MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Ghana port authorities want ARA Libertad moved to anchorage; Argentina refuses
Ghanaian officials asked a judge Thursday to order the Argentine navy ship detained in the West African nation over a debt dispute to be moved because it was blocking valuable space at the port of Tema. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis from a sister site:
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am a little surprised that Singer has not instructed his team to go for an enforcement notice in his favour from the court.
Given TMBOA’s latest diatribe and seemingly giving up on getting the ship back it seems the realistic option now. The Ghanaians seem to want the ship out of the way and this is a perfect solution to that problem.
If the Captain is lucky Singer might offer him a job on a permanent basis to move this and other AG vessels they will get in the future back to where Singer wants them.
You have to laugh!
I “Think” the captain should cooperate in full with the Gahnian authorities and move the ship to anchorage at position 5º 24’ 00’’ N - 0 º 00’ 50’’ E; some 12 nautical miles from the port of Tema........ ASAP. ;-)
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 02..oh you naughty lad, to international water jajaja no chance, this baby will rot in port for months as the desperate RG government twists and turns, just pay your debts ..simples
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@2
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, good afternonn. How are you doing today?
Are you willng now to discuss in this iste about J.A. Roca, the Desert Conquest, The Mapuche Nacion and the alleged genocide?
Based on your comment it seems that you have some spare time now.
Please, let us know
Regards from Vancouver
4...I can hear a troll scuttling away in fright, mamas cooked you meatballs tonight
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't be ridiculous, lets discuss the slaughter of indians in North America and the slave trade in Africa instead.
You lot are responsible of most part of the atrocities ever made to humanity and you want to talk about Argentina.
What are you afraid of, competition?
@6 Guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pgerman is one of you Argentinians.
This is a discussion between you SA people - no distractions now!!
@4 @6
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've got a better idea, let's discuss the topic of the article.
Does Ghana need Argentina's permission to move the ship?
As was suggested on another thread, I think that they should stick the ship in dry-dock or at least, out of the water.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That would solve two problems at the same time, first it would free up docking space in the port and secondly, it would stop the Captain from being tempted to just sail out of harbour.
After all, if the ship really is out of fuel..... ( note to self, how can a “sailing” ship run out of fuel? ) then there would be nothing that the Captain could do about it right?
Guzz, you, ignorant
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why not shut up?
Stop wasting your keyboard !!!
You have no idea what I offereing to my dear friend discuss “Think” that apparently, by his writings, he is noi so thinking.
“Think”, why don't you stop repeating tales like a parrot and start reading some history seriou Argentine books? May I suggest some of these books to you?
@8
Oct 25th, 2012 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Surely, with an unpaid bill, the Harbour Authority can have it towed to another moorage?
Any Coast Guard mariners out there with knowledge of maritime law??
(4) pgerman
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing I can say about Roca is that I hope he is in hell, with a serious case of itchy bottom and his arms are to short.........
Maimai ñañ.
El Think
@“Think”, yes, I know that. It's quite clear. That's the only thing you can say. That's clear !!!
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's also the reason why I would like to suggest you some very nice and interesting books so you start knowing something about the history of your country !!!
@ “toooldtodieyoung”
Escaping? forget about it. CFK has already decided on his classical attitude ... that of the victim. I have already started reading comments of the politician on the side of CKF criticizing the “capitalist empire” against Argentina.
Why do not paying and honoring the debts?
CFK would never do this because it would have less money to steal!
Leaving a boat abandoned well! ... Old corrupt lady !!!
pgerman
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So? You want to discuss Argentina's past, I want to discuss UK's past.
The thread is about Ghana having issues with a big vessel blocking one of its port (talk about kicking your own arse...), so flavour as flavour...
By the way, to stick to the thread;
How come Ghana is prepared to loose income having a big vessel blocking its port only to fulfill the will of a hedge fund? You sure its all legal? ;)
@14
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Probably because Ghana isn't fulfilling the wil of a hedge fund, so much as reading the text of the agreement signed by Argentina.
15
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By Argentina and Ghana? :)))
I ask again, why would Ghana be prepared to loose income for the sake of a hedge fund?
@16
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They're not losing income for the sake of a hedge fund. They're losing income because their judicial authorities ruled that Argentina should honour the terms of their bond agreement.
@16Guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“why would Ghana be prepared to loose income for the sake of a hedge fund?”
Ghana is not about to abandon principles for the sake of short-term inconvenience, boat will be moved shortly, regardless.
So, the Port Authority want to move the ship, abandoned by CFKC, and anchor it in another area of the port. NML (the custodians) are in agreement. But, of course, the Argentine government want to be as difficult as possible. This is what happens when impotent people get a tiny bit of power.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You would think CFKC would not want to draw so much attention to her shame.
The principles to run errands for a hedge fund hiding in the cayman islands?
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That kind of answeres my question though....
@20 Guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The principles of following the rule of law, but you know that.
The place to dispute the legality of the Hedge Fund being granted the ability to seize assets is with the US court that granted it when Argentina defaulted on its agreement to pay.
Ghana is executing a Court Order.
Only Argentina would think creditors should accept 30% or 0%.
Don't move Captain! You don't have to nor can they make you. This is a legal matter pendingand both sides cannot be coherced into a move that could hinder their positin.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@22
Oct 25th, 2012 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's not a legal matter pending. It's a legal matter that has already been adjudicated.
21
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many countries, European included, have refused to hear the claims of these very same hedge fund?
Legallity is all about definition, all other nations that refused the claims of this hedge fund have stated that an army vessel is not a subject that is included in the deal Argentina signed, aka it has immunity. So, legally, you are in the wrong.
Now, Argentina signed another treaty where she resigned a whole bunch of thing (read the plan... Brady) should she not be able to repay. This is what the hedge fund clings to, but nowhere in the text it is said that military equipment is included in those assets. Those are, on the contrary, protected by internacional law.
@24
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The text of the argeement :
“To the extent the Republic [of Argentina] or any of its revenues, assets or properties shall be entitled … to any immunity from suit, … from attachment prior to judgment, … from execution of a judgment or from any other legal or judicial process or remedy, … the Republic has irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction…”
Now, what does “irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent” mean?
25
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I told you, that doesn't specify military equipment, something that is specifically protected in international law.
@26
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And where is the exclusion in “ ANY of its revenues, assets or properties”? It doesn't say “ANY apart from military ones”.
@24guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ This is what the hedge fund clings to, but nowhere in the text it is said that military equipment is included in those assets. Those are, on the contrary, protected by internacional law.”
Generally, legitimate military equipment would be protected by int'l law, but Argentina waived those rights.
We've been over this a dozen times and the UN and Ghana courts have already assessed that argument and rejected it.
Too bad :-(
Then I go back to my question. How come Ghana is prepared to loose income running errands for a hedge fund hiding in the Cayman Islands?
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@29
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jeepers, Guzz, You've got everything in ROM, haven't you?
27
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you mean a contract rises above international law?
9 toooldtodieyoung
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ship is equipped with two Sulzer diesels, each driving a shaft and propeller.
The wheel is electrically powered but has the ability to be man-powered, to demonstrate to the cadets how difficult it was in ‘the old days’ when such luxuries were not available. Unpowered it will take four men on calm water to handle the wheel, eight on a raging sea.
I think this ship is lovely and it seems to have been well maintained, not long ago it had a mid-life refit.
Costly to run however, I have no idea how many suits of sails it has but there should be at least several, without the spares.
Such a shame to be under the control of TMBOA; she’s the one that needs taking out to the 12 mile limit and sinking, not this ship.
@31
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean, if you sign an agreement waiving immunity, it means you've waived immunity. What's so hard to understand about that?
33
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And if international law states differently than the agreements in the contract, which one goes first?
@29 - Because it abides by the decisions of its courts, which in this situation have granted the adjournment requested by Argentina. Is it that difficult to understand a legal system that is independent of commercial or political meddling? Guess so. Where do you come from again, and what do you represent?
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 035
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Had Ghana wanted to follow the legal way, they could've done what many Euro nations did before them, claimed that an army vessel is under the protection of intyernacional law, something that rises above any contract agreement.
My origin is not important for this discussion, and as you lot have a habit to put identities on people you disagree with, just save yourself time and choose a country of your liking...
33 HansNiesund
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It does exactly what it says on the tin...right? I mean, you would have to be some sort of retard not to understand what that mean't right? ha, ha... you would have to be really silly? Oh, hang on............
32 ChrisR
Thank you for that, so then. If the Port Authority wanted to move the ship, there is f**k all that the Captain, even if he wanted to, could do about it right?
What should happen, is that the Port Authority should do what they bl**dy well want and then argue about afterwards with Agentina, they can't do anything about it. Even if they wanted to do something about it, as soon as they were outside of her coastal waters, any ship, plane, car or bus would be impounded.
Argentina has been reduced to a toothless Tiger.
@35
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where do you get this idea that international law prevents sovereign states from entering into whatever commercial contracts they like? What an outrage!
But assuming this were true, why did Argentina sign an agreement waiving immunity that supposedly couldn't be waived? Was it just ignorance of the law, or was it already bad faith at the moment of signature?
Commercial contracts yes, army equipment isn't regarded as commercial material, and it IS protected under internacional law.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You mean one can contract ones way past internacional law?
@34 Guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And if international law states differently than the agreements in the contract, which one goes first?”
Ok, Guzz, seems pretty clear what “waiver” means, right?
I have a question for you, now.
If Puricelli was aware that the boat was likely to be seized elsewhere in Africa, why wouldn't they expect it to be seized in Ghana?
Seems like Puricelli is saying the decisions on ship's itinerary and where to dock were made very high up. CFK??
Perhaps that was her plan all along...
Ship seized - blame nasty UK and foreigners (raise Argie public ire)
Abandon ship to creditors - again public ire to US/UK
- gets rid of millions of $$ in expenses to maintain ship and give “luxury cruises to military elite”
-saves money
-punishes military
-distracts public
-creates provocation to attack UK in the Falklsnds!
Whatever CFK was trying to achieve, it looks like this whole thing backfired at some point !
She has underestimated the Argentinian people.
@39
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course you can. And the contract, as I already pointed out, makes no exclusions whatsoever. If Argentina believes there is an exclusion, why did it sign this agreement with this wording? Are there no competent lawyers in that country?
Don't move Captain! You don't have to nor can they make you. This is a legal matter pendingand both sides cannot be coherced into a move that could hinder their position.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@22 @42
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is there an echo in here?
Troy
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ship's itinerary and the decision to dock in Ghana has been published by Think already, have a look at it before spitting venom.
You too think one can contract ones way around international law?
@44
Oct 25th, 2012 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guzz, for the third time, why do you think Argentina signed this agreement if it believes the agreement isn't valid?
@36 - if that were the case there would have been precedents that council representing Argentina could have called upon. Would have been an easy win. Why didn't they ?
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its taken the Argies 180 years to get precisely nowhere over the Falklands sovereignty issue . It will take them just as long arguing in the UN and meaningless forums like this one not to get the ship back . I can almost guarantee that at some stage there will be a fire on board with a total loss of the ship.This will be blamed on the Ghanean port authorities , M16 , the Royal Navy , The Queen , Prince Philip , the Americans , the Masons and lizards that can take human form , but the match will have been struck by an argie .
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@45 How long have you got? Guzzle is just being stupid. And I mean that literally. You've already quoted the essentials of the agreement. Nobody else has a problem. I'll bet Guzzle is only allowed to purchase goods, wherever he is, in cash. Imagine letting him sign a credit agreement!
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 046
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/11/16/nml-capital-goes-to-europe/
I wouldn't know, you tell me.... I guess not, though...
40 Troy Tempest (#)
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“She has underestimated the Argentinian people.”
You M.F. J--k Since when are you coming out in defense of the Argentine People?
One moment you are threatening Argentines over claiming rights to their land and then you are coming out in their favor.
You are just like all the other Brit participants, double faced hipocrits!
50 : Don't get so uptight , you are only trolling for free sausage sandwiches and cheap red wine....
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guzz, why do you go on using links which explicitly tell that “Argentine embassies and missions to UNESCO and other international bodies” cannot be impounded?
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It simply exposes you as a quibbling wrangler.
The page you link to also says:
”Article 22(3) of the Convention provides:
The premises of the MISSION, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the MISSION shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.”
As you, I, and everybody else know, the ARA Libertad is neither an embassy nor a diplomatic mission.
@50 Probed Argentinian
Oct 25th, 2012 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“One moment you are threatening Argentines over claiming rights to their land and then you are coming out in their favor. ”
Ok, here we go, off-topic:
“Their land” - what land is that ??
However, I do feel the Argentinian people should be better treated by their own government.
I have never had a problem with the Argentinian people - ever.
Just CFK, her corrupt government and La Campora Internet toadies!!
Sorry, I hope you are not in that group - not wanting to offend you.
In fact, if you give me pgerman's name and address in Vancouver, I'll treat him to dinner. A kind of be-nice-to-Argentinians thing.
52
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To answer your question, lets have a look at
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/803.full#fn-147
Quote:
(d) Military property, in particular, warships
Warships and other military equipment are generally regarded as not available for enforcement measures.145 This is clearly reflected in the UN Convention which expressly characterizes ‘property of a military character or used or intended for use in the performance of military functions’ as government non-commercial property.146 Thus, in a 1987 Dutch case, an interlocutory injunction attaching a cruiser in order to secure rights and obtain payment of the salvage money was not permitted because a warship served non-commercial purposes, even when not ‘on duty’.
You see? Military equipment is ALSO protected by international law.
Whether the ship is under arrest or not the harbour master can order any ship to be shifted to any other berth at any time.
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And they wouldn't need the assistance of the ship's crew to do it either.....
@54
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let us indeed read that document. Page 1, paragraph 1 :
“Absolute immunity from enforcement measures has been largely abandoned and almost all jurisdictions have adopted a restrictive approach to enforcement immunity in one or another form. Enforcement measures are usually permitted in case of waiver or with regard to earmarked property.”
50 ProARG American
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Leh Timzoz La'Apiphior
56
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thiefs and murderers also tends to abandon laws that don't suit them.
The fact that countries take on restrictive measures doesn't change the fact that the UN convention that is signed by all parts, talks about military equipment being protected from enforcement measures. What the EU nations do amongst them is their problem. Nobody signed their restrictions.
@54 Guzz
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“generally regarded ”
- and you waived that right. Seems clear.
Respectfully, you are not a lawyer, otherwise, you would not be asking for definitions or legal interpretations on this forum.
Sounds like you need a lawyer who is an expert in Contract Law.
As was mentioned earlier, this argument was attempted in front of the UN and in a Ghanian court, and was rejected.
In fact, the written judgement by the Judge in Ghana specifically stated that this did NOT apply as a defence.
Why do you persist?
Do you think the “ judges and officials are taking brives and kickbacks ” as stated by ProRg American??
@50 Pro RG American
”You M.F. J--k Since when are you coming out in defense of the Argentine People, PRO ArG ???
First you and CFK rob them of their pensions and then you publicly pity them when your Nation's (owned by Argentinian public) ship is seized for default of payment, passing the blame to others.
Talk about duplicity and callousness... Hypocrit !
59
Oct 25th, 2012 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When they fail in USA, in Belgium, in France, only to succeed in Ghana, a “3rd world” nation that on top of it all got one of its ports blocked, they aren't being invisible, but transparent...
@60 Guzz
Oct 26th, 2012 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you need to pay for an expert Legal Opinion to get the answers you want. :-)
Aren't there any good lawyers in Argentina?
Seems odd that this argument got nowhere at the UN and in Ghana after several tries.
Maybe these circumstances allow for seizure???
The port isn't 'blocked' ... one berth has been blocked by this hulk
Oct 26th, 2012 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now the ship is harming commercial activity ?
Oct 26th, 2012 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)))) cosa de negros
Now keep it or ask that American thief to pay you for the damages.
“Vulture Turns to Pirate: Blocks Argentine Ship from Leaving Ghana”
Written by Jake Johnston
“If the U.S. government wants to root out pirates in Africa, it should start with our own”
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/the-americas-blog/vulture-turns-to-pirate-blocks-argentine-ship-from-leaving-ghana
Written by Jake Johnston
get the scuba gear on and with a small handheld drill, make a few small holes
Oct 26th, 2012 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have abandonned it, just move the damn thing, you do not need their permission, it is your country, not theirs.
Oct 26th, 2012 - 04:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The port authorities want it moved, Argentina refuses.”
Oct 26th, 2012 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Refuses, insists, demands- all good Argentine words.
Just move the damn thing where you want it, Ghana.
lf the RGs resist, arrest & deport them.
Problem solved.
66
Oct 26th, 2012 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a legal matter, doesn't work like that ;)
@ 54 Guzz
Oct 26th, 2012 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Warships and other military equipment are generally regarded as not available for enforcement measures”
GENERALLY - but the Argentine waiver changed that.
I suggest you stop picking cherries and read the full text, where you'll find: ”... absolute immunity from enforcement measures (in the absence of a waiver)“
IN THE ABSENCE OF A WAIVER - exactly.
As HansNiesund pointed out in #54: ”Enforcement measures are usually permitted in case of waiver ...”
68
Oct 26th, 2012 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Warships and other military equipment are generally regarded as not available for enforcement measures”
That's within the EU. The one document that says something about military equipment, and that has been signed by all parts involved, is the UN convention. There, no restrictions are mentioned.
37 toooldtodieyoung
Oct 26th, 2012 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The port authorities do not need the ships engines to be running.
They would simply move it using their tugs - as if it were leaving port in the usual way.
@69
Oct 26th, 2012 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now there'a an admission, since your original claim was that both the EU and the US allow absolute immunity to sovereign assets. Then it turns out that your own reference undermines your own argument.
In fact there is no international legislation which confers absolute immunity **which cannot be waived**. Where a conflict exists between the claim of immunity and the existence of a waiver, the jurisdiction concerned decides on the basis of national legislation.
And thus, the judiciary of the sovereign state of Ghana, applying its own law in its own port, has concluded that if you sign a waiver irrevocably forfeiting all immunity over everything, it actually means you have forfeited all immunity over everything.
Shock, horror!
But at least the Argentine position is consistent with its usual view that an inconvenient agreement either doesn't say what it does say, does say what it doesn't say, or if it does say what it does say, or doesn't say what it doesn't say, then it doesn't count anyway. Cf for example the Arana-Southern Treaty of 1850, or the British-Spanish Declarations of 1771.
@ 69 Guzz
Oct 26th, 2012 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First you write in #54: “To answer your question, lets have a look at” and supply a link to ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/803.full#fn-147
Then, when it doesn't support your claim, you suddenly revert and write: “That's within the EU.”
You can waive any and all rights, which isn't against the socalled “Natural Law” - e.g. you cannot waive the right to your life, other's lives or other's property, but you CAN waive your rights to your own property, probably excepting diplomatic missions.
Why do you think it is called a waiver (renunciación de derechos)?
It is called a waiver, because you waive your rights (porque usted renuncia a sus derechos).
Stop googling frantically for one single sentence, which seems to support your view, then citing it without having read the full text - after which you can decide if it actually does.
71 & 72
Oct 26th, 2012 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The interesting part is
“This is clearly reflected in the UN Convention which expressly characterizes ‘property of a military character or used or intended for use in the performance of military functions’ as government non-commercial property.”
The rest is about EU restrictions on the convention, nothing Argentina has signed.
- unless you waive those rights.
Oct 26th, 2012 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@73 Guzz
Oct 26th, 2012 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know! Stick your fingers in yours ears, squeeze your eyes tight shut, and pretend the waiver isn't there!
Tell the judge that to save face he should order that fuel be again pumped into the frigate's tanks, leave the vessel alone and allow it to leave without hindrance.
Oct 26th, 2012 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The waiver.
Oct 26th, 2012 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0---------------
In the High Court of Justice Court of Appeal (Civil Division) On Appeal from the High Court Queen'S Bench Division (Commercial)
Between: Republic of Argentina, Appellant - and - NML Capital Limited, Respondent
APPENDIX 3
The terms of the bonds
... The republic has in the fiscal agency agreement waived any objection to related proceedings in such courts whether on grounds of venue, residence or domicile or on the ground that the related proceedings have been brought in an inconvenient forum. The republic agrees that a final non-appealable judgment in any such related proceeding ('the related judgment') shall be conclusive and binding upon it and may be enforced in any specified court or in any other courts to the jurisdiction of which the republic is or may be subject (the 'other courts') by a suit upon such judgment.
... the republic has hereby irrevocably agreed not to claim and has irrevocably waived such immunity to the fullest extent permitted by the laws of such jurisdiction ...
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/41.html
#76
Oct 26th, 2012 - 04:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To save who's face ? It is Argentina who are embarrassed. There country has lost face , not Ghana. -
@54 Read what you've pasted. I draw your attention to the word “generally”. Can you encompass the meaning within the sentence, you dozy git?
Oct 26th, 2012 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@55 Then we can assume that any argie crew member attempting to impede the port authorities would be subject to arrest and imprisonment?
@58 And argies know all about thieves and murderers! Being that the majority are one, the other or both.
@60 Be careful. Ghanaian authorities might decide to “pull the plug”. Or open the seacocks. Water-damaged salvage, anyone?
@67 It doesn't? Okay then, Ghana, blow it up! It's a navigation hazard.
@73 And how is this hulk of “a military character”? Let's say that WE, the UK, have a Type 23 frigate just outside Ghanaian territorial waters. Want to send your sail-powered frigate out to face it? Let's watch it be “military”. Don't forget to remind the captain that it's his duty to go down with his ship!
@76 Even better. Blow the fecking thing into matchwood! Make sure that there are plenty of marine predators in the vicinity in advance. Just to tidy up the garbage!
74
Oct 26th, 2012 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“unless you waive those rights.”
You STILL can't contract your way around international law. USA says so, France says so, Belgium says so. You had to go to Ghana to find one that interprets law as a merchandise...
Clyde15
Oct 26th, 2012 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which of their two faces would that be?
@80
Oct 26th, 2012 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you can't contract your way round international law, then why did Argentina sign a contract doing exactly that?
82
Oct 26th, 2012 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again, Hans
According to USA, they didn't
According to France, they didn't
According to Belguim. they didn't
According to you, Frimpong and the rest of you hyenas, they did
Answer me this, why are you so pre-occupied with Argentina paying back what they owe to the hedge funds and not so in the fact that your government owes your whole nation a couple of trillions in pensions, the fact that your bankers decimated your middle class. Why aren't you after them in such a convincing manner? Are you really more interested in those hedge funds getting their money than your own people?
#81
Oct 26th, 2012 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should have been THEIR face. Let me see...............It isn't GHANA.
So , the two faced one must be a country beginning with A -R-G-E-N-T..... fill in the missing 3 letters.
Christ, someone decimated me and I never felt a thing, hang on a minute while I check, phew! they are both still there!!!!!
Oct 26th, 2012 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for my pension, it will be in the bank the 1st of next month, just as it as been on the first of each month, every month, since I retired 5 years ago. When I die 50% of it's value goes to my widow, for the rest of her life.
Do I sound like, “Middle Class Concerned?” Think not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
85
Oct 26th, 2012 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry for this, it was never my intention to teach you your own language but...
“Decimated the middle class” means, in english, that the amount of people belonging to the middle class has been reduced, not that they've lost some legs.
Again, I beg your pardon for thinking you would comprehend your own language, my bad.
I was not refering to my legs, but something a little bit higher up and just like my legs, I still posses two of them.
Oct 26th, 2012 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand my language far better than you do it seems, or you would appreciate the concept of a “play on words.”
Then again, you probably do! but would not miss the chance for a pop!
@83
Oct 26th, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really, I'm curious as to why you think Argentina signed the contract they signed, if, as you say, it is illegal under international law.
Read the text again, and it is a matter of simple record that there are no exclusions, exceptions, restrictions, or qualifications to the text Argentina signed. So why did they sign it? Either :
a) they didn't understand they were signing away sovereign immunity (even although any half-witted deputy assistant second junior assistant lawyer intern could have told them that was precisely what the text meant).
b) they thought they weren't really signing away sovereign immunity, but signed it anyway (or in other words they pulled a little piece of viveza criolla on the counterparty)
c) they knew they were signing away sovereign immunity, but didn't think it mattered because they intended to keep the terms of the contract.
Now, I am a charitable person and consequently I think c) is the explanation, although it has to be said that all three are certainly feasible. But which one do you think it is, Guzz?
Regarding pensions, the UK hasn't stolen anybody's pension. That's Argentina you're thinking of there.
And regarding bankers, how is that the guilt of bankers makes Argentina innocent? We are forever hearing this kind of logic around here, yet I have to say I remain continually surprised by it, since even toddlers in my world can see the flaw in it.
@ 80 Guzz who writes:
Oct 26th, 2012 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You STILL can't contract your way around international law. USA says so, France says so, Belgium says so.”
Oh yes, you can.
Whether this is accepted by the laws in the state, where your property reside is another question. It is accepted in e.g. Ghana.
It is also a question of how your property is deposited; e.g. money deposited in BIS (Bank of International Settlement) is exempt, which is why Switzerland ruled against NML in that specific case.
88
Oct 26th, 2012 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REad the plan Brady.
This type of methods have been used to keep underdeveloped countries underdeveloped. Those terms Argentina agreed on are far more hurtful than the punishment of breaking them. As to why Argentina signed?`Well, wouldn't she had signed back then, the vultures would've been on her already back in the nineties, how to fulfill the old contract elsewise?
@90
Oct 26th, 2012 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, it's a much better argument that they were coerced into signing it, than that they never signed it in the first place, or that it doesn't mean what it says.
Guzz,
Oct 27th, 2012 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0who pays for your mistakes?
Argentinos often claim that president Menem is the culprit - but they RE-elected him! he was president 1989-1995 AND again 1995-1999.
Argentina is the victim of her own governments' mismanagement and her own voters' indifference or naivity. Nobody else is to blame.
Argentina could not have borrowed money at all (or perhaps to an exorbitant interest rate) if she had not waived her immunity to the fullest extent. If you don't like the conditions, live without.
92
Oct 27th, 2012 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bush was re-elected, does it make him less of a bastard?
Had Argentina not signed that contract, she wouldn't had been able to honour her old contract, and we know what happens when you don't do that...
Man with so much technology and education am surprised that the english talking heads don't know anything of the troyan horse or the white elephants, you figure Hollywood would have made a film explaining it them. I tried but the damn fools wouldn't listen, and here you have it. Don't wonder how the trolls feel now! They have the arrogance to keep talking BS right here. Some creatures never learn, like asking a carnivore to become vegetarian never happens.
Oct 27th, 2012 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@79 Conqueror/captain Pup
Oct 27th, 2012 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shut up you stupid UK wimp!
p4 Pratt
Oct 27th, 2012 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mind the Gap!!!
95 briton the arse
Sussie, please kill yourself!
@94 PH VARGAS
Oct 28th, 2012 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Man with so much technology and education am surprised that the english talking heads don't know anything of the troyan horse or the white elephants, you figure Hollywood would have made a film explaining it them. I tried but the damn fools wouldn't listen,”
OMG !!
You are full of revelations !!!
You are some kind of a genius. Do those fools not realise who they are dealing with.
If only Argentina would give you the chance you deserve to run things properly !!
CFK would give you a bl@wj@b, herself !!
Well, at least Timerman would.
:-)
#93.....guzz is he a bastard to you because when we got slapped in the face, we put a shitload of hurt on anything that remotely resembled those and anywhere near those responsible, as opposed to when argentina gets slapped, pissed on, shit on, over and over again repeatedly from her own doing, she can't do anything other then send tinman crying to the UN and UNSC only to be told.......yeah....so.....deal with it. Must suck not to be able to defend your nation. If I was Chile I would open old wars and take much needed land.......what could you do.....stomp your feet and plead to stop and get back?
Oct 28th, 2012 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmm,
Oct 28th, 2012 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's Sunday and no answer from PH ALEX VARGAS.
I suppose he is in church with his mother and sister ( where is father?) giving thanks to “ the Madonna and her Child” before he goes home to jump on the Internet and call for violence and death on Falklands women and children, and misery and poverty for Argentinian women and children, too.
Hint, Alex;
CFK and Maximo are not the Madonna and Christ-child.
They just have no imagination....If I were the Captain, let them take the ship to anchorage...and when clear “get away”. If it could be coordinated with an escort ship the better....
Oct 30th, 2012 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One volley of a starburst round across her bow would have them needing a diaper. Ghana's navy is much more capable than the RGs
Oct 30th, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!