers to treaties of commerce. Nootka is not a treaty of commerce

“and Argentina declared independence in 1816 when the islands were under the Viceroyalty. UTI states the islands therefore pass to Argentina. ”

There was no Uti possidetis juris in international law in 1816, 1833, 1859 or any part of the 19th century.

TO ALL -The treaty of Münster doesn't list ANY islands. Are you saying that Spain claimed to island territories in 1648?? Last I heard, Colombus made his landing in 1492. You say “your claims of inheritance on that basis won't stand up in court.”.

Well I hate to tell you but it WOULD stand up in a British court of law. The “claims of inheritance” are based on a legal principle called VTI POSSIDETIS IVRE, look it up. The British used it as basis for the 1790 treaty of Madrid. If Britain had ALWAYS rejected Uti, you'd have a point - but they didn't, so you don't.

The modern concept of international law was not in effect in 1814, you are right in that conventions and treaties were the order of the day. But when treaties were in effect, they were considered laws of each respective nation, thus they constituted the “international law” of their time.

In 1814, as far as Spanish and British LAW were concerned, by treaty, ONLY SPAIN claim to the islands, Britain had none. It matters not one bit that Argentina wasn't signatory to Nootka, because between July 5th 1814 and July 9th 1816, Britain had NO CLAIM to the islands. THE BRITISH POSITION CONFIRMED THIS IN 1920.

Nootka WAS in full effect in 1816, the islands passed to Argentina under Uti, with NO COMPETING BRITISH CLAIM AT THE TIME.

You. Have. NO. Valid. Claim. You gave it up!!!! Just like you gave up every other colony of the Empire.

Why is this one so different? Why the need to perpetuate a wrong, a misappropriation, an act of THEFT that dates back over 150 years, with insolence and smugness and an air of inherent superiority that sickens anyone with two working neurons and a basic sense of ethics? I don't want war. Nobody wants war. But when you say “there's nothing to discuss” then there really isn't another option, is there. History shows over time the mighty fall and the weak become strong. You'd think a country that's been around for so long wouldn't need to be schooled on that.

You'd be wrong.

“Well I hate to tell you but it WOULD stand up in a British court of law. The “claims of inheritance””

How do you inherit somehing you take by force? An inheritance is something given, not taken.

“because between July 5th 1814 and July 9th 1816, Britain had NO CLAIM to the islands”

Still waiting for a link proving that between July 5th 1814 and July 9th 1816 the United kingdom dropped its claim for the islands.

“by treaty, ONLY SPAIN claim to the islands, Britain had none. It matters not one bit that Argentina wasn't signatory to Nootka,”

Again, Nootka did not give up our claim to the islands. We have never given up our claim to the islands.

“Nootka WAS in full effect in 1816”

Argentina was not a part of that convention, try mask it as much as you like, but argentina was not part of that convention.

“You gave it up!!!!”

Link me one single link that clearly states that the united kingdom or British empire(as it was at the time) had infact agreed to give up it's sovereignty over the islands...This will be difficult to find because it's a figment of imagination.

“You. Have. NO. Valid. Claim.”

You are right when you say we dont have a claim, we own the islands. We do not claim to own the islands, we physically do own the islands.

“TO ALL -The treaty of Münster doesn't list ANY islands. Are you saying that Spain claimed to island territories in 1648?? Last I heard, Colombus made his landing in 1492. You say “your claims of inheritance on that basis won't stand up in court.”.”

Read the text carefully. Spain and the Netherlands agreed that their territories consisted of the territories they held at that time. Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648

“The “claims of inheritance” are based on a legal principle called VTI POSSIDETIS IVRE, look it up. The British used it as basis for the 1790 treaty of Madrid. If Britain had ALWAYS rejected Uti, you'd have a point - but they didn't, so you don't.”

You are confusing uti possidetis juris with uti possidetis, two very different legal principles.

Thanks Dab, some interesting stuff there.... I'll have a read.

Uti Possidetis Juris was only an idea in 1810. Proclaimed as a foundation for inter-South American relations at the Lima conference of 1848 it has only ever managed to be a 'broad brush' in the delineating of borders. The concept was not much accepted outside South America until after 1945 and remains controversial even today.

The history of the Falkland Islands prior to 1816 at the earliest is all Spain/Britain, Britain/Spain. Neither renounced sovereignty, neither abandoned sovereignty as both left behind the recognised marks and signs to keep their claims alive.

There is still the question of whether sovereignty was in some way 'lost'. While British and American whalers and sealers continued to use the islands and make small settlements, there is no evidence that Spain did the same. The American position is amusing because following the Lexington Raid, they claimed to have 'inherited' a right to use the islands from the British.

What is clear is that Spain has not attempted to renew her claim following 1833, and I suggest that it can be said to have been lost.

The British have always maintained their right. Information passed slowely and ineffectively in the 18th and 19th centuries, but on every occassion that Britain became aware of Argentina attempt to stake a claim, there was a diplomatic protest.

Argentina's only serious attempt at administering control over the islands came with the arrival of the garrison in 1832. That wasn't around long enough to establish sovereignty!

Both Britain and Argentina are signatories to the United Nations Charter and that multi-lateral Treaty places duties and responsibilities on all members with regard to non-self governing territories. The Charter is the biggest Treaty of all!

It is on the basis of the Charter that the future of the islands will be decided. And the Charter favours the peoples of the non-self governing territories.

Job done! :-)

@48 AlejandroArgerich,
You're good for a laugh, l'll say that much.
1) Quite correct, we couldn't care less what you think or what you think of us. Glad you got that point.
2) l don't think everything belongs to me/us but l KNOW that WE own the Falklands and you DO NOT!
3) There is NOTHING to negotiate.
4) The hard way, eh? Action speaks louder than words, boaster. Come on then, lets see just how good you are.
For you it will be“finito la musica”.

A president decreeing that there should be nationalist indoctrination of

all children in support of a territorial claim is not the behaviour of a rational liberal democracy.

AlejandroArgerich , nice to see that you are slowly but possitively comming round to our way of thinkings, ,the truth is alaways the best policy,
the statement above, as you see, how can a civilised world ever convince or expect the truth, when the children are indocranated like that, you are all being brain washed, but you just cant see it,
she is destroying a once great country just for her own ego,
this is a woman and a lacky goverment, that would see the destruction of argentina, for her own private crusade over the falklands, that argentina has never owned , cannot you see the basic point,
if the falklands wanted to be argentinian, you among others would be the first to shout foul, if the british objected, and your main complaint would be, [if they want to be ruled by argentina, then they should have that right]]
yet here you are arguing over the very same thing, but in reverse, the falklands only wish at this time, is to be british, and if you and your fellow bloggers think that is wrong, then you kill the very same argument over your selves, cannot you see this very simple point,
just a thought .

No they were criminals because they murdered Vernet's representatives in the islands, motivated by robbery.

Vernet played the British and Argentine Governments off against each other, it was Vernet who urged the British to set up a permanent garrison.

But this is not to say the victims of those murdered were “collaborators”, they were simply trying to do their best by Vernet. And for information the Gauchos preferred the British as they paid in silver not promissory notes.

Don't let the facts get in the way of a spot of bigotry.

And sorry dear boy but Argentina was not a signatory to Nootka, it inherits no rights under Nootka and as an independent nation was most definitely a third powere intervening for the purposes of the secret clause.

I note you never answered why it took someone nearly a century to concoct this ludicrous argument and you ignore the inconvenient facts. Why am I not surprised.

Whether Nootka was revived by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814 is a matter of conjecture, seeing as the Treaty of Madrid is a very vague document that does not delineate the agreements that were re-instated. Notably the treaty falls after the period Spain had abandoned the islands and the British had continued to use them.

And no on independence nothing passes automatically to Argentina. Had Spain granted independence then the territories it possessed would have passed to Argentina but it didn't. Argentina revolted and took its independence, which was recognised by Spain till 1859 (the recognition being facilitated by those evil British). Argentina took what it could.

Utis Possidetis Juris was agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848 as a means of settling border disputes between former Spanish colonies. It is not a part of International Law, and as Britain was not a signatory it is not bound to recognise it. Neither can such matters be applied retrospectively.

I note that you simply ignore the fact that Argentina settled with Britain with the 1850 Convention.

@Zethee -“Still waiting for a link”/“Link me one single link”-WHY SHOULD I DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU? Look up the Nootka text yourself. “Nootka did not give up our claim to the islands”-I question either your honesty or your reading comprehension skills..oh wait, you haven't read it, since you don't have it. Can you also pull furniture out of your arse just as easily as these moronic baseless arguments? “Argentina was not a part of that convention”-IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE, Nootka applies insofar as it is a definition of the territory's status irrespective of whether a third party is signatory or not. The Czar of Russia and the Chinese Emperor weren't signatories to Nootka either, this does not preclude the fact that Nootka was in Spanish hands with British consent after Nootka. “You are right when you say we dont have a claim, we own the islands.”-OWNERSHIP IS BASED ON CLAIM, HENCE YOU DO NOT OWN THE ISLANDS, YOU ONLY OCCUPY THEM. BY FORCE. “how do you inherit somehing you take by force?”-Non sequitur.

@ Dab/Red-“Read the text carefully.” I did, it text makes NO mention of ANY islands by name; it mentions the “United Provinces” and the islands fell under that Spanish jurisdictional authority. By your reasoning, Cuba wasn't a Spanish colony either because it's not mentioned in the treaty by name, only the “E/W indies” jurisdiction. R U trying to tell me Cuba wasn't a colony of Spain after Colombus 100 yrs before Münster? Think, then write. “NOOTKA IS NOT A TREATY OF COMMERCE”-REALLY? Last time I checked it ended disputes
over both territory and commerce. “There was no Uti..in..any part of the 19th century” YOU ARE QUITE RIGHT, it PREDATES the 19th Century in English Law when it was used in 1790 BY THE ENGLISH for the Treaty of Madrid, so it was well-established in English legal principle LONG BEFORE 1816. “You are confusing” no I'm not, one is an abbreviated form.

@ Isolde - Chavs and Hooligans are not worth my time.

@ Others - responses coming up as well.

Perhaps some of the boys Argies can translate this to our friends in the islands. Marcos Alejandro, El Think, or Alejandro Argerich
Thank you A.G.
http://www.chw.net/foro/tecnologia-y-tacticas-belicas-f53/121270-malvinas-un-documento-secreto-britanico.html

“WHY SHOULD I DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU? Look up the Nootka text yourself.”

I have, and nowhere in the Nootka convention does it state that the Uk gave up it's claim on the islands. If you believe you have some other information where i might be mistake you should provide me with a link.

“OWNERSHIP IS BASED ON CLAIM”

Ownership is based on ownership. We own the islands. You claim them.

“IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE”

Wrong.

“ ... The principle of uti possidetis has historically developed in two forms--uti possidetis juris and uti possidetis de facto. ..”

Uti Possidetis = “ ... Uti possidetis (Latin for ”as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty doesn't include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail. Originating in Roman law, the phrase is derived from the Latin expression uti possidetis, ita possideatis, meaning “as you possessed, you shall possess henceforth”. This principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war....“

Uti Possidetis Juris = ” ... Uti possidetis juris is a principle of international law that states that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that their predeceding dependent area had before their independence...... Uti possidetis juris has been applied to in modern history such regions as South America, Africa, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and numerous other regions of where centralized governments were broken up, or where imperial rulers were overthrown. It is often applied to prevent foreign intervention by eliminating any contested terra nullius, or no man's land, that foreign powers could claim..... The application of uti possidetis juris has had mixed success ...”

Normally I would give the references, but you are not much inclined to, so do you own work AilingArg.

And Nootka is not applicable to the Falkland islands as the islands are not 'adjacent' to the coast of South America! If it had of been applicable, then the secret clause would have authorised Britain's actions in 1833 as Argentina was a 'third party'.

@ Briton - wow, someone who can reason and discuss issues in a civilized manner??? Tell me mate, do you have anymore like you over there? All my 'fellow bloggers' here seem to be either chavs, hooligans, or some sort of species incapable of deductive reasoning and/or proper grammar. Engaging them is about as enlightening as arguing with an ibex (google that for reference).

I completely agree with your first statement, indoctrination in support of a territorial claim is improper and I would much prefer pupils be presented with primary texts and be allowed to draw their own conclusions - as I have. I'm not coming around to your way of thinking, my only loyalty is to the truth - and that truth is the same truth held by Britain's official position in 1920. Most bloggers would like to cover their ears and scream “lalalalala I CAN'T HEAR YOU” regarding that as well as Nootka but the fact is, the evidence is there. If it were otherwise I would not advocate the policy of Argentina's rightful recuperation of these, so obviously, “Islands Adjacent” as the Nootka text puts it.

It might surprise you to learn that I am an ardent supporter of both the UN charter as well as islander's right to self-determination. I believe there is a legal side to it, a side involving historical texts and treaties to determine the territory's legal status. I also believe there is an even more important human side to it, that being the right of islanders to retain their culture, their property, and if so desired, their isolation.

What I CANNOT ABIDE BY is when the right to self-determination is used by a foreign power in decline to exploit resources from a developing economy, at gunpoint no less. So if I see a bunch of FOOLS who want to justify their CRIMINALITY, and thus decide to act as if certain historical documents and documented official positions of both governments never existed or somehow magically don't apply, yes I will speak up against them.

All others to be answered tomorrow.

The right to self determination is granted by the United Nations and included in its founding Charter. The Charter is agreed to and signed by all the members of the United Nations.

As a result the history of the Falkland Islands is largely irrelevant to the future of the islands (although I find the discussion interesting).

Britain is meeting its obligations towards this particular non-self governing territory in accordance with the Charter, and in exercise of their right to self determination, the Falkland Islanders have chosen to remain British subjects at this time.

That is in accordance with the UN Charter.

-@ Dab/Red-“Read the text carefully.” I did, it text makes NO mention of ANY islands by name; it mentions the “United Provinces” and the islands fell under that Spanish jurisdictional authority.

“United Provinces” means United Provinces of the Netherlands, that is who Spain signed the treaty with, not United Provinces of El Rio de La Plata. The Viceroyalty of el Rio de la Plata had not yet been created in 1648 when the treaty of Münster was signed.

-By your reasoning, Cuba wasn't a Spanish colony either because it's not mentioned in the treaty by name, only the “E/W indies” jurisdiction. R U trying to tell me Cuba wasn't a colony of Spain after Colombus 100 yrs before Münster? Think, then write.

No, not because the Falklands are not mentioned by name, but because they were not held by Spain in 1648, whereas Cuba was. There was no Spanish presence in the Falklands in 1648 as there was in Cuba. There had been a Spanish settlement in Cuba since 1511.
It is blindingly obvious that if Spain says its territories are those it holds, then any territory it does not hold is not Spanish. The treaty even allows for the possibility that the Netherlands might conquer a territory Spain doesn’t hold:
“comprising also the spots and places which the said Lords the States hereafter without infraction of the present treaty shall come to conquer and possess.

-“NOOTKA IS NOT A TREATY OF COMMERCE”-REALLY? Last time I checked it ended disputes over both territory and commerce.

In article 1 I the term treaty of commerce is capitalised
Art. 1.—It is agreed that, pending the negociation of a new Treaty of Commerce, Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with Spain upon the same conditions as those which existed previously to the year 1796. All the Treaties of Commerce which at that period subsisted between the two nations being hereby ratified and confirmed.

And therefore means an actual Treaty of Commerce, not one where commerce has a minor mention.

You will also note that as a non-self-governing territory, the islands are considered a colony and are therefore subject to UN Resolution 1514. I don't agree that as a result the history is irrelevant within the modern legal landscape. British High Court has affirmed as much insofar as the modern-day analogue of the islands, the forced removal of the historical inhabitants of Diego Garcia, a ruling later overturned by Royal Decree.

Clearly both cases demonstrate the hubris and self entitlement inherent to the concept of the so-called “British Overseas Territories”. You kick out whomever is there, bring in your own people, and all of a sudden you think you “own” it. BOLLOCKS!!

Now, I can certainly understand why islanders have chosen to remain British subjects at the time, given the lack of economic and political stability in Argentina in the 20th century. I can certainly support their right to self-determination, as I can also support their right to retain their cultural heritage (which I'd argue is no longer British), as well as their language, their property, their sustenance, and their sources of income. If one day they should wish to be something more than a subject, but a citizen, I would support that as well, whether by seeking independence or actively seeking to join Argentina.

But when the right of a people to self-determination is used as a pretense, again, by a foreign power in decline, to usurp territories that they have given up all claim to long ago, in order to exploit the natural resources of a developing economy, I MUST VOICE MY UNEQUIVOCAL PROTEST TO SUCH AN INJUSTICE. It is an injustice to Argentina as its rights as a sovereign nation are violated, and it is an injustice to the islanders themselves that their right to self-determination should whore itself with base neo-imperial agendas and ludicrous justification for such continued ACTS OF OUTRIGHT THEFT.

Self determination is one thing. Using it to steal is quite another.

The issue of self determination is not being used to steal.

The dispute over sovereignty was between Spain and Britain and was resolved in 1833 when British forces re-established control (never having relinquished ownership). Spain has never attempted to reassert its claim.

Theft is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another. Whether the appropriation in 1765 was dishonest would centre on the term 'belong' and that, as we know, was the foundation of the dispute between Spain and Britain. We also know that the 'appropriation' took place in the 18th century, not the 19th. So the action in 1833 could not have been 'theft'.

There was clearly no right to self determination in 1833. That right came along with the UN Charter. The Charter is legally binding on all the members of the UN. UN Resolutions are NOT legally binding!

The Charter in Article 73 places duties on the controlling powers of all non self governing Territories. Britain has met the challenges and duties so imposed and given a much greater measure of self government to the peoples of the Falkland Islands. Those peoples have expressed their desire to remain British. That may change and I hope it does. That's up to the islanders.

Article 74 places a duty on all the remaining members in relation to their dealings with non-self governing Territories including the Falkland Islands. Argentina is in breach of that legally binding clause.

The islanders are using their own resources and expressing their right to self determination. They are not using self determination to steal anything.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml

“Islands Adjacent”

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/51/5535.pdf

41. As regards the notion of proximity, the idea of absolute proximity is certainly not implied by the rather vague and general terminology employed in the literature of the subject, and in most State proclamations and international conventions and other instruments-terms such as “near”, “close to its shores”, “off its coast”, “opposite”, “in front of the coast”, “in the vicinity of”, “neighbouring the coast”, “adjacent to”, “contiguous”, etc.,-all of them terms of a somewhat imprecise character which, although they convey a reasonably clear general idea, are capable of a considerable fluidity of meaning. To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely “adjacent to”, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as “adjacent” to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other. This would be even truer of localities where, physically, the continental shelf begins to merge with the ocean depths. Equally, a point inshore situated near the meeting place of the coasts of two States can often properly be said to be adjacent to both coasts, even though it may be fractionally closer to the one than the other. Indeed, local geographical configuration may sometimes cause it to have a closer physical connection with the coast to which it is not in fact closest.

A man after my own heart ;-)

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/

#74 jako dobro, odlicno :)

Laku noc, bok

@74 AlejandroArgerich,
Didn't realise that you were such a hero. The boys have tied you in knots! You make threats then when your bluff is called you ignore the caller.
You are more fun than than that silly lcelander.
Just in case you didn't get it the first time, WE own the Falklands & YOU DONOT!
Suck it up baby! See you at the ICJ(if you're game).

Inconvenient historical facts ignored again and a “new” argument supporting the self-determination of the islanders but not if used by Britain to “steal resources”.

The Falkland Islands Government issued oil exploration licenses, any and all revenue from oil will go to the Falkland Islands. Britain is not involved. Britain isn't stealing resources and the revenue is going to the people whose self-determination you profess to support.

Regarding the C24, it is charged with acting in the interests of the people of non-self governing territories. However, it has become a morally bankrupt organisation seeing its role as providing a platform for nations like Argentina and Spain to grand stand territorial claims and to deny the people of dependent territories a voice in their future.

The UN defines 3 paths to decolonisation:

1. Independence
2. Free Association
3. Integration

The Falkland Islands has chosen Free Association, to remain associated with the United Kingdom but to have its own devolved Government acting in all matters except defence and foreign relations. For the purposes of UN 1514, the Falklands has been decolonised and it remains listed for solely political reasons by a committee that has never executed its mandate to represent the people of the Falkland Islands.

There is not the simple choice you demand of independence or forced integration into Argentina.

In the past the UK and Argentina negotiated ignoring the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. In a way the UK made the same mistake as the Argentine Government in regarding the islanders as adjacent difficulties to the Falklands and their “intransigence” as an obstacle to be overcome. The colonial system they endured at the time denied them a voice and sought to foist them onto a nation that viewed them as hostile. Substituting one form of colonialism for a much worse kind is not and never was a solution. Britain is now doing the right thing, it didn't in the past, Argentina should do the same

@ Isolde - you are clearly a buffoon. The only reason you incite and dare my personal violence is because you don't have the intellectual capacity to come up with a cogent response, let alone grasp the basic legal concepts of ownership and crown property, which you keep repeating over and over with all the mental brilliance of a parrot.

Go read Locke, and get back to me when the walnut-sized organ behind your thick, unibrow-adorned skull, turns into a brain.

@ dab - you are using 20th-century (ICJ) definitions of “adjacent” to apply to an
18th-century treaty (Nootka). Are you saying Nootka was written in 1790 with an intent of textual definition as given in a case to be decided in 1969 by an international judiciary that didn't yet exist?

Your deductive skills have already brought forth your conclusion that Cuba wasn't a Spanish colony because it wasn't specifically mentioned over 100 years later in the Münster text - ridiculous. You have also stated Nootka was not a treaty of commerce, which is also ridiculous. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you can't come up with a cogent response either, so I'm also going to ignore you now, because there are other bloggers whose lunacy involves levels upon levels of complexity and fabrication, like Justin. Sorry, but it's more fun to focus on their BS, which smells of so many distinct and unique notes of feces. Three strikes, you're out.

@ Zethe - fine, the reference is Article VI. In plain language, the British Crown agreed not to form any establishment anywhere in South America or ANY ISLANDS ADJACENT TO SOUTH AMERICA, south of any area already
occupied by Spain at the time. Spain had a continuing presence in the islands until the last Spanish commander, Pablo Martinez, abandoned them on 13 February 1811, following the events of the May Revolution of 1810 in the United Provinces.

@ Justin - your comments, as usual, are so ridiculous they deserve their own
exclusive response, which is forthcoming.

They have no right Malvinas.
There was a colony when he arrived Byron 1 year later.
You remember the year 1764? 1764

81 AlejandroArgerich:

1. It does indeed say that, what it does not however say is that t he UK gave up it's claim.
2. BOTH partys agreed to not to form any establishment anywhere in South America or any islands adjacent. Spain breached the convention by creating several settlements in San Clemente.
3. Spain unilaterally repudiated the convention in 1795.
4. Atricle six stated “it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question.”

Argentina is said other power, it was no longer in effect.
5. Argentina was not a signatory of the convention, you can not inherit rights to a treaty.

Also:
“that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”

Given that Argentina was no longer a part of Spain, the Falklands were not adjacent to territory of Spain, they were Argentinian.

Also. A 200 year old convention that you can argue untill you are blue in the face, it does not change the fact that the world has moved on since then....Conventions and treatys were signed between nations back then...this was a form of international law. Now, we have a new form of truly international law, the UN.

This convention even if it were to completely prove that 200 years ago the UK broke it completely does not change the fact that in this day and age people are entitled to human rights, they are paramount.

@83 zethe “that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”

The islands were occupied by Spain.
This convention represented a de jure abandonment by Britain of its claim to sovereignty over the islands because accepting the legal prohibition to re-establish a settlement in the Islands, Britain could not develop or maintain a process of claim sovereignty over them. (The Memorandum of Gaston de Bernhardt, 1910, produced by order of the Foreign Office notes: For this article, it is clear that Britain was excluded from occupying any part of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

@ Zethe, 1-The Tuyu area was named in 1580. Thomas Falkner surveyed the area in question in 1744 and named it “San Clemente”. By that time the area was already populated with a hacienda belonging to the Rosas family. Nootka was signed in 1790 after both events. SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? 2-If “San Clemente” was established in 1744, Spain left the islands in 1811, and Britain came back in 1833, it was then BRITAIN who first violated the terms of Nootka, not Spain. History moves FORWARD, not backwards, in time.
3-Spain repudiated in 1795, and it was reinstated in 1814, as I explained above. Don't just regurgitate the same incorrect statements over and over, if you're going to say something then SAY SOMETHING. 4-THE COASTS IN QUESTION, NOT THE ISLANDS ADJACENT, another thing I've answered above. You're making me repeat myself. 5-Argentina doesn't claim inheriting the rights to the treaty, Argentina claims the status quo before the revolution was the islands under Spanish Viceroyalty control with ZERO British presence from 1814-1816 which after 1816 passed to the United Provinces through Uti.

Before Argentine independence, you only had the right to “landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.” Furthermore, after Argentina declared its independence in 1816, Spain STILL had western hemisphere colonies and because Nootka was still in effect, Britain DID break Nootka's terms by establishing a colony in 1833 in territory south of the southernmost Spanish colony at the time. Argentina WAS bound to honor the terms of Nootka for access to British citizens and temporary structures, as Uti only applies to the degree of control that Spain could have exerted, which was defined by Nootka between 1790-95 and 1814 to 1816.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF ARGENTINA BENEFITS BY PROXY. BRITAIN BROKE NOOTKA IN 1833 AND ILLEGALLY OCCUPIED THE ISLANDS BY FORCE.

¡¡¡PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!! Lo unico que saben hacer es ROBAR - THEVES!!!

Exactly, and your little idiotic historical fallacies and arguments about Nootka not applying, or using the 20th-century ICJ definition of “the islands adjacent” for the 1790 text of Nootka, don't count for JACK SQUAT.

NOW LET'S SEE IF ANYONE HAS THE BOLLOCKS TO RESPOND TO THIS:

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our actionhas been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

“The Argentine attitude is neither 'ridiculous' nor 'childish”..I hassumed
that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far
from being the case”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO B.A., 1920

THE ISLANDS ARE NOT YOURS. YOUR OWN OFFICIALS HAVE CONCEDED AS MUCH. BUT WHEN THE FACTS NO LONGER FIT THE THEORIES YOU USE TO JUSTIFY THE ACT OF THEFT, OF FORCEFUL OCCUPATION OF A TERRITORY YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO, YOU CONVENIENTLY IGNORE THEM ALTOGETHER.

PRIME EXAMPLE: Joseph O'Grady, FALKLANDS GOVERNOR, stated in a 1933 dispatch that title based on prior discovery and settlement would be weak, thereafter conveniently ditching the prior basis for OCCUPATION (up to then, British prior discovery) in favor of the current one (acquisitive prescription, in other words, 'F-you'). Real civilized.

YOU SAY 100 YEARS OF POSSESION MAGICALLY TRANSFORMS A DE FACTO OCCUPATION BY FORCE INTO A DE JURE POSSESION OF AN OVERSEAS TERRITORY.

BOLLOCKS!!!!

THAT IS THEFT, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. YOU ARE PIRATES, YOU ARE THIEVES, AND THAT IS ALL YOU WILL EVER BE.

If you want to assert your right to SELF-DETERMINATION, you must first recognize that you are a non-self-governing territory of ARGENTINA, not of Great Britain, and after 1790 you NEVER WERE legitimately British. Therefore, your independence, if you wish to demand it, must be granted by ARGENTINA, as per the relevant historical documents regarding all claims and settlements in the islands, which passed from Spain to Argentina.

UK and Spain almost go to war, Nootka sound conventions are signed - 1790.

Argentina gains independance and spain withdraws from the islands - 1811

Argentina lands on the islands and sets up a settlement, thus breaking the convention - 1829.

UK comes back to the islands - 1833.

As a third power you broke the convention.

“Argentina WAS bound to honor the terms of Nootka”

No-one is bound to an agreement they did not sign, you are living in lar lar land. Try spin it anyway you like, you were not a part of the convention.

Also, if you're trying to get a point across. People are much more likely to listen if you dont bash the keyboard with the caps lock on swearing like a ranting child.

Oh my goodness me, another fine example of the Argentinian intelligentsia.

You misread my statement - read the WHOLE sentence:

“Argentina WAS bound to honor the terms of Nootka for access to British citizens and temporary structures” meaning that Argentina only inherited control to the extent that Spain had control, which was limited by Nootka. So, even under Argentine control, British citizens still had the right to fish, land, and erect TEMPORARY structures. Argentina was BOUND to honor British citizen's rights as delineated BY Nootka - that is to say, Argentina's inheritance from Spain came with the same obligations Spain had contractually agreed to. And in that respect, Argentina WAS bound to honor the terms of its inherited Spanish obligation, per Nootka.

But Argentina was NOT signatory to Nootka. Therefore when Col. Jewett arrived in 1820 Argentina did NOT break Nootka, as it had not agreed to observe Nootka. Nootka only established the islands' territorial 'status quo' prior to Argentine independence, that's all. The only way Nootka could have been broken prior to 1833 is if the Spanish, or a third power, tried to set up a colony on the United Provinces southern/patagonian coast, which didn't happen. As you know Argentina didn't have access to Patagonia before 1833, so option that's a non-starter. This leaves only one possibility, the possibility that actually took place.

The only party to Nootka that broke the terms of Nootka? BRITAIN, in 1833.

Hence the two quotes above, that NO ONE HAS RESPONDED TO, SO HERE THEY ARE AGAIN:

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our actionhas been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

“The Argentine attitude is neither 'ridiculous' nor 'childish”..I hassumed
that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far
from being the case”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO B.A., 1920

LET'S SEE WHO REALLY LIVES IN LAR LAR LAND. BRING IT ON!!!!

¿¿WHY ALWAYS YOU TAKE WHAT BELONG TO A SOMEBODY ELSE???

¡¡¡PIRATES!!! ¡¡¡LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS!!!

“NO ONE HAS RESPONDED TO, SO HERE THEY ARE AGAIN:”

No-one has responded because they are just the opinions of people.

“But Argentina was NOT signatory to Nootka. Therefore when Col. Jewett arrived in 1820 Argentina did NOT break Nootka”

The convention stated that if any third power was to establish a settlement then it would no longer be in effect. As a third power you broke the convention.

And again, It matters not if batman went back in time and broke the convention. It is irrelevant in this day and age, Human rights are paramount.

HERE'S ANOTHER NIFTY LITTLE QUOTE FOR ALL THE NEO-IMPERIALIST BUFFOONS:

“The difficulty of our position is that OUR SEIZURE of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

NOTE THE LANGUAGE:

1. SEIZUE - WITH WHAT? ROSES AND CANDY?
2. BANDITS - WHAT DO YOU CALL A SEABORNE BANDIT? A PIRATE!

Pirate, bandit, is the same.....all CRIMINAL, THIEF.

So, to repost - HERE ARE ALL THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY BRITISH POSITIONS ON THE ISLANDS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR A RESPONSE THAT IS COGENT AND MAKES SOME SORT OF SENSE, SINCE THEY ARE NOT THE OPINIONS OF PEOPLE, BUT THEY REPRESENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT.

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our actionhas been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

“The Argentine attitude is neither 'ridiculous' nor 'childish”..I hassumed
that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far
from being the case”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO ARGENTINA, 1920

“The difficulty of our position is that OUR SEIZURE of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international BANDITS.”

-John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936

COME ON NOW, LET'S HEAR ONE RESPONSE THAT I HAVEN'T ALREADY DEBUNKED. TELL ME ABOUT NOOTKA, TELL ME ABOUT 1850, TELL ME ABOUT UN CHARTER AS IF IT MAGICALLY ENDED ALL TERRITORIAL DISPUTES. ALL BOLLOCKS. THIS ABOVE IS THE BRITISH OFFICIAL POSITION BY BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICERS AND AMBASSADORS TO ARGENTINA, BETWEEN 1910 TO 1936, ESSENTIALLY SAYING BRITAIN HAS NO RIGHT TO THE ISLANDS WHATSOEVER.

AND NOW THERE'S THE UN, AND YOU HAVE ALL YOUR RIGHTS - I SAY, KEEP YOUR LAND, YOUR CUSTOMS, YOUR LANGUAGE, YOUR PROPERTY, YOUR BUILDINGS, YOUR LEGAL SYSTEM - EVERYTHING.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO EXERCISE SELF-DETERMINATION TO INDEPENDENCE, IT IS ONLY INDEPENDENCE FROM ARGENTINA. IF YOU WANT TO BE A FREE ASSOCIATED STATE, YOUR ASSOCIATION IS TO ARGENTINA.

NOT TO BRITAIN.

Just to point out. Neo imperialism is the art of controling another, soverign state through domination of its economy. The term you are looking for is just normal imperialism, or old imperialism.

No-ones going to answer you while you rant like a child with caps lock glaring repeating the same thing over and over in every post.

And you have not debunked anything.

@ “that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain”

The islands were occupied by Spain.
This convention represented a de jure abandonment by Britain of its claim to sovereignty over the islands because accepting the legal prohibition to re-establish a settlement in the Islands, Britain could not develop or maintain a process of claim sovereignty over them. (The Memorandum of Gaston de Bernhardt, 1910, produced by order of the Foreign Office notes: For this article, it is clear that Britain was excluded from occupying any part of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).
This is another recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands

Ok Zethee - I stand corrected. Imperialism.

Now let's see an answer. Is it because I used caps? Or is it because all your arguments now fall flat on their face as their lack of substance are so clearly exposed for all the world to see?

Sure I haven't debunked anything. I've only managed to cite sources that prove every argument thrown against me in the comments is either
1-misinformed (re: every comment),
2-misrepresents the actual primary source text (re: 1790/1850 documents), and/or,
3-defines the primary source text by future documents' definitions (re: Nootka vs ICJ, complete bollocks)...

....but no, I haven't debunked anything, right.

Anyway, if caps is your last excuse - there you have it, my comment, with no capitalization save where it is proper grammar to capitalize. I will also continue to capitalize the subjects' titles as it has been alleged that these quotes represent mere “opinions” of British subject, so as to downplay their official nature - a dirty trick that won't fly with me, given that these are all published by the Foreign Office.

So, here are the quotes of the official British position on the subject of Falklands sovereignty, and again, no caps from me:

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our action has been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

“The Argentine attitude is neither 'ridiculous' nor 'childish”..I assumed
that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far
from being the case.”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO ARGENTINA, 1920

“The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

-John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936.

I've already answered you. What do you want us to say? These are the opinions of three people, there are more in the UK with similar opinions. Just like there are people in Argentina with opposing opinions to yours.

“quotes of the official British position”

It is not the offical British position. These are the personal opinions of people who work for the government, People are allowed opinions.

The offical British position comes from number 10 downing street and has not changed. If these were the Offical British position on the islands, we would have given them back. The offical British position on the islands is that they are British and there is no doubt about this as our prime minister has recently stated in an offical statement.

“I've only managed to cite sources that prove every argument thrown against me in the comments is either”

You haven't cited one source or link in the entire thread, infact you refused to do so when i asked you at one point.

The facts are the same, Nootka was still broken by a third power and the Islanders human rights are still paramount. The UN and along with it human rights renders all old treatys irrelevant.

1-The Nootka secret article clearly states that the ONLY instance a third power could break it is in the establishment of a COASTAL settlement. The secret clause makes NO mention of ISLAND settlements. There IS a difference, as delineated by the Article VI's specifici.

2-I've made reference to various primary sources. What I've not done is YOUR LEGWORK, which in establishing the validity of your objection is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, not mine. Go find your own links. My references constitute CITED SOURCES, though to you they don't exist.

3-“..Oh sure mate, these are just three blokes talking out their arse, who cares what they think, everyone has an opinion.” Seriously, this is your argument??

Firstly, to say the Official British Position comes from 10 Downing Street is NAIVE - you are not citizens, you are SUBJECTS, and the Official British Position rests ultimately with the CROWN. In 1790 with the Falklands - just as in 2004 with Diego Garcia - the ONLY real power in the equation is not the PM, not the Judiciary, but ROYAL PREROGATIVE - THIS STANDS EVEN TODAY, just ask the Chagossians.

In 1790, the British CROWN signed Nootka, which was suspended in 1795 and reinstated in 1814, when the islands had NO British settlement and 100% SPANISH CONTROL. British citizens had only the right to fish, land and erect TEMPORARY structures, PER NOOTKA. The United Prov's, through Uti, inherited those territories AS WELL AS the responsibility to ensure the same rights to British citizens that were formerly Spanish responsibility.

What did you do? You sent Onslow, kicked us out by force. Some Gauchos rebelled, so you killed them and dubbed them 'murderers'.

Yet the British Government's official position was established by the CROWN in 1790. The Foreign Officers who made those statements above REFLECTED THAT TRUTH, these were THEIR conclusions given in a PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY IN OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. These weren't personal diary entries.

So, what do I want you to say? Guess.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS!!!!

JUST LOOK AT ALL THE BS I'VE PUT UP WITH SO FAR ON THIS THREAD:

-That the Argentina-Chile conflict was resolved through violence and not mediated compromise (wrong).
-That Francisco de Ribera (father) never claimed the Islands for Spain in 1541 (although his SON was indeed 3 years old).
-That England gave nothing up in Nootka (wrong, gave up everything except fishing, landing & temporary structure rights, but no settlements).
-That the British objected to Argentine Sovereignty in 1829 (the objection was over seal hunting, and yes, I looked it up, and the objections were over NOOTKA fishing rights, NOT ARGENTINE SOVEREIGNTY which wasn't objected to).
-That Antonio Ribero and 7 others were common murderers commiting acts of theft (that, for some reason, they found no reason to commit while the settlement was under Argentina's control).
-That Ribero's actions somehow turned into an Argentine myth (wrong, there are firsthand eyewitness accounts).
-That inheritance from Uti after revolution is the same as military conquest (incorrect interpretation of law).
-That Uti didn't exist in the British legal system (when it had existed for over 100 years).
-That Uti wasn't proclaimed in S.A. until 1848 (then what happened to the Viceroyalty in 1816??)
-That the 1790 term “islands adjacent” should be defined by a 1964 ICJ document (plainly asinine).
-That Spain failed to specifically list the Malvinas (or Cuba) in the 1648 Treaty of Münster because Spain didn't consider them colonies in 1648 (so Spain had ZERO island colonies ANYWHERE in 1648? Again, asinine).
-That Spain repudiated Nootka in 1795 (without mentioning that the treaty was REINSTATED in 1814).
-That well, no one's really sure whether Nootka was reeeeealy reinstated in 1814 (except for the very clear text of Article 1 of the 1814 Amity Treaty between GB and Spain).
-That Nootka was not a treaty of commerce (most idiotic comment of the entire thread)
-That Argentina's garrison was established in 1832 (wrong, 1820).

is all the LIES, BRITISH LIES

A larger web of self-deceit to justify an INJUSTICE, I cannot fathom.

And after you present this MOUNTAIN of BS, you now do what you've always done: flip-flop, change your position and say “well old boy that's all irrelevant now with the UN and human rights and blah blah blah”.

EXCEPT IT'S NOT!! Because the historical documents are the basis by which international law establishes whether your status as a “non-self-governing” territory is one in relation to being a colony of Britain or Argentina!!
And the historical documents show, WITHOUT A DOUBT that YOU ARE A NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA.
And BRITISH Foreign Officers, in their official capacity, have stated as much, just before they flip-flopped again last time during WWII. I understand, you needed your outpost, there were Nazis in the area and you needed to send them to the bottom. JOB DONE - now enough is enough.

No one is denying you your rights. What IS in question is that when you DO assert those rights, whether you assert them to the foreign power to whom BY RIGHT AND LAW the territory upon which you live BELONGS to. Not who occupies it with bigger guns. That can be disastrous, because Britain might have bigger guns today, and Argentina may have them tomorrow. Then your great-grandchildren will have to suffer, because you wanted to behave like chavs & hooligans, instead of compromising like civilized people.

So WHAT DO I WANT YOU TO SAY?

How about, for starters, “hmm, I never thought about that, you may have a point”. Or perhaps, “well if Spicer and Robinson and Troutbeck through
there was something to the Argie's position, it might be worth considering”. Or maybe how about “Argies and Kelpers should sit down and talk it out and come up at a mutually-agreeable conclusion, like leaseback, or something”.

Yet instead, you continue to change the facts or ignore them as they suit your continued hubris and intransigence so that you justify your acts of THEFT in perpetuity.

Without regard to the validity of either the UK or Argentinian claim, based on market indicators it seems obvious that the UK will not be able to provide continued, prohibitively expensive high levels of defence for the islands.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

The islanders aren't even British in culture anymore, it's more like twilight-zone post-war British culture in the islands that doesn't even exist anymore in Britain itself. Soon the two cultures will have nothing in common, and as far as the British are concerned, the ties are already loosening.

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

http://www.debtbombshell.com/

There's no way the military will have the back of the islanders forever. You can continue saying “there's nothing to discuss” for now, but in 20, 30 years, what will you going to do when John Bull is not behind your back? You will have to negotiate sovereignty to secure your best options for your own future - this is inevitable whether you like it or not.

¡¡¡FUERA, PIRATAS!!!

Oh right, then there's that aspect to it which I've neglected to mention. Completely agree with Hermes. As I've demonstrated, your arguments are all built on hot air. Go ahead and keep thinking there's nothing to discuss. Go ahead and keep thinking the UK will continue to have your back 'till kingdom come. Go ahead and keep thinking the historical documents, which BOTH SIDES agree favors the Argentine claim, will count for nothing insofar as it determines which country, Argentina or Britain, your rights as a non-self-governing territory apply to.

Go ahead and keep telling yourself all of that. See where your delusions get you, and whether or not your continued intransigence will ensure your future generations will be better off than had you decided to engage in honest negotiations instead.

I can only press you to sit down and find a mutually agreeable compromise. The fact that this generation of Argentines has decided not to take up irons against you once again does not mean that future generations of Argentines will reach the same decision. WE BOTH KNOW, odds are, the British war machine will only be a shadow of itself in the future, as consequence of an inescapable economic reality. You're already sharing your fleet with france - you think France is gonna mobilize on Britain's request for you? Please.

The sooner you negotiate, the better off you'll be - and the happier all three parties will be, when this issue no longer hangs over their head.

106 AlejandroArgerich
Well, you're the first Argentine to come out and openly say we should be a 'colony of Argentina'. And what do you suppose the C24 would have to say about that?
Just don't ever give us any more of your 'British imperialist' clap trap. At least we want to be a British Overseas Territory.

107 Hermes1967
Have you ever been to the islands or do you rely on trashy newspapers for information?
There is no place for any country to colonise another territory against the will of its inhabitants in this day and age.

Not saying you should be - I'm saying the islands ARE, de jure, a non-self-governing territory of Argentina, not of Britain, per last Royal act decreeing the official position of the British Crown (and by extension the Government), the Nootka Conventions of 1790, as reinstated in 1814, establishing status for the Islands and conditions between Spain's Viceroyalty of the River Plate and Great Britain. That territory, its status and conditions, inherited by the newly independent United Provinces in 1816. In 1833, Britain established a permanent settlement on the islands - a point south of the southernmost Spanish colony - THUS BREAKING the Nootka conventions with Spain.

Yet the United Provinces, in their inheritance through “Uti” while yet not being signatory to Nootka, could only inherit a LIMITED claim to the islands, a claim limited by Nootka when the territory was Spanish. “Uti” allows for inheritance of territory BUT ONLY to the extent and conditions such territory was held by the previous jurisdictional authority PRIOR to independence (1816). This means that the United Provinces, in inheriting the territory, also inherited a responsibility to British citizens with that territory, such that British citizens still enjoyed the rights guaranteed to them by Spain in Nootka: to fish, to land, and erect temporary structures and huts.

And because Argentina was NOT signatory to Nootka, but only inherited through “Uti” a status quo previously defined in 1814 by Nootka, this remains as true today as it was in 1790 as it was in 1814. I've looked at some of the buildings on the FI on google earth.

They don't look very temporary to me.

I can see it now in just over 220 years time long after some Argi historian as rewritten history once more some brainwashed Argi will be on whatever medium is used for bloging, crying about how in 1982 British pirates invaded the Falklands, and forcible evicted the peaceful Argentine settlers that were living there, and when that day comes nothing will have changed, the Islanders will still be there and some sad little Argi will be crying about it.

You can??

Can you also tell me the future?? For instance, I'd like to know exactly when Britain's public debt will be so overwhelmingly large it will have to follow the Argentine trend and declare default.

Or perhaps you could look into your crystal ball and tell me where the money is going to come from to refit the Type-42s when their service life expires in 2013.
Maybe the UK going to fund it with the nonexistent oil wealth that you are now fortunately only able to steal in relatively small amounts. Probably not though, seeing as though the Brits and Frenchies are now sharing navies to save money.

You wanna get tough with Argentine MEKOs? Let's see Sarkozy spend a dime on your little cause. PATHETIC.

Recuperation is inevitable. You know it. You just don't want to admit it.

,
Has not china now claimed all the south china seas, and runs straight onto trouble with other, countries,

The point is, do you think that all, and I mean all, counties with overseas territories, should let them go / force them to go. And or give them or force them into the jurisdiction of the nearest country,
Your, reply would be most interesting, after all what good for the goose, is good for the gander,
Also of note, is it true that this C24 and others have removed other territory’s from other countries of the list, but refuse to de-list British territories only,
Is this then anti-British,
or a conspiracy to destroy the very fabric of the British, like the demise of the roman empire when it finished , to the extent then it was swallowed up by Italy, is there not some, who would relish the demise of the British, in such a way, that they won’t be satisfied until even we are swallowed up by Europe, and become a part of northern France,
Just a thought, foolish thought, [but just a thought]

111 AlejandroArgerich
Don't let's go through all that again. Even assuming the Falkand islands ever belonged to Spain, don't tell me that Argentina inherited everything that belonged to Spain because it didn't.
And even if it did, can you please tell me why we should be a colony of Argentina? Ever? We'll see you at th C24 and get our independence first, you can count on that.

You seem to be saying that our right not to be subjugated by you depends on Britain's military power. Are you? Are you really saying you will invade if Britain doesn't have any more Type-42s?

in 1982 the Argentine goverment were say the British can-not will-not would-not defend the Falkland Islands and the Argentine people were dancing in the streets. well they were way of the mark on that, and no crystal ball needed to tell you don't get your dancing shoes out any time soon

@ Monty-The UP only inherited former territories of the Viceroyalty - no more, no less. I'm not saying you SHOULD be a colony of Argentina, I'm saying that the territory under your feet IS an Argentine territory, although you are not Argentine colonists.

This makes sense only because Argentina inherited a territory on which the previous owner had restrictions from the Nootka treaty - thus, when Argentina inherited the territory, Argentina also inherited those restrictions, specifically, the “fishing-landing-temporary building” rights to British citizens.

When you, as British citizens, OVERSTEP those rights and claim permanency or exploit resources beyond fishing - that's where you cross the legal line. Argentina has no right to subjugate you, but it has a right to protect its valid claims to the territories it has inherited through Uti. It also, because of Uti, has an OBLIGATION to preserve the rights of British citizens on the islands - that is to say, an obligation to observe the limitations upon its claim, as these were present when the territories were part of the Viceroyalty.

If you go to the C24, your independence (assuming the law and all treaties are to be upheld) is not going to be independence from Britain, but from Argentina, as both Britain and Argentina have agreed that Argentina has the stronger claim (see above quotes for British side).

Until then, it is YOU who are subjugating Argentina's rights, overstepping your Uti- and Nootka-guaranteed rights, by claiming permanency and exploiting resources other than fishing. If you want more, you should negotiate - but instead you deepen your intransigence. And, for now, you completely depend on British military power to let you get away with what you're doing (and yes, that is what I'm saying).

I am NOT saying Argentina will invade if Brits get rid of t-42s. But simply because this generation of Argentines can't or won't, it doesn't mean this will remain so for a future generation of Argies.

Hey Monty “There is no place for any country to colonise another territory against the will of its inhabitants in this day and age.”

I say there is no legal way a non-self-governed territory STEAL natural resources from a developing nation to benefit a declining power in this day and age.

Except by force - which is why the article was written in the first place.

Hang on a bit, now I’m confused,
Are you saying the British agreed that argentine had a better claim,
Please provide who said this, and the source please,
,, Argentina inherited a territory on which the previous owner had restrictions..
Does this then mean in part, that parts of Britain, actually belong to France,
i.e. jersey-Guernsey Alderney and Sark, and the isle of Wight
you can’t have it both ways old chap.
,,,,,,,,,,,
When British citizens, OVERSTEP those rights and claim permanency or exploit resources beyond fishing - that's where you cross the legal line
It also, because of Uti, has an OBLIGATION to preserve the rights of British citizens on the islands
,,,,,,,,,,,,
Surely this contradicts its self,
………………….
If you go to the C24, your independence (assuming the law and all treaties are to be upheld) is not going to be independence from Britain, but from Argentina
Again then surely you are saying that the Falkland’s are a colony of Argentina, thus entitled to independence, regardless, ,, but if as you state the Falkland’s are already part of,, then what is Argentina complaining about .to state she is already yours then Argentina should be on the C24 list,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You completely depend on British military power to let you get away with what you're doing
,,,,
Surely the only reason they have [rather than depend]
British military there is to stop you invading again, and to stop the threats,
i.e. if you were in no way a danger, then the brits would not be there .
I think most of this is and must be theory,,,

@ Briton - is Argentina china? We have peacefully resolved ALL our territorial disputes, except with one nation: Britain. I think all, I mean ALL, countries with overseas territories should let those territories go if their inhabitants wish it. If Puerto Rico wants to leave the US, it should be allowed. But the FI question is not like Puerto Rico, because no one else has a claim on PR as a territory.

The FI question is more like the Diego Garcia question, where a pre-existing legal status existed until a foreign power dislodged previous inhabitants by force, and now claim a right to self-determination as if they were there all along. Sure they have a right to self-determination, but from the rightful holder of the most valid claim, not from whomever went and deposited their forefathers there over 150 years ago at the point of a gun.

The fact that Argentina is the “nearest country” isn't why the FI fall under its jurisdiction, rather, the fact that Nootka was in effect again in 1814, Nootka placed the islands under control of the Viceroyalty, and the United Provinces declared independence in 1816 inheriting the former Viceroyalty's territories. There is a well-documented legal precedent for that claim, and that fact that it is a stronger claim than the British claim was admitted by the British Foreign Office in the citations I provided above many times. Physical proximity has nothing to do with it.

Is the C24 anti-british. I don't know. I agree what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I can only note that the British have a particular tendency to conquering by force, displacing inhabitants, bringing in their own, ignoring facts & pacts, and redrawing maps. Overall this has not had a positive influence on the world or Britain itself, so I can see why the C24 would pay “special attention” to Britain.

I don't think anyone wants Britain's or anyone's demise, although Britain and the US are indeed making good progress towards this on their own.

-@ dab - you are using 20th-century (ICJ) definitions of “adjacent” to apply to an
18th-century treaty (Nootka). Are you saying Nootka was written in 1790 with an intent of textual definition as given in a case to be decided in 1969 by an international judiciary that didn't yet exist?
The meaning of ‘adjacent’ did not change in the intervening years
-Your deductive skills have already brought forth your conclusion that Cuba wasn't a Spanish colony because it wasn't specifically mentioned over 100 years later in the Münster text - ridiculous. You have also stated Nootka was not a treaty of commerce, which is also ridiculous. You clearly don't know what you're talking about, and you can't come up with a cogent response either, so I'm also going to ignore you now, because there are other bloggers whose lunacy involves levels upon levels of complexity and fabrication, like Justin. Sorry, but it's more fun to focus on their BS, which smells of so many distinct and unique notes of feces. Three strikes, you're out.
You really do have crap reading comprehension skills. I have never concluded that Cuba was not Spanish in 1648. I have neither stated this nor implied this.
What I said was:
“No, not because the Falklands are not mentioned by name, but because they were not held by Spain in 1648, whereas Cuba was. There was no Spanish presence in the Falklands in 1648 as there was in Cuba. There had been a Spanish settlement in Cuba since 1511.”
Now, since this too difficult for you, I’ll say it in simple.
Cuba was Spanish territory in 1648 because it was held by Spain in 1648. Had been since 1511. The Falklands were not Spanish territory in 1648 because they were not held by Spain in 1648. Territories that Spain held, including Cuba, were Spanish. Territories that Spain did not hold, including the Falklands, were not Spanish.
Spanish because it was held. Not Spanish because it was not held. Is that simple enough for you?

118 Hermes1967
Fishing and hydrocarbons licenses are issued by the Falkland Islands Government and any revenue is accrued by FIG for the benefit of the islands. At the moment, that revenue is just enough to produce a balanced budget providing modest services.
And Argentina isn't a poor little developing country. It has massive natural resources and squanders them through incompetence and corruption. Why would we want anything to do with that?

117 AlejandroArgerich
We would never need to go to the C24 to get independence from Britain. We could have it for the asking.
We would get our independence from Argentina via the UN as we have nothing in common with Argentina and no wish to be Argentines.

There might come a time when the Falkland Islanders might think that independence was a good option. However, given the attitude of Argentina towards us, this seems like a distant and receding prospect. And you only have yourselves to blame for that.

The following are examples of Treaties of Commerce
Articles of peace commerce and alliance, between the crowns of Great Britain and Spain, concluded in a treaty at Madrid, the 11th /22nd of May, 1667
Treaty of Navigation and Commerce between Great Britain and Spain, concluded at Utrecht the 28th /9th day of November/December,1713
The treaty of Commerce between Great Britain and Spain, concluded at Madrid the 14th/3rd of December, 1715
They are specifically Treaties of Commerce, and they contain several articles regulating commerce, tax, and duties between Spain and ALL its territories and Great Britain and ALL its territories.
It is to these types of treaties that the 1814 treaty refers
Nootka has a minor reference to illicit trade with Spanish settlements in article IV and to commerce in article V

-2-If “San Clemente” was established in 1744, Spain left the islands in 1811,
An establishment means a settlement. Spain did not settle the area till end of the 18th century, beginning of the 19th
-and Britain came back in 1833, it was then BRITAIN who first violated the terms of Nootka, not Spain. History moves FORWARD, not backwards, in time.
Article VI says not to form establishments south of territories in South America ‘already occupied by Spain’. Spain did not occupy any territory in South America in 1833

Mmm, a little while back if anyone noticed I baited a little trap.

I pointed out that Francisco de Ribera was born in 1537 and couldn't have discovered the Falklands in 1540 at the age of 3. You will note I gave the opportunity to correct an obvious error but instead the reply was some rant about descendants inheriting the name of their father.

The 1540 expedition was lead by Ferdinand Camargo, it is indeed mentioned in Gobells at P.17 but notably he doesn't have the reference to correct his error, instead relying on other parties comments second hand.

The quotes he attributes to British officers are the same, second hand. They come from a book by one Angel M. Oliveri Lopez who trawled British documents, carefully delineating all those expressing a doubt about British sovereignty.

The approach is flawed simply because it ignores all of those opinions that were positive about the British position, instead focusing on those expressing doubts. Equally it ignores those Argentine who express a pessimistic position. For example http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1987/CRD.htm, in 1927, the Argentine foreign minister acknowledged the British position as “exceedingly strong.”

The trouble with most opinions on the Falkland Islands is that they're based on an erroneous info such as the claim of the explusion of 1833 that didn't happen.

Its a basic principle of contract law, the only people who can derive benefits from a treaty are those who signed it. Argentina can derive no benefit from Nootka, equally as a 3rd party it invalidates Nootka and releases the British from any restrictions. But anyway Alejandro, you know as I provided you with a legal copy of the document 4 years ago that the British have never accepted Nootka applied to the Falklands, nor did Spain as the other signatory.

THAT WAS 4 YEARS AGO

Furthermore as Dab has already demonstrated there exists a legal precadent at the ICj that would indicate Nootka does not apply.

-5-Argentina doesn't claim inheriting the rights to the treaty, Argentina claims the status quo before the revolution was the islands under Spanish Viceroyalty control with ZERO British presence from 1814-1816 which after 1816 passed to the United Provinces through Uti.

Britain withdrew the garrison in 1774, but did not abandon the Falklands. British ships visited the islands constantly, and British sealers stayed on the islands for months at a time. And, as has been pointed out to you, there WAS no uti possidetis juris in international law in the 19th century

What is asinine is your belief that Argentina could have inherited from Spain territory it took from Spain by force without Spain’s consent. It shows you do not have the slightest idea what an inheritance is.

Simple facts are:

There was no uti possidetis juris. Therefore, no inheritance.
Argentina achieved its independence by force, without Spain’s consent.Therefore, no inheritance
Spain did not begin to relinquish its claims to ANY TERRITORIES in South America until 1836, and when it recognized Argentina in 1859 and 1863 it was no longer in the position to cede the Falklands to Argentina. A state cannot cede what it does not possess. Spain no longer was in possession of the Falklands. Therefore no inheritance.

@dab - “not because the Falklands are not mentioned by name, but because they were not held by Spain in 1648, whereas Cuba was.”

NO, you previously established the standard to be actual inclusion in the treaty language, now you're changing it up because you see the folly of it. And you denied there was a CLAIM, not a settlement. If Ribera made a landing in 1540 and claimed the islands for Spain - THAT'S A CLAIM!! Again, not that it matters one bit, since the British Foreign Office has on several occasions declared the supremacy of the Spanish-inherited Argentine claim. Here they are again:

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our action has been somewhat high-handed”

-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

“The Argentine attitude is neither 'ridiculous' nor 'childish”..I assumed
that our right to the Falkland Islands was unassailable. This is very far
from being the case.”

-Sir Malcom Robinson, BRITISH AMBASSADOR TO ARGENTINA, 1920

“The difficulty of our position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

-John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936.

Note that these were not their personal opinions written in their secret diaries, as some have tried to assert. These statements represent the Official British Opinion on the question of FI sovereignty, based on the last position taken by the Sovereign regarding the status of Crown Property, as stipulated in Nootka in 1790 and then again when Nootka was reinstated in 1814.

Your arguments continue to be ill-informed and your conclusions continue to be incorrect. Furthermore, the Münster text never refers to Cuba by name, or any other islands for that matter - only jurisdictions: west indies & viceroyalty of the river plate. You=wrong.

Comment removed by the editor.

127 AlejandroArgerich

In 1910 Foreign Office officials were still saying that it was essential for Britain to hang on to India.
Are you honestly saying that our future should be determined by what Denys Finch- Hatton of the FCO said 100 years ago?
I'm starting to lose patience with you now.

No that is a blatant lie, those are opinions culled from exchanges between British officials and have no relation to the relevance of Nootka whatsoever.

You of course ignore the Argentine foreign minister for example who acknowledged the British case as “exceedingly strong.” or the fact that Argentina gave up its claim with the 1850 Convention of Settlement.

You harp on about a treaty that was never applied by either signatory but claim that Argentina a 3rd party derived benefit from it. Sorry no.

No wonder Argentina won't take this crap to the ICJ.

you quote 3 f/o ministers, but was it the officle goverment policy,
did not an argentinian politition some time ago state that the falklands were british,
surley in this day and age, no matter what any old agreement or the british, or the argentina goverments say,
it must be up to the people living there,
at this time , the falkland islandes who have voted more than twice in free elections, wish to remain british, surley on that basis alone, it has nothing to do with any other country or organisation, to alter ,, that clearly is the request of free people .
mmmm

My, my, it has been a busy night.

Far too much to go into detail here other than reiterate that the ICJ definition of 'adjacent' is perfectly applicable to the 1790 agreement. That's what courts do, they interpret words. Therefore, if the words used in Nootka went to the ICJ today, the court would look up its last decision on 'adjacent' and apply it for the sake of legal consistency. In any case I doubt that 400 km would have been considered 'adjacent' in 1790. How many days sailing was that then?

Also AilingArg you need to check out the Islas De Palmas case of 1928, which clearly states that turning up, making a claim, and leaving shortly afterwards is not sufficient for sovereignty. Which is why I go for 1765 rather than 1690, and why Jewett is irrelevant to the issue.

And I agree with those that have pointed out that the opinions of minor officials are not an expression of British policy, or even of Britain's position.

I must also reiterate that as interesting as the history is, the current status of the Falkland Islands is dictated by the UN Charter which Argentina signed up to. The Falkland Islands are listed as a non-self governing territory. Britain is the reporting authority not Argentina, although if Argentina had that position then it would be subject to Article 73 and have the same duty that the UK currently shoulders. In either event the islanders would be protected by the Charter and have the right to determine their own future.

Same, same :-)

The UN defines 3 paths to decolonisation:

1. Independence
2. Free Association
3. Integration

The Falkland Islands has chosen Free Association, to remain associated with the United Kingdom but to have its own devolved Government acting in all matters except defence and foreign relations. For the purposes of UN 1514, the Falklands has been decolonised and it remains listed for solely political reasons by a committee that has never executed its mandate to represent the people of the Falkland Islands.

Justin, this isn’t wholly accurate.
The UN defines 4 paths to decolonization. One was added in resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

1) The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, 2) the free association or3) integration with an independent State or 4) the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
(numbering mine)

Free Association has a specific meaning in international law. It refers to sovereign states that have charged other states with carrying out certain features of government (eg defence, foreign relations) because it can’t carry them out itself (eg if its population is too small)
Examples are:
the Cook Islands and Niue in free association with New Zealand.
Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau in free association with the US
The British position is that the OTs have been decolonized on the basis of the 4th option, not the 2nd . Its position is set out here:
http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm
pages 5 & 6

NO, you previously established the standard to be actual inclusion in the treaty language, now you're changing it up because you see the folly of it.

I have done no such thing. I clearly stated in message 55 to Redhoyt:

'Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648'

I never said anything about them not being mentioned.

@Briton-I can't comment on those. I can only say that Nootka placed restrictions upon the Viceroyalty, and Uti only allows for inheritance to the extent that such territory was under the previous jurisdictional authority. For Argentina, the islands come with rights to British Citizens, just as it was prior to Argentine independence.

That's why the statement doesn't contradict itself. You have SPECIFIC rights. When you go beyond those specified rights, claiming rights not specified in Nootka (permanency, exploitation of anything other than fishery) you exceed the rights that are lawfully allotted to you by the Crown's agreement to Nootka, which established a difference between the territory's status, and the citizens of Britain who possess CERTAIN LIMITED RIGHTS in that territory. What Argentina complains about is the fact British citizens on the islands regularly exceed their lawful rights by threat of force, pretending that the British have full sovereignty when in fact that had been given up long ago.

So it's the chicken and the egg - Bri military is there to stop us from invading; if Brit made good by her word there would be no need toinvade; Britchange the reason for sovereignty from “discovery” to “acquisitive prescription” after a parade of FO officials concludeAregntina had a stronger claim; Argentina sees no other option but a military one...and 'round about we go.

@ Hermes - you're right, we DO squander. But eventually we'll get it right, and then both the FI and Britain will need access to those resources. The only thing that matters is how harsh are the terms, and that depends entirely on intransigence, obfuscation, and illegal exploitation, prior to that point in history being reached.

@ Dab/Justin - I've already responded to all of those objections. You're trying to waste my time by making me repeat myself. If you want to prevent me from engaging in serious discussion with others, you'll have to get up earlier than that.

AilingArg - you said yourself that one Treaty can be overtaken by another.

Nootka may or may not be relevant but it's long been succeeded by others. The Charter of the UN deals specifically with non-self governing territories and lists the Falkland islands as being in this category.

Argentina accepted that when it signed.

The Charter has, by your own argument, changed the rights available to the peoples of the Falkland islands. They are exercising those rights and Britian is complying with its obligations.

Argentina now needs to comply with the Charter it signed!

Uti only allows for inheritance to the extent that such territory was under the previous jurisdictional authority.

There. Was. No. Uti. Possidetis. Juris. In. International. Law. In. The 19th. Century.

http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf

from page 8 of the pdf. Deals with uti possidetis juris from its origins

@ Dab/Justin - I've already responded to all of those objections.

No, you have acscribed to me things I have never stated or implied.

Ok, so I should trust some guy in Florida State (bastion of knowledge BTW, that's the “American Cambridge” I believe!!) over an ACTUAL TREATY THAT USED IT 40 YEARS BEFORE NOOTKA 1 WENT INTO EFFECT??

http://www.terragaucha.com.br/tratado_de_madri_eng.htm

THAT IS YOUR COGNITIVE MISTAKE!! Just because south american nations cited it within the context of a 'modern' application does not mean IT DIDN'T EXIST IN INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE 19TH CENTURY!!

CLEARLY, it predates the 19th, 18th, 17th, ........hell why count backwards. Here's a clue to how long it's been accepted as a standard of law: IT'S IN LATIN. Must be a clue!

Please, don't waste my time.

If the context has changed then the thing itself has changed.

@ Red, you are responding to what he said without reading. Read what he wrote, then respond.

What he wrote, there is no dispute that is a non-self-governing overseas territory. The question is WHOSE non-self-governing territory is it. Argentina signed the UN Charter. Argentina believes the Malvinas are a non-self-governing territory of ARGENTINA, not of Britain. Argentina so complies with UN Charter while Nootka remains in effect, because is no other treaty has superseded it between either Britain and Spain or Britain and Argentina that null its terms. So, it's the last treaty to be signed, so it stays in effect. UN charter falls in line with its terms, giving new status definition “non-self-governing” but without defining WHOSE “non-self-governing” territory it is. It is Argentina's.

In any case Britain broke the Nootka, irrelevant whether Argentina signed or not becuase Britan agreed to Spain it would not establish permanent settlement south of the most southern Spanish colony, this word was broken in 1833 even if Argentina wasn't independent or was conquered by Brazil or whatever, it STILL would have mean breaking Nootka IN EFFECT because was 1. a permanent settlement that was 2. south of most southern Spanish colony.

So, therefore, invasion was illegal, any way you cut it, with or without Argentina being part of it. I think British foreign officers 1910-1936 thought so too, after their investigation, based on official papers, and there is no denying it.

That would specifically be Article 74 would it not, along with every other Country on the planet; so why is Argentina not complying with Article 74 in relation to the Falkland Islands, when Argentina signed the UN Charter which includes it?

The UN Charter is binding, Argentina cannot take any action other than comply with Article 74; or do we have to put it all in capitals for that to sink in?

The UN recognises Britain as the Administering power in relation to the Falkland Islands. Not Argentina.

Nootka was an agreement between Spain and Britain, and I do not accept that it applied to the Falkland islands which are not 'adjacent' to the coast of South America as defined by the ICJ interpretation of 1969.

In any event, the UN Charter supercedes all previosu Treaties in relation to non-self governing territories. Britain is the recognised supervising authority and is complying with its obligations. Argentina is neither.

If Argentina did have responsibilities under Article 73 then it would be required to lead the islanders towards a true determination of their own future. There is no indication that it would be willing to do so.

140 Hermes1967
''Britan agreed to Spain it would not establish permanent settlement south of the most southern Spanish colony, this word was broken in 1833''

I'm sure that Spain will take this up with Britain if they feel so inclined. However, they may well think the world has moved on from then.

@Hermes - Precisely. Thank you.

@Red - I never said the islands weren't properly classified by the UN as a non-self-governing territory. I only said the UN Charter was not in conflict with Nootka. All Nootka did is establish the limits and extents of Spain's control over the islands, such that the same parameters would exist regarding what Argentina could or couldn't inherit via Uti.

Nootka clearly establishes Britain GIVES UP its right to permanent colony. Nootka also clearly establishes British Citizens retain certain rights in the island, namely, fishing, landing, and erecting temporary structures, establishing that Spain has an obligation to observe those rights.

Through Uti, the United Provinces inherit both the Spanish Viceroyalty's right to the territory - AS WELL AS Spain's responsibility to guarantee the rights of British Citizens. THAT RIGHT REMAINS TODAY, because while Britain broke the terms of Nootka in 1833 with Spain, Argentina is not signatory to Nootka and is therefore not a signatory party affected by Britain's actions - but IT IS affected, by virtue of the fact that Britain broke the status quo, and British Citizens have by force taken rights upon then that Argentina is not legally bound to recognize, as they exceed Nootka's specified rights.

Yes, one treaty can supersede another. The UN Charter did not invalidate Nootka, the terms of both coexist perfectly, one determines territory status, the other, territorial claim and limitations of both sovereign actions and rights of citizens. There is NO conflict, and NO other treaty since Nootka's 1814 reinstatement has nullified or superseded the terms of Nootka.

Though one side may no longer observe it, it remains in effect today with full force of law.

The meaning of uti possidetis has changed over time.

To the Romans it meant that when two people disputed the ownership of something, the person in actual possession of the thing could keep it until legal ownership had been established, after which he either continued to keep it if the decision was in his favour or had to hand it over if the decision went against him.

In the field of international relations this evolved into

a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated.

Uti possidetis juris is:

The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will
become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence

They are not the same bloody thing. The first version was in effect when the treaty of Madrid was signed in 1750, not the second. Rebel provinces DO NOT MAKE INTERNATIONAL LAW.

If you are so certain that you are right in legal terms, why aren't you campaigning for Argentina to take the matter to the ICJ? Why hasn't Argentina taken the matter to the ICJ? Why has Argentina refused to recognise the ICJ in 1955 when the UK took the matter there? As a great legal mind you already know that if Argentina or the UK do not have a sitting Judge on the ICJ Panel, that one of your/our own Judges can be appointed to sit on the ICJ Panel until the case is resolved. Why not the ICJ, the only UN body that can adjudicate on this matter? Is your case so weak, so full of the bollocks of which your fond to refer to, that it would fail? Is it because this failed case would mean you've all lived a lie since 1941? Is it because your 1994 Constitution would need to be changed to comply with the ICJ Judgement? Is it because all your politicians would lose their jobs, and your government would fold with mass protests and unrest? Are you such a weak nation that you can't lose because it would be too hard to accept? Are you not men? I suppose all that reaching around and being unable to sit due to your sore arses does weaken your resolve.

1. Because Argentina first has to pull its head out of its ass domestically before engaging in recuperation efforts before ICJ, which is the sad reality of its current state of affairs and, truthfully, has been since the first coup.
2. Because Argentina is weary of going before international bodies for mediation repeatedly, only to come away empty-handed, as it did with Britain in 1833, 1841, 1842, 1849, 1885, 1908, 1922, 1936, 1953, with an almost total peaceful resolution in 1968 that fell apart on december 11 of that year, 1975 after the discovery of oil....not to mention the post-war era.

THE WHOLE TIME, the British continue to wipe their arse on UN Resolution 2065 and 2621, 3160, saying there's nothing to discuss or negotiate. SO WHY WOULD WE GO TO ICJ?? IF YOUR WORD MEANS NOTHING INSOFAR AS NOOTKA IS CONCERNED, WHY WOULD WE ASSUME YOU'D ABIDE BY THE ICJ'S DECISION IF THIS WERE DETRIMENTAL TO THE BRITISH??

We have out problems. But we would be REEEEALY stupid to assume the British are actually going to make good on their word. They never have and they never will, the only thing they understand is force - whether military or economic.

Argentina currently has its hopes pegged on the latter, and by most domestic estimations, Argentina's process of ridding itself of mismanagement and corruption matches quite nicely with the point at which the British economy will decline so greatly that 1. they will no longer be able to afford their FI bill, and 2. they will be greatly dependent on Argentine agro for the wellbeing of Britons, such that they will be forced to finally negotiate in good faith...

...instead of another 1968 “tease”.

YES that process includes a constitutional revision. Why “living a lie”? There have been legitimate governments and illegitimate governments, we acknowledge this. Politicians MUST lose their jobs. Appointing an Argentine judge to sit on the ICJ panel would not be appropriate in the interest of impartiality. Our ass is fine.

But AilingArg .... Nootka did not include the Falkland Islands !

“ ... It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; ....”

The Falkland Islands are not 'adjacent' as shown in the interpretation of the ICJ in 1969.

In any case any breach of Nootka would be an issue between the signatories. I am not aware of any complaint from Spain. There is certainly no version of Utu Possidetis Juruis that is applicable to Treaties that I am aware of, even though the Americans tried to claim something similar following the Lexington Raid.

I am interested in your contention that Argentina considers the Falkland Islands a non-self governing territory of Argentina. I have not seen the phrase used by your government and would be interested to see any official documentation where the islands were referred to in such a manner.

It may of course leave Argentina open to obligations under Article 73 which would be .... interesting :-)

I submit that Nootka is long dead and the UN Charter is the ONLY Treaty currently covering the non-self governing territories.

HA! You wish it didn't. As much as you would like 20th-century ICJ definitions to apply to “the islands adjacent” term, they do not. Written in 1790, defined as understood by the authors in 1790.

AGAIN - is the contention that the respective parties drew up Nootka's terms in the 18th century having, in mind, the definitions that were to be later established by a 20th century court that didn't yet exist???

Hot did they do this?? Did they have a crystal ball?? Did Marty McFly appear in his DeLorean after three loud bangs and hand them a copy of the 1960's ICJ document, so that they would know the definition 250 years ahead of time??

And if so, why did they accept it instead of burning him as a witch??

RI-DI-CU-LOUS. If you could only see how ridiculous you make yourself seem when you peddle such outright asinine lunacy. A legal document is ALWAYS understood and interpreted by its contemporary legal definitions.

I don't have to wish .... it is a fact!

A Treaty is enforceable in international law.

It is the job of courts and their judges to interpret laws. Whether the law was made last week, last year or three centuries ago is irrelevant.

Where there is a complaint, for example over a breach, then the matter is placed before the judges who will interpret what the law says and the meaning of the various words.

Now unless you can find me a bona fide 18th century judge that has defied death to get into the 21st century, then any argument over interpretation will be decided by living judges.

YES, they will will refer to contemporaneous decisions.

Can you find one?

Do you have an 18th century legal definition of 'adjacent' ?

Without such, it is you that are being ridiculous and any modern judge would have to make the decision should the matter ever get to a court. I don't doubt that he's want to know how long it took to get from a port in Argentina to a port on the Falkland Islands and then attempt to put it into the context of the time.

Can't see that working for you!

How is that a fact? Sure it is the job of courts to interpret laws, but are you familiar with the concept of jurisprudence? What the law says and the meaning of the various words is determined through careful study of ANTECEDENTS.

Thus, despite the fact that they might be LIVING judges, no court of law can throw out jurisprudence and assign new definitions to previous definitions, willy-nilly. EVERY DOCUMENT IS CONSIDERED WITH CONTEMPORARY DEFINITIONS. Otherwise, all judgments would be retroactive, and the body of law developed over time would be USELESS.

Do I have a definition? Let's get to court first - then I'll show my cards. Regarding your last statement, adjacency is by definition a concept of DISTANCE, not time to travel such a distance.

If you try to go to court with such a definition - or claiming that it's ok to adjudicate the meaning of an 18th century text based on modern definitions - not only would that not work for you,

not only would you be laughed out of court,

but until recently, you'd be liable to find yourself in Bedlam, because what you are saying is INSANE!!

So .... you don't have a definition :-)

And of course there are the difficulties when one signatory has a civil law system, and the other a common law system. Have to take a look at the Vienna Convention to sort that one I suppose (where's PominOz when you need him?)

Time and distance are likely combined for a definition of adjacency. So what was the sailing time between the Falkland Islands and BA in 1790? One week? Two?

I can't recall offhand but I'm sure someone on here knows, for example, the date the Lexington left the islands and the date it arrived in the Plate estuary with its prisoners. Now that was later but it'll give an idea.

I submit that 400 km is not adjacent! I submit that a week's sailing is not adjacent!

Love to see you in court, but your government lacks the cojones. Not that it matters much. Nootka was between Spain and Britain. Argentina can derive no benefit from it. Besides, it's dead. Neither of the parties to it believe otherwise!

Hello Alejandro,
You're a real funny guy, more please. l haven't laughed like this for some time!
You accuse me of repeating myself parrot fashion then go on to repeat the musings of minor British officials at least four times. Never been called a buffoon before, oh well l can live with it.
You sound like a poltroon to me. You English is very good which makes me suspect that we have another troll on our hands.
lf you're not a troll & are in fact a genuine mis-informed malvinista then its easy to see what makes you angry.! Foolish boy.
l'll leave the legal history to the boys who have so easily refuted you & just present you with a few facts that you should know.
1) There is NOTHING to negotiate about sovereignty with your silly country.
2) Argentina has NEVER owned the Falklands.
3) Argentina does NOT now own the Falklands.
4) We will do what we like with OUR lslands & it's got NOTHING to do with you or your country.
Are we clear on all this, Mr Barrack-room Lawyer?
lf you feel so strongly about your so-called “rights”then go to the ICJ.
Feel free to rant, rave, scream, shout etc(please don't kick your dog), if it makes you feel better.

1)

151 AlejandroArgerich

Seems to me you misunderstand the English legal system. Yes it is true that English Common Law is is made by judges sitting in courts, applying their common sense and knowledge of legal precedent (stare decisis) to the facts before them.

HOWEVER

Under English Law it is entirely possible for Common law to be amended or repealed by and Act of Parliament. It is then the Law Act as passed by Parliment that is then used adn the sitting Judges have to use this Act as their new point of reference.

So what you state to be insane is actually perfectly possible under Enlgish Law.

” ... 1790 – Nootka Sound Convention No.1 (The Treaty of San Lorenzo) signed by Britain and Spain. The Treaty applied to North and South America and ‘adjacent’ islands but not to the Falkland islands which were too far away from the coast of South America to be ‘adjacent’ under the terms of the Treaty....”

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/

Couldn't have put it better myself ;-)

“We are unable-to reach to a categorical conclusion with regard to whom has more rights over the Malvinas Islands, whether London or Buenos Aires… The historical and. legal fights put in evidence so many uncertainties that we cannot pronounce a judgment about the legal validity of the historical claims, both from one country and the other one”. This paragraph, engaged in a political approach, post factum of the developments of 1982, contains a strong amount of an overwhelming discredit with regard to the permanent assertions of the Foreign Office and also of the Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, whose thesis, both tautologically and in practice, consisted in affirming that “the Government of the United Kingdom has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”. Within the honourable ambit of the Parliament it appears-with all the value that can be attributed to a committee of study formed by conservative and laborite legislators within the institution that not only legislates, but also enforces the British Constitution- this singular and opportune document which reveals the inconsistence between the declarations made and the essential truth according to the titles which those governments did not ignore. By the end of 1984, a step was taken in the right way by the Empire’s legislative authorities themselves: they ignored if the Malvinas Islands belonged to them or not, and so they made it public; one does not know if they did so to pay tribute to the supreme rectification of past mistakes, or as a derision to the world public opinion, to the principles of the organized international community, that has seen two countries engaged in a war because of a prey, a territory whose ownership could not be proved with complete certainty by the United Kingdom. In the background of the Foreign Office, there are too many explicit documents and acknowledgements as regards treaties, declarations, orders, etc.; they are also eloquent as regards the mere “manu mi

To Malvinense: I agree, neither Argentina, nor the UK have a 100% watertight case. But the paragraph you just quoted casts equal doubt on the Argentine version. Neither side has more right. That leave the third party, the islanders themselves, the only ones who will be directly affected by any negotiations.

AlejandroArgerich, Something you said about islanders in post 74. “I can support their right... to their sources of income” Then, a few lines later you refer to the UK as exploiting “the natural resources of a developing economy”. Most of the Falklands' economy is based on fishing (natural resources). So who is benefiting from the natural resources? Us or the UK?

In the same post you support the islanders' right to independence, but only support their right to associate themselves with another country if that country is Argentina. It does not sound to me like you only think we are allowed to make our own choices if they involve joining Argentina.

I'd be glad of your opinions on the following:

If the Falklands declared independence tomorrow, then the next day declared themselves a part of the UK, would you accept it?

If no inhabitants were killed or displaced in the Falklands in 1833, yet thousands were in all parts of South America right up to the early 1900's, why do you give Argentina the moral high ground? What is the justification for the presence of so many people of European descent in South America?

Why does the issue matter so much to you, personally? No-one is begin killed, or enslaved, or exploited. As far as I can see, you hate the British and can't stand the fact that they are getting away with a perceived wrong done 180 years ago. Why don't you come to the Islands and see for yourself the reality of the situation? Then you might be a little better qualified to comment on our cultural heritage, as you rather blindly did in post 74.

In the background of the Foreign Office, there are too many explicit documents and acknowledgements as regards treaties, declarations, orders, etc.; they are also eloquent as regards the mere “manu militari” appropriation carried out in 1833. The instructions given to Captain Onslow ordered:”… to behave in those islands AS IF you were in a possession pertaining to the British crown” (order of November 28, 1832 issued by the Admiral Baker). This demonstrates that the islands did not belong to the United Kingdom.
In this way, without exaggerating the meticulous details that the subject requires, the following can be included among such elements of the legal and diplomatic history whose main personalities were British public agents:
1) A well-established opinion of Mr. Thomas Samuel Wood, who had been consul general of Her Majesty in Montevideo and while he was. in office at the same time of the invasion and appropriation of Malvinas by a war frigate of the United States in 1831, recriminated an authority of this nation for having made an illegal incursion in Malvinas even though… “Luis Vernet (political and military governor) was legally appointed, since his title was granted by persons exercising the government powers and functions of the Argentine Republic, this persons being legally elected and appointed …” (1) .The communication is so assertive and the officer is so clever both intellectually and professionally, that in the light of the present doctrine of the International Court of Justice (2), that governs itself according to the old Permanent International Court of Justice, it is not doubtful that such a background can be considered as a declaration identifiable as the acknowledgement of the normal argentine sovereignty in the Malvinas Islands or, with the same consequences, by means of the implementation of the “estoppel”, that prevents the States from going against their own acts.

“ ... Both Argentine 2007 pamphlets mention that on 10 June 18294 the Buenos Aires Government issued a decree setting up the “Political and Military Command of the Malvinas” [“Comandancia Político y Militar de las Malvinas”], and that the British government made an official diplomatic protest to Buenos
Aires against the decree .The British viewpoint was that the islands belonged
to Britain, and that Buenos Aires had no right to do anything there. That formed the basis for Britain’s diplomatic protest of 19 November 1829, which preserved Britain’s rights. It should be remembered that no country in the world accepted that the islands belonged to Buenos Aires – Britain regarded them as British, the United States regarded them as open to anyone, Spain still claimed them, and France may perhaps have harboured designs on them, regarding them as rightfully French since they had been first settled by France.
It should be noted here too that the government in Buenos Aires at that time was far from legal. It was led by General Juan Lavalle, who had seized power in a coup the previous December and murdered the lawful governor, Manuel Dorrego. After Lavalle’s overthrow later in 1829, Brigadier Juan Manuel
Ortiz de Rosas took power lawfully – and declared all the Lavalle government’s acts null and void.... '

So much for Vernet's legal appointment!

http://www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf

Which sycophantic book are you quoting from Marvin33? And does it have any references? Sources? Or its it just the usual opinionated cr*p we get from your side, that comes with no evidence?

” ... 1833 – On January 2nd the HMS Clio arrives in the Falkland Islands. The Union Jack is hoisted and the Argentine garrison ordered to leave. The Argentine ship the Sarandi removes the trespassing garrison on the 5th ....”

http://www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf

Hurrah!

@ This clear and categorical position of the British consul general, as an expression of the reality made concrete through the facts, could have determined that, shortly after, the Federal Court of Massachusetts, with all the scientific and juridical rigor of its decisions and their political importance, also considered that the problems arisen in Malvinas’ jurisdiction were the ones that could be solved only by the Government of Buenos Aires. In that sense, the remand made by this Federal Court in favour of the judges of Buenos Aires is clearly conclusive in view of a demand presented by Captain Davison, who had been sanctioned by Governor Vernet. The remand said: “Whereas a navy officer, without any order from his government, in Malvinas Islands took possession of property claimed by the United States’ citizens- and as it was alleged that this property had been taken by a person who pretended to be the governor of the islands, it is declared that the said officer had no right, without the precise directions of his government, to enter the territory of a country which is at peace with the United States and to take possession of the property found there and claimed by United States’ citizens. The demand for the restitution should have to be presented before the judicial courts of the country”.

Oh, it's the Lexington Raid that you're going on about.

How's Argentina's claim for compensation and an apology getting on then? Getting anywhere? Didn't Cpt. Silas Duncan get some kind of Presidential commendation over that? Didn't the US Consul inform the authorities in BA that the islands were British and that, in some very strange way, America had inherited rights with regard to sealing?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about???

@ 2) Taking into account the same ideas and although the doctrinaires of the British side omit any allusion to that property, it is relevant to make, due to its direct connection and political importance, the invocation of the Anglo Spanish treaties. Since 1604, these treaties, particularly those of 1667, 1670, 1713, 1729, 1763 and the agreements of 1783, 1786 and 1790- the latter is called “San Lorenzo el Real” or “Nootka Sound”, which ratifies the Hispanic ownership, with a British guaranty, of all Southern America, including its coasts and adjoining islands- secured for ever for Spain and its successors, original possessions based on discoveries, first occupation, long period of possession with title of ownership, acknowledgement of the great powers and the Pontiffs of Rome, and geographical-political ascription.(4) Since the Treaty of Madrid and especially since Utrecht (1713, art. VIII), the Hispanic: imperium over the West Indies and adjoining-sees was so well established, that in 1740, when Russia wanted to make discoveries, the United Kingdom opposed to that on the ground that Spain was the owner as far as the Pacific, and England was its surety. See “An argentine land. The Malvinas Islands”. Ricardo R. Caillet Bois. Page 132. This is, without any doubt, a respectable support for Argentina, in its capacity of successor because of the principle of succession of States, the achievement of its emancipation from Spain and the comprehensive subrogation of its rights in the same way as Spain enjoyed them and in the same normal conditions as any other State that obtains its emancipation according to the International Law rules (5).

The decision of the Federal Court of Massachusetts was overturned by the US supreme court

http://supreme.justia.com/us/38/415/case.html

Comment removed by the editor.

The Falkland islands are not 'adjoining' .... or even 'adjacent' which is the actual term used ... so much for your author's accuracy!

Ricardo R. Caillet Bois - is that an english name? “An argentine land. The Malvinas Islands”. Published in 1948 .... hmm, he doesn't know much about the United nations stuff then? And published in Buenas Airies too .... in spanish!

Oh hang on - I've found what you've cut and pasted - a book with no references! Entitled - “The Malvinas Case. A Diplomatic-Political And Juridical Approach* .Dr. Camilo H. Rodriguez Berrutti” - another good old english name! And from the University of Salvador! Wow!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53114160/The-Malvinas-Case-A-Diplomatic-Political-And-Juridical-Approach

None of your own work then marvin33 ?

@ In view of the concretion of official acts as regards argentine jurisdiction and sovereignty, other treaties, like that of 1825 entered into between England and the growing state entity called Argentina or Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica (United Provinces of South America) or of the Río de La Plata, make it clear that England did not oppose to them, since the negotiator, W. Parish, did not introduce any objetion- although he was an outstanding and veteran judge of the reality where he worked- in view of several evident manifestations of the public power over the islands made by the governments of Buenos Aires. (6)
3). Nevertheless, nowadays, the record is growing and the developments make evident that the political declarations of ministers and Prime Ministers are completely unsatisfactory and ineffectual, when they affirm that “Her Majesty’s government has no doubts about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) As regards that subject, the documental acknowledgements, like the publication of the British Information Services, called “Aspects of the Commonwealth. The Falkland Islands and their possessions” (R-DFS, 4146/66, el.11.3, May, 1966) shed light on the case, by means of official confessions of a truth which is different from the version adopted by the political suitabilities of the conjuncture.

@155-I couldn't find a more biased source myself.
@157-The fishing is allowed by Nootka so I don't mind. But the drilling? I only
support the right to association to Argentina because that's the only right that
Nootka provides for. Argentina inherited territory and obligations to British
Citizens under Nootka, in which Britain gave up its right to a permanent settlement. Thus, the only nation that has the right to a permanent settlement is Argentina. You,as a non-self-governed territory, have the right to REMAIN associated (as you currentlyare, de jure not de facto) or sue for independence. I fully support both rights. Q1: If the UK accepted it, yes. Q2: Because inhabitants were killed, in a revolt againstthe British, whom the British have now dubbed common murderers - thus, it was an armedinvasion establishing a de facto government by force, and so, as deplorable as a coup. Q3: The same as the presence for so many ppl of European descent in the USA. Q4: I don't hate the British, I love the British, but I hate some things they do. Q5: Sure, ok, I'll take you up on that after I finish my studies I'll come over. But it won't change the fact that the legal and human aspects remain governed by separate law.
@159 Urquiza kicked out Rosas & re-validated Lavalle's decrees; Vernet's appointment remains quite legal to this day. Interesting that you mention Rosas since after being defeated he fled to LIVERPOOL. Funny how the British can always find spineless lapdogs to do their work for them so they can benefit personally. All you do is link this FI website that has zero citations on it and they you question other peoples' sources? Grow up. Nice buildings - are they temporary? NO=ILLEGAL.
@163 Dab, I see you've actually switched to outright non-sequiturs as opposed to onesveiled in flawed arguments! I congratulate you on your honesty, sir.
@165 Ok, Red keep telling yourself that the FI are not adjacent. Also, that the sky is green. LUNACY!
@Malvinence1833, Gracias Manu!

Still writes in Capitals, as if the crap he's writing has any more value to the reader than toilet paper, what a sad prat AlejandroArgerich must be. I assume he lives alone, as what woman could put up with such a dickhead that shouts all the time, a very tolerant one indeed!

AlejandroArgerich, you are a knobend.

Thanks Red, I avoided all the work.
I never said that the job was mine.
You disqualify the work to be in Spanish language? Poor.
Dr. Camilo Berruti is an expert in international law. There is Argentine, he is Uruguayan. You continue to disqualify experts from different nationalities, including British ;-)
In that document, there exist so many concrete and detailed records which wreck the traditional British thesis that insisted on assumed discoveries and the subsequent occupation that it is very difficult to give a better example of historic honesty about the excesses and arbitrariness committed against the integrity of the argentine territory. As a matter of fact, the document, of which importance we made reference to in the edition of our work: “Malvinas the last frontier of colonialism” (EUDEBA, 1975), adjudges the discovery of the islands in question to the Dutch; it recognizes the first occupation by the French (who gave them back to Spain because the islands belonged to the Spanish, as provided in the documents of Bougainville. by order’ of the King of France).

@168 Caps are for emphasis you imbecile. Not a knobend, but I am aprick to people who believe THEFT is a proper way of life (and rightly so). See, that's emphasis on the word theft, get it? Let me give you an example of shouting, so that you know the difference: “PISS OFF YOU FUCKING TOSSER, ARE CHILDISH INSULTS THE BEST YOU CAN DO YOU INCONSPICUOUS WANKER?”

See? Now you know the difference. As for the prison sentence you call “living with a woman”, I'll leave YOU to enjoy it. Since I AM a prick and since I DO scream when I please, I manage to get mine just fine. There's something about latin passions that women find much more attractive than British staleness and a stiff upper lip.

Why don't place the palms of your hands upon your thighs and press - maybe then you'll manage to head our of your arse and come up with a cogent argument, instead of lobbing pointless insults. BELLEND!!

Your 'response' @170 is all that is needed to reduce your previous arguments to nought, you are just Mr Angry, and not worth further study.

Alejandro, are you saying that the colonisation of South America was justified by the same process in N. America? If not, then you didn't answer my question, which was: why, when the “invaders” of 1833 did not kill anyone, are they such evil imperialists compared to your ancestors?

You love the British, do you? I don't, but I've spent a lot of time in Argentina and Britain and I know which country I'd rather be associated with. I just assumed you hate the British from your previous comments: “...another prime example what the word of an Englishman is worth: rubbish” (post 45). “...a nation of chavs and cockney-accented hooligans” (post 48). “YOU ARE PIRATES, YOU ARE THIEVES, AND THAT IS ALL YOU WILL EVER BE.” (post 87). “...behave like chavs & hooligans, instead of compromising like civilized people.” (post 106). “...to assume the British are actually going to make good on their word. They never have and they never will, the only thing they understand is force.” (post 147). “British staleness and a stiff upper lip” (170).

Re independence, if I understood you correctly, we could declare independence only with Argentina's consent. What, then, is the legality of Argentina's independence, since that independence was not granted by Spain?

@Wireless - why is that, because I give better than I get? You set the tone and I'll respond in kind. A determination that would reduce my previous arguments to nought would have to come from someone who first has the intellectual capacity to understand tham, which you clearly do not. Stop wasting my time.

@172 Ah, colonization - an much deeper question. Justification of the acts of one party vs. justification of similar acts by another. My response is that there is a general order of things - of understandings between groups of human beings. The United States launched wars against natives, as did Argentina. I consider both acts to be despicable, when judged by modern ethical standards. Just the same we should consider that both Argentina and the US don't generally occupy a generally higher moral ground, because before they were around, indigenous tribes regularly went to war with each other (i.e. Apaches in N.A., Mapuches in S.A., etc). My argument for moral high ground of Argentina is that Britain first gave its word that it would not establish a permanent settlement south of the southernmost Spanish colony. In 1833 is BROKE that word. That's bad enough in and of itself - to do so in the form of an armed invasion, that eventually claimed the lives of 2 gauchos who resisted, exacerbates the criminality of the act.

As for the British comments - I consider it all in good fun, and do note that the responses are given in the same tone as I received them - such as with mr. wireless wanker above. If that's the language they understand then I'll address them such that they clearly understand me. There's no hatred involved, it's simply effective communication to convey hatred for the heinous and criminal behavior they defend so forcefully - meriting a response of equal or greater force, language-wise.

As for your last comment, Spain recognized the independence of Argentina in 1862, legitimizing its possession of former Viceroyalty territories-including islands.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS LADRONES!!!!

And let me add....hatred of a people is a very strong thing to say. The British and Kelpers are doing something bad - something despicable - and defend it with fantasies based on fallacies, with an intransigence that many of their foreign officers have questioned repeatedly over time, as demonstrated by the sources that Manu and I have quoted. The accuracy of those quotes representing official statements contained in actual Foreign Office documents has not been disputed by any PM - even Thatcher.

So when you continue to behave like thugs, so sure of your position as if those British conclusions regarding Argentina's stronger claims had never existed, you discredit yourselves. And further still, when you reach for fantasy in re-interpretating of historical documents, such as examples I've posted above in #104 above.

Complete rubbish, every last one of them, and yet you parade about with them unaware of how incredibly foolish your intransigence based on hot air makes you look. You take a high-handed approach, say there's nothing to discuss, call yourselves “civilized” - yet, at the end of the day, you rely on nothing more than (declining and prohibitively expensive, see Hermes' #107) British military power.

Very civilized, indeed.

No, I don't hate the British, and I don't hate Kelpers either. I do hate Nazis. And I hate the Taliban. I hate ultra Wahbbis. But the British have contributed enough advancement so as to make up for their general dickishness.

Still, the vast majority are indeed chavs and hooligans, and they always were. Even the educated ones won't engage you in conversation unless you insult them first. I don't judge - I simply communicate in the most effective manner with a member of another culture, that's all. Take the wanker above on #168. I wanted him to leave me alone. I respond. Next thing you know he says “not worth further study” in #170. You see? Job done.

Slowly - surely - inevitably - Argentina will recuperate the FI.

There is a definition of adjacent in the Nootka Treaty itself:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

Its 10 maritime leagues.

You can read the secret clause for yourself as well and note the two signatories. Britain and Spain.

I note that as every point is rebutted with reason and logic, increasingly we see the resort to insults and shouting. As we have found time and time again, you challenge the faith over the Falkland Islands claim and they cannot accept it.

Argentina will never “recuperate” the Falkland Islands as they have never been an Argentine possession. The actions of Argentina have only driven the Falkland Islanders further and further away, then they are blamed for not wanting to do anything with Argentina.

Britain is not behaving like thugs, Argentina is to be frank, the bullying attitude of the current Government undid decades of good work and alienated yet another generation that Argentina can't be trusted.

And lets be honest about this, Argentina does not and never had a claim. Even Peron admitted he stoked up the claim as a device to unite the people and to alienate the people against the British; he didn't actually believe in it. As Escude demonstrated Argentine politics has always invented external enemies to blame for Argentina's misfortune, how Argentina shoulda, woulda, coulda but only.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

Some light reading for you to ignore

And to end a YouTube link:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

Enjoy

Correction: Dr. Camilo Berruti is an expert in international law. There is not Argentine, he is Uruguayan.
@ Justin, You are mistaken, the islands were never British.

No dear boy you are mistaken, the islands were British, they remain British and they will remain so unless and until the population of the islands make a decision as to their future.

Get over it.

Arsentina never had sovereignty over land opposite the Falkland Islands until the late 1870's.
For example they proclaimed sovereignty over Puerto Santa Cruz on 1 December 1878.

Justin - as usual, making up as he goes along to justify his incorrect conclusions. Explain to me where in Article IV the text says the 10 maritime league standard is the definition for the use of the word adjacent. Quite the contrary my backward friend, Article IV stipulates a very specific limitation on the sailing rights of British Citizens insofar as the prevention of illicit trade is concerned - for THAT reason the British have SPECIFIED A DISTANCE LIMIT INSTEAD OF USING THE “ADJACENT” PRESENT ELSEWHERE IN THE TEXT - clearly showing there are TWO, quite distinct, references: one to DISTANCE FROM THE COAST (10 N. L.) , the other to PROXIMITY TO THE COAST (adjacency).

For example, you come here again with that secret clause BS. I've read the secret clause countless times, so: FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, SHOW ME WHERE THE TERM “ISLANDS ADJACENT” ARE PRESENT IN THE SECRET CLAUSE.

SHOW ME!! You know why you can't? BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!! Only a third power's COASTAL settlement invalidates the secret clause.

NO COASTAL SETTLEMENT = NO INVALIDATION!!! ARE YOU SAYING THE UNITED PROVINCES SETTLED PATAGONIA'S COAST BEFORE 1833?

Absolute nonsense.

This is the quality of Justin's so-called “reason” that he uses to rebut clear, concise historical texts. Add 1, extrapolate 2, cite 3, ignore 4 and PRESTO!, the islands suddenly belong to Britain.

You know, it is amazing the lengths you go to in order to justify theft. Absolutely amazing. You want to be thieves? You want to be pirates? BE PROUD - ADMIT IT!! At least then I could respect you for being honest.

John Troutbeck of the Foreign Office was honest - are you disputing the validity and accuracy of this quote, or do you admit your dismissal of it because it came to light due to Argentine research?

“It is...not easy to explain our possesion without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”

-John Troutbeck, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1936

Q: What do you call a bandit at sea?
A: PIRATE.

Simple.

Not one word of logical rebuttal just a ranting personal attack.

Seeing as the meaning of adjacent is not defined, they typically a legal expert would look to the document for some clue to what the original framers of the document meant. As 10 leagues is mentioned, this is a reasonable presumption.

You see your interpretation of Nootka 4 years later still hinges on your creative intepretation of the word adjacent, just as it was Paul Groussac's creative intepretation nearly a century after Nootka was signed.

In 1833, when Moreno first lodged a diplomatic protest about the Falklands he made no mention whatsoever of Nootka, it didn't even appear for another 50 years.

And its easy to demonstrate an Argentine attempt to settle on the Falklands, the transport of Mestivier and his garrison in 1832. I wouldn't include Vernet's settlement, seeing as Vernet sought British permission first.

That would be a 3rd party....

So the best argument you can come up with is to play semantics with adjacent, which meaning in close proximity and even on a continetal scale, the Falkland Islands sitting in the middle of the South Atlantic don't strike anyone as “adjacent”.

Funnily enough, even when a legal precadent is pointed out to you, you can't acknowledge it.

The clear historical text:

1. A Treaty between Britain and Spain from which Argentina can derive no benefit.
2. A treaty that becomes invalid when Argentina comes into existence, as a 3rd party intervening.
3. A treaty which neither signatory ever applied to the Falklands, nor sought to apply to the Falklands.
4. A treaty which Britain has never accepted applied to the Falklands for which there was the pre-existing 1771 agreement.

So why can't you admit to yourself that the Argentine claims don't stand up to scrutiny?

The only thing I care about is the islanders being left in peace to decide their own future for themselves.

Stick a fork in, this one is done.

Alejandro, if you find the killing of the South American natives so despicable, why do you continue to occupy their land, just as you claim I am occupying yours? Is your justification really as simple as Britain breaking her word? Of course not, you continue to live there because it's your home and you think you have the right to live there, just as I do here. Is the Spanish occupation of South America is more justifiable because there was no prior agreement between the Spanish and the various tribes? You can't apply one standard to yourself and another to me.

You obviously know your history much better than I do. I had no idea Spain did not recognise Argentina for that long. I guess that means that Spain did not grant independence to Argentina. And yet, here you are, independent. And here I am, asking myself: “why can't we chose our own future, if they did?”

If your interpretation of the Nootka Convention is that Britain broke her word in 1833, well before Spain accepted Argentina's independence, then my interpretation is that she did so with Spain and the the events of 1833 are between Spain and Britain, not Argentina.

Don't worry, I'm not completely sucked in by every single pro-British piece of “evidence” that is presented and I can see the weakness some claims. It's just that your and other versions are no better, I'm afraid. And since a change of sovereignty would have absolutely no physical or economic effect on you, but would on me, you really should come and meet the people involved before you make statements on what's best for them.

-@163 Dab, I see you've actually switched to outright non-sequiturs as opposed to onesveiled in flawed arguments! I congratulate you on your honesty, sir.
163 was a response to 160. It’s just that 2 other posts got in before mine.

And flawed?. I provide links to evidence that backs up my arguments. You provide nothing that supports yours. No, your reference to the 1750 treaty does not support your argument re uti possidetis juris.
- It’s a treaty between long established states, not between rebellious entities, or between a rebellious entity and an established state.
- It’s a bilateral treaty, and, therefore, imposes no obligations on 3rd parties.
- The principle applied was uti possidetis de facto, not juris

@ The islands were never British. Spain carried on with this occupation with full rights since 1767 and also during the period between 1764 (the first French settlement) and 1767; and continued ruling the islands until 1810 when, owing to the May Revolution, the transference to the Argentine Republic took place. Therefore, nothing remains of the invoked discovery and the subsequent occupation mentioned by the Foreign Office in its communication of 1829 to the Government of Buenos Aires, if one takes into account that the British settlement of 1766 was not subsequent to the discovery, which took place approximately in 1600, according to the above-mentioned document; the said settlement was illegal -for it went contrary to the treaties-, furtive -since it was made public, only when the Spanish discovered them after a long search-, very brief -since it only lasted until 1774, when there was the definitive abandonment of the site, which was only an insignificant military outpost-, precarious -because it subsisted only due to Spain’s consent.

adjacent, from 18th century dictionaries.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1717
adjacent: lying near

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1758
adjacent: near or bordering upon

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1760
adjacent: near to, or bordering upon

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1763
adjacent: lying near, or bordering upon; contiguous, or touching each other

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

published 1766
adjacent: lying close, bordering upon something

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1785
adjacent: near or bordering upon

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOwIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:english+intitle:dictionary&hl=en&ei=ovUsTobRCMStgQeWkIn2Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
published 1788
adjacent: contiguous, lying near to,
contiguous: meeting so as to touch

Just out of interest,
if indeed, the falklands are owned by the argentines,
what would you do...or can you do,
if the falklands thus declares [UDI] from argentina,
and made it official, , just in case you owned them .

My argument for moral high ground of Argentina is that Britain first gave its word that it would not establish a permanent settlement south of the southernmost Spanish colony.
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
Things to note.
1)The prohibition on settlements applied to Spain as it did to Britain.
2)It does not say southernmost Spanish colony. It says south of the parts… already occupied by Spain. This means it covers unsettled areas between the southern border of the Viceroyalty and settlements further south such as Carmen de Patagones.
3) It says occupied by Spain. Spain occupied nowhere in South America in 1833. Perhaps you’d care to let us know when that changed from occupied by Spain to occupied by Argentina
4) Perhaps you’d also care to explain how Argentina derived the benefits as in 3) but not the obligations as in 1)
Note 1819 expansion:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Mapa_ARGENTINA_frontera.png
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Mapa_ARGENTINA_frontera.png
Tordillo first settlements 1814

FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, SHOW ME WHERE THE TERM “ISLANDS ADJACENT” ARE PRESENT IN THE SECRET CLAUSE.
They are in the Spanish version
“que los respectivos súbditos no formaran en el futuro ningún establecimiento en las partes de la costa situada al sur de las partes de la misma costa y de las islas adyacentes ya ocupadas por España;”

The islands were occupied by Spain.
Therefore it is a recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands.
England could not perfect his claim without the occupation
”During the negotiations and according to the text of the agreement of January 22 th , 1771, Spain made England recognize a specific restrictive condition of the previous right over the islands before authorizing a British vindictive resettlement, without the meaning of sovereignty. Finally, the settlement, of 1766 was partial outside the great two islands, in the islet Trinidad, called Saunders by the British, where they did not return any more, because in 1833 the islands were invaded in a different and remote place (Puerto Soledad) in a new episode completely separated from the preceding ones. The document R (DFS) 4146/66, issued by the British Information Services^ not only admit that the islands were neither deserted nor abandoned in the moment of the invasion in 1833, but it/concludes that the said invasion took place by means of an act of war, of aggression, with the expulsion of the garrison troops; the above-mentioned situation occurred while a treaty of peace, amity, commerce and navigation was in force and without any previous notice. The British affirm in this document that they had kept some kind of right when the abandoned the islands in 1774, by means of a symbolic lead plate, which was pulled out by the Spanish, taken to Buenos Aires and then to London by Beresford, but it was never put into its original place again.”

Marvin33, there's a world full of experts, but an unreferenced work is not worth the paper its written on!

And we did not 'abandon the Falkland islands in 1776. We withdrew the garrison but our sealers and whalers continued to use the islands uninterrupted. And of course we left behind the accepted marks and signs. No abandonment of sovereignty. We just 'popped out' :-) And in 1833 we popped right back in again. There were settlers there! They had British permission to be there so were not requested to leave :-)

AilingArg - play with it how you like, Nootka as a Treaty is dead and gone and affords no solace to Argentina.

Dab - excellent work on the definitions of 'adjacent'.

Yes, except for all the broken links - FINE WORK!

@181- DONE? I'll tell you where to stick your fork mate.

Here we finally see Justin's operative mantra, he let it slip in his response: “PRESUMPTION”. Whoops!

He has other tricks, like misleading statements. Moreno's protest could never just be a protest, it has to be a dissertation. A protest can never just be a protest in his mind, it has to come with a full bibliography. Of course it's easy to establish Mestevier's settlement in 1832, but since an island is not a coast - well, so much for your theory of secret clause violation. Of course no good deed goes unpunished, so in Justin's view, Vernet's notice such that British rights would guaranteed by Nootka become “asking permission”.

A “look by the way” becomes a “please sir I want some more”. Ludicrous! And what legal precedent has Justin pointed out? None! Then he tries to get me to respond to things I've answered before. Oh well, fine. Read up for more details:

-“Argentina can't derive benefit” (I never said it did, it only derives responsibilities, but it DOES establish status quo over the territory in question)

-“Nootka becomes invalid” (except according to the text and the facts)

-“Neither signatory applied” (except of course for Spain, want a map?)

-“Britain never accepted it applies to FI” (Of course the did, and the quotes Manu and I provided show this factors into the FO's conclusions regarding British claim. Truth is, you just like to pretend they didn't, which again is bollocks).

See, I KNOW Argentina's claims stand up to scrutiny, as did the Foreign Office between 1910-1936 (oh wait yeah I forgot, those don't count, because they were personal opinions written on diaries / napkins / some young lady's tits).

All to hide the fact that Britain's claim only exists based on the point of a gun,
a very EXPENSIVE gun that won't be there forever.

SO, ANY MORE BRILLIANT EXCUSES YOU'D LIKE TO FABRICATE?

@ all others - coming up.

The islands were occupied by Spain.

No, they weren't. Spain only had a presence in Port Louis. It was never effective over the whole archipelago. The first state to establish full effective occupation over the Falklands was the UK, after 1833.

“... Argentina can't derive benefit” (I never said it did, it only derives responsibilities, but it DOES establish status quo over the territory in question)...”

Argentina got nothing! No benefit, no responsibilities. And broken links or not, Dab just blew you out of the water. You said yourself that a court would look at what the agreement meant at the time. So, that being the case, they'd look at similar definitions.

Nootka is dead and long buried .... and won't stand up to scrutiny! But of course, to get any scrutiny at all Argentina would have to go to court. When?

Oh, I forgot. Argentina a) lacks cojones and b) signed the UN Charter - game changer that :-)

Oh and by the way, your english is excellent. You even swear like a Brit ! Don't tell me ... 1st generation Argie ?

Re UN charter

Article 103

In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

FIRST GENERATION?? Google “Argerich”, you tell me. UN Charter coexists with Nootka, there is no contradiction between the two such that the Charter would invalidate Nootka's terms. There being no subsequent treaty regarding status of the islands, Nootka is the last one and therefore remains in force - though you ignore it by use of force (also known as PIRACY).

Being sick with parasites and not having cojones isn't the same thing. But you go ahead and keep thinking it is - one day we'll have a nice little surprise for you.

All others - ok, you want links? Here's one: Spanish posessions up to 1811 in red.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG

OY, WHAT'S THAT LITTLE RED DOT ADJACENT TO THE EAST COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA??? I wonder..

But no, there was only one Spanish bloke left there after 1810 so it must not count. Oh wait, I forgot - AFTER THE MAY REVOLUTION HE WAS PAID FROM BUENOS AIRES. I wonder why.

@182- 1 - I am support native's rights and the right to reservations. I disagree with Argentina's position on this. But YOUR occupation is also conducive to an act of ongoing theft - you EXCEED your guaranteed Nootka rights as citizens of Britain. In the example you cite (Spanish and Natives) there are TWO parties. Insofar as the islands there are THREE. Hence the two issues are not the same - a more likely example is Diego Garcia. 2 - I am not saying you can't choose your own future. But Nootka and Uti estalishes that FI is a territory of
Argentina, so you are a non-self-governing territory of Argentina. It is Argentina whom you have the right to seek independence from, because Britain gave up her permanent settlement rights. Those went to the Viceroyalty, which went to Argentina, along with the responsibility to uphold the Nootka rights of British subjects.

@ 186 Briton - are you asking what my personal ideas are following argentine recuperation for the islands? Long answer but I do have one...

@189 Red, The voluntary loss of actual possession, even when assisted titles can and do become, over time, an impediment (estoppel) impassable to claim the right to restore the previous situation.
That is, the only objective fact which shows that its representation will definitely apparent neglect, produces consequences of law, notwithstanding any to break the continuity that is expected of such assignment nor trivial pretexts economy record national nor furtive, left in a lead shield.
Symbols do not impose an order or warranties.
In spanish
La pérdida voluntaria dé la posesión efectiva—aun cuando esté asistido de títulos—puede y llega a constituirse, a lo largo del tiempo, en un impedimento (estoppel) infranqueable para alegar, el derecho a la restauración dé la situación anterior. Es decir, el sólo hecho objetivo, qué por su representación expone aquella voluntad aparente y definitiva del abandono, produce consecuencias de derecho, sin que obsten a la ruptura de la continuidad que se pretende de esa cesión, ni los intrascendentes pretextos de economía nacional ni la constancia furtiva, dejada en una placa de plomo. Los símbolos no imponen un orden ni dan garantías. (Huber).

@186 - to answer your question about a practical response to a declaration of independence - well, in my opinion the islands have a right to self-determination to remain associated to the country that has the strongest territorial title (Argentina, as Britain does not).

So, per your scenario, should the islanders wish to exercise that right as a non-self-governing territory and seek independence from Argentina, then Argentina would have no legal recourse. Of course then it wouldn't need one, because in order to sue Argentina for independence they would first have to acknowledge Argentina's claim to establish venue, and this would by itself resolve the sovereignty issue which, of course, would satisfy Argentina. It is not the islanders we mind, it is the British - although we do mind the fact that the islanders take the side of the British, although this is understandable in view of Argentina's parade of domestic disarray during the 20th century.

Now, I should note that remaining associated to Argentina would also be satisfactory, if the islanders so choose. There is a real challenge here for Argentina, which is to build a nation so advanced and prosperous & willing to offer access to such bountiful resources and such stable markets at such generous terms, that Islanders will actually want to be a part of it. To that effect I would personally envision a treaty between Britain and Argentina such that Britain acknowledges Nootka with Argentina's inheritance under Uti, in exchange for a broadening of rights delineated by Nootka to British subjects on the islands. Under a stable and prosperous Argentina, a very juicy carrot indeed - and both nations can have a military presence in a joint base, conducting joint operations. Something to that effect - you stay British, the Islands are officially ours, we both benefit, and everyone is better off.

Such future prosperity is not entirely unreachable given Argentina is a relatively young nation, a hair over 200 years old.

AilingArg - few names are real here! Many people (not me) can speak a foreign language very well. Few can swear in it naturally.

Marvin33 - British sealers and whalers continued to make free use of the Falkland islands throughout the period 1776 - 1833. Spending months at a time in settlements on the islands. Even Vernet did not attempt to interefere or charge them. Which is why he went after the American ships. He recognised the British claim.

And the symbols were recognised internationally, after all - what did Spain leave behind when it evacuated the islands?

Argentina, as an independent State, on the other hand never gained effective ownership and control over the islands and so failed to establish sovereignty.

Nothing from Nootka, nothing from Spain, no Uti Possidetis Juris ..... nothing!

Even the Yanks considered the territory as belonging to no-one although they did claim a right to seals based on a combined history with Britain - hence the actions of the Lexington. After 1833 even the Yanks could not claim that the islands were unowned.

There has been an international court available to Argentina since 1922 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Court_of_International_Justice But even in the years when AilingArg claims that the British Government was riven with doubt, Argentina would not go to court. Why? Because it was also riven with doubt?

Whatever. All gone.

The only game in town is the UN Charter. And the only court in town is the ICJ.

Go for it :-)

@195 - Manu, permitime traducir:

“The voluntary loss of effective possesion - even when such possesion is backed by proper claims - can, over time, constitute an estoppel to the restoration of the previous situation. On other words, the mere objective fact is that a position which exposes an apparent and definitive ”will to abandon“ produces consequences upon that party's right, even if such position doesn't pose an outright obstacle that would rupture the continuity pretended upon by such cessation - nor the transcendent pretexts of national economy or furtive constance left behind on a lead plaque. Symbols do not constitute an order, nor do they grant guarantees.” -Huber

Observo que aparentemente un gran impedimento al movimiento de este tema es un lenguaje legal Argentino bastante formal y en realidad viejisimo, que solo se puede traducir a su par ingles con vocablos del siglo XIX. No se puede dialogar si no se entiende lo que uno esta diciendo - eso requerira una reforma en la Argentina, como muchisimas otras cosas.

@197 - You should hear me swear in french. As the Merovingian said...like wiping your ass with silk. As for the other stuff:

-British sealers and whalers had full right to do so under Nootka.
-Settlements were temporary, again, ok per Nootka.
-What Vernet did or didn't do has no bearing, since they were within their rights.
Vernet was right to recognize British rights under Nootka: fishing, landing,
temporary structures. At NO time did Vernet recognize a British claim upon the
islands that would grant British subjects rights beyond those which Argentina,
through its Uti inheritance of Nootka, was bound to obey.
-Spain did leave a plaque. Both the British and Spanish plaque meant nothing.
The only governing document was Nootka in establishing a status quo, and after
1816, that Status Quo - not any “benefits” - were inherited via Uti by the United
Provinces (as well as British subject's Nootka rights).
-Yanks don't enter into it.

“British sealers and whalers continued to make free use of the Falkland islands throughout the period 1776 - 1833” Great title of sovereignty.
The symbols are irrelevant, if not continued by other actions such as protest.
Taking also into consideration the Spanish occupation and the continued exercise of sovereignty without British protests. ;-)

Still living in that fantasy Nootka world AilingArg?

It'll get you nowhere.

Nootka never applied and I think Dab has proven the point over 'adjacent' whereas you have no definitiona at all.

See you in court ...... one day, maybe :-)

1. Yes, I'm sure in your backwards world a 17th century British legal mind working on a territorial treaty would take a look at this

http://www.mapsorama.com/maps/south-america/MapaAmericaJonghe.jpg

and conclude the islands aren't adjacent to the coast of South America.

If you truly believe this is so, I own a bridge in New York I'd like to sell you.

How long do you think it will take for Argentina to get its internal affairs in order and maximise use of its resources? How long do you think it will take for Britain to decide its military support to FI is prohibitively expensive?

Hint on that last one: the Royal Navy has already agreed to 'take turns' with the French.

See me in court? One day - YOU BET.

In the meantime, kindly let me receive my title.

And don't underestimate me because I am only a student. From the looks of what you've posted on this thread it seems you have a B.S. in BS....

....“SUMMA CVM MAVRIS” indeed.

Actually, you can call me Master :-)

“ .. How long do you think it will take for Argentina to get its internal affairs in order and maximise use of its resources? ...”

A: It never will!

“ ... How long do you think it will take for Britain to decide its military support to FI is prohibitively expensive? ...”

A: It never will :-)

Not only are our forces in the Falklands remarkably cheap to maintain, the cost is offset by the training opportunities, live firing, etc. After all, the UK is too built up to offer similar facilities. On top of that if (and I know it remains an 'if') the oil does flow then the islanders will be contributing to the costs.

And the French deal is a good one. After all they too have overseas territories to worry about. That said, the carrier decision may yet be changed and you fail to note the increased spending on subs and special forces.

I truly believe that the Falkland Islands are not 'adjacent' to the coast of South America for the purposes of the Nootka Sound agreement, and I've spent half my life concerned with legal definitions and their application in a court of law.

The Falkland Islands are currently British because the islander's wish it so. They will remain British while the islander's wish it so. The Falkland Islands will stop being British when the islander's wish it so.

End of!

Comment removed by the editor.

#203 - this is an english language site !

204 Learn spanish Rotted, this site is from Uruguay, isn't it? I know I know you pay the bills...

Hola Cura, si es similar pero de una generación mas nueva. HMS Sheffield es un 42 de la misma generación que ARA Heronia, su gemela. Edinburgh es de la ultima generación de los 42s, de 1983.

Red - not surprising. Mauris = shit. Magister = Master. Seriously can't you at least google things before you change the meaning of them....as you do with every treaty we've discussed so far?

You know what - please go on believing in “never”. The element of surprise is a powerful ally, and a better gift. Wow, great training opportunities after an 8k mile sealift. Maybe they can collect some of the massive concentration of methane gas from the fart cloud you live in such that they can fuel their ships on it. Yes let the old boys come over on the QE2 again - will methane gas power her?

Oh right, I forgot - she's rotting in Dubai. Shame. HEY - maybe Argentina can buy her in the future and her new name can be REPUBLICA ARGENTINA!! Oh don't worry, she'll be quite capable of performing a troop transfer role - just maybe not the one you think.

How nice, you made a deal with Sarkozy. I'd like to see him back you up. No carrier? And Argentina's own nuclear sub to boot? Sauce for the goose.

But no mistake, the islands are currently British only because the islanders have British guns at their disposal.

Please, PLEEEASE, stay under the impression that this is a permanent arrangement that is cost-effective for Britain. We Argentines reeealy need you to concentrate very very hard on this, and by all means also to continue your delusion that the British sovereignty case is “rock solid”.

The more detached you become from reality, the more advantage you give to us in our slow, sure, inevitable recuperation of territories that are not yours and never were (after 1790).

Comment removed by the editor.

Comment removed by the editor.

“ ... Red - not surprising. Mauris = shit. Magister = Master. Seriously can't you at least google things before you change the meaning of them ...”

Err ... ! I have an M.Phil .... so you can call me 'Master' although 'Magister' will do. You make a lot of assumptions ... but then I suppose students do, nature of the beast! :-)

Try not to make too many ... could screw up your qualifications !

Not never! Ok, let's say at least another 178 years then :-)

And we have NO DOUBTS about our sovereignty .................. hey, prove us wrong lol

Would be all too happy to oblige with a JD. No assumptions here, just common sense. If we don't have a common understanding of the meaning of words, then nothing can be proven to you, for you'll misinterpret all evidence presented.

If you have no doubts I welcome it - such intransigence would be a great advantage to Argentina. You would do well to embrace the positions held by the Foreign Office in the early 20th century, as I cited above. You say 178 - I say, 58. Potato, potatoe. The more you refuse to deal, the fewer benefits you'll be able to negotiate for during the handover. Early bird gets the worm - one day your grandkids live in buildings, the next day they have to live in tents to comply with Nootka. All because grandpapa was too hard-headed to heed the opinions of his own grandpapa - a shame.

INEVITABLE.

FANTASY .... you smokin' something strange boy ??!!

Moving on, I have spent some time trying to work out why the UNGA Resolutions on the Falkland islands stopped after 1988. My best shot was that it had something to do with the UK and Argentina restoring diplomatic relations in 1989.

Well, turns out that I was sort-a right. But, and I quote - ” ... All C24 resolutions on UK OTs reach the UNGA, except that on the Falklands (a position agreed by the UK and Argentina since the resumption of bilateral relations in 1989/90)....”

Agreed by the UK and Argentina ... interesting ? Anyone have any ideas as to the reasoning ?

Perhaps they just got bored.

¡¡¡Las Malvinas son Argentinas!!! ¡¡¡Pirates Ladrones!!!
The Malvinas are Argentine!!!! Pirates Thieves!!!

... lo siento.

Alejo, I understand your point that if the UK's 1774 claim to the Falkland Islands was limited by Nootka and Nootka was in force in 1833 then the UK might be in breach of that treaty with Spain or successor states. Presumably Article VII would apply under the terms of the treaty but was never used

What is not clear to me is why rights and obligations Nootka automatically transfers to non-signatories. If it did it also limits the actions of all successor states to Spain. This cannot be, can it? Surely the United Provinces simply did not recognise any Spanish agreement in South America?

If contemporary meaning of treaties is important in law, than the import of 10 maritime leagues & adjacent would need further clarification in court & the purpose of the Nootka treaty

I understood Nootka to be a conditional agreement between the Spanish Empire and the British Empire to define spheres of influence and to agree to cease competition between the two Empires for territory provided the status quo prevailed. The treaty seems to make clear that if any other powers other than Spain make settlements then the treaty is void

I also note many countries have gained and lost territory since 1833, often by force or simple occupation and then long-standing possession. I am aware of the 1850 Convention and I thought this was a contemporary settling of the dispute then later revived

Given the most modern treaty between states is the UN Charter treaty & Article 103 expressly makes obligations under the charter prevail over other treaties then the requirements of Article 73 prevail over Nootka, were Nootka to be still effective.

Also, if uti possidetis conventions of international law do apply to the modern day, then is not the outcome of the 1982 conflict a lawful “as you possess” outcome?

A claim to the ICJ for an advisory ruling might help all agree

The Islanders wishes are paramount, Argentina's attempts to portray and treat them as second class citizens are unacceptable and shows a facist type mindset.

@213 Domingo,
They change facts to suit themselves.
@AlejandroArgerich,
You are the ladrones,
1)give back the land your country stole from Paraguay
2)give back the land you forced Chile to hand over so they didn't have to fight on two fronts.
Hypocrite!

210 AlejandroArgerich

Can I just encourage you to look at your comment critically and try to understand why we really don't want anything to do with you?
'You'd better do what we want now or we'll treat you really badly in the future'???? Eeew, that's really quite nasty.

Happily, we really don't need your permission to live in houses rather than tents. And if you think the international community would countenance our mistreatment, you should think again. One thing you might think about is how it refects on you. Is this really how you want to be seen by the world?

AilingArg and NootkaSoundLand ... a land of fun and frolicks, located adjacent to FantasyIsland ... only 400km away. If you stand on tippy-toe you can see one from the other .... probably, ... on a clear day ..... if you are 1000 metres tall :-)

Sorry! Had a beer :-)))

at least I understand rather more about the failings of the C-24 and the Uk's relationship with them. Interesting day. Dick Swales speech to that worthless Committee is worth keeping alive - http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/

@213 Considering the UK's refusal to negotiate, the solution for me is the ICJ.
There is all or nothing.

Sorry Dick - typo.

Somebody answer me this, which idiot designed a touch screen then sold it to a country full of bl**dy insects!

Marvin33 - go for it. Convince your government. But what question will the ICJ be asked to answer ??

Argentina has a good chance of winning.
I think slowly U.K. Argentina is pushing to go to the ICJ. I like that possibility.
Question: which of the two countries has better title to Malvinas?

Seriously RedHole....PhD in what? In OBK? ( Often butt kicked)
You still can t sittdown don t u?

This time from a young argentinean student....brillant i must add.
Easy cake really

Odlicno Alejrandro

Ah Alejandro gracias por la traducción, como ves cero inglés, hay muchas cosas que no puedo decirles porque estoy limitado por el idioma, en eso tienen mucha suerte.
Thank you Alejandro for the translation.

That's not likely to be the question Marvin33 ... more like, “ Do the Falkland Islander's have the right to self determination under the UN Charter?”

Fancy your chances at the ICJ? After Kosovo? Hey, go for it !

SoFa - M.Phil, not PhD. Argentine students? Eat 'em for breakfast :-)

well, don´t seem that mate....beware of indigestion, I think you can fall very badly.

Little tip, do not underestimate people ..... one day may have a big surprise.
:)

Red, Okay, another question is possible, but that question is of the United Kingdom.
Malvinas is not Kosovo.

“Malvinas is not Kosovo”

Yes, and nor are they Argentina...

Hola AlejandroArgerich. Muchas gracias por tu respuesta.
Al resto de la gente les aclaro que no sé redactar bien en idioma inglés, es por esto que estoy traduciendo con el traductor de google, y como sé que este traductor aveces no es eficiente, también publicaré mi comentario en mi idioma natal.

Thanks
translation:
AlejandroArgerich Hello. Thank you very much for your response.
The rest of the people made it clear I do not know write well in English, which is why I am translating with google translator, and as I know this is not efficient translator sometimes also publish my comment in my native language.

(202) Hoyt
You say:
“I truly believe that the Falkland Islands are not 'adjacent' to the coast of South America for the purposes of the Nootka Sound agreement, and I've spent half my life concerned with legal definitions and their application in a court of law.”

Yet, on another thread you said :
“…………I suspect that the term 'adjacent' would not include anything more than a day's sailing away. That would certainly put the Falklands outside of Nootka.....”

I say:
Precisely the opposite Mr Hoyt; precisely the opposite…………
You should have spent more time sailing and less working, lad…………

A 1790 Sailship would easily average 12 to 15 knots per hour in the brisk breezes of the South Atlantic.
Therefore...............
If we accept that a day has 24 hours, that would result in: 12 x 24 = 288 knots.
And.............
If we accept that a knot is 1.852 km. that would result in: 288 x 1.852 = 533 km
And..............
If we accept that the distance between insular Malvinas and continental Argentina is about 500 km (Google Earth)
Then, it must mean that........
You consider las Malvinas to be adjacent to Argentina.

Chuckle chuckle ™

Ps:
To ElCuraF
Don't feel bad for not being able to write in English.
We have Alejandro Argerich that writes it much better than most of the Brits in here:-)

Quite impressive................

I have never contibuted to any of these discussions before, but I read them often with fascination and amusement (I'm a Brit living in Spain).

#228 Think: I think you are way off in your estimation that an 18th century ship could do 533 km in a 24-hour period.
In September 1775, Commodore John Barry (USN) captured the the 18th century speed record for a Trans-Atlantic crossing of ocean, recording 237 miles travelled during one 24 hour period. 237 miles = 379 km, which is way short of your estimate. Also, that's a record, so the vast majority of ships are going to be way short of that. So, even going at world record speed, you are over 100 km short of the Falkland Islands

Crackpot (#229) let me say that Think (#228) maybe is right. Maybe he gets his information according de Argentine INDEC.
And, for all the argies, let me say: Falkland belong to the islanders, they deserve their right to self-determination, and they can be associate to any State they want. PERIOD!! It's time for us, argentines, to accept it and start working for a better future in our country.
The article was about a ship and the commentaries turned to be about the Falkland and who has rights over them. It is nonsense!!

230 Rob the Argentine

If those winds blow as hard as 228 then we might be onto a loser with that. Anyway thanks for your comments, I also support the Islanders right to determine their own future.

There we go again, no actual response to the logic of the argument but the resort to a personal attack on the integrity of the person making it. This of course comes as no surprise.

Again, why did Moreno not happen to mention Nootka but gave chapter and verse about the agreement of 1771 and the claim of a secret agreement that never existed?

Again Argentina derived no benefit from Nootka as a non-signatory, nor does it confer anything up Argentina, as Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain it asserted and took its independence by force of arms, which was not recognised by Spain till 1859. Take it to an International Lawyer of any repute and they will tell you there is no mechanism in International Law for that to happen.

You claim that Britain relinquished the Falklands through Nootka, it did not, it never accepted that Nootka applied to the Falklands, neither did Spain or Britain as the signatories to that treaty ever claim it applied.

As I pointed out to you, this is a contrived argument, manufactured nearly a century later based on some creative interpretation of words in the treaty. This is why no one thought to mention in 1833, as no one had conceived the idea yet.

And if you look above, I provide a link which says precisely that, the same link I provided 4 years ago when you first started stalking.

Your claim and Argentina's claim do not stand up to scrutiny and quoting a few foreign office officials from 1910 is not a convincing argument. The fact is that Britain has offered the ICJ route but Argentina simply doesn't have the balls to have its claim examined too closely as they know they'd lose.

You more or less admit as much when you constantly repeat the same worn and tired argument, long after it has been rebutted as if constantly chanting the same mantra in a childish manner will make a difference.

BTW the Spanish settlement in the Falklands was adminstered from Monetevideo in 1810, had been since 1806.

(229) Crackpot

Many thanks for your contribution.
I checked your info about that American recorded speed and it is right.
I bow of course to historic evidence …………………………….............................but:

Firstly, it is evident that this record is measured in knots/nautical miles, not just in miles.
237 nautical miles x 1.852 km gives : ***438.92 km***

Secondly, If we just choose the SHORTEST distance between Argentina (Isla de los Estados) and Gran Malvina Island that is: ***344km***
Then, as you self can see; well within one day’s sailing away in the “Roaring Forties………..
Adjacent indeed using Mr. Redhoyt's own definition......
Respectfully
El Think

(230) Rob the argentine
Would you be so kind to prove to us that you are the Argentinean you, so insistently, claim to be???

A simple but correct translation of your own English text into Spanish would suffice……Try with just this one simple short line:

***”It's time for us, argentines, to accept it and start working for a better future in our country.”***

Chuckling in advance
El Think

oh....PRESUMPTION boy is talking !! thats your “facts” ??

Please see #190 priceless !!

Honesty is really easy understand why you were kicked out from Wikipedia.......piss off, we dislike liars.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Argentine_Confederation_and_BuenosAires_1858.jpg

pueblos originarios = native peoples

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Argentine_Confederation_and_BuenosAires_1858.jpg

Isla de Los Estados didn't become part of Argentina till 1862 and if you look at Argentine territory in 1858, it was a long way from the Falklands.

More like 1522 km or about 5 days sailing. And btw have a look at the prevailing winds for that journey, they blow the wrong way.

“Rob the argentine”

“And, for all the argies, let me say: Falkland”

1. The fact you specifically name your self an argentine makes me wonder.
2. “for all the argies” ok, “argies” is a british word.
3. “falklands” Even Argentinians i have spoken to who agree wih the islanders rights(and there are not many) still do not call them by this name.

How many British posters are there on these forums pretending to be Argentinian?

I did wonder when someone was going to notice that we get ten days of easterlies a year!
All jolly entertaining anyway.

#233 Think. You may be correct about the nautical miles rather than miles. All the sources just say miles, but it probably means nautical miles. However, when measuring distance, you would have to do it from mainland South America rather than from one of the adjacent islands. So, you cannot really measure it from Isla de Los Estados or indeed Tierra del Fuego for that matter. Your original estimate of 500 km is about right for the nearest point on mainland South America, so that would be the reference value. With no ship likely to exceed the world record of 440 km in 24 hours in the 18th century, you would still be at least 60 km short.

Sorry I will write in Spanish answering Think (#233), he needs prove I am argentine.
Para Think (#233). Te aclaro que soy argentino, vivo en el departamento de Las Heras en la provincia de Mendoza. Y cómo argentino que vivo en Argentina te digo que la mayoría de las personas no tienen interés alguno en cuanto al conflicto de las Islas Falkland. El interés sólo surge en ciertas fechas claves cuando ”ciertas voces (muy puntuales)“ salen a colocar el tema en la palestra por ”interés“.
Y, a tu pedido, reitero: ”Es tiempo que nosotros, los argentinos, aceptemos los hechos (de que Falkland NO son argentinas) y comenzemos a trabajar por un futuro mejor para nuestro propio país (Argentina).”

but what does that really prove,
i cant speak a word of spannish,
but i can use goodle to translate,,
should he then ask for something that may not be on google, and that an argetine would know,,
just a thought,
,,,,
question,, what/who is the highest court on the planet,
that all nations obey, [at least in part]
cannot then, the UK and argentina apply to this court,
either singerly or together,
with the falklands representative, to put your case in front of all the world to see,
and let the other side answer this, withing a given time, before judgement is given,
just a thought .

(239) Rob the Argentine

1) You have proven to be Argentinean..........
2) I'm Argentineai to....
3) You have a personal opinion about the Malvinas issue.....
4) I have a personal opinion about the Malvinas issue....
5) Our governments, past present and future, have a clear Malvinas policy......
6) It's high time for us, Argentines, to start working for a better future in our country.

The Sarandi and the Schooner Rapid left the Falkland Islands on 5th January 1933 arriving in Buenos Aires on 15th January.
12 to 15 knots???????????????
Half the speed would be more accurate.

239 Rob the argentine (east London? )
Your Argentinean boyfriend was doing well until “comenzemos” :-)))

oops!!!!!!!!! Should have been 1833.

I suppose they could exetend the bakerloo southwards a bit more,
a nice and plesent journey perhaps ??

briton (#240) argies posting here does not accept that an argentinean do not support that Falkland belong to Argentina. Writing in Spanish do not prove I am argentinean or I am living in Argentina. Here is my own phone number (+54-261-512-0770) where anyone can contact me and see if I am argentinean or not.
......
about your question, Argentina will never accept going to Court because is going to lose the case. That's why Argentina only go to forums (like OEA - in Spanish) where there are supporters for our claims.

246. Well done. I hope that your fellow country men do not abuse your honesty.

(238) Crackpot

You say:
“However, when measuring distance, you would have to do it from mainland South America rather than from one of the adjacent islands. So, you cannot really measure it from Isla de Los Estados or indeed Tierra del Fuego for that matter.”

I say:
Why would I have to measure from mainland South America?
Just because it fits your maths?
It’s like telling Britain not to use the Shetland Islands to calculate their fair share of the North Sea.

Please let's be serious…………

Discovery of the Falklands
(Falkland Islands Newsletter, No. 78, March 2001

John Strong in the Welfare was heading for Port Desire too. But, driven off course by contrary
winds, he reached the Falklands instead, landing at Bold Cove in January of 1690. His landing is well documented and accepted as the first. One of the owners of the Welfare was Viscount Falkland and Strong named Falkland Sound after him. Soon this was extended to all the Islands. Strong sailed on to the Straits of Magellan, and named the harbour opposite San Jeronimo's head, Port Falkland, a name that never lasted. He then sailed on to Guayaquil to attempt the salvage of a sunken Spanish treasure ship there.

After visiting Port Desire, Captain John Byron went ashore in the Falklands in January 1765 to take possession of the Falklands for George III. He named the site Port Egmont, and it was here the Spanish attacked four years later in 1770 - and where the Swift - or rather its loss - was a key factor.

Sir frances drake could well have discovered them forst, but most papers and documents to drake has not survived,,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

The Falkland Islands took their English name from “Falkland Sound”, the channel between the two main islands, which was in turn named after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland by Captain John Strong, who landed on the islands in 1690.[5] The Spanish name, Islas Malvinas,[6] is derived from the French name,[7] Îles Malouines, named by Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764
And, 776 lesser islands, all british I presume,
Just something of interest,
Did then the British find the Falkland’s way back in the 1690s, 74 years before the French,
And exuse my ignorance, but is it thus true, the Malvinas, isn’t even Spanish [argentine] its French,
Just a thought ...

246 Rob the argentine
thank you for your reply, thanks

Rob I would suggest you contact Mercopress and remove that phone number, I have had some very unpleasant phone calls at my home from some of the Malvinense crowd.

Justin (#250) Thanks, but don't worry, I know how to answer them. I just put my phone to prove them I am Argentine and living in Argentina. Most of the “Malvinense crowd” (as you call them) are not living in Argentina.

#248 Think. The discussion related to the definition of what constitutes an island adjacent to the coast of South America. You cannot determine whether an island is adjacent to the coast (whatever the distance criteria you have adopted) by measuring its distance from another island that is also adjacent to the coast. All those islands would have to be defined as adjacent by measuring their distance relative to the mainland and not relative to each other. If you had an imaginary chain of islands 100 km apart that stretched out from a continental land mass for a 1000 km, you could hardly say that the last one in the chain was adjacent to that land mass if the criterion was 100 km.
The analogy with the British Isles is not valid, because the Shetland Islands are well established as part of the UK and there is no need to determine whether they are considered adjacent to mainland Britain or not.
In this discussion, we were trying to determine whether a court would consider the Falkland Islands as adjacent to the coast of South America if it was trying to interpret the Nootka Sound Convention. One suggestion here was that anything more than a day's sailing from the coast would not be considered adjacent and all I'm trying to show is that 500 km was too far for 1 day's sailing in the 18th century. So, if they did use that criterion, then theFalklands would not be considered adjacent. However, I have no idea what criteria they would actually adopt.

233. The roaring forties lie between 40 and 49 degrees south.
How do you propose sailing from Isla de los Estados to the Falkland Islands in the roaring forties. I would suggest for an Arsentina you do not know much about the location of places.
Perhaps the furious fifties????????????

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/index.php?p1=7&p2=2#2
What is the International Court of Justice
2. Who may submit cases to the Court?

Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases. At present, this basically means the 192 United Nations Member States.

The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals,.
However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States
5. Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.
The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court's considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:
- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;..in part

-

For the Malvinas supporters here - all this about Nootka agreements and adjacent or not etc is really largely irrelevant. We are in the 21st century,old fashioned Colonialism has long gone, and the criteria in use today are the wishes and democratically expressed rights of populations of a place/islands/territory to choose the Govt and form of of their own choice -eg Kosovo for a recent example.
Those who cannot stomach it - simple- take it to the International Court - or shut up.

part two.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:
- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;
- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
6. Are decisions of the Court binding?
Judgments delivered by the Court (or by one of its Chambers) in disputes between States are binding upon the parties concerned. Article 94 of the United Nations Charter lays down that “each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of [the Court] in any case to which it is a party”.
http://www.icj-cij.org/information/index.php?p1=7&p2=2#

However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States

Cannot the British government then take up the case of a Falkland’s individual, and thus make it a case between states .

@249 None took possession of the islands.
Discovery is not valid according to Queen Elizabeth.
Byron took possession in 1765 and left. The French since 1764.
They arrived late, they say the laws themselves British.

Morning Think!

I believe that my definition of 'adjacent' was rather superseded by Dab's information from the 18th century. Good argument mind although I rather suspect that a court would take the practical approach of port-to-port. Academic of course.

As has been correctly pointed out the UN Charter overules all others, and that is written in modern terms. Anything that need interpretation can go to the ICJ :-)

Chortle, Chortle (tm pending)

Hey Justin Kuntz remember the convicted and sentenced to life in jail terrorist, and later released by the British?
Yes, al-Megrahi, still alive and on Libyan tv today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8664103/Lockerbie-bomber-appears-on-Libyan-state-television.html

(258) Redhoyt
Anyhow, this quite trivial little chat about your very own ”one day’s sailing away adjacency definition” shows perfectly the futility of trying to reason with Britons and why Argentina has taken the current course of action in the Malvinas issue……..

You started by saying:
”I suspect that the term 'adjacent' would not include anything more than a day's sailing away.”

Then ”Mr Crackpot” used the wrong miles in his calculation.

Then ”Mr. Justin(his-head)Kuntz” said that ”The winds blow the wrong way”

Then ”Mr Crackpot” again, didn’t like the use of an Argentinean Island to measure the distance to another Argentinean Island.

And now you ”rather suspect that a court would take the practical approach of port-to-port.”

Lawyers and pirating Brits…… two despicable things :-)

(259) Marcos Alejandro

You can absolutely not compare this two persons..................
The Norwegian bastard is a confessed criminal and guilty as hell......
On the other hand, lots of evidence seems to indicate that that poor Lybian bastard, on the other hand, was the “Scapegoat” needed by Britain.

I only 'suspected' Think, although it would seem the sensible approach, and port-to-port seems reasonable to me too. Not to you? Fair enough, BUT as I also said, all very academic.

The only Treaty that now matters is the UN Charter and Argentina, together with the UK, was one of the original signatories to the Charter in 1945.

Argentina also accepted the Falkland Islands being placed on the list on non-self governing territories in the full knowledge of what the Charter said about such territories.

Quite why Argentina did that in light of its subsequent activities is a mystery to me. As is the deal/agreement struck between the UK and Argentina which has prevented any draft Resolution from the C-24 going forward to the UN General Assembly since 1988.

Lawyers and diplomats Think ..... often just different sides of the same beast!

And talking of diplomats, I see that Timerman still cannot utter the truth about what happens at the UN even though he must be aware of the 'deal' ???-

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/74161/argentina-is-ready-to-negotiate-with-uk-over-malvinas-says-timerman

http://www.buenosairesherald.com/article/74161/argentina-is-ready-to-negotiate-with-uk-over-malvinas-says-timerman

@260 Think,
“from one Argentinean lsland to another Argentinean lsland”-- well that doesn't include us l'm pleased to say as we are nothing to do with Argentina. We have our own lslands, the Falklands.

#260 Think.
“Then ”Mr Crackpot” used the wrong miles in his calculation”
“Then ”Mr Crackpot” used the wrong miles in his calculation.”

I did admit that I probably mde a mistake with the miles, but your argument still didn't stand up to scrutiny, anyway. I think you have to admit that you lost that one in the end. First you yourself suggested that the distance from the South American coast to the Falkland Islands was 500 km. Then when it was shown that that would have been impossible to sail in one day in the 18th century, you came up with the preposterous suggestion of measuring the distance from another island (ie, somewhere that is not the coast of South America).
As has been said, it's probaby just an academic argument anyway, though. At the end of the day, any court would probably say that the Islanders rights trump everything else. Apart from Hong Kong (which had the issue that most of it was under 99-year lease from China), I can't think of any other overseas territories where the sovereignty was just transferred from one country to another country rather than giving the population independence.

[oh, and it's “Dr Crackpot”, by the way - I don't have an MPhil, but I do have a PhD]

@263 Hello Crackpot, Just remember the memorandum of 1968 and Lord Chalfont.
Remember also that this is evidence in court.

Marvin33 - you do talk some cr*p -

http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article18.html

Red, The memorandum was adopted ad referendum.
There was no agreement because of pressure from the islanders, the Falkland Islands Company and because an official from the Foreign Office took a copy of the agreement to the Daily Express: Title “The Falklands on sale” Pepper?? hmmmm

Somehow I doubt it was PP lol

But it does just go to show, that the islander's right to determine their own future just keeps on bubbling to the top !

It is a precedent for the Court attempted transfer of sovereignty ;-)

260 Think
“On the other hand, lots of evidence seems to indicate that that poor Lybian bastard, on the other hand, was the “Scapegoat” needed by Britain”

Most likely true, they had to blame somebody, however he was sentenced to life in prison and only releasead to gain oil deals not because he is ill.
You know how it goes with the British, on Monday morning they were very good friends, by the afternoon bombs fell over Tripoli. First they said the release of Al-Megrahi was the right thing to do and today July27.........

Wed. july 27 2011
“Foreign Secretary slams medical advice which justified Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release as ”pretty much worthless“ and expels all eight remaining diplomats from the Libyan embassy in London”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8665648/Abdelbaset-Ali-Mohmed-al-Megrahi-was-a-great-mistake-says-William-Hague.html

It's a precedent for self-determination !

@270 Red, The Secretary of State Michael Stewart and Ambassador Mc. Loughlin (for Argentina) prepared a text by means of which both governments reached an agreement, to such an extreme that only the terms of a note which would be sent to the United Nations Secretary General were then pending for ratification. In the said memorandum or joint formula (letter A/9121 of 1973)-cited as a previous agreement, without objections at the General Assembly- it was stated that the material restitution of the Malvinas’ archipelago by the United Kingdom to Argentina would be made concrete in a minimum term of four years and a maximum term of ten years. It was the possible and fair solution in fact and by right, with the guarantee of protecting the inhabitants’ interests that guarantee being always promised and fulfilled. It was certainly an acknowledgement by both parties of what one of them claimed and of what the other one was ready to concede. Although the agreement was not ratified, it had -and still has- the juridical value attached by the former Standing International Court of Justice to that kind of relationships, which constitute “a provisional statute for the benefit of the signatories”. That reveals the juridical equation that hinders from doing anything contrary to its provisions. In that way, the United Kingdom established the acknowledgement of the obvious fate of the islands as a constituent part of the Argentine Nation; the United Kingdom made an act of faith with regard to the fact that it was necessary to restore the islands and moreover, they seemed to be ready to do it within a reasonable term as they were part of the conflict.
Berruti, Uruguayan expert ;-)

#264 Malvinense 1833: The basic conclusion would be that all such agreements are pointless without the consent of the islanders.

@213-Argentina inherits under Uti, which states the inheritance can only comprise the same territory under the same conditions as the previous jurisdiction. The United Provinces can only inherited what the Viceroyalty had control of-no more, no less. They Viceroyalty was limited in its control of the islands by Nootka, with obligations to allow limited rights to British subjects (fishing, landing, temporary structures). Argentina is not signatory to Nootka so it doesn't inherit any benefits under Nootka. But Nootka does set a “status quo” regarding the definition of what comprises the Viceroyalty's territory. That same definition applies when then United Provinces later declare independence and inherit territory via Uti. The treaty is voided automatically if a third power makes a settlement on a coast, not on an island adjacent. Some commenters here want to make it seem like the 1850 convention was drawn up to settle the issue of the islands. This is complete fantasy, it doesn't mention them, and the reason that brought it forth was to secure a non-aggression treaty from Britain who was conducting military invasions in Uruguay (see a pattern?). The UN Charter, Articles 103 and 73, don't have to “prevail” over Nootka because they don't conflict with Nootka, which would be necessary for one to invalidate the other. As for the '82 outcome, Uti applies to the status of territories in which the gaining party had made no prior claim. Britain indeed argued a pre-1982 (invalid) claim on the islands during the latter half of the 20th century - a sharp contrast from their early 20th-century opinions on the matter, and a different one altogether than Britain's original one. I agree that an ICJ advisory ruling will be paramount.

@215-Isolde the BRITISH change facts to suit themselves, as they changed their claim first from “prior discovery” to “acquisitive prescription”. I agree with the Paraguay blurb-but Chile was an MUTUAL agreement, of which Brits know NOTHING.

#273 AlejandroArgerich: My knowledge of the history of the Viceroyalty is somewhat limited, so maybe you can clarify something for me. If I'm not mistaken, when the Viceroyalty eventually came to an end, it was being administered from Montevideo. So, my question is: if you agree with the concept of Uti, then why didn't Uruguay inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain?

AlejandroArgerich: “7 - Chile's territory's were made Argentine by MUTUAL AGREEMENT mediated by the pope. The British could learn something from that instead of simply saying “there's nothing to discuss”. 30, 50 years down the road that's what Argentines might say in a second armed conflict”

After such a phrase, you expect us Chileans to trust you? I don't think I have to remember you, that the pope mediation was the second intent, because after the first mediation, whereas you promised to keep word the name of “Argentine's Honour”, you broke promise by “insanablemente nulo”.
It's easy to blackmail your neighbour, when hes in his poorest situation of history and in internal trouble. This is not forgotten...

So if you ask me, I would rather trust the word of the British (even they might not care for Chile) it's a very high probability that his word will count more than the one of an Argentine politican or Dictator ever.

Hermano Chileno,

Te respondo primero porque no defendo el accionar de ningun gobierno de facto - ni en las Malvinas, ni en la Argentina, ni en Chile. Todos los paises de latinoamerica hemos cometido grandes errores contra nuestros hermanos, en el caso de Chile contra Bolivia que hasta hoy dia reclama una pequeña, miserable salida al mar - como has dicho, when he's in his poorest situation.

Hay que entender que nuestra historia compartida comenzo con San Martin y con O'Higgins. Por casualidad nuestras peleas solo salieron a la superficie cuando los peores elementos de nuestras sociedades traicionaron sus juramentos y decidieron tomar el poder para favocerer el accionar de un poder extranjero, cuya guerra supuestamente contra el comunismo pocos años antes lo llevo a Vietnam. Ahi dejaron sus vidas 50,000 soldados yanquis para que hoy dia las armadas de Vietnam y USA puedan conducir maniobras conjuntas como si no hubiera pasado nada.

No pido que olvides nada, solo que recuerdes que es mejor ser libres que la pieza de ajedrez - tal como esos mismos poderes extranjeros nos quieren. El leon dominado solo confia en su domador hasta cierto punto pues el domador le da carne, esto no quiere decir que el leon seria mas feliz y sano si pudiera cazar su propia carne en libertad. No confies ni en un dictador ni en un politico Argentino.

Pero la confianza mutua en la fuerza de la sangre hispanoamericana es menester.

Atte,

Alejandro

@all others...coming right up.

#276 AlejandroArgerich: So, we all need to unite against the Great Satan (and his little brother).

#274 That has been pointed out before, indeed the delegate from Uruguay once threatened that it would assert its claim under Utis Possidetis Juris and transfer sovereignty to the UK - in the dispute over the islands of Martin Garcia.

A Uruguayan Island seized by military force in the early 19th Century that Argentina refused to return.

1850 Convention of Settlement

“Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate, as recognized by Treaty; have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz.:”

How can you sign that treaty and yet apparently leave an issue unresolved?

The rather obvious answer is that of course it was resolved, Argentina simply reneged on the agreement.

Funny that, Argentina welching on a deal.

Like paying on its bonds, like the oil agreement, like the fisheries agreement and the 1994 agreement.

@214-in every society those who don't adhere by social rules are treated as second class citizens. Islanders are granted rights under Nootka - not good enough for them, they have to USURP more rights at the point of a gun. I hate fascism more than anyone on this blog, yet my hatred of fascism doesn't excuse an ongoing ACT OF THEFT.

@216-Monty I completely understand why you don't want anything to do with us. But the law is the law, you can't just choose to ignore treaties and assert what you want at the point of a gun. You have legal options, as a non-self-governing territory of ARGENTINA, to sue for independence. But you find it far more convenient to hide behind an aging British type 42. Hence, what you do is DESPICABLE in every respect, as is the act of THEFT that you use weapons to justify your actions with.

You don't need our permission to live in houses, you DO need the crown's permission, which has not been given to you de jure after 1790. Only because a few imperialist buffoons are left in Commons do you still have the British military presence you depend on, and economic realities will soon make them disappear. I for one would like to see Sarkozy send a destroyer to the islands, but it will never ever happen. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY??? Guess what, it has come down on the side of Argentina REPEATEDLY with UN resolutions 1514 (XV), 2065 (XX),3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9. 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19, 43/25, ALL IN FAVOR OF ARGENTINA'S PETITIONS.

Indeed, the British reputation of invaders and thieves precedes you. Now, if the world sees Argentina as a troubled nation that still has enough gumption to defend territories that rightfully belong to it, even through its darkest hours, from the actions of unscrupulous thieves that overstep their treaty-guaranteed rights
by hiding behind someone elses's guns - well, I welcome such views upon us, for they are truly “dulce et decorum”.

#279 AlejandroArgerich: Your logic really is bizarre!

1) You must be the only person in the world who thinks that the Falkland Islands are a non-self-governing territory of Argentina. That implies that Argentina governs them, which is doesn't. Even the Argentine constitution says that they are an actual part of Argentina (which is equally bizarre)? So, much of your argument is based on a fallacy that only you uphold as the truth.

2) You seem to forget that the formation most of the countries that exist today involved the point of a gun at some point in their history (not least Argentina).

3) In order for Argentina to “defend” a territory, wouldn't it have to be in control of it in the first place. otherwise it's called “attacking” a territory (I would say “recovering”, but you cannot recover something that was never yours in the first place).

4) What's all this nonsense about the international community coming down on the side of Argentina. I must have missed that somewhere. I am aware of support for trying to settle the dispute, but not of any support for a particular outcome.

@274 - thanks, Alejo.

I think it is more accurate to assert that the United Provinces succeeded the Viceroyalty, rather than inherited lands from Spain, which were in dispute. As far as I am aware it is accurate to say succession was achieved by traditional force of arms by “uti possidetis, ita possideatis” , not by the Spanish consent

The expansion of Argentina into Patagonia is justified by the claim that native amerindians ancesteral lands were terra nullis & open to occupation

Territory between succeeding states to Spain in the Americas has permanently changed sovereignty, even when the losing side disagreed, i.e. the principle of uti possidetis de jure seems to be most usually set aside by uti possidetis de facto in practice within the Americas

From what I understand Nootka does not name the Falkland Islands just as the 1850 Convention does not name them. If the British stated to Buenos Aires in their diplomatic note of 1829 that Britain retained sovereignty of the Falkland Islands it seems a clear contemporary interpretation by British officials that Nootka did not affect Britain's sovereignty of the Falklands base on their Port Egmont settlement

Presumably the British believed the issue of the Falkland Islands was between Spain & Britain & that Spain's evacuation meant the Falklands was open to British occupation again

Given Britain is a signatory to Nootka, only they can say what it meant or did not mean to them; no third party state can dictate to them what they meant - it seems the 1829 formal diplomatic protests made the British position very clear to Buenos Aires government that Britain stated the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was vested in Britain

How does S. Georgia/Sandwich Islands fit your arguments?

I agree it would help to hear an advisory opinion of the ICJ on these matters. At the moment Argentina argues de jure sovereignty, Britain argues de jure, de facto & popular sovereignty & uti possidetis, ita possideatis

@232 & 278-Justin, do the NYC refuse barges end up dumping their trash on the FI? Because I can't fathom any other way you could come up with such large quantities of TOTAL RUBBISH! Let's continue to examine Justin's “Logic”:

“why did Moreno not happen to mention Nootka but gave chapter and verse about the agreement of 1771 and the claim of a secret agreement that never existed?”

Is this supposed to be evidence that the 1850 treaty was drawn up to put the islands' question to bed - and NOT about the British military actions in Uruguay during the 1840s??

But of couse, conjecture + assumption = fact. Right. Moving on,

”Argentina derived no benefit from Nootka as a non-signatory (RIGHT), nor does it confer anything up Argentina (RIGHT), as Argentina did not inherit
anything from Spain it asserted (WRONG) and took its independence by force of arms, which was not recognised by Spain till 1859 (WRONG).”

See, here Justin mixes TWO FACTS (no benefit derived from Nootka and Nootka by itself doesn't confer anything) with TWO FALSEHOODS (Argentina didn't inherit anything from spain and independence wasn't recognized until 1859 - wrong, 1862). A well known tactic of propagandists - to mix lies and truths such that no one can tell the difference, thereby making their arguments seem
cogent.

Sorry mate, but that won't do.

Then Justin says to “there is no mechanism in law for that to happen”, as if I had never mentioned Uti on this thread before. More lunacy, more fabrication, more instances of ignoring text that exists right there in black and white, whether it's a previous comment or a treaty.

“this is a contrived argument, manufactured nearly a century later”

A CENTURY? REALLY? Let's look at a timeline. 1833 + 100 years = 1933.

Now we take a quote from the British Foreign Office in ->1910

¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA HIJOS DE PUTA!!!!!!!

Continued - quote from 1910:

“it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine Goverment's attitude
is not altogether unjustified, and that our actionhas been somewhat high-handed”
-Gerald Spicer, BRITISH FOREIGN OFFICE, 1910

So, tell me Justin - what is this “attitude” that Spicer refers to, that you claim
didn't exist until at least 20 YEARS LATER??? But of course, “quoting a few FO officials from 1910 is not a convincing argument”.

I suppose in Justin's mind, the quote must come from the Sovereign for it to denote a pattern of thought that deviates from the “there is no question about our claim” BS stance.

“Argentina simply doesn't have the balls” right, because everything domestic is right as rain and we simply don't want to go to ICJ. Sick with parasites, and not having balls, aren't the same thing.

“you constantly repeat the same worn and tired argument, long after it has been rebutted”

You haven't rebuffed a thing, all you've done is assume one thing connects to the other and conveniently ignore or misinterpret primary source texts, the content and meaning of which are clear as a sunny day.

Oh wait I forgot, your days are cloudy and foggy - I suppose this accounts for your foggy deductive reasoning too.

Now we go to Justin's #235, nice map......from 1858 (regarding an 1816 event).

Here's one that's closer to the topic - Spanish POSSESIONS UNTIL 1810:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Spanish_Empire_Anachronous_0.PNG

SEE THE LITTLE RED DOTS ON THE COAST OF SOUTH AMERICA??

THAT'S PUERTO DESEADO, SPANISH SETTLEMENT @ 496kM from FI, and within Think's estimation.

NOTE ALSO THAT IN 1810 THE ISLANDS = SPANISH POSSESSIONS.

NOW READ NOOTKA ARTICLE VI, IN FORCE 1816:

“shall not form in the future any establishment...and of the islands adjacent ALREADY OCCUPIED BY SPAIN”.

THE BRITISH HAD NO RIGHT TO FORM A PERMANENT SETTLEMENT IN 1790, 1814, 1816, AND 1833.

So keep ignoring it, because that is the only thing you can do.

#282 AlejandroArgerich “...independence wasn't recognized until 1859 - wrong, 1862”

Aren't you being a bit pedantic there? The difference is totally irrelevant to the argument.

“@213-Argentina inherits under Uti, which states the inheritance can only comprise the same territory under the same conditions as the previous jurisdiction.”

Uti Possidetis Juris is:

“The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence”

Alejandro, please provide evidence that uti possidetis with the specific definition above was established international law when Argentina declared independence. It must be the above definition, and not any other definition that uti possidetis has had during its history.

“The treaty is voided automatically if a third power makes a settlement on a coast, not on an island adjacent. ”

The Spanish versión includes islands adjacent

articulo secreto

“Como por el artículo 6° del presente convenio se ha estipulado por lo que respecta a las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de Sudamérica e islas adyacentes, que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de estas costas, situadas al sur de las partes de las mismas costas ya ocupadas por España, se ha convenido y determinado por el presente artículo, que dicha estipulación no entrará en vigor más que entre tanto no se forme algún establecimiento en los lugares en cuestión por súbditos de otra potencia.”

“UN resolutions 1514 (XV), 2065 (XX),3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, 37/9. 38/12, 39/6, 40/21, 41/40, 42/19, 43/25, ALL IN FAVOR OF ARGENTINA'S PETITIONS. “

UNGA resolutions are not binding in international law. And please quote the sentences in these resolutions that say the Falklands must be handed over to Argentina.

Yeah, but this guy has a history of changing little things around and putting false ideas in people's heads to set up the groundwork for his future BS arguments, then he throws a bombshell and everyone thinks he's right because he had the foresight to establish an incorrect premise beforehand. He got me with that before - not gonna happen again. Anyone else gets a pass, though.

@221,222,227 Thank you.

@230-Rob, you ignore the law. They can be associated with any state they want, but first they must formally dissolve their association with the state to which the territory belongs: ARGENTINA. What is nonsense is trying to work for a better future by doing the same thing we've been doing all along: giving to Britain our most valuable resources. Nootka says British citizens can fish, and that's the extent of what they can do. But extract HYDROCARBONS UNDER THE SOUTH AMERICAN CONTINENTAL PLATFORM????

THAT is nonsense.

@234, please make a more general and less specific post so as to appear even more idiotic and nonsensical. I will have you know I never got “kicked out” of WP, there was a call for detente and I obliged - and as for honesty, that's a word you of all people should not be using.

@249 Briton - complete fiction. FIRST LANDING?

4 FEBRUARY, 1540, FRANCISCO RIBERA (not his son). 1ST SPANISH CLAIM.

Why do you think Britain completely abandoned “prior discovery” as a basis for sovereignty?

Oh wait, didn't you know the British claim isn't based on prior discovery anymore?

Didn't you know they changed their story when the facts no longer suited their ONGOING ACT OF THEFT???

Right.

@255- The fact that we are in the 21st century makes no difference. The UN Charter establishes the islands as a “non-self-governing” territory. Nootka establishes WHOOSE “non-self-governing” territory the islands are.

Indeed, you may democratically assert self-determination to the country to which you are associated - not the one that administers you at the point of a gun.

#284 AlejandroArgerich: “.... THAT'S PUERTO DESEADO, SPANISH SETTLEMENT @ 496kM from FI, and within Think's estimation.”

We debunked that argument a long time ago!

@288-No, you tried to, with an 1858, and failed - and I was responding to that attempt. I had no internet yesterday, I'm catching up.

@254 Briton- What's the point of taking it to ICJ if Britain won't keep her word in case of unfavorable ruling? What guarantees does Argentina have that it will, when the only thing to come out of British mouths is “there's nothing to discuss”, backed by the threat of violence?? Your actions do not demonstrate a propensity to abandon territories deemed by others not to belong to you.

Why should Argentina go out on a limb - because ICJ jugdments are “binding”? SUppose the ICJ rules for Argentina, Britain doesn't follow through with a handover, and Argentina deploys its fleet. You think the Security Council will pass a resolution against Britain and in favor of Argentina for ignoring a binding ICJ judgment that its forces should abandon the islands?

FURTHERMORE - you think Britain will abandon is BS Falklands claim when it won't abandon its even GREATER BS claim on Diego Garcia?

No, of course not, because the British position is clear:

“military might makes right and there's nothing to discuss”.

THEFT - PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

@261 Red - “Argentina also accepted the Falkland Islands being placed on the list on non-self governing territories in the full knowledge of what the Charter said about such territories.”

TRUE, and also in full knowledge that the islands are ARGENTINA'S non-self-governing territory - NOT BRITAIN'S.

Also, citing Timerman is a low blow, given that its plainly apparent the man has his head stuck up his arse. I don't judge Britain by the statements of someone like Carl Pilkington, so why do you have to judge us by our lowest common denominator?

@265 what, another biased source from a FI website? Well sir, I dare say you have now convinced me!

¡¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS!!!!!

“with TWO FALSEHOODS (Argentina didn't inherit anything from spain and independence wasn't recognized until 1859 - wrong, 1862).”

There were 2 treaties of recognition. The first was signed in 1859 and did not include the Province of Buenos Aires because it had seceded from the Argentine Confederation in 1852. The second was in 1863 after Buenos Aires rejoined in 1862.

1863 version:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=KtMt885c2mAC&lpg=PA307&ots=NTR6I6sJkZ&dq=treaty%20of%20recognition%20spain%20argentina&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false

see first paragraph

And you obviously do not have the slightest idea what ‘inheritance’ means.

#289 AlejandroArgerich: “@288-No, you tried to, with an 1858, and failed - and I was responding to that attempt. I had no internet yesterday, I'm catching up.”

Don't give me that BS. The discussion was about how far a ship could sail in one day. We proved categorically that no 18th centrury ship could travel the 496 km from the coast of South America to the Falkland Islands in 24 hours.

Claiming victory when there is clear defeat - sounds familiar (a bit like Iraqi press releases during the Gulf War).

#282 Your entire premise is conjecture about Nootka, don't project the failings of your own argument in an attempt to rubbish others, whilst clearing ignoring the awkward questions.

1. So if Nootka was prima facie proof that Britain relinquished a claim, why then did Moreno not mention it in 1833?
2. If the 1850 Convention of Settlement settles existing differences, how then can an issue remain unsolved?

Its a simple enough question, asked many times and I'm not surprised you avoided it, like all the other awkward questions about Argentina's claims.

You assert Argentina had an inheritance from Spain, no it did not. This is a simple FACT, Argentina revolted and asserted its independence, it was not granted independence. Without the consent of Spain it could not inherit anything other than what it can grab.

1859 vs 1862

http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/inde/The%20Recognition%20of%20the%20Spanish%20Colonies%20by%20the%20Motherland.pdf

See Page 87

Pls note the point being made supported by documentary evidence rather than arm waving and attempting to criticise with nit picking detail.

I and other have pointed out tha Uti Possidetis Juris is not a means of inheritance, it is agreement between Latin American states achieved at the Conference of Lima in 1848 as a means of settling border disputes between themselves. As Britain is neither a signatory nor has accepted the principle it is not something that applies in the case of the Falklands.

So you're wrong again.

And I refer to nearly a century as Paul Groussac came up with the ridiculous argument concerning Nootka in 1884, which is nearly a century after 1790.

So basically you're talking crap about 1910, which bears no relation to my comments. There I simply point out the opinions of individuals does not represent Government policy or opinion - remember the Argentine Foreign Secretary who acknowledges Britains case.

The 1858 map merely shows that Argentina was smaller in 1816.

@239 NO TE DA VERGUENZA??!?!?

Ya se sabe que “la mayoría de las personas no tienen interés alguno en cuanto al conflicto de las Islas” al igual que a esta altura no tienen interes en resguardar el futuro del pais - un pais que tiene recursos que le sale hasta por el culo, unica razon por la cual sigue existiendo pese a las decadas de corrupción e infamia.

¿De verdad te parece que darle a poderes extranjeros aun mas recursos nacionales es parte de la solución?

¿Especialmente cuando tenemos una posicion legal tal sólida que los Ingleses la tuvieron que abandonar durante la primer mitad del siglo XX a favor de la llamada “proscripcción adquisitiva”?

Mejor ponete los huevos y no regales tan facilmente nuestros recursos nacionales que por derecho nos corresponden cuando aun hay Argentinos que se cagan de hambre, mientras que los kelpers siguen robando con impunidad y viven panchos en una colonia que permanece en el siglo XXI pese a que la corona Britanica se comprometio a no establecerla en 1790.

@271, ” Although the agreement was not ratified, it had -and still has- the juridical value attached by the former Standing International Court
of Justice to that kind of relationships, which constitute “a provisional statute for the benefit of the signatories”.

Indeed - excellent.

@286- Dab, I ASK YOU AGAIN: ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE SPANISH AND ENGLISH NOOTKA TEXTS ARE NOT IDENTICAL??

Further, here's Uti in 1750:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LK86lhgcrikC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=uti+possidetis+treaty+of+Madrid&source=bl&ots=HDwxAa98UL&sig=L02c3Ql-R5O4DNLJmlFdRbgkNqU&hl=en&ei=BpgwTsL5GuK40AHD_JGFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=uti%20possidetis%20treaty%20of%20Madrid&f=false

And for the definition:

http://books.google.com/books?id=LK86lhgcrikC&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=uti+possidetis+treaty+of+Madrid&source=bl&ots=HDwxAa98UL&sig=L02c3Ql-R5O4DNLJmlFdRbgkNqU&hl=en&ei=BpgwTsL5GuK40AHD_JGFAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=uti%20possidetis%20treaty%20of%20Madrid&f=false pp.494

Uti existed after roman times in the context of treaty law 66 years before the United Provinces declared independence.

I think it is important to consider that different viewpoints offer different conclusions

After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter
There are some contested issues which are not agreed upon, perhaps this is where the ICJ can provide advice without requiring binding judgments

Nootka appears binding from April 1789 - what then of the English settlement of Port Desire and the Royal Maritime Company's settlements thereafter. Are these all in accord with Nootka or not?

Was Nootka in full force in 1810, 1816, 1821, 1828, 1833 for example? If so, were there breaches by Spain, its successor states & Britain?

Clearly Argentines feel their claim is correct and the British wrong and the British vice versa

Did the Spanish consider that its successor states usurped lawful Spanish territory? - it would seem so. For those peoples gaining independence, it is justified by the natural right to self-determination and for the peoples wish to be ruled by a government of their choosing

For the indigenous Patagons the European immigrants occupation, colonisation, & annexation of their ancestral lands was usurpation

For the settlers in Patagonia it was the lawful expansion of Argentina into terra nullis

Argentina considers the British assertion of sovereignty on the Falkland Islands usurpation; the British consider it exercise of their established right by prior occupation and dispute with Spain

Right now the Falkland Islanders are free to exercise their right of self-determination by Article 73 and also resolution1514(xv); the UK and AR are invited to resolve their bilateral sovereignty dispute too

I really think for some aspects, consultation with the ICJ to establish legal advise on disputed matters would help

I also think all sides need to proceed in a spirit of friendship and cooperation to help resolve matters amicably one day

#294 AlejandroArgerich: “...cuando aun hay Argentinos que se cagan de hambre, mientras que los kelpers siguen robando con impunidad...”

I don't think you can really blame Argentinian domestic problems on the Falkland Islanders. Even you would have agree that it's all the fault of your own dodgy government.

Alejandro, ICJ resolutions are binding but hey you did renege on the Beagle Channel arbitration twice, so not surprising you project your failings onto others.

Though Beagle was pretty easy to decide, as Argentine maps showed the islands as Chilean right up to the point when Argentina decideed to change its interpreatation of the treaty.

The only people issuing any threats are Argentine, the British merely state they will defend the islands. It is Argentina that refuses to negotiate, seeing as it predefines the outcome of any talks as British capitulation to its demands.

BTW the same Argentine maps show the Falklands are NOT Argentine territory.

Oh and Utis Possidetis is not Utis Possidetis Juris, one is Roman law, the other was an agreement from the Conference of Lima in 1848. Really trying to confuse the two is a bankrupt argument.

Just as trying to rewrite the definition of adjacent is a bankrupt argument to try and make Nootka relevant where it is not.

Alejandro,

I asked you to provide specific evidence. I take it you are not going to provide that evidence. Not surprising, since it doesn't exist.

Oh, and the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, which was a treaty between two established states, not between seceding entities, applied the principle of uti possidetis de facto, not de jure. As had been the case in all applications of uti possidetis before the newly formed South American countries changed what it meant.

#295 Domingo: I think you've got that spot on. If you look at any on these treaties that are still being relied upon to settle disputes you will find that they've been abused by both parties. The case of Gibraltar and the Treaty of Utrecht is a classic example. Both sides complain that the other has broken the Treaty and it gets interpreted in different ways to suit each side to their best advantage (not helped by the fact that the wording is so vague). Furthermore, some of the parts of the Treaty just cannot be upheld in 21st Century. For instance, under the Treaty of Utrecht, no Jews or Moors were allowed to live in Gibraltar - try taking that one to a court today! You'd be laughed out of the building. Why? Because people today have inalienable rights that supercede such outdated concepts. There's a clear anaology here with the rights of self-determination of the Falkland Islanders and how this supercedes any arguments based on outdated treaties and concepts.

@295- Nootka was interrupted in 1795 when Spain went to war with Britain. It was then reinstated in 1814, after theMay revolution but before the United Provinces declared independence in 1816.

The secret clause states a breech would take place if non-signatory power established a colony on a coast covered by the treaty, which didn't happen and by definition could not happen given that Spain had settlements under the Viceroyalty on the atlantic coast going all the way down to Ushuaiah in 1810. The first breech of Nootka was in 1833, by the British, on the islands.

At first, you are right: Argentines felt their claim was correct and the British wrong, and the British vice versa. Then in the 20th century the British changed their mind and felt the Argentine claim was stronger.

THEN, they changed the basis of their claim to something called 'acquisitive prescription', a fancy legal way of saying “F-Nootka and F-you, we have bigger guns.”

The Spanish didn't consider that the United Provinces as succesor to the Viceroyalty usurped Spanish territory insofar as the islands were concerned, because the islands were part of the Viceroyalty. The recognition of independence
of the former Viceroyalty encompasses all such territories. Very true that for the indigenous peoples it constituted a usurpation from Europeans - however the idea wasn't entirely foreign to the natives given that they attacked each other for territory long before the Spanish ever showed up.

The islanders are free to exercise their right of self-determination insofar as whether or not to remain an associated state of, or choose independence from, the nation which by right such territory corresponds to - ARGENTINA - not the one
that occupies it by force.

Your 'spirit of cooperation' idea is great, but untenable with a party who goes forward believing their claim is strongest even when their government has magically changed the nature of its claim.

Less so when they say they “have nothing to discuss”.

LAS MALVINAS FUERON, SON, Y SIEMPRE SERAN ARGENTINAS, ¡¡¡ENTIENDANLO INGLESES PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!

(81) Alejandro Argerich

You write about Justin(hishead)Kuntz:

”…… there are other bloggers whose lunacy involves levels upon levels of complexity and fabrication, like Justin. Sorry, but it's more fun to focus on their BS, which smells of so many distinct and unique notes of feces………..”

And:
”Yeah, but this guy has a history of changing little things around and putting false ideas in people's heads to set up the groundwork for his future BS arguments, then he throws a bombshell and everyone thinks he's right because he had the foresight to establish an incorrect premise beforehand. He got me with that before - not gonna happen again.”

I say:
Chuckle chuckle!
Just a tip…… If you want a ”insight” into Justin(hishead)Kuntz’s attrition techniques, I recommend you to read the ”Discussion” section of Wikipedia’s articles on the Falklands Islands and Gibraltar………..

Ps:
Even if I don’t agree with some of your, seemingly militaristic, approaches, it is nice to have sharp posters in here……………..

@298 HEY DAB I DID PROVIDE WHAT YOU ASKED FOR UP IN #294.

1. A link that proved Uti existed since roman times as a legal principle and within the context of international treaty law 40 years before Nootka and 66 years before the United Provinces declared their independence.

2. A link to the European Journal of International law, that states:

“its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries AT THE MOMENT WHEN INDEPENDENCE IS ACHIEVED. Such territorial boundaries might be no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign. In that case the application of the principle of uti possidetis resulted in administrative boundaries being transformed into international frontiers in the full sense of the term”

Thus, at the moment when independence was achieved, 1816, Nootka still being in effect, territories inherited by the United Provinces could ONLY have been to the extent that the Viceroyalty used to have jurisdiction over them. The Malvinas islands was such a territory.

@297 Justin you might have noticed the “renegging” on the Beagle channel was an illegal action performed by an illegal government - something you seem to be quite fond of yourself.

The British merely state that they will defend....your continued act of THEFT.
Reminds me of that case where a thief tried to burgle someone's home...he got in, then got shot, was arrested - then the thief sued the owner of the home for his “aggression” and WON! Both cases - absolute insanity.

You say 'Uti Possidetis' is not the same as 'Uti Possidetis Juris'? I think you need to brush up on your Latin.

First off, it's UTI, not UTIS.

Second, the full phrase, “VTI POSSIDETIS IVRIS” is a roman legal term. Hence it originated in Rome, not Lima. It is commonly abbreviated to the first two words, or the first word. It comes from the phrase “VTI POSSIDETIS ITA POSSIDEATIS”. The word “IVRIS” means “right”, or “law”.

As accurate as always

Morning all ... some good posts on here from Domingo and Dab I see.

AilingArg still cannot see that Dab blew his Nootka theory out of the water with his 18th C definitions. Nice reasoning from Domingo over Uti.

Ahh, the tenacity of self righteous students. Keeps him busy I suppose.

Not that it matters, Nootka is dead and the UN Charter is the only game in town.

Roll on October for the usual Fourth Committee round. Anything likely to be different this year ? ... doubt it. Something to do with an agreement. A little strange though as Argentina is so good at breaking its agreements. This one must be compelling in some way. Wonder why?

I would be self-righteous if I didn't quote anything. RIGHT is what we are for. I appropriately responded to Dab's dictionaries and might I point out that Nootka was both in English and Spanish - and he only provided English sources. Not that it matters anyway because, as I continue to ask him, he seems to be under the impression that the Spanish and English texts were not identical in content.

You don't have to wonder why, I'll tell you right now: the, slow, steady, unwaivering path to INEVITABLE RECUPERATION.

#303 AlejandroArgerich: “...securing respect for the territorial boundaries AT THE MOMENT WHEN INDEPENDENCE IS ACHIEVED”

If Spain abandoned the Falkland Islands in 1811, surely it no longer had jurisdiction from then onwards. The United Provinces declared independence in 1816. How can it inherit something that Spain used to have jurisdiction over?

This is the Spanish version

articulo secreto

Como por el artículo 6° del presente convenio se ha estipulado por lo que respecta a las costas tanto orientales como occidentales de Sudamérica e islas adyacentes, que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de estas costas, situadas al sur de las partes de las mismas costas ya ocupadas por España, se ha convenido y determinado por el presente artículo, que dicha estipulación no entrará en vigor más que entre tanto no se forme algún establecimiento en los lugares en cuestión por súbditos de otra potencia

And this the English version

Secret article

Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention

Note the phrase ‘e islas adyacentes’ in the Spanish version

“1. A link that proved Uti existed since roman times as a legal principle and within the context of international treaty law 40 years before Nootka and 66 years before the United Provinces declared their independence.”

Are you seriously suggesting that uti possidetis meant this:

“its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries AT THE MOMENT WHEN INDEPENDENCE IS ACHIEVED.”

in Roman times????

And I pointed out to you that the 1750 applied the de facto principle, not de jure. The Roman’s never called it de jure, or juris. The term was added post SA independence.

So I repeat my question of 286. Please provide the evidence.

AilingArg - smashing your head against a brick wall cannot be fun? No comment on Domingo's Uti reasoning?

A small question about Nootka. The agreement is forged in 1790 between Spain and Britain. Spain unilaterally abandons it in 1795. Spain 'unilaterally' reinstates it in 1814?

Britain didn't have a view on 1795 or 1814??

I only ask out of interest as I still believe that Nootka is no longer relevant in any way. The current Falklands War will be fought on the battlefield of the UN Charter. Un Resolutions have called for negotiations but are not binding on either party.

And as we know, there have been no Resolutions since 1988. I'm still trying to work out why but that's a fact.

It would seem that another UNGA Resolution calling for negotiations would favour Argentina, and yet they haven't achieved one. Well, it'll come up again soon enough but the 'agreement' has held for a long time. Will it prevail this year too ??

@306 Good question. The answer is that the last officer for Spain, when Spain officially “left” the islands, remained on his post on behalf of the revolution, and was paid from Buenos Aires. Thus, the transition was seamless.

@307 Dab If you're going to compare the texts, don't resort to little tricks and COMPARE THE SAME SENTENCE. First off - I would like to see SOURCES. I don't believe that the text in Spanish and English differ in any way. Second - to the point: the difference isn't located where you claim it to be, such that it would hold the effect you intend.

The Spanish is:

“...los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de estas costas, situadas al sur de las partes de las mismas costas ya ocupadas por España...”

The English is:

“... the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain...”

So, as anyone who is bilingual can plainly see, both English and Spanish phrases contain the EXACT SAME TERMS OF PROHIBITION.

IDENTICAL. No establishment ON THE COASTS - says NOTHING about establishment on the islands. Your little theory of Argentina breaking Nootka first has just gone where it belongs:

FLUSHED DOWN THE TOILET.

Point 2 - your quote ”Are you seriously suggesting that uti possidetis meant this:

“its primary aim of securing respect for the territorial boundaries AT THE MOMENT WHEN INDEPENDENCE IS ACHIEVED.”

Tell me, have you always been this dimwitted - or did you have to work at it?
Really, are you seriously asking me if Uti applied to independence in Roman times?

Or do you think me so careless that I wouldn't notice you asked me for TWO things, 1. that it existed before 1816 and 2. the definition, both of which I provided?

If you keep wasting my time with idiotic questions, I will have to ignore you.

@Red -Fun? It'll pay off when it's time to headbutt someone, believe me.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!!!

Uti Possidets Juris is an adaptation of the Roman concept. A 19th C adaptation. As I said before, change the context and you change the thing itself. The Uti Possidetis Juris that Argentina tries to rely upon was in a form conjured up to meet the specific problems being encountered by South America in the early 1800's.

An excellent idea, it rather fell down in the execution. It did not bind any country that did not accept the legal construct. It hardly bound those that did!

A South American solution to South American problems. The UK was not bound by it.

Argentina inherited what it could hold by force, particularly against it's neighbours. Argentina had not gained any real control over the Falkland Islands so there was nothing to hold. It tried to take instead, in 1832. Argentina didn't manage to take either!

Enjoy your headache :-)

@307 question: How is it that only occupied Malvinas?
Why did not occupy other points south?
Why not occupied southern Chile? Chile also 3rd power.
The entire English argument collapses with logic simple.

@308 - Red, I will admit you're absolutely right:

DAB IS AS DUMB AS A WALL OF BRICKS. I should never waste another second of my life answering him again. He asks me for two proofs, I give them to him, then he confuses one for the other. He maintains there are 2 recognitions for 2 belligerent sides in a civil war in which there was only 1 outcome and 1 entity. It's my fault for paying him attention.

Also....my #300 answered Domingo's #295 and I didn't see one after, I will check again.

Now, to answer your question - Spain and Britain went to war in '95, that was the reason for the period of suspension. Spain didn't unilaterally reinstate it in 1814; rather, the reinstatement took place bilaterally with a treaty of Amity and Alliance signed the 5th of July of 1814, as published by the Foreign Office. Hence, and rightfully so, the position of the British Government in 1920 was that all British claims were void after 1790.

This is the primary reason why, in the latter half of the 20th century, the British abandoned their initial basis of “prior discovery”, switching instead towards “acquisitive prescription”.

You said you held an M.Sc. and I haven't questioned your honesty on that. But here's something that might:

Would you admit at least that it SEEMS suspect?

I mean, if someone claims to have a title... says “my case is watertight and I'm ABSOLUTELY sure of it”....

....why would they forego and eliminate their first rationale for such claim in favor or another? ANY other (forget the fact that acquisitive prescription is a poor excuse in and of itself)??

DON'T YOU THINK IT RATHER STRANGE THAT SUCH A WATERTIGHT CASE FOR SOVEREIGNTY GETS TOSSED ALL OF A SUDDEN AND REPLACED WITH A NEW ONE??

Doesn't that at least strike you as a little odd? It's like getting on a fishing boat with a master telling you how strong the hull is while they're patching its holes right in front of you.

I don't have to tell you what the seas are like down there, right?

#309 AlejandroArgerich:“ @306 Good question. The answer is that the last officer for Spain, when Spain officially “left” the islands, remained on his post on behalf of the revolution, and was paid from Buenos Aires. Thus, the transition was seamless.”

Thank you for your reply on this point. I would be interested to know some more details, as this is a story that I am not familiar with.
1) Who was this last officer for Spain? Does he have a name and what was his official capacity? If there is a record of him being paid from Buenos Aires, then I assume there must be some record of who he was.
2) When did he decide to switch sides to support the revolution (and how did they find out)?
3) When did he eventualy leave the islands?

I thought that the islands had no resident population from 1811 until some time in the 1820s, so he must have been living there on his own.

M.Phil actually.

You're naivety is showing. If you are studying to become a lawyer (?) then you should recognise the principle that lawyers can use any, and all, the arguments available to them. So, in a defence, the lawyer can submit “No, my client didn't do it' as well as ”My client did do it but he's not guilty because ...“. Both submissions, in the english system at least, can be submitted at the same time.

So no, I don't think it strange that arguments are refined over time. And if a better one appears ... a lawyer will go for it everytime.

Politicians always prefer to be positive. So ”We have no doubts ...“ is a very political statement. Having said that, politicians are always watching their backs, so if the Prime Minister states, ”We have no doubts..“, you can bet he checked with the lawyers first.

But then ”We have no doubts..“ is not quite the same as ”There are no doubts..” :-)

Of course if Argentina similarly had no doubts, why hasn't it taken the road to the ICJ ?

I suspect both sides have doubts in private, but neither will have them in public!

And you cannot dismiss Dab so lightly. He comes across with very reasoned arguments and I don't doubt he'll be back at you again very shortly. He's better at the old Treaties than me, but tell me... did the 1814 Treaty specifically name Nootka and specificallt reinstate it as it was in 1790? Not that that overcomes the issue of 'adjacent'.

Domingo is very reasoned, and even I don't take the piss!

I like your analogy about the boat, it could be applied to politicians generally.

@311 Red - Ok, M.Phil, I stand corrected - but your BS is still absolutely baffling!!

Nevertheless, the facts are quite easy to grasp, because they all hinge on a single achilles' heel of your argument:

“change the context and you change the thing itself”.

Why? Because you say so? I don't think so. Uti has been an established legal principle since time immemorial, applied to countless different situations in multiple contexts. Each context is different, yes, but the LEGAL PRINCIPLE remains the same. Let's see if your argument holds true by applying it to another principle of law.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a special forces team kidnapped you for rendition to another country. So, let's extrapolate various scenarios: 1. a US Navy seal team, thinking you're a high value target. 2. a Russian SPETZNAZ team, thinking you're a chechen terrorist. 3. Argentine HALCONs, for being a krazy kelper.

In all three cases - no matter the reason for which you were taken - wouldn't your lawyer file a petition for your release based on Habeas Corpus?

Has not Habeas, as a legal concept, existed since Roman times just as Uti? Would you really care that the context of each kidnapping is different?

Would you agree that Habeas applies to one scenario and not to another because the context of each rendition is different??

ARE YOU SAYING THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF HABEAS CHANGES BASED ON THE CONTEXT OF YOUR KIDNAPPING BY ONE PARTY OR ANOTHER???

OF COURSE NOT. That would be ludicrous. The context may change - the legal concept does not. The same applies to Uti, it is the same concept used by the Romans, used by the Spanish, used by the LatAm countries. Context matters not one bit.

Sorry old boy - you're going to have to do better than that if you want to give me a headache.

Now to your 315 - “arguments are refined over time”. Sure, but this is more like changing a defendant's plea altogether, from not guilty, to guilty, to not guilty by criminal insanity.

Alejandro,

Have your reading comprehension skills always been this crap?

-Como por el artículo 6° del presente convenio se ha estipulado por lo que respecta a las COSTAS tanto orientales como occidentales DE SUDAMERICA E ISLAS ADYACENTES, que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de ESTAS COSTAS, situadas al sur de las partes de las MISMAS COSTAS ya ocupadas por España, se ha convenido y determinado por el presente artículo, que dicha estipulación no entrará en vigor más que entre tanto no se forme algún establecimiento en los lugares en cuestión por súbditos de otra potencia

It quite clearly refers to the coasts of the main land AND THE COASTS OF ADJACENT ISLANDS

I did not ask you to provide 2 proofs of 2 things

I asked you to provide evidence of one specific thing, that's one, not two.

Again, my post 286:

Uti Possidetis Juris is:

“The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence”

Alejandro, please provide evidence that uti possidetis with the specific definition above was established international law when Argentina declared independence. It must be the above definition, and not any other definition that uti possidetis has had during its history.

I did not ask you to provide proof that Ut possidetis existed before 1816.

I know it did.

I did not ask you to provide proof of the current definition of uti possidetis.

I know what it is.

I asked you to provide proof that uti possidetis with the current definition, as quoted above, and not any other definition it has had throughout its history, was established international law when Argentina declared independence.

#316 AlejandroArgerich: “Has not Habeas, as a legal concept, existed since Roman times...”

No, I don't think so. Most likely Anglo-Saxon origin, as far as I'm aware.

“ ... Uti possidetis (Latin for ”as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty doesn't include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail. Originating in Roman law, the phrase is derived from the Latin expression uti possidetis, ita possideatis, meaning “as you possessed, you shall possess henceforth”. This principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war. ...

... More recently, the principle has been used in a modified form (Uti possidetis juris) to establish the frontiers of newly independent states following decolonization, by ensuring that the frontiers followed the original boundaries of the old colonial territories from which they emerged. This use originated in South America in the 19th century with the withdrawal of the Spanish Empire. By declaring that uti possidetis applied, the new states sought to ensure that there was no terra nullius in South America when the Spanish withdrew and to reduce the likelihood of border wars between the newly independent states and the establishment of new European colonies...”

I know it's Wikipedia but then it answers your question so well. Over complication may be a lawyers delight, but it is just a muddying of the waters.

Uti Possidetis Juris is a 'modified' form. Modification involves change, and as the modification took place against the change in application (context) then the thing itself is different from the original.

I am not aware of any modification to Habeas Corpus.

And the plea hasn't changed ... it's still 'Not Guilty', only the arguments get refined.

Stuff to do ... hasta luego :-)

Just because a law uses a latin phrase, it does not mean it existed during Roman times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

(315) Hoyt

You say:
”And you cannot dismiss Dab so lightly…..”
I say:
Dab accepted a little symbolic bet on the Peruvian election results (his country of residence) and when he lost,………….. complete radio silence.
Very light…. Dismissed……….

Ps:
The only argument you seem to have left against Mr. Argerich is your sarcasm, an asset you certainly have ”refined over time” :-)

You say:
”Domingo is very reasoned….”
I say:
I remember Domingo…….. editing ”accidentally” UN resolutions to read ”Wishes of the Islanders” instead of ”Interests of the Islanders ”
I remember Domingo……. insulting and threatening Argentina with obliteration…..
Very unreasonable….. Dismissed

@ Crackpot - Anglo-Saxon origin - hence the Latin name, no doubt?

Anyway...here are the details you asked for. His name was Gerardo Bordas. He was a military officer, his rank was “segundo piloto” although it's hard for me to state what a corresponding modern rank would be. He left the islands in January of 1810. He asked Buenos Aires for payment of his salary given that Spain refused.
This request was granted by Saavedra's revolutionary government on May 30th 1810.

@Dab - still?? Ok. You really are daft - I'll attempt to demonstrate the difference once again. THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PHRASES IN THE SENTENCE, ONE IDENTIFIES THE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE, THE OTHER THE PROHIBITED ACTION.

Wait. Go back. RE-READ WHAT I JUST WROTE. I'll wait.........done? Great.

Let's move forward and analyse the TWO PHRASES.

PHRASE 1 in SPANISH

“ por lo que respecta a las COSTAS tanto orientales como occidentales DE SUDAMERICA E ISLAS ADYACENTES...”

PHRASE 1 in ENGLISH

“respecting the eastern and western COASTS of South America,”

Still with me? Great! Let's keep going:

PHRASE 2 in SPANISH

“ que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de ESTAS COSTAS, ”

PHRASE 2 in ENGLISH

“that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of THESE COASTS ”

GET IT??? THE PROHIBITION IS A PROHIBITION ON “THESE COASTS”. It has NOTHING to do with the adpositional phrase that precedes it. The only thing that phrase #1 says is (and I'll translate into chavspeak):

“”Yi mate, d'ya remembah back whar this fingy sed sum eyebrow shit 'bout the coast of souf 'merica 'n the islands adjacent...janartamean?”

That's ALL that Phrase 1 said. If you like, I can translate the rest of the Nootka Convention text into Chavspeak for your convenience as well.

@317 question: How is it that only occupied Malvinas?
Why did not occupy other points south?
Why not occupied southern Chile? Chile also 3rd power.
The entire English argument collapses with logic simple.
Remember the Malvinas Islands were occupied by Spain.
Recuerde: las islas Malvinas ya estaban ocupadas por España.
Por lo tanto de haber tenido algún derecho Inglaterra estaba impedida de perfeccionarlo mediante una ocupación. Nootka también implicó un reconocimiento de la soberanía española sobre las islas.
Please if any of the boys Argies can translate. Thank you.

You know what? F-it, I'll translate BOTH Phrase 1 AND Phrase 2 into Chavspeak and we can put it to bed:

SPANISH: (ommiting “e islas” because you haven't provided a source that shows a difference between english and spanish texts)

“...por lo que respecta a las COSTAS tanto orientales como occidentales DE SUDAMERICA, que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de ESTAS COSTAS...”

ENGLISH:

“...respecting the eastern and western COASTS of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of THESE COASTS...”

CHAVSPEAK:

“Oi mate, d'ya remembah back whar this fingy sed sum eyebrow shit 'bout the coast of souf 'merica 'n the islands adjacent...janartamean? Right. Well see dis like an onnist oaf dat aftah dem spanish blokes was like ”oi you, oppit!“ an' de king said to them ok mate so yafta stay away from now on”.

@323 manu said

“remember the Malvina islands were already occupied by Spain, thus, if England had any rights it would have been impeded from asserting those rights by means of an occupation. Nootka also implied a recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands”.

PHRASE 1 in SPANISH

“ por lo que respecta a las COSTAS tanto orientales como occidentales DE SUDAMERICA E ISLAS ADYACENTES...”

Yes, the coasts of the mainland and the coasts of adjacent islands. Both types of coasts

PHRASE 2 in SPANISH

“ que los respectivos súbditos no formarán en adelante ningún establecimiento en las partes de ESTAS COSTAS, ”

GET IT??? THE PROHIBITION IS A PROHIBITION ON “THESE COASTS”.

‘Estas costas’ refers to both the coasts of the mainland and the coasts of adjacent islands. Both types of coasts

Article 6 forbade both the Spanish and British, not just the British, to make any further settlements to the south of any existing Spanish settlement. Do you seriously think the Spaniards would not have considered article 6 null and void if in 1792 the Dutch, for example, had made a settlement on any of the islands of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago?

No, einstein, it refers to the eastern and western coasts of south america, not the islands adjacent.

Who puts an establishment only on the coast of an island?? HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY KIND OF SENSE? The TWO coasts referred to in BOTH the english and spanish version are the “eastern and western” coasts of South America. The “islands adjacent” is always a separate subject mentioned separately and explicitly, and completely absent from the prohibition in the secret clause.

Moreover - AND FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME - please provide some sort of citation or proof that the English and Spanish texts of Nootka differ, as you are assuming. So far you've only quoted and given nothing to prove you haven't pulled it out of your arse.

¡¡¡PIRATAS LADRONES, THIEFS!!!

Also - “Article 6 forbade both the Spanish and British, not just the British, to make any further settlements....”

...“FURTHER settlements”....who had a settlement on the islands in 1709? Spain. Who didn't????

Guess. I BET YOU WON'T GUESS.

(Hint: they speak English).

THAT'S RIGHT, THE BRITISH! WHO LEFT IN 1774, LEFT A PLAQUE, AND THEN GAVE UP THE RIGHT TO ANY FURTHER PERMANENT SETTLEMENT BY SIGNING NOOTKA IN 1790.

And Spain was within Nootka as long as it made no new settlements, which it didn't.

So are you now saying that in 1792 the Dutch made a settlement in an island of the Tierra del Fuego archipelago??

If SPAIN didn't break nootka, and the UNITED PROVINCES didn't break Nootka - well that leaves only one possibility, doesn't it.

Sorry Think, but it is you that are 'dismissed', easily as you present no arguments at all.

Now Domingo at #281 makes some interesting points. Unanswered so far ??

I shan't get involved in translation arguments .... no idea what they're talking about :-)

Erm Alejandro, the UP/Argentina was not a party to Nootka, so cannot benefit in any way.

If Argentina, confident in its claim, took the matter to the ICJ but then proceeded to lose, would Argentina withdraw its claim to the Falkland Islands?

This is an interessting discussion, gives me more information about a theme that I am not too familiar with.

Just a doubt about all this discussion arround Uti possidetis... as far as my understanding is, this can apply for a clean chronological case, whereas the old colonial power leaves the territory to the emerged ex-colony. But isn't this void, when a third party brakes the chain... lets say, like for example, the US?

Just a question...

#322 AlejandroArgerich:
“@Crackpot - Anglo-Saxon origin - hence the Latin name, no doubt?”

As already noted by #320 dab14763, just because the term is in Latin, it doesn't automatically imply that it has Roman origin. I'm pretty certain I'm right about that one, although it's not relevant to much anyway.

“Anyway...here are the details you asked for. His name was Gerardo Bordas. He was a military officer, his rank was “segundo piloto” although it's hard for me to state what a corresponding modern rank would be. He left the islands in January of 1810. He asked Buenos Aires for payment of his salary given that Spain refused. This request was granted by Saavedra's revolutionary government on May 30th 1810.”

That makes no sense, then. If he left in 1810, that was before the Spanish officcally left. So, what's all this about a seamless transition. Your saying that he was the last one to leave, but that it happenend before everyone else left!
I therefore go back to my original question and ask how the United Provinces inherited a territory that had been abandoned by Spain 5 years earlier. Does the concept of Uti also extend to inheriting a claim to a territory?

Alejandro,
You are a lunatic, articulate maybe but still completely nuts.
The boys here have refuted ALL of your ridiculous assertions but still you froth at the mouth. You have even managed to upset the Chileans.
You think you are something special with your arrogant put-down of Cockney slang.
l think l prefer your other identity of m/a. Although crude & very, very wrong, it at least is more honest.
l think you seriously need help, can you get it?
l hate myself when l do this, but l cannot resist it!
Hey, Alex, There is NOTHING to negotiate! Hope this helps.

Thank you Alejandro Argerich
question: How is it that only occupied Malvinas?
Why did not occupy other points south?
Why not occupied southern Chile? Chile also 3rd power.
Chile was also a third power and yet England not occupy any point in the present Chilean territory.
The entire English argument collapses with logic simple.
Remember the Malvinas Islands were occupied by Spain.
remember the Malvina islands were already occupied by Spain, thus, if England had any rights it would have been impeded from asserting those rights by means of an occupation. Nootka also implied a recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands”.

AilingArg has a point, after all in 1790 Paris would have been considered 'adjacent' to London :-)

Remember, 33 - the Falkland islands were occupied by Britain - 1765 to 2011 !

Red, very wrong already occupied from 1764 to 1833!!!
Remember 1764, One thousand seven hundred seventy-four.

Remeber they were FRENCH! Spain may have told them to go, but Spain didn't get there until 1767.

You could not 'inherit' from the French!

1765 - 2011 beats 1767 - 1811, any day of the week :-)

You said so French! No English.
Therefore, no English right.
In 1765 Byron left a retired little flag and there was no colony.

” ... 1764 – The St. Malo company of France founds a settlement on the Falkland Islands at Port Loius.

1765 – In January Captain John Byron explores the islands and claims them for King George III as the Falkland Islands. Byron establishes Port Egmont and establishes a watering place and vegetable garden.

1766 – In January Captain John MacBride arrives and founds the settlement of Port Egmont in order to secure possession. Cattle, goats, sheep and pigs are taken to the islands to support the settlement.

1767 – Spain discovers that the French are on the islands and object. France cedes Port Louis to Spain in exchange for compensation (six hundred and eighteen thousand one hundred and eight livres, thirteen sols, and eleven deniers). Port Louis is renamed Puerto Soledad. The Spanish and the British are unaware of each other’s presence....”

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/

For the sake of argument, lets say 1766 ... so our 245 years still beats your 44 years !

The position of the British Government has always been that Nootka did not apply to the Falklands. This position has been maintained since 1790, the records are in Hansard.

The position of the British Government was no different in 1920 and the opinion of various foreign office officials does not represent the British position.

Really if that is the sole response, I don't rate your debating skills all that high.

And again Utis Possidetis is a concept in Roman law, which essentially means “as you possess” and is a recipe for territorial acquisition through conquest. Again Utis Possidetis Juris was an agreement on a principle between Latin American states as a means of settling border disputes between themselves.

And there you're not even consistent, since under the Utis Possidetis Juris principle the islands being administered from Montevideo at the time of the Spanish abandonment. Thus any claim would belong to Uruguay.

But the Spanish never exercised control over the Falklands, they maintained a small penal settlement at Puerto Soledad (Port Louis/Anson's Harbour), which they abandoned in 1811. This does not mean that the right to the islands passed to Argentina through an “inheritance”.

No matter how loud you shout or try to confuse matters, Utis Possidetis Juris evolved at the Conference of Lima in 1848 and as an agreement between Latin American states is not binding upon Britain.

You also mention illegal Governments which amuses me no end, as the Government that proclaimed Vernet as Governor and asserted a claim to the Falklands was deemed an illegal Government by the Rosas administration that followed it, who also declared all proclamations of the previous Government invalid.

Just another of those inconvenient little facts.

Argentina or the UP were a non-signatory power attempting to set up a colony in the Falklands, they issues a proclamation in 1829 to that effect. Nootka was immediately invalid, a moot point as it never applied.

@ 340 Very well Red! you gave me the reason to me!
The Spanish knew of the British presence by the French.

Ooops, sorry Marvin33, I forgot, you're not spanish are you .... so that's 1832 (Oct) to 1833 (January) ...... even Spain's 44 years is a bit better than that!

So tell me ... if Spain knew of the British presence in 1767, why didn't they do anything about it until they were told to sod off in 1771?

There were the Spanish when they were found in 1770.

#322 AlejandroArgerich:
I know I'm on a slightly different topic to everyone else here, but none of stuff about Gerardo Bordas makes sense to me. This is how I understand it from what I have read:
1) First Pilot Gerardo Bordas was the Spanish governor of the Falklands up until he left in January 2010 (before the May revolution).
2) He goes immediately to Montivideo asking for payment from Rear Admiral Salazar, who represents the Spanish authorities there.
3) Rear Admiral Salazar forwards the request to Governer Cisneros in Buenos Aires.
4) Governer Cisneros orders that the Real Orders in the treasury (documents that outline any allowances due to Bordas) are sent back to Salazar, but they never get sent.
5) On 20 May 2010, Salazar make another official request to the Cisneros.
6) Due to the events of “May Week”, on 30 May 2010 the official request from Salazar ends up on the desk of Cornelio Judas Tadeo de Saavedra, President of the Government Board that has replaced Viceroy Cisneros.
7) Because of this last point, we end up with an offical document (which is simply a request for some paperwork) signed by Saavedra and Juan Jose Paso (Secretary), regarding Bordas' request and his payment in his role as Governor of the Falklands.
8) However, we have no evidence that he ended up getting paid by anybody, and at no point is there any evidence that he joined the revolutionaries or renounced his loyalty to the Spanish Crown.
9) Finally, Bordas was not the last Spanish governor of the Falklands - that was Second Pilot Pablo Guillen who was in charge from January 2010 until February 2011, when the remaining Spanish settlers left the Islands.

So, your premise that the last Spanish official responsible for the Falklands when Spain officially left the islands somehow carried on in his post on behalf of the revolution (thus ensuring a “seamless transition”) would appear to be completely unfounded.

Marvin33, quite correct, it was 1770 when we told you to sod off! But you didn't answer the question, why, if the spanish knew about the British in 1867, did they not do anything until the encounter of 1770?

” ... 1767 – Spain discovers that the French are on the islands and object. France cedes Port Louis to Spain in exchange for compensation (six hundred and eighteen thousand one hundred and eight livres, thirteen sols, and eleven deniers). Port Louis is renamed Puerto Soledad. The Spanish and the British are unaware of each other’s presence.

1768 – Captain Rayner is Military Commander at Port Egmont.

1769 – Captain Anthony Hunt, HMS Tamar is Military Commander at Port Egmont.

In November Cpt. Hunt requires a Spanish schooner seen surveying the area, to leave.

This is the first time that the two claimants become aware of each other’s presence on the islands. The Spanish Governor of Puerto Soledad objects, stating that the islands are Spanish. Cpt. Hunt responds by indicating that the islands are British by right of first discovery and settlement...”

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/

#322 AlejandroArgerich: before you point it out, I know I made typos in the dates and it should be 1810 and 1811 rather than 2010 and 2011.

# 287 Alejandro....that message wasn´t for you......but to JK an special individual so well described by you in other posts.....he can´t fool nobody with his vulgar lies and tricks, because of that was kicked from WP.

By the way....you can speak in spanish to dab14763 , named David Barrow, se hace el boludo pero entiende, escribe y habla perfectamente español, incluso trabaja en Peru como profesor.

Pienso que es el peor en la forma en que mezcla verdad con mentira para sostener sus argumentos, es más refinado y sutil que JK y a mi criterio más peligroso.

@347 Crackpot, correct Pablo Guillen 1811
@346 Red, Byron and Bougainville crossing when they went in search of wood.
Choiseul informed to the British ambassador of the transfer the islands to Spain. September 17, 1766
England does not protest.
1768 Bucarelli is ordered to allow no English establishment.
Was not certain whether the English were somewhere on the continent or the islands.
1770. The English are encounter

“ ... Choiseul informed to the British ambassador of the transfer the islands to Spain. September 17, 1766. England does not protest. ..”

I understand that the French saw some British ships in 1765, but there was no encounter and the French were unaware of the British settlement. I've not heard of any official notification between France and Britain before. Your evidence, source please! If it's from a book, the author's source please!

@ 350 Ok Red, Bougainville Louis Antoine Voyage autour du monde...
Martin- Allanic Jean Etienne, Bougainville navigateur et les découvertes de son temps.
Julius Goebel The Struggle for the Falklands Islands
Gisela Martinez Casado Malvinas nuestro legado francés
Paul Groussac Les iles Malouines
Rafael Saiegh, Francia en las Malvinas.
I hope it will be useful

As long as the islanders wish to remain british,
i cant see that their is anything that argentina, or the UN can do about it,, other than wish them well.

#345 you are incorrect, the last Spanish Governor of Puerto Soledad was withdrawn in 1806. For 5 years there was no Governor, then in February 1811 orders were issued to evacuate the garrison.

@ 352 Nobody says that you change their nationality, language, religion and customs.
Do not leave this problem to future generations
@ wrong Justin
1805 -1806 Antonio Leal
1806- 1808 Bernardo de Bonavía
1809- 1810 Gerardo Bondas
1810-1811 Pablo Guillen

Wrong, the Spanish Governor was withdrawn in 1806. The military administrators were not Governors under the Spanish system.

#353 JustinKuntz: Fair enough (I don't know enough about it to say whether he was a governor or a lesser official), but it doesn't affect the argument.

AlejandroArgerich was implying that there was some sort of seamless transition between Spanish and UP officials repsonsible for the islands, but that is clearly hogwash.

(355) Yet another ”little convenient lie” from Mr Justin(hishead)Kuntz.

Spanish Governors
5 Apr 1764-1 Apr 1767 Louis Antoine de Bougainville
2 Apr 1767-23 Jan 1773 Felipe Ruíz Fuente
23 Jan 1773-5 Jan 1774 Domingo Chauri
5 Jan 1774-1 Feb 1777 Francisco Gil de Lemos
1 Feb 1777-22 Nov 1779 Ramón de Carassa
22 Nov 1779-26 Feb 1781 Salvador de Medina
26 Feb 1781-1 Apr 1783 Jacinto Mariano del Carmen
1 Apr 1783-28 Jun 1784 Fulgencio Montemayor
28 Jun 1784-15 May 1785 Agustín Figueroa
15 May 1785-25 May 1786 Ramón de Clairac
25 May 1786-15 May 1787 Pedro de Mesa
15 May 1787-10 Apr 1788 Ramón de Clairac
10 Apr 1788-16 May 1789 Pedro de Mesa
16 May 1789- 30 Jun 1790 Ramón de Clairac
30 Jun 1790-1 Mar 1791 Juan José de Elizlade
1 Mar 1791-1 Mar 1792 Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
1 Mar 1792-1 Feb 1793 Juan José de Elizlade
1 Feb 1793-Apr 1794 Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
Apr 1794-15 Jun 1795 José de Aldana
15 Jun 1795-15 Mar 1796 Pedro Pablo Sanguineto
15 Mar 1796-20 Feb 1797 José de Aldana
20 Feb 1797-17 Mar 1798 Luis de Medina
17 Mar 1798-Apr 1799 Francisco Xavier de Viana
Apr 1799-15 Mar 1800 Luis de Medina
15 Mar 1800-31 Mar 1801 Francisco Xavier de Viana
31 Mar 1801-17 Mar 1802 Ramón Fernández de Villegas
17 Mar 1802-Feb 1803 Bernardo de Bonavía
Feb 1803-21 Mar 1804 Antonio de Ibarra
21 Mar 1804-21 Mar 1805 Bernardo de Bonavía
21 Mar 1805-20 Mar 1806 Antonio de Ibarra
20 Mar 1806-Aug 1808 Bernardo de Bonavía
Aug 1808-Jan 1810 Gerardo Bordas
Jan 1810-13 Feb 1811 Pablo Guillén Martínez
13 Feb 1811-6 Nov 1820 Vacant

Argentine Representatives
6 Nov 1820-Apr 1821 Daniel Jewett
May 1821-Jun 1821 Guillermo Mason
2 Feb 1824-Aug 1824 Pablo Areguatí

Argentine Governors
10 Jun 1829-10 Sep 1832 Louis Vernet
1831-28 Dec 1831 Matthew Brisbane(acting)
Dec 1831-Nov 1832 William Dickinson(acting)
Nov 1832-30 Nov 1832 Juan Esteban Mestivier
1832-3 Jan 1833 José María Pinedo
3 Jan 1833-26 Aug 1833 Juan Simón (acting)

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Falklands.html

#357 Think:
Unfortunately, the last part of your list is incorrect.
The full list of Argentine Governors of the Falkland Islands is as follows:

3 Apri 1982-14 Jun 1982 Brigadier General Mario Menéndez

If you think otherwise, then please provide a reliable source.

UK's first Stealth fighter in successful catapult test
Royal Navy version of the F-35 shot into sky
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/28/f35c_cat_test_shot/

The cost of the things today certainly is not cheap.
But when you compare costs to defend overseas territories,
As long as the UK, is wealthier than Argentina, then the cost is rather irrelevant,

The Falkland’s, or garrison, whatever suits, the cost really is minimal
If you compared this to Germany or Cyprus,
But I think your main problem is,
Not can we afford it for ever,
But should be, will we pay the price of freedom, integrity and democracy,
When looking at two world wars, Korea and many other wars,
The answer will be [yes]
So if by any chance Argentina was waiting for the money or interest to run out, then I’m afraid you are in for the long haul,
Perhaps another 1,000 years .mmm
as for past governors, they are dead, so the past is rather irrelivent from that point of view,
for only the living will decide,
and that will most certainly include the falkland islanders themselves .

Marvin33 - your books contain no sources! And the idea that the Commander of the British settlement and the founder of the French one bumped into each other while hunting for wood is faintly ludicrous. Not proven I'm afraid.

Think - Jewett was never a Governor, merely a privateer who founded no settlement and affords no sovereignty to Argentina. Mason and Areguati worked for Vernett and also held no titles. And the same goes for Vernett, Brisbane and Dickinson who were there with British permission and did not hold the title of Governor, acting or not. After January 1833, an Argentine 'governor' is merely a joke.

All lies Think, you should be ashamed of yourself.

(360) Hoyt

If you have any evidence of what you are saying, just contact this people, they will surely love your contribution:
”World Statesmen.org is updated frequently and the editor welcomes and appreciates comments, corrections and additions. This site will always be a work in progress, there will always be more information to collect, new countries and provinces to add, and leaders to include”
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/INTRO.html

Until then,……..what you are saying sounds just like more British wishful thinking and fabrications…….

Very much in the style of your denial of the expulsion of the Argentinean Malvinas population in 1833
All historical documents show that about 60 people where kicked out but now some Brits try to say otherwise….

Who’s lying?

You are!

You have evidence that Jewett carried the title of 'governor'? Of course not as there is no such evidence. You know this already of course, so you are lying!

Mason held no title and was merely an employee ... this you know too. You told a lie!

A title for Argeuati was requested but not granted. Official titles have to be 'gazetted' ... can you show me the official pronouncement of this man's elevation? No? An untruth then.

Vernett was given a title but it was not 'governor' ... unless you can show me the official record regarding this. But then you know it doesn't exist. Another lie then.

Relying on an untrue record when you know it's untrue affords you no defence Think.

It is you that lies !!

As for the mythical expulsion. The Lexington removed a large group in 1831, but that was the Yanks. Nothing to do with us.

“ .. On December 31st, 1831 the USS Lexington arrives in the islands and ‘arrests’ seven of Vernet’s settlers.

1832 – In February or March, the 7 prisoners, 13 slaves and some 26 settlers leave with the Americans, leaving a settlement of 24 of Vernet’s employees. Contary to subsequent reports, the settlement is not destroyed ...”

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/

The Clio ejected a trespassing, murderous garrison in January 1833 together with 2 settlers and their wives. Twenty-two remained. Those that were not entitled to be there went. Those that were, stayed.

All documented, indeed you provided me with the source from the sarandi.

Misinformation, lies, wishful thinking ... eh, Think?

Good morning to you too Mr. Hoyt…

You start your morning saying:
”You have evidence that Jewett carried the title of 'governor'?
Of course not as there is no such evidence.
You know this already of course, so you are lying!”

I say:
Of course I don’t have any evidence of Jewett carrying the title of “governor”….
Because he never has!........................
But:
I never wrote that!
Neither does my source: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Falklands.html

Why don’t you read before insulting?
Try to have a lok at my post 357again:
”Argentine Representatives
6 Nov 1820-Apr 1821 Daniel Jewett
May 1821-Jun 1821 Guillermo Mason
2 Feb 1824-Aug 1824 Pablo Areguatí”

It says:Representatives, lad…. R E P R E S E N T A T I V E S, not governors…..

My apologies Think, with 'Governors' above and 'Governors below, I missed the sublte difference.

But then, they were hardly 'representatives' either. Jewett was a privateer with no proven authority to do anything other than exercise his trade. Mason and Areguati worked for Vernett, but neither carried any title and can hardly be seen as 'representatives'.

Any evidence that they were Argentina's 'Representatives' ??

http://www.worldstatesmen.org/INTRO.html

World statesmen is what we would class as a Self-Published Source on wikipedia and not a reliable source. If you look at the source it is full of misinformation, such as claiming William Dixon, Matthew Brisbane and Juan Simon as ac ting Governors. None ever acted in that capacity, in point of fact when Brisbane returned in March 1833 (that would be after the supposed expulsion of January 1833 by the by...) he aassured Captain Fitzroy he was there in the capacity of Vernet's representative and not to further the territorial ambitions of the republic of Buenos Aires.

It is David Jewitt by the way, Vernet made that mistake in 183. Jewitt was never an Argentine representative, nor was Mason. Both were privateers in the employ of a consortium of BA businessman led by one Patricio (Patrick) Lynch.

Areguati was never a Governor or a representative, he was Vernet's business partner. They did apply for an official appointment but the application was rejected.

Although Vernet was proclaimed Governor his appointment was never gazetted, indeed the only appointment to follow the correct procedure was that of Mestivier.

Neither did Pinedo ever act in any capacity, other than as the commander of the ARA Sarandi.

The Spanish Governor was withdrawn in 1806, the garrison evacuated in February 1811. The lower ranking officials named above did not act in the capacity as Governor and to claim that there is some connection with the revolution is both specious and false.

And I see El Thicko returning to the standard practise of lying about the alleged expulsion of 1833, in spite of the overwhelming documentary evidence to the contrary. Even to the point where he claims Dixon, Brisbane and Simon were acting Governors - after the supposed expulsion.

Hoisted upon his own petard!

(365) Justin(hishead)Kuntz says:

“World statesmen is what we would class as a Self-Published Source on Wikipedia and not a reliable source.”

I say:
Who is “We”
Are “We” royal now?
or
Is there more than one Justin(hishead)Kuntz ?
or
Is he referring to all those voices in his head telling him the truth about past present and future?

Anyhow, I know for a fact that Wikipedia saboteurs as Mr. Kuntz are very angry at sites like : http://www.worldstatesmen.org/ because they are not allowed to edit and tergiversate them at will….

As I said before to Mr. Hoyt (and anybody else out there), the guys at “Worldstatemen” will be more than happy for any goodwill contribution and authentic information.

Same here - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/

Of course, repeating what you know to be untrue does not absolve you from the lie itself!

Neither does posting biased links.

@334 - Isolde.

Ah, the chav speaks again!

Let's examine this latest installment of delightful rhetoric that has again flowed from the fountain of hooligan logic that flows from your keyboard!

The boys have refuted my assertions? Interesting. Tell me - what exactly did they put forth that convinced you?

Was it their willful ignorance of the primary texts cited?

Was it their baseless arguments that a well-known principle of law magically didn't apply?

Or perhaps it was the mindboggling lunacy that the islands aren't adjacent to South America?

How about the outright dismissal of Foreign Office documents outlining a pro-Argentine sovereignty, for trivial reasons?

Perhaps in the dimension where you people exist, where up is down, left is right, present is absent and applicable is unrelated - well, these might all be convincing arguments.

Then again, here in the real world, the only thing the boys have managed to refute is that they can grasp even the smallest measure of deductive reasoning (not that they needed to prove so in the first place).

Why do you think I take myself as something special? I mean sure...if I were to bloody your nose you would probably have to fight the irresistible urge to thank me for it, but other than that I think I'm just an average bloke.

I'm so glad you think I'm honest! I can see you're honest too, because while all the others attempt to make halfwit connotations and extrapolations while they ignore primary texts altogether, all you do is lob insults. See, at least you have the honesty to admit to yourself that you couldn't put two cogent sentences together to save your miserable life (not that all the others' statements are in any way cogent).

By the way, I AM frothing at the mouth, from an ICE COLD QUILMES, THE BEST BEER IN THE WORLD, not that penguin piss you pour down your throat by the pint. That stuff must clog up your neural pathways.

No wonder you people can't reason.

¡¡¡¡FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!!!

@341 - Justin, why are you telling me the records are in Hansard? We've all seen your dismissal of quotes from FO documents because an Argentine researcher had dug through them to uncover British hypocrisy.

Even the British ambassador to BA has doubts over British FI sovereignty - a “rock solid” case indeed!

Well, maybe they are in Justin's world, where FO documents that don't favor the British sovereignty claim don't count.

Wait, wait - I mean the CURRENT British sovereignty claim, “acquisitive prescription”.

I say that because there was a PREVIOUS British sovereignty claim. You keep pushing the history angle and I wonder why, since the previous historical basis for British sovereignty one was concluded to be entirely WORTHLESS decades ago by those blokes at the FO whose documented “opinions” you're so fond of dismissing arbitrarily.

So tell me, what could you possibly say to the fact that the Brits simply went and changed their story? That now the basis for their claim is a completely different from the one the British started out with?? I'd like to hear your unique brand of gibberish on it.

Keep on thinking there are no holes whatsoever in the British claim for sovereignty. Stand strong, mates - like the hull of a mighty ship tossed but unscathed in Argentine South Atlantic Seas. All aboard! Britannia rule the waves! For this British sovereignty argument is like a ship so solid and well-built that it perfectly reflects the best traditions of British seafaring culture - and you all seem to be happy to be on it.

Except that you didn't consider the fact that her name is TITANIC. Or your proximity to icebergs. Now, Argentina may not necessarily send an iceberg your way.

But rest assured: we do have a lot of Greenbergs, Rosenbergs, and a whole mess of jewish lawyers. So I hope your water pump works well. You may manage to stay afloat a little longer by patching those gaping holes while we're distracted.

But we both know you won't stay afloat forever.

@ 364 Think , Strange time warp. (@ 367) It says nothing of the 1774-1811 Spanish solitary occupation, without protest English. Reassertion of sovereignty? By magic? mmmmm

@341, Justin, you dont know

“Utis Possidetis Juris evolved at the Conference of Lima in 1848”

WRONG - UTI (no S) was established long as roman law still, use 66 years before Argentine independence TREATY OF MADRID 1750

“Government that proclaimed Vernet as Governor and asserted a claim to
the Falklands was deemed an illegal Government by the Rosas administration
that followed it.”

WRONG - Rosas government WAS illegal, for civil war then ROSAS WAS DEFEATED. He ran to Liverpool to the arms of the british , his decrees - include the one you say 'islands' government illegal' - was NULLIFIED, no force of law because no legal goverment.

“Argentina or the UP were a non-signatory power attempting to set up a colony in the Falklands, they issues a proclamation in 1829 to that effect.”

WRONG - the islands STILL a posession of Spain, after 1811 to 1816. Because MAY REVOLUTION WAS STILL LOYAL TO KING OF SPAIN. Uti passed them to the United Provinces at independence from Spain, 1816, with all former Virreynato territories. First proclamation of Argentina sovereignty was by Argentina Coronel David Jewett, 1820, not 1829.

Little facts? No, BIG facts - and for you, half truths and misrepresent are very convenient when you're trying to justify THEFT.

Strange 1811-1820 islands were unoccupied and even then does not reaffirmed its sovereignty. mmmm

#370 AlejandroArgerich: “Wait, wait - I mean the CURRENT British sovereignty claim...”

So, what your suggesting is that sovereignty claims don't evolve over time. I'm afraid you're wrong there. The length of time that a population remains in situ has a huge bearing (irrespective of whether you argue that they were impanted or not - that's irrelevant after all this time). Every year that the British have control over the islands and the Falkland Islanders live there and have children there makes any other claims that bit weaker. The Falkland Islanders have easiliy been there long enough to be considered the endogenous population (irrespective of all the spurios arguments over the origins of the small numbers of people who were sailing in and out of the place a couple of hundred years ago).

@345 Crackpot: Bordas wasn't governor, he was commander. There hadn't been a governorship in the islands since 1776. Bordas went to Montevideo to demand payment. When he does that, he leaves his subordinate, Pablo
Guillen, in charge of the evacuation. Guillen was never appointed, he was an officer that accompanied Bordas and was acting on behalf of Bordas until 1811.

The last officer appointed as commander by Spain was Bordas. His service was paid for by the May revolution, by order of Saavedra. He wrote the order and Argentina has the document - what you expect, a pay stub? It's 1810!
If Saavedra ordered Bordas to be paid for services rendered in the Malvinas Islands, we can assume he was paid. As for switching sides, it happened the second a Spanish officer accepts the pay of a revolutionary government.

Like I said - a seamless transition.

Also keep in mind that the May revolution claimed loyalty to the King of
Spain, at the time under siege from Napoleon, preserving the Viceroyalty's territories in his name. Hence, any notion of the islands being Terra Nula after the May revolution is complete nonsense.

@ Alejandro Argerich I send you this link, you may find it useful.
You can also download the book.
http://www.eumed.net/libros/2007b/278/3.htm

#375 AlejandroArgerich: “His service was paid for by the May revolution, by order of Saavedra. He wrote the order and Argentina has the document - what you expect, a pay stub? It's 1810!”

Unfortnately, that is incorrect. There is no evidence that he actually got paid by anybody in the end.
The document that you are talking about was simply a request for Real Orders concerning any payments that might be due to Bordas' in connection with his role in the Falkland Islands. It ends up on Saavedra's desk purely by mistake due to the events of May Week (it was sent from Salazar in Montevideo to Viceroy Cisneros, but of course it never got to him). The document does not suggest in any way that Bordas was paid by the revolution.
However, your story seems to have switched now to saying that it was in fact the second pilot who succeeded Bordas who is now magically in cahoots with the revolution. Nice try, but you'll need to do better than that.

Also, if the British say it was terra nula, are also saying that the islands do not belongings to them.
Crackpot, Tell me what were the British rights in 1833.
discovery not, Queen Elizabeth did not accept
occupation not
then???

#378 Malvinense 1833 :
From the British perspective, the islands were terra nullius, because they had been abandoned by Spain (the only other country with a valid claim, apart from the French who hadn't been exercising that right, anyway). That doesn't mean that Britain didn't still maintain their claim on the territory.

@348 Gracias! Muy bueno tu comentario, lo de la mezcla de verdad con mentira siempre es una marca indeleble del propagantisda.

@352 The only right the islanders have is of self-determination insofer as independence is concerned. That independence can only be obtained from the rightful territorial claim holder: Argentina. The British don't enter into it, in any other capacity than the fact that they hold the territory by force.

If they want to be associated with Britain, let them acknowledge the supremacy of Argentina's claim, let them win independence from Argentina - and THEN, ONLY THEN, after they are free and clear under international law, can they choose to be associated with Britain.

Until then, it is THEFT BY THREAT OF FORCE. There's no use in denying it.

@353 No Justin, YOU are incorrect, the last Spanish governor was Francisco Gil de Lemos y Taboada, holding the title of Governor until January 5th 1774, thereafter holding the office of Commander. The fact that there was no governor doesn't quit Spain's claim, but was due to the jurisdictional reorganization involved in the creation of the Viceroyalty.

Simply because a governorship was downgraded to a command does not mean a claim is abandoned.

#377 Crackpot - primary text from Saavedra:

“I have determined that, going forward, it should be satisfied to the Minister or the Marines of said post, all of the salaries, gratuities, per diems,
and any other expenses they shoudl incurr in said establishment or pertaining to it, of whatever cause they may be, in order to conserve the continuance
of their services, so necessary and convenient in the objects of real service of a same body, and thereby giving due and proper effect to the disposition
of the Superior Board.”

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY EXPECTING TO SEE A DOCUMENT AKIN TO A MODERN-DAY PAY STUB FROM 1810????

See, this is what I'm talking about. You people will go to ridiculous lengths to justify this continued act of theft.

@379 so they Crackpot why you say “the islands were terra nullius, because they had been abandoned by Spain”

you know spain left a plaque

so you too know britain left a plaque

so you then say the britain plaque is count, but the spanish plaque not - IT IS HYPOCRISY!!!! how you can say one plaque count, another does not??????

Alejandro is right - go to extreme and grab any thread even if very thin and obviously stupid, to justify, you KNOW you are wrong and FOREIGN OFICE know you are wrong, in early XX century.

@379 Crackpot, If you say that car belongs to no one, is also saying that car is not mine. This is well know by British experts.

@358 - Funny how all our sources seem to be in English or British origin, not Argentine, while all you've posted were links to FI websites.

That's how we know WE ARE RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG - because the TRUTH is reflected equally in both in the documents of Britain AND Argentina.

@359 - Prohibitively expensive when factored into the larger economic paradigm, it's a lot of quid flushed down. Defence eats up budgets, and if you factor in the cost of defence infrastructure and add it to the actual mission
cost, you get the kind of number that prompts decisions like this one:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/10/navy-chiefs-defence-cuts-warning

“SLOWLY. SURELY. INEVITABLY.”

“The only right the islanders have is of self-determination insofer as independence is concerned. That independence can only be obtained from the rightful territorial claim holder: Argentina.”

According to who?
Show us a UN Resolution which recognises Argentina as the “rightful territorial claim holder” (whatever that means). And show us any UN Resolution which limits the Falkland Islanders right to self determination in any way. Any way at all.

@384 JA, there are no UN resolutions that recognize either the British or Argentina as the lawful territorial claim holder.

The UN only says the islands are a non-self-governing territory, it does not specify WHOSE non-self-governing territory it is, only a valid claim can do that, and the MOST valid claim is Argentina's, from Nootka's status quo by way of Uti inheritance of former Viceroyalty territories.

Only INTERNATIONAL LAW limits right to self-determination. To associate with another nation you must first DIS-associate from Argentina.

@362 - RedRuffian, Are you denying that Jewett was in command proper of ARA Heronia, a man of war property of the United Provinces?

You want to see his declaration gazetted? Check with the British consul in BA, they have it on file. OR, check The Times, in their edition of 3rd August 1821, prompting NO COMPLAINT FROM THE BRITISH WHATSOEVER.

Jewett returned because his crew has skirvy. He left his second in command, Mason, in charge on his behalf. Are you familiar with the military concept of a field comission?

Jewett, as a commisioned officer and commander of a Navy vessel proper, had the power to grant field commissions to whom he saw fit.

Areguati was the next commander to have been posted there, and he had been a military officer for years. Are you also denying that Pablo Areguati was a duly commisioned officer?

Vernet was also named commander, both in a military and civilian-political role, on 18 June 1829, by Salvador Carril, minister of foreign relations, as well as by Martin Rodriguez, head of government in BA.

As for the Clio, I wonder why the garrison was murderous all of a sudden after the British took over and not before. And furthermore, I wonder why, after being arrested for “murder”, they were simply let go, instead of tried.

Or maybe it's much easier to label them “murderers” in order to justify an ongoing act of THEFT - especially if they were only trying to fight off an armed foreign invasion.

#380 AlejandroArgerich: “If they want to be associated with Britain, let them acknowledge the supremacy of Argentina's claim,...”
Seriously? That's never going to happen: 1) because the Argentine claim isn't superior, and 2) because they already are associated with Britain.

Here is some more text for you on the question of Bordas from “The Question of Malvinas and the Bicentennial” by the Malvinas Parliamentary Observatory Committee (an official Argentianian source, no less):

“Cornelio Saavedra orders again to send the “certified copies of the Real Orders existing at the same General Treasury about allowances and some other Malvinas items” because the Navy Commander has stated that “you have not sent yet the mentioned copies”. That is why it corresponds to you, this Governing Board, the task entrusted to the mentioned Navy Commander, so that with his authorization these copies are sent to this same Board”.
“God save you for many years”. Saavedra says before stamping his signature in the official paper. ”I hope God has kept them for many years because, even though I do not know how the procedure went on, according to the succeeding events, I suspect that the poor first pilot, Gerardo Bordas, has not been paid yet. God save us!“”

The Navy Commander in question here is Salazar. So, Savedra is authorising that the documents that Salazar needs to in order pay Bordas are sent to him. In other words, he expects Bordas to be paid by the Spanish authorities, although he seems to have his doubts that he will ever be paid by anyone.

#381 MalvinasArgentinas:
The situation was that neither Britain nor Spain had absolute sovereignty over the islands. They both had a claim, although Spain's was probably better because they were actually occupying the islands. When they left, the islands, they essentially twere terra nullius (ie, nobody with absolute sovereignty and nobody with a valid claim occupying them).

“SLOWLY. SURELY. INEVITABLY.”.....getting absolutely nowhere.

What is a “territorial claim holder”. That's a new one on me.

“The UN only says the islands are a non-self-governing territory, it does not specify WHOSE non-self-governing territory”

On the contrary, the UN recognises the UK as the “administering power”. On Argentina's rights the UN is silent. And just a bit of history for you, the Falklands were voluntarily placed on the UN list of non self governing territories by the UK. By accepting them onto the list the UN was recognising the Falkland Islanders right to self determination and right to choose their own destiny. To say that the Falklands have to become Argentine before they become independent or whatever status they choose is simply ridiculous. The Falkland Islanders are under no such obligation.

A territorial claim holder, as the name implies, is one who holds claim to a territory. An “administering power” is not the same as a territorial claim holder. The UN recognizes the UK as a DE FACTO administering power. On BOTH the British and Argentine rights the UK is silent. By accepting them onto the list the UN did recognize the islanders' right to self-determination and the right to choose their own destiny, as do I.

What the UN did NOT recognize is islanders' right to break international law at will. In order for the islands to be legally associated with Britain they must first be independent from Argentina. In order to sue Argentina for independence they must first recognize the supremacy of the Argentine claim.

That is to say, they don't have to “become” Argentine, because the ARE Argentine. They are administered, outside of the rule of law, by Britain, at the point of a gun, in a completely illegal fashion that violates prior treaties on the subject which limited British citizens' rights on the islands to fishing, landing, and erecting TEMPORARY structures - and which SPECIFICALLY FORBADE Britain from starting any establishments on the islands.

The islanders ARE under obligation to obey international law, if they want their association with Britain to take on anything remotely resembling an air of legality.

Until that day, they are THIEVES, exceeding their crown-negotiated rights, and taking what they can at the point of a borrowed gun. THAT CONTINUED ACT OF PIRACY is the width and depth of the current, so-called “association”, with Britain, with not a whimper of legality behind it.

#370 it seems someone has been quaffing too much ale, a load of waffling nonsense.

Utis Possidetis Juris is not the same as Utis Possidetis. You can stick your fingers in your ear and childishly chant all you like, it doesn't change that basic fact.

The British claim hasn't changed, the world has. In case you had not noticed the UN has been founded, there was a universal declaration of human rights. That is all.

And no Argentina does not have a veto over the self-determination rights of the islanders. Nor do they have to ask Argentina permission to associate with the UK if they choose. You should listen to yourselves, thats distinctly colonial of you dear boy.

Mason was not Jewett's second in command, he was sent out by Patricio Lynch to take over the command of the Heroina. Nor was Jewett an officer, he was a mercenary employed by Lynch. You're making this up as you go along.

Equally Argeuati was not an Argentine official, he had held rank but was not in-service at the time. He was in partnership with Vernet, in an expedition that was a disaster. Read his “we are starving” letter, its illuminating.

BTW all the proclamations of the Government that proclaimed Vernet Governor were declared illegal by Rosas' Government.

If you want to justify murder, then really you are losing the argument. You're claiming Brisbane was an acting Argentine Governor in one breath, then lauding his murder in the next. Which planet are you on.

As to the waffling crap, that the Islanders must recognise Argentina's claim. What utter BS, take it to the ICJ if you have the balls, Britain has been prepared to go there, Argentina won't.

Says it all.

#388 AlejandroArgerich:
The UN recognises the UK as the administering power. The term “de facto” is irrlevant.

“In order to sue Argentina for independence they must first recognize the supremacy of the Argentine claim.”
For once you are correct. However, that statement is irrelevent because 1) they don't recognise the supermacy of the Argentine claim and 2) they cannot sue Argentina for indpendence, because Argentina currently does not have sovereingty over the islands 3) if they want independence, they will seek it from the current administering power (ie, the UK), as is their right under the UN charter. Finally, as far as I'm aware, independence movements do not need to seek anyone's permission to sue for independence (in that capacity, the identity of country with sovereignty is irrelevant).

“they don't have to “become” Argentine, because the ARE Argentine”.
No they're not. Just because you're constitution says so, that does dot make it true. Everyone else in the world recognises them as British citizens and accepts their passports accordingly.

“They are administered, outside of the rule of law, by Britain, at the point of a gun...”
Hogwash. It is their choice. Nothing more to say on that point.

Why do all Argentinans think that British people should be insulted by being called pirates. We quite like it actually. Obviously, we wouldn't associate ourselves with the modern day ones hanging around the Horn or Africa, but the swashbuckling Jack-Sparrow type - absolutely!

@386 Crackpot
The situation was that neither Britain nor Spain had absolute sovereignty over the islands. They both had a claim, although Spain's was probably better because they were actually occupying the islands. When they left, the islands, they essentially twere terra nullius (ie, nobody with absolute sovereignty and nobody with a valid claim occupying them).
then Argentina has a better right to have first occupied the islands in 1820.
O 1832 as you like to RedHoyt

@389 Wow, another hefty serving of Rubbish from Justin! UTTER NONSENSE!! Entertaining, though. Let's see:

“Utis Possidetis Juris is not the same as Utis Possidetis”

SOURCE? None. 'Justin-his head.'

“The British claim hasn't changed, the world has.”

LAUGHABLE!! The British claim DID change from first discovery to acquisitive proscription, only after the total lack of validity of the former was deemed by the foreign office to be of such inferior quality that they were forced to change it to something completely different. CLAIM BASIS

#1, abandoned after 100 years. 'Justin-his head.'

“Argentina does not have a veto over the self-determination rights”

I never said they did.

“Nor do they have to ask Argentina permission to associate with the UK if they choose.”

Right - not any more than Puerto Rico would in order to associate back with Spain if they chose to. Please...

“thats distinctly colonial of you dear boy”

Why, because I insist on following the rule of law that islanders are so keen to ignore?

“Mason was not Jewett's second in command” / “Nor was Jewett an officer, he was a mercenary”

Jewett was a privateer who subsequently obtained a commission. Your Lynch story is unfounded fabrication and you know it.

“Argeuati was not an Argentine official, he had held rank but was not in-service at the time.”

No, he held rank BEFORE, left active duty, then took a new assignment.

“BTW all the proclamations of the Government that proclaimed Vernet Governor were declared illegal by Rosas' Government.”

BTW all declarations of the Rosas government were declared illegal by Urquize after Rosas was defeated.

BTW Third time I've told you this and you still keep repeating it like a stupid parrot.

“You're claiming Brisbane was an acting Argentine Governor in one breath, then lauding his murder in the next.”

I'm claiming Brisbane was a collaborator and got what he deserved.

“take it to the ICJ if you have the balls”

Let me graduate, and I'll see you there.