MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 7th 2022 - 23:11 UTC

 

 

Argentina grateful to Grenada for Malvinas claim support, promises cooperation

Wednesday, February 5th 2014 - 08:31 UTC
Full article 246 comments

Grenada foreign minister Nickolas Steele is in Buenos Aires for a two-day visit which included a meeting with his peer Hector Timerman and other top officials from the foreign ministry to discuss cooperation, economic development and trade issues. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • JuanGabriel

    Interestingly no direct quote from any Grenadian.

    There was a CARICOM summit held in Grenada a couple of years ago and there was a release from that

    “To support the principle and the right to self determination for all peoples, including the Falkland Islanders, recognising the historical importance of self-determination in the political development of the Caribbean, and its core status as an internationally agreed principle under the United Nations Charter”

    Meanwhile Mcdonalds in Argentina has run out of Ketchup

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Furry-Fat-Feck

    It's a bit like aloha in Hawaii. When you visit Argentina you are given a bouquet of pesos a picture of the Falkland Islands with the Argentine flag scrawled across them and the greeting is “Thankyou for your support for Argentinas ongoing struggle to colonise a small group of Islands hundreds of miles away”.

    Generally the visitors wander off utterly bemused but if they happen to be a visiting dignatory a statement will then be issued to the press that they really do support Argentinas position on the Falkland Islands; whether the do or not............

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • falklandlad

    Unfortunate, but the promise of money seems to change the talk!

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Promises, promises.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    “Argentine diplomacy has been wooing Caribbean countries with promises of cooperation and aid.”

    The only cooperation and aid would be Argentinas expertise in going bust, and it would seem Grenada and managing that one nicely on their own.

    http://thenewtoday.gd/editorials/2013/09/26/bankrupt-economy/

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Right! that's it, no more coronation street for me.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nololly

    Perhaps giving this small country £75 million was not a good idea. It seems Grenada is backing Gollums Argentinian colonialist ambitions.
    https://www.gov.uk/government/priority/supporting-development-in-grenada
    I shall write to my MP demanding that all aid is stopped forthwith.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Leiard

    RFA WAVE KNIGHT VISIT TO GRENADA 05-08 FEBRUARY 2014

    http://www.barnaclegrenada.com/index.php/local-news/3006-rfa-wave-knight-visit-to-grenada-05-08-february-2014

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @6
    I got it....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    Argentinas hasthe money to prop up poor Caribbean countries who mouth platitudes but has to have its police strike before they can get more money.

    Oh the priorities of Kirchnerism.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Will be contacting my MP

    https://www.gov.uk/government/priority/supporting-development-in-grenada

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @9

    Me too!

    Tricky word Grenada.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-24705723

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Lou Spoo

    @7

    The 2011 - 2015 allocation of £75 million is for the entire Caribbean area, not just Grenada.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anti-Muppet

    Erm, and this changes, NOTHING! on another note, I got support from my local shop keeper on keeping cats out of my garden, when I say support I mean he winked at me in the street as I was erm “vacating a cat” from my premises, sure; that's support all right! I know he's got my back on this one, next week I'm designing a flag for him to fly, I was thinking maybe a white background with a tin of corned beef centre front, then a small opaque map of my garden and some Latin words “magnum certamen pussy”

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Argentina's Claims and the ICJ

    Opinion of Judge Thomas Franck, ICJ on 'historic title'

    'The point of law is quite simple, but ultimately 'basic' to the international rule of law. It is this: historic title, no matter how persuasively claimed on the basis of old legal instruments and exercises of authority, cannot - except in the most 'extraordinary circumstances' - prevail in law over the rights of non-self-governing people to claim independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fide self-determination.'

    Argentina's 'claims' to the Falklands can be supported by the man in the moon for what its worth, but here on earth they are worthless and fraudulent.

    Paragraph 2 refers

    http://icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7712.pdf

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    15
    which is the correct one Bob...this is yours from the other thread....
    ...one contradicts the other...;-)
    are you adding words or taking them away...?

    'The point of law is quite simple, but ultimately basic to the international rule of law. It is this: historic title, no matter how persuasively claimed on the basis of old legal instruments and exercises of authority - except in the most extraordinary circumstances - prevail in law over the right of non-self-governing people to claim independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fried self-determination.' Opinion of Judge Thomas Franck, International Courts of Justice, 2001.
    ...still just an Opinion...not the law....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nololly

    A_Voice, where's your lover?

    So what?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @16 An opinion under 'International Law'.

    Ouch!!!

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    17
    You can apply for the position if you wish....please list vital statistics....
    18
    Is Bob short for Kate...?
    An opinion concerning international law....I dare say there are others and I would imagine there would be a panel of judges all with different opinions...
    Also I would imagine this opinion was concerning a particular case....
    ...as he says different circumstances are a factor.....
    Ouch!

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #16

    Law's are often ambiguous, it's up to judges to interpret them and make a decision. Clearly had the dispute being brought to this judge he would have supported the FIs.

    But of course the Argentine government isn't stupid enough to take the case to the ICJ knowing full well they'd lose, and at the same time lose their sole means of distracting the population in times of crisis.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    20
    Also the UK isn't stupid enough to take it to the ICJ.....on sovereignty claim for East Falkland they would lose.....as they have no Sovereignty claim...
    The best they would get is shared sovereignty...
    Hence the self determination angle...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @21 ICJ Advisory Opinion of 21st June 1971, repeated 16th October 1975, paragraph 52

    'Furthermore, the subsequent development of International Law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-development applicable to all of them.' paragraph 52 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/53/5595.pdf

    Self-determination comes before any territorial claims. The problem inherited in the Argentinian view that aliens who have settled have no rights sets a dangerous precedent as when carried out to a logical conclusion it would be the basis for driving the people of a country, specifically most of Latin America and the USA, out of places that they now occupy.

    Argentina does not have a valid sovereignty claim on the Falklands.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 21

    Is that what Lunatic has “told” you to say?

    Are you the left sock puppet or the right sock puppet?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    22
    Britain does not have a valid Sovereignty claim to East Falkland...
    ..they stole it from the BA sponsored settlement....
    23
    Which lunatic are you referring to....and how could I speak to any other poster without the whole forum seeing it...?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Faz

    No need to take anything to any court the Falklanders have spoken and the islands are self sufficient and well protected by Britain.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #21 In addition to the points made by #22 the UK has no need to go to the ICJ as they currently have sovereignty, albeit with many powers devolved to the FIG.

    “self-determination angle” - if by “angle” you mean the guiding principle applied to the NSGTs by the UN in 1960, then yes.

    Such a principle is not only ethical but legally pragmatic, any ruling otherwise would dramatically change virtually every border. How can you not see the problem here? And what date should we chose? If you go for 1833 then Argentina is stripped of most of its land area.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    26
    Hey British citizen....do you want to be British?...but I am British, why are you asking me?
    Ermm because we have a weak case ...actually no case for sovereignty over one of the islands....the one where almost everyone lives...

    Stripped of most of it's land area?...Why is someone contesting their Sovereignty?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @21

    “Also the UK isn't stupid enough to take it to the ICJ.....on sovereignty claim for East Falkland they would lose.....as they have no Sovereignty claim...”

    Why should, or would the UK take a non issue to the ICJ?

    Possession is de facto.

    It is for Argentina, as plaintiff to petition the ICJ - where the UK as defendant would have to argue a case to retain possession.

    Unless of course you know different?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    28
    The self determination farce is because they fear Argentina will take it to the ICJ....after all, what have they to lose...nothing...what has Britain to lose...Everything..

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    Well Argentina should take it to the ICJ - if they have nothing to lose and UK has everything to lose.

    Would you agree with that?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Yes I would....it's the last thing the UK Govt want to happen...I suspect...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    Well maybe, but it is Argentinas perrogative to initiate action - no matter what UK thinks or feels about a possible conclusion.

    They are not part of the equation, other than to defend a case brought by Argentina.

    So Argentina should pursue its case - it does not require any parties agreement to do so.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #29
    Why should Britain take it to the ICJ. They have possession.
    If Argentina is so sure of its case then it is up to them to act.
    What is stopping them ?
    .

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    I think Argentina is pursuing the case and the UK knows this....probably laying the groundwork...drumming up support from as many countries as they can....
    I think it's on the cards....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    Yo, Clyde - you will see @28, I mentioned that 'Possession is de facto.'
    : )

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #26

    “Ermm because we have a weak case ...actually no case for sovereignty over one of the islands....the one where almost everyone lives...” - except self-determination is the strongest basis for sovereignty.

    If it became apparent that entities with previous territorial claims (again defined at some magic date so as to benefit Argentina) could be enforced I think it highly likely that at the very least Paraguay, and potentially a native group, would press their claim. Of course, we know that has no standing in international law, and very rightly so. I'll ask again, if you really want to roll back the clock - when to?

    #31 You're right the UK government probably wouldn't want to go to the ICJ. The only thing they could possibly gain is a hefty legal bill, so why would they bother? On the other hand Argentina could gain the Falklands, but it doesn't even try, odd that isn't it?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @31 A_Voice

    Yet the British government invited Argentina to the ICJ on no less than 3 occasions.

    One would 'Think' that if Argentina's case was so solid, so water tight, that they would've immediately agreed to go to the ICJ. Yet each time they ran away.

    Just like they run away from discussions with the Falkland Islanders themselves.

    And then in 1982 Argentina proved to the world that they are nothing more than a wannabe colonial power. Nothing Argentina has said or done since then has erased that impression. Fortunately, Argentina is so badly run that they don't have the ability and money to be anything more than a bunch of incompetent and impotent bullies.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @15 Nice one. It's also useful to read the entire document.
    @16, 19, 21, 24, 27 What a pity that you aren't a lawyer. You'd be broke and down the dole office in about a week. You have NO idea of the worth of an “Opinion” of a well-respected judge such as Thomas Franck in international jurisprudence. But you may take it that it is on the same level as “precedent”. Thus the 87 pages of Judge Franck's opinion are extremely relevant. Especially as he was concerned in the drafting of constitutions for former colonies.

    This “Opinion” will now be part of “case law”. So much for the claims of argieland and spain.

    You might want to note that the “Opinion” relates to the attempted intervention of the Philippines. Judge Franck notes that to permit such an intervention would enable the Philippines to roll back 40 years of history. Judge Franck quoted innumerable authorities. And I use the word “authorities” advisedly.

    There is also the matter of legal principle. I refer you to “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”. That principle was confirmed by the ICJ in 1986. Who was in possession of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands on 14 June 1982? Remind me. I may have forgotten.

    Wind your neck in, sonny, you don't have a clue. Self-determination rules - OK?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    35
    Possession irrelevant if Argentina takes it to the ICJ....
    38
    Your point is still irrelevant there are no outstanding Sovereignty claims against Argentina...
    37
    ...and have Argentina invited the UK to the ICJ..?..at all?
    ...did the UK run away?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #39 Assuming you were referring to me, and not #38 I don't see how it would be irrelevant. Paraguay pragmatically does not pursue a claim because (a) they know that they wouldn't get anywhere based on the current international law, and (b) doing so would hurt relations with one of their largest trading partners.

    Answer me this: at what date should we roll back the borders to, in contravention of the principle of self-determination? Why 1833? Why not 1733 and return Argentina to Spain and the natives?

    It seems as if your argument is just: because Argentina disputes it.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #34
    Drumming up support has no bearing in law as far as I know.
    Any dispute is between the two parties.
    The UK has no dispute, it is of Argentina's making.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    40
    ...because Argentina disputed it at the onset.....
    A sovereignty claim that has existed for this long should not be ignored and should be dealt with....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 42 A_Voice

    Oh come on!

    You are telling us you have never seen me refer to “El Think” as the ”Lunatic from Chew Butt!

    I know you must be 80'ish, but you must remember whether you are the left or the right sock puppet?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • inthegutter

    #42

    And that would be a law would it? Face it, Argentina has no rights over the Falkland Islands. The islanders who in 1960 were classified as a NSGT administered by the UK have exercised their right to self-determination, and chosen to remain under the sovereignty of the UK. Argentina and Spain tried to remove their right to self-determination, but they failed.

    Further, Argentina ISN'T dealing with it. It just complains to irrelevant bodies and not the only one that matters. By not going to the ICJ Argentina has, I believe, failed to uphold its sovereignty claim.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    You Brits have no idea what you are talking about THE MIGHTY PEOPLE OF GRANADA have spoken.

    all these idiot rgs need now is the backing of North Korea Syria and Iran
    then you'll see
    boy will you see!

    bahahahaha

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    41
    Politics is never black and white.....
    The US were quite capable of bombing Syria into oblivion...but tried to drum up support from the UK...when it didn't happen they backed off....
    43
    80'ish ..with a Suzuki Supermoto...do me a favour....
    44
    Recognised as an Administer...not Sovereignty.....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    “THE MIGHTY PEOPLE OF GRANADA have spoken.”

    Indeed millions have been transfixed over the years. 9.5 million in UK alone in 2013, and millions others worldwide.

    Ask @6

    “Right! that's it, no more coronation street for me.”

    And I did warn in @12 that it was a tricky word ; )

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Gordo1

    The Head of State of Grenada is Queen Elizabeth and Grenada is member of the Commonwealth of Nations. It seems to me that should Grenada, in fact, be supporting Argentina's false claims to sovereignty of the Falklands/Malvinas archipelago then this island nation's membership of the Commonwealth should be temporarily suspended until the position is clarified.
    Then again, it could well be that Grenada is “looking the gift horse in the mouth” and accepting financial support from Argentina with the view that if that country is stupid enough to offer support in the extremely vain hope that Grenada will offer its support in its nonsensical claims then so what!
    Let's give Grenada the benefit of the doubt unpleasant as that may be!

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    did I mean Administrator @46
    47
    It hasn't surely taken you all this time to get that one @6...?
    ...no one got mine @19....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    A_Voice

    Why won't Argentina go to the ONLY, I REPEAT ONLY body in the WORLD that can ORDER the UK to hand sovereignty of the Falkland Islands over to another country...namely the International Court of Justice.

    Yet Argentina WON'T go to the ICJ.

    Bodies that the Argentine government have complained to:

    UN General Assembly - has NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.
    UN Security Council - has NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.
    OAS - has NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.
    CELAC - has NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.
    Numerous countries 'foreign' officials (quoted by Timerman not the actual countries involved) - have NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.
    EU - has NO power or authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.

    So sovereignty can only be forced by taking your case to the International Court of Justice who HAVE the authority to order a transfer of sovereignty.

    Yet Argentina won't go. Why if their 'sovereignty' claim is water tight and so solid?

    Of course the other way to get a change of sovereignty is to persuade the Islanders to vote for Argentina.

    Argentina, of course, has a very strange way of going about this 'wooing'. They refuse to acknowledge the existence of the Islanders, refuse to talk to them, refuse to acknowledge that they have the SAME human rights as the other 7 billion people on the planet, threaten them, try to harm them economically and constantly tell lies about them on the international stage.

    Argentina will never get the Falkland Islands. End of.

    As for Grenada, give them some slack. They support Argentina's claim to the Malvina's which is, as everyone knows, in Buenos Aires Province.

    Grenada, or course, supports the Falkland Islanders right to self-determination.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @42 Territorial Acquisition - 'The General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory should not be construed as affecting titles to territory 'prior' to the UN Charter.'

    The simple fact is that Argentina does not have a valid claim to the Falkland Islands.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    50
    “Yet Argentina WON'T go to the ICJ.”
    It's fairly obvious that the UK don't believe that....as their historical case is also not “watertight” ...
    All you can say is Argentina haven't gone to the ICJ....yet...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @47
    “47
    It hasn't surely taken you all this time to get that one @6...?”

    No, I got in @12 as indicated in @47.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @52 If Argentina had a case they would take it to the ICJ. Fact is, they have no case just 'the Great Malvinas' lie that is used to distract the populous away from inept and corrupt government.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    51
    “The simple fact is that Argentina does not have a valid claim to the Falkland Islands.”

    You have yet to show me how Britain has a claim to East Falkland...apart from squatting on it....
    53
    ....but...is Bob short for Kate...or rather...... is “Kate short for Bob?”....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @55

    Well, I would have been happy to entertain 'Bob'. ; )

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @55 A_Voice

    You have yet to show me how Argentina has a claim to East Falkland, West Falkland, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands OR Antarctica...apart from bitching on constantly about it.

    The Spanish did NOT leave Argentina the Falklands in their 'will'. There is NO proof that they did this, plus there is NO legal way they could've left a sovereignty claim to a successor state.

    Also the Spanish DROPPED their sovereignty claim and ACKNOWLEDGED the British as having sovereignty of ALL of the Falkland Islands.

    In fact, even Argentina's 1833 'incident' wasn't Argentina anyway. It was the United Provinces of the River Plate. Argentina DID not exist. And the UP divided up into several countries that include parts of Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil.

    So how can Argentina claim land from an incident that happened prior to the formation of Argentina as a country?

    Argentina would be laughed out of the International Court of Justice, because ALL of it's claims are either wildly exaggerated or outright lies.

    And none of Argentina's wildly exaggerated claims or lies - even if they were true - can overrule 2 things.

    1. In the 19th century territory was only yours if you could defend it. Argentina couldn't defend or take the Falkland Islands from the British. Result: British territory.

    2. Since the formation of the UN and the ratification of the UN Charter (Argentina signed it), none of Argentina's claims can overrule the UNIVERSAL human right to self-determination, especially when:
    - the Falklands have NEVER been a part of Argentina's territorial integrity.
    - the Falkland Islands community PREDATES the existence of Argentina itself.
    - Argentina broke international law by illegally invading the Falklands in 1982, abused the human rights of the inhabitants, and ignored a LEGALLY binding UNSC resolution.

    In short: Whether the 19th, 20th or 21st century the winner gets the spoils of war.

    Argentina = loser.

    Have a nice day. :D

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @55

    I hasten to add not our Mercopress Bob, but a Bob with a pronounced 'B'.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    56
    Me too....;-)
    57
    Spain also did not leave Argentina...Argentina in its will yet it does not belong to Spain...
    Who cares what Spain says...Spain lost it's colonies and people claimed them...BA claimed East Falkland appointed a Military Governor...While Britain did nothing...

    In historical documents available on the recognition by Britain of BA...it says
    “1824...June 25th, Woodbine Parish sends a report on the present condition of the United Provinces to the Foreign Office in London; “The United Provinces of la Plata, or, as they are sometimes called, the Argentine Republic, ”
    .....ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.....

    YOU STOLE AN ISLAND THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED......

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @59

    You need to get a proper hobby...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @59 The General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory 'prior' to the UN Charter.

    And remember ICJ Judge, Thomas Franck's words of 2001

    Paragraph 2 mid-point 'The point of law is quite simple, but ultimately basic to the international rule of law. It is this: historic title, no matter how persuasively claimed on the basis of legal instruments and exercises of authority, cannot - except in the most extraordinary circumstances - prevail in law over the rights of non-self-governing people to claim their independence and establish their sovereignty through the exercise of bona fide self-determination.'

    You will struggle to find anything from the UN ICJ post 2000 that contradicts this view.

    I expect that the politicians in Argentina are well aware of the fact that Argentina does not have a valid claim to the Falklands but are happy to spin 'the Great Malvinas Lie' to distract the electorate away from the fact that they are economically incompetent.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steveu

    @57 Not to mention the Southern Arana Treaty of 1850 and the fact that the first real Argentine claim attempt after that was in 1941 (ie some 90 years later)

    The British Govt (with the agreement of with FIG) could use that as a claim in itself to the ICJ but, as other posters have mentioned, it is up to Argentina to take its claim to the ICJ and not the other way around. Britain and the Falklanders have all the time in the world and don't have to make any claim to the ICJ unless challenged to do so.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    If Grenada had any sense they would be asking the Falkland Islander's advice on how to make an islands economy work-asking a country who can't manage an economy properly and has similar strike problems doesn't seem like a bright idea.

    Still I'm sure the UK defence forces on the Falklands are sh1tt1ng themselves at the prospect of Grenadans attacking, hope they've got Clint Eastwood on their side this time........

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    57
    Ooo look 1828...5 years before Britain turned up.....

    May 25th, Emilio Vernet writes in his diary about the 1810 Revolution celebrations on East Falkland; “.. dawn broke with some heavy showers and hail. At sunrise three cannon shots were fired and the flags of both Great Britain and Buenos Aires were hoisted; 10 at noon, three more cannon shots were fired, and three more in the evening. After lunching meat roasted with hide on and cakes especially prepared for the occasion, we practised target shooting until dusk. People organized a ball at the cooper’s ranch, which lasted all night”.

    East Falkland...BA....West Falkland...Britain..
    Sure looks like a claim to me...they even followed the British tradition of having a flag...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
    60
    ....I know...
    61
    No lies in those quotes above....deny all you want but they do have a claim....
    That's what the self determination scam was all about.....because the UK knows it too...
    A desperate move by a worried Govt....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Trunce!

    @59

    As do I ; )

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Claim, what claim?

    http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/102/7712.pdf

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @64 A_Voice

    Vernet wasn't Argentinian, he was German. So that probably gives Germany a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina. Added to that is the FACT that Vernet sort British permission to set up his colony on the Islands. (that sort of blows your argument out of the water, doesn't it?)

    Also in 1810 Argentina did NOT exist.

    AND...in the 19th Century the rule of international law was quite simple. Territory was only yours IF YOU COULD DEFEND IT.

    Hence why the countries in North, Central and South America could all claim independence.

    Argentina, or rather the United Provinces, tried to claim the Falklands. Prior to their arrival the British issued a formal complaint stating that the Falklands were British territory. When the UP ignored that and tried a land grab (who knows it might have worked), the British turn up and removed the illegal UP squatters from British territory. The United Provinces NEVER returned DESPITE there being NO British military presence on the Islands. So the British defended their territory - ipso facto - that makes it British. The UP couldn't steal or defend the territory it had stolen - ipso facto that gives them NO valid claim to the islands.

    By your laughably pathetic argument Spain could take the majority of South America to the ICJ to demand the return of their territory taken by force (in an act of self-determination) by the colonists.

    Added to that the descendants of Vernets colony ARE the Falkland Islanders themselves. They have used an act of self-determination to remain a British Overseas Territory.

    I find your desperate attempts of applying late 20 century international law retrospectively very amusing. It also shows the true impotence and weakness of the Argentine claim.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    66
    Lagos, 15 October 2002 (IRIN) - Reactions in Nigeria to the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague, which granted ownership of the disputed Bakassi Peninsula to neighbouring Cameroon, have ranged from disquiet to outrage.
    From the inhabitants of the peninsula, who say they are more than 90 percent Nigerian, came a more strident condemnation of the ICJ ruling. “We refuse to be part of Cameroon because we have never been part of that country,”

    ICJ....so much for the wishes of the People.......what happened to their self determination....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • golfcronie

    @55
    Show me how the Argentines have a claim on Patagonia other than squatting on it.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    68 A_Voice

    I knew, I just KNEW that I'd find you on this thread and not on this one:-

    Desperate Argentine officials target big business as the culprits of the current situation.

    wassup A_Voice? afraid to step out of your comfort zone?

    Or have your lords and masters told you to make “no comment”???

    aaahhhhh ha,ha,ha,ha!!!!!!!

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @70
    PMSL!!!!
    Obviously you've sussed this cnut out as well.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    71 Escoses Doido

    All the rats are leaving the sinking ship...........

    It's such an easy target though, They are too fat to run and too stupid to hide

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @68 Bakassi was not a non-self-governing territory - this was a straightforward border dispute

    Remember: 'cannot - except in the most extraordinary circumstances - prevail in law on the right of 'non-self-governing people' to claim their independence and establish their sovereignty through bona fide self-determination.'

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    LOL.
    But they will alwys try to come back.

    Are they actually paid by la campora?

    How much per post?

    Sad cnuts if they are that hard up for money, and resort to supporting malvanista shite on the www.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    67
    Vernet German.....and Argentines at that time were what?...Spanish, German, British, Italian...etc...
    Also there was hardly anyone in the world that could take on the British empire...or dare to....
    I would put your faith in self determination as you can see territorial integrity trumped the wishes of People...on that ICJ decision...
    70
    How many threads do you want me to be on....I've been on two most of the evening...
    besides economics is not really my forte....
    71
    Got your vote sorted out yet...you only have till 10 March...Dildo?...friggin liar...
    I proved you were a liar the other day....what are doing back again...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    75. Territorial Integrity is the stupidest argument an Rg could try with the ICJ.
    It takes a night to cruise there!
    How in the heck is it integral?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    75 A_Voice

    “besides economics is not really my forte....”

    It isn't about economics sweetheart, it's about common sense, it that “not really my forte” as well?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @75 voicie
    You prooved FA. (Moron)

    I'll be voting. You on the other hand will not.

    Tell me, if you could vote, would it be a yes?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    The point is.....I thought self determination for all Peoples was enshrined in the UN Charter....but not in a territory dispute...and not if you are Nigerian...
    What is the ambiguous line about the interest over the wishes of people...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @75 - A_Voice

    Argentina has to prove that the Falklands are part of Argentina's territorial integrity for your 'argument' to work.

    PROVE. That is where Argentina falls down.

    You see, Argentina produce these maps in the 1880's for distribution to their embassies around the world.

    These maps clearly marked Argentina's territory in one colour and the rest of the world in another colour. These maps were the ones used by Chile against Argentina is the Beagle Channel dispute.

    These maps very CLEARLY show that the Falkland Islands were considered 'rest of the world' by Argentina.

    So if the Argentine government in the 1880's didn't believe that the Falklands were theirs, how can the Argentine government in the 21st century claim that the islands are part of Argentina's territorial integrity?

    Face it, you're floundering. You're impotent. And your country is imploding around you, so you DEFLECT, DEFLECT, DEFLECT.

    It's amusing.

    But you still haven't got the Falkland Islands, and you never will get them.

    The joke is on you.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    419

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    79 A_Voice

    Where will you be when the lights go out?

    It's time to hook your pedal bike up to the mains and start pedaling. With a bit of luck, you may be able to generate enough power to keep warm when the winter comes.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Oder 1001

    52 A_Voice (#)

    if some one steals your property you make the charge stick by taken them to court and have them convicted of theft, the antics of Argentina and all the Malvinista is comical! not worthy to represent their country in the international community, the British do not have to prove sovereignty they have it and it is recognised by all the countries that count, it is Argentina that makes the claim that it is not legitimate therefore the body of proof must be supplied by Argentina to validate their claim, Argentina demands talks before the Brits are convicted does not follow due process and like Argies are discovering at present not likely at any time to have satisfactory out come for them. so don`t let common sense get in the way of Argentine ambition the Brits have been around a lot longer than Argentina or any of their buddies in Spanish colonial world. Argentina has all the evidence but are waiting for the accused to plead guilty! under law it is” innocent till proved guilty, as in all first world countries. don`t see them changing it for Argentina..... do you?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    80
    Did you say anything in that last post?....nope...
    BA...there before the Johnny come lately 's ...
    the proof is there for all to see.....
    78
    Did you put your security codes in....Liar ....give up pretending ..no vote for you...Wannabe...
    82
    Lights go out where? WTF are you talking about?? heating?
    Gas fired central heating.....Combi system boiler....radiators....Scottish Gas....

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Voicie
    What the fkuc are you on about security codes?

    The referendum is towards the end of this year.

    What are you gibbering about with security codes?

    You are pure 419.

    I will be sending my application to vote of course, soon.

    What a wanker you really are.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    85
    Wrong again you don't need to send anything...just use security code part one and part two on the form...SMS....Telephone or Web.....
    See...you didn't even know that
    SMS...07786 209 389...
    Freephone (24hrs) 0808 284 1489 (English)
    0808 284 1490 (Scottish Gaelic)
    web...www.elecreg.co.uk/dab-vjb
    ...you are just a lying Wannabe...;-)))

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Oh me me me me. Voicie!!!

    Av got ye upset hiv a nae?

    What needs to happen here on this site, is the IP address is displayed with the handle.

    Voicie, - would you vote yes for Scottish independance?
    (Second time I have asked you)

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    I don't discuss my personal views about the Scottish referendum with non-Scots....
    ...I have just again proved that you don't qualify...so be off with you...
    Fraudster...I have nothing to say to you...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Sorry voicie- you are full of shite.
    In order to vote in the referendum, You have to send a signed signature on the form.
    This in turn gets registered in your local voting office.

    What the F are you on about with security numbers??

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Wrong...to vote in he referendum...if you are on the Electoral roll...they have already sent a form out a month ago to register...on the form is two security codes...
    If your details are correct all you do is use SMS Phone or Web to register...
    If you don't by the 10 March when the Roll is published you don't vote.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Mr.Voice

    I can see that you have them Turnips completely under control....

    I can also see that some Turnips are telling the usual Porkies about the “UK having invited Argentina to bring the ”Malvinas/Falklands Issue“ to the ICJ.....”

    That is, of course, not true...
    The UK has invited Argentina to bring the “Malvinas/Falklands DEPENDENCIES Issue” to the ICJ.....

    Biiiiiig difference!

    The above point has been extensively debated on these pages by Mr. PomInOz (Definitively NOT a Turnip)..... and me.
    Anybody using MercoPress's search function will be able to find the relevant posts with all the ICJ links...
    I would recommend those interested to use “PomInOz” & “Humble Pie” as search words ;-)))

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    91 Think
    Right you are squire...taking advantage of me were they..best not believe anything they say in future without checking....
    haha...one day it might dawn on the fools that I don't tell porkies...;-)))
    I haven't told a lie yet...not even an exaggeration...

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    @90 and your alterego

    Bollocks.

    As an SNP member I say you are talking shite.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    93
    Why not click on the link for the electronic registration for the Electoral Roll for the vote this year....and proceed...then see when it asks you for the two security codes...
    Then we will see who is taking shite....
    Now tell everyone WHY you don't know this....;-)))
    Coz you are not a Scottish national....
    A cuckoo anybody....?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Fcuk- You dishonest prick!

    It does not work like that!

    Bellend - we have to download print sign and post the form.

    What lies you post.
    As a Scot I my duty now is to end you.

    You pikey cnut

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (95) Escoses Doido
    Remember
    As a Scot, your duty now is to vote YES.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Who the F are you/voicie/el capitano to comment on anybody's
    duty?
    Don't presume to comment above your station sir.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (97) Escoses Doido
    You better vote Yes, or else.........

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • nololly

    Aaaah Mrs Think has had a bath in front of the fire and Mr A_Voice is now scrubbing her back. Sweet! The sage of Dunoon and the wrinkled old crone of Chubut. Whats the rate in Pesos?

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • screenname

    This simple soul does not understand how Galloway does no feel a duty to promote a yes vote for Scottish Independence given his attitude to Ireland. It's almost as if he was not being guided by a universal moral code, but double standards which depend on what is best for him...

    Does Galloway have a secret Argentine passport? He seems to fit the national stereotype judging by the loons on here.

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    I have to admit that I am confused on this one. I got the usual thing about the electoral register and could either fill in the form OR phone in the details using the identifying codes.
    As we both applied for postal votes we had to give our signatures on the form.
    For the postal vote we must sign the ballot paper and presumably this is compared with the signature they have on record.

    FOR POSTAL VOTES
    When you want to vote:

    Complete your ballot paper in secret, on your own
    Don't let anyone else vote for you
    Don't let anyone else see your vote
    Don't give the ballot paper to anyone else
    Put the ballot paper in the envelope and seal it up yourself
    Complete and sign the postal voting statement
    Put the postal voting statement and the envelope containing your ballot paper into the larger envelope and seal it.
    - See more at: http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/how_do_i_vote/voting_by_post.aspx#sthash.2ngsbr85.dpuf

    Feb 05th, 2014 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    95
    Oh dear me...how upset are you being exposed....
    Clyde got the electoral registration form with the identifying security codes although his numbers would be slightly different as he is not in Argyll & Bute...and opted for a postal vote...
    But you apparently had never heard of it....
    So much for ...“It does not work like that!”
    Ah...but it does...
    ....and oh!..yer fanny......
    BTW...the only thing you could end...is your pretence of being a Scot....
    99
    I noted you didn't supply your vital statistics.....

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    We're still here Think (aka A_Voice, DoD, etc) and you're becoming more impotent by the day. Grenada! What a fucking joke. Argentina is about to go into political meltdown while in the Falklands we're starting to decide which capital projects to spend (from our reserve) approximately the equivalent of one third of our operational budget on. Meanwhile Argentina is spending its reserve on paying wages.USD150,000,000 per day.

    Sometimes on the radio you hear international celebrities giving the station's handle in the form of a 5 second voice over. Like say, Jennifer Lopez in the UK on a radio station saying 'this is Jennifer Lopez and you're listening to 101.9 Gold FM'. That's what Hector does with all these poor bastards who come to visit:

    Timmerman: Here Minister Steele read this out and then we'll talk about what Argentina can do for Grenada.

    Steele: What's this? Grenada supports fully the Argentine position on the Malvinas? What's this all about?

    Timmerman (talking to sound man): There, did you get that?

    Sound man: Get what?

    Timmerman: Oh never mind. We'll just put out a statement anyway.

    One week later by phone
    Steele: So Hector, what sort of business can we do together?

    Timmerman: Who the fuck are you?

    Time for the Commander to come out of retirement and sort us recalcitrant Bens out. Which one of you know DoD better. Your left hand or your right hand.

    Chuckle chuckle

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bongo

    Why does A_Voice......keep typing his.......sentences with lots of......full stops....in them?

    Is he.....seeing spots before......his eyes?

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Ellipses bongo...not full stops, a full stop would surely just stop like that.
    Now try typing your above post using just blank spaces to create ....gaps between words and see what happens...

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    It should not surprise anyone, that Argentina is grateful to the huge Grenadian empire with its almost 110,000 inhabitants.

    It's almost as good as getting support from 'The Montego Bay Bingo Club of 1992'.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bongo

    @105

    A_Voice.

    So why don't you try typing properly constructed sentences with correct punctuation?

    After that you can try typing properly constructed arguments.

    I put “full stops” instead of “ellipses” because you seemed to be suffering from the typed equivalent of a continuous stammer.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    106 St.John
    “It should not surprise anyone, that the UK is grateful to the huge Pocklington empire”

    http://www.pocklingtonpost.co.uk/news/local/pocklington-mayor-s-falkland-islands-trip-1-3530365

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • downunder

    ”to discuss cooperation, economic development and trade issues.'
    A small Island nation like Grenada has much more in common with the Falkland Islands than with a despotic, failing state like Argentina. The fact that they have found it necessary to, in a sense , sell their souls to the devil is a sad reflection on their current circumstances.

    However, when they discover that 'cooperation' really means argentine interference in their affairs and the promised economic development is merely an illusion, they may well change their position.

    The present Argentine government can't even run their own country and they are promisng 'economic devlopment' to another. Will ships carrying containers stuffed with freshly minted Argie pesos be arriving in Grenada? Good luck with that one!

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 07:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Doesn't seem like A_Voice has got too many friends.
    And l'm not surprised with all the rubbish that he comes out with.
    Think is almost normal compared with him.
    l did say “almost” lol!

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    VOICIE!!!!!!

    You were right about the forms I should have received!

    Thanks.
    I did not receive them. I already posted my appliction to vote though.

    And thanks very much for alerting myself and a few mates to the cut-off date you mentioned. None if us recieved the forms, and none of us were aware of any cut-off date in March either.

    I'm about to call these people to verify this cut-off date.

    Grampian Electoral Registration Office
    Mitchell Burnett House,
    Colleonard Road
    Banff
    AB45 1DZ

    They open at 09.00 UK time.

    Thanks again from myself, and my mates who are also from Aberdeenshire - we are all a yes vote by the way. :)

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    Oh, good!

    At last Marcos Alejandro acknowledge The Falkland Islands as a country, getting support to it's claim on Patagonia, in #108.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    Voicie,
    Thanks agian, but whay you posted is not totally accurate, you have misunderstood something somewhere......

    I called 01261 815516 at 09.02 (address in my last post) and they tell me I should indeed have recieved the (what they call 'canvas' form) form, and also a reminder. (I now understand these were the ones you were on about regarding the security numbers, and texting)

    They tell me also that they will accept a scanned copy of my signed registration form too, as she confirmed they had not yet recieved it by post.

    Also, - These are monthly registration cut-off dates, - There will be a the same cut-off each month after the end of March, - So for anybody reading this post, don't panic, - there is (as I suspected) still plenty of time to register!!

    Thanks again though Voicie for your help.

    Beijo xxxx

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #108
    Pocklington probably has a larger GNP than Grenada and more clout in world affairs.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @64

    “ and the flags of both Great Britain and Buenos Aires were hoisted;”

    Why raise the Union Jack if making an exclusive claim?

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    While A_Voice and his alter egos attempt to distract attention and pervert facts for the crumbling dark country, it appears Cristina and Co are preping for the get away..........

    Tango 1 - Lord Cristina, A_Voice, Think etc are still in the shipping container on Mercopress, we promised them we'd take them when we go....

    Cristina - fuck him, he's only one useless “lackie”. I've taken the money i was to pay him and it'll cover my cost of nail extensions for the month.

    Tango 1 - Lord Cristina, but he's a human being!

    Cristina - That's the thing see, he's actually a second rate Chimpanzee. We liberated him from the BA Zoo to save money......

    Tango 1 - You're indeed intelligent and powerful....

    Cristina - And beautiful!

    Tango 1 (Cringes)

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Declarations from countries recognising the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory:

    http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    107
    Ellipses are correct punctuation...
    Very much part of English Grammar...
    111
    You're welcome...
    115
    Recognition by the settlement that there were two sovereignties involved...?...two islands...
    117
    What is your point...?

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    Your post 39

    ''possession irrelevant if Argentina take it to the ICJ''

    and

    ''...and have Argentina invited the UK to the ICJ? Did the UK run away?''

    Lol

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    119
    ....you know fine well that Argentina appealed for international arbitration before the ICJ existed...
    BTW...Argentina is not in your list...so an ICJ decision would be irrelevant...

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • toooldtodieyoung

    105 A_Voice

    Everyone else on this forum brings a point of view with them..... and you, dear A_Voice, you bring an English lesson.

    You economy is collapsing, your president has robbed your country ( and you have let her do it ) and now she is about to leave you ALL in the s**t.

    The best you can do? argue over the finer points of sentence construction.... They do say that a “Slavish concern for the composition of sentences is a sign of a bankrupt intellect”

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yankeeboy

    Why would Argentina listen to any world body it belongs to? The Ks are scofflaws and dirty thugs.

    All the Rgs and their supporters posting on this thread will be long dead and rotting and the Falklands will still be British.
    I don't see how anyone could have a 200 year of fantasy grudge.
    What a waste of time and emotion.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Brit Bob

    @119 ''possession irrelevant if Argentina take it to the ICJ''

    (your post at 39 makes mine at 119 relevant - lol)

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Escoses Doido

    With ref. to some earlier posting, and for those who can, - The deadline for receipt of applications to vote in the Scottish referendum, - Is tuesday 2nd September at 17.00hrs.
    Not March as somebody had eroniously stated.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @116 JollyGoodFun,
    You made me laugh, JGF.
    Still giggling.
    But its probably a true future scenario.

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ck177

    keep touching your toes...
    you might earn some coins to pay for a CT-Scanner
    poverty anyone?

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    121
    Bongo disputed the use of Ellipses in English grammar, in fact, he thought they were Full Stops...I enlightened him...
    Now his knowledge of English Grammar is enriched...a thank you would have sufficed...
    124
    I will put this as simply as I can....to be able to vote in the 2104 referendum you need to be on the Electoral Register for 2014....the forms for your inclusion were sent out a month or so ago....the Electoral Register gets published on the 10th of March. This is a list of all those on the Electoral Roll for 2014...ie. all those that will be able to vote in the Scottish Independence Referendum....
    This is how the system works in Scotland...why do you not know this?

    Feb 06th, 2014 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Bongo

    Good grief, A_Voice, you distort the truth even when it's in plain sight. I didn't dispute the use of ellipses in English grammar. I described your ellipses as full stops because your awkward sentence construction gave the impression of stammering.

    You couldn't enlighten a dark room with a 400W torch in your hand.

    And your sentence construction is still crap, as are your arguments, though
    I notice you didn't respond to that.

    Feb 07th, 2014 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    128
    Please enlighten me to the rules of sentence construction....you are talking out of your arse...
    How many times do I have to explain that a full stop is singular not multiple, and by the very definition of the term comes to a Full Stop!
    You are just embarrassed and trying to change your story because you made the same mistake as countless other posters...you didn't know what ellipses were...
    Now stop digging a deeper hole for yourself...
    Wear your ignorance with pride..there are educated people, and idiots like yourself, it's just a fact of life!

    Feb 07th, 2014 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Joe Bloggs

    129

    Nice deflecting.

    Feb 07th, 2014 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @125 - Thanks :). It's really hard to keep a straight face writing anything about Argentina or the paid RG Trolls.... Keep laughing, we both know there will be lots more.

    Feb 07th, 2014 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    130
    Huh?..no idea what you are talking about...
    Please give your regards to Mrs Palmer....

    Feb 07th, 2014 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Oder 1001

    19 A_Voice (#)

    the UK has invited Argentina three times since they raised the issue at the UN from 1945 when Argentina joined, on all three occasions it was Argentina who refused to attend the court and still does. You do not invite the defendant (UK) to prove he is innocent, you supply the proof he guilty that's how its done in the modern world not this fantasy Shangri-La arrangement that Argentines live in whereby the result has to be in Argentina`s favour before talks begin no one but an Argentine it seems operates in such way, its going to be another 200 or 300 years before Argentina is ready for mature talks and by that time it will be so far back in history no one will care, that's an awful long time to keep moaning. the British have the islands now possession is 9/10 of the law as recognised by the UN. The longer Argentina drags it out the less credible they become.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 21 A_Voice writes:

    “Also the UK isn't stupid enough to take it to the ICJ.....on sovereignty claim for East Falkland they would lose.....as they have no Sovereignty claim...”

    I can document indisputable UK sovereignity over the Falkland Islands in accordance to concurrent (i.e. valid at the time in question) international law in two separate instances (these two instances are not related to neither 180+ years possession nor to self-determination as guaranteed by the UN ).

    My experience with pro-Argentine debaters is that when I have provided the quotes and sources from international law, Argentine and British sources, the por-Argentine debater either “disappears”, no longer take part in the debate or change user name, or simply ignores the evidence.

    Before I spend time presenting the evidence, I want a commitment from you, A_Voice, that you will accept the documentation (which you will be able to verify on the internet) and acknowledge that your above statement: “the UK ... would lose.....as they have no Sovereignty claim” is wrong.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anti-Muppet

    33 years, 20,000 newspaper articles, 1 war & hundreds of thousands of comments on Mercopress regarding the Falkland Islands sovereignty...

    The result, NOTHING has changed! nor will change, it's still British and will remain so, so long as that is what the people of Falklands so choose, in there right for self-determination.

    Argentina will never take this to the ICJ, just like Spain won't take Gibraltar to the ICJ

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    133
    I'm not sure you have thought your statement through....
    In the real world the claimant takes the claim to arbitration....not the defendant...
    Why would the defendant (UK) do it three times...? Would that be defending the claim to the Falklands or the dependencies ...South Georgia etc,,,,?
    The only thing that the UN recognises concerning the UK and the Falklands is...that the UK has Administration over them.....
    134
    You boast a claim that Britain itself has never been able to substantiate....Sovereignty over East Falkland....
    Why boast and not follow through...?

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • LEPRecon

    @136 A_Voice

    I believe the term used was invited. That means the UK told Argentina that if they had a grievance then to direct through the proper legal channels.

    Argentina didn't.

    If the UK wanted to take Argentina to court then they would. But the UK doesn't need to take Argentina to court as the UK has sovereignty, and the UK is 100% in the right.

    You really do make yourself look like a plonker, don't you?

    As for a claim over East Falklands, well in 1690 the British claimed all of the Islands. In 1765 the British claimed all the Islands. And in the 1840's Spain acknowledged the British as the only VALID claimant left, when they abandoned their claims to the Falkland Islands.

    What you have failed spectacularly to do is substantial anything that you say.

    And when people point it out you turn to insults, distraction and whataboutery, like all the other Argentine trolls.

    Gosh, your desperation has been really showing through all of your posts in the last few weeks. Each day your posts become more pathetic as the reality of you socialist 'utopia' makes itself known to the world.

    And when the dust settles, the UK will still have sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Argentina won't have anything, not even self-respect.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    137
    Links please for your wild historical British claims of all the islands....and their official recognition by other countries...
    The official recognition...not we support...not this occurred therefore it will be deemed as recognition....
    Please list all nations that recognise British Sovereignty of the Falklands apart from Britain...and I don't mean Administration...
    Otherwise you look like a plonker...that makes stuff up...

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 136 A_Voice

    No boast when I can provide proof.

    Why not follow through?

    Because I don't want to spend 30-40 minutes going through my files, only to have it pretended never written in a week.

    No commitment as stated above, no waste of my time.

    You can find **a part of it** spread out in this thread, starting hereabout:
    http://en.mercopress.com/2012/06/20/argentina-s-diplomatic-circus#comment138604

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    139
    Oh no that's not the one that never mentioned the Falkland Islands and was to remove the blockade...is it?
    Like all deeds and covenants...if it doesn't mention something, then it becomes ambiguous in law and irrelevant...
    Would not pass muster with the ICJ.....

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 140 A_Empty_Noise

    so you acknowledge that I can document indisputable UK sovereignity over the Falkland Islands in accordance to concurrent (i.e. valid at the time in question) international law in two separate instances and you are too dishonest to commit yourself to acceptance.

    Having read a number of your previous posts, I am not the least surprised by your dishonesty - A_Empty_Noise: Viel Geschrei und wenig Wolle.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    141
    So I was right.....all you have is an agreement to end a blockade that doesn't mention the Falkland islands....
    Damn that was a fine guess of mine....
    So much for indisputable proof of Sovereignty....
    Is that all you got...;-)))

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    As is clearly demonstrated:

    The dishonest poster A_Empty_Noise who, for unknown reasons, calls himselv A_Voice is just wrangling because he knows that a commitment to accept definite proof of the United Kingdom's good title and indisputed sovereignity over the Falkland Islands will seal the dispute with A_Empty_Noise exposed as an empty barrel.

    Note that if A_Empty_Noise's idiot remark in #142 were to be taken as honest, then A_Empty_Noise has read and understood more than 300 postings from the time I supplied the link at:
    Feb 08th, 2014 - 06:51 pm
    until he told yet another lie at:
    Feb 08th, 2014 - 06:59 pm
    - in less than 8 minutes, i.e. app 44 posts read and understood per minute.

    Proof that A_Empty_Noise is not only a dishonest participant, but also a low life liar.

    No commitment, only A_Empty_Noise: Viel Geschrei und wenig Wolle.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (143) St.John

    Hmmmmmmm.......
    “Viel Geschrei und wenig Wolle”.... (sagde bonden da han klippede sin so.)
    Either a very cultivated German...
    Or a Besserwisser Dane...
    A Dane, I guess...

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    In #139 I wrote: “You can find **a part of it** spread out in this thread”.

    In spite of the original emphasis on **a part of it**, dishonest A_Empty_Noise, pretends that I claimed the entire evidence for *both* the instances (Re. #134) “I can document indisputable UK sovereignity over the Falkland Islands ... in two separate instances”.

    To a dishonest poster like A_Empty_Noise, “two separate instances” is claimed to be only one instance “the one that never mentioned the Falkland Islands”, re. #140. To a low life liar like A_Empty_Noise, 'two' immediately becomes 'the one'.

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Juppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp.....
    Definitely a Besserwisser Dane...

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @145 - great work sir!

    El Stink and Anal_Voice, you both fail....again..... Poor sad attempt at distraction. The facts and legal position support the UK only. Poor, poor Argentininian corrupt ans lying educational (non educational) system. Breeding generations of ignorant, lying, manipulative “stooges ”.

    We wi see only a few things from the Argentine Trolls. Lies, distraction and whataboutery.

    And another thing, if St John is a Dane, that's further evidence to discredit the Argentine claim of universal (cosmic) support. Plus the Danes are some seriously great people. Luckily for the UK they have influenced he lands throughout history.

    Less of the magic mushrooms Argentina and a little more serious facts please..

    Feb 08th, 2014 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    145
    WTF are wittering on about..? I didn't bother reading any links...Why would I bother...I know there is no new evidence to proves indisputable Sovereignty of East Falkland. I guessed you would be using the same old Treaty that never mentions the Falklands....Were you..?
    There is nothing that I haven't read at some point that claims indirectly, a claim to the Falklands..hence I didn't bother....
    If you have something new post it...and let me take it apart...and show you how it is irrelevant...and stop pretending you have something new.....
    Just all hot air from you without your “proof”..
    Put up or shut up.....shit or get off the pot...and any other applicable idiom...
    147
    Ah you again...why did you disappear without explaining to me how you are able to vote in the Scottish referendum without having lived in Scotland since you were wee......I'm still waiting....

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @148 - dear, dear Anal_Voice. Where is the point and worth in expending energy to provide evidence and solid arguments to one so inept at debating and investigation as you. I imagine more and more people ignore you as it is a waste of effort trying to stay on topic or to highlight factual evidence. You will always attempt to distract because your argument have neither evidence nor independence from the lying Argentine state to back them up. Keep spouting your rubbish you Magic Mushroom munching “lackie”.

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    so much deflection to the Scottish debate..... sad.

    The issue is; Did Grenada get 'conned' into saying something the do not really support? Just for a few dollars more?
    They must be careful about 'territorial' concepts because if they get sacked from the BRITISH Commonwealth they could be in serious trouble...
    Anyway, no further proof is need that the Falkland Islansds are a nation in their own right, soon the light will go out in RGland and will will hear no more from the deeply silly posters such as Anal_Voice...

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @150 - I agree. I believe the UK Government will not raise it as the Argentine attempt at stealing the Falklands from the Falkland Islanders is a non issue in International law (Argentina have no legal or moral claim)...... The Queen I imagine will look at ensuring her subjects are well looked after. If any money is spent by Argentina (although they have none), it'll be a win win for Grenada in that they will be happy to get paid for a work of fiction (eg Argentina's claim)..... Has Grenada even officially released anything though? I have neither seen nor heard of any official support from Grenada.

    If it is only the Argentine Government's statement we can add it to the pile of lies and 1/85 truths e.g. Universal(cosmic) support; Big companies are to blame; the UK is to blame; The US is to blame; inflation is 9%; Argentina is a booming nation etc, etc......

    It probably played out with Patsy Timerman putting on a silly voice.

    Patsy T: my wife and I will be going to Iceland, my wife Tina will be getting chicken to boil for dinner, do you care to join us?

    Grenada representative: (looking uneasy) I support your right to boil chicken but I'll have to pass on the dinner.

    Patsy T: (announces)Grenada clearly supports our right to the Malvinas(make believe) Islands, and subsequently our right to (the Falklanders) oil.

    Grenada representative: (slaps face with hand and shakes head) WTF!

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    TWIMC
    A good comment on this article from a Grenadian thinking fellah….:
    http://www.spiceislandertalkshop.com/talkshop/messages/914383.html

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 08:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    It has now become obvious that A_Empty_Noise (who for unknown reasons calls himself A_Voice) is so dishonest, that any commitment to accept the verifiable documentation and acknowledge proof of the British sovereignity over the Falkland Islands will be just another lie from A_Empty_Noise. To view his above posts are like looking at a caught eel - writhing, writhing, writhing, helpless maneuvres to get loose, to no avail.

    My offer to spend time extracting the evidence in the two instances from an extensive text and re-edit it to 1 or 2 posts in Mercopress is no longer valid, and the liar A_Empty_Noise has become a member of my list of unpersons.

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @153 St John,
    My thoughts exactly.
    l think that he occupies a desk not far from Think at the Argentine Ministry of Disinformation & they cross fertilise each other.
    @152 Think,
    l daresay that its meant to be sarcastic my dear Think.
    You'd better check with A_Voice as you're just a “humble old Argie living in a shack in Chubut” & wouldn't know a Caribbean patois, would you? ha.
    Where is he btw? Slipped out to get more coffee?

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @145 - absolutely spot on. If J.K Rowling was Agentinian I dare say the Ministry of Disinformation would be a place Mr Potter would have to visit.......the first book would be entitled “El Potter and the missing pesos”. In the book Potter is still British (as all normal Argentinians wish they had some real governance) and Voldermort is Cristina (albeit a better looking version than the real life one..... Actually scratch real life due to the amount of plastic surgery. Look behind her left ear there's a label saying made in Taiwan).

    Only a small label though as the Taiwanese are ashamed of that particular piece of work.

    Joking aside, both you and St.John are bang on the nail with your comments, observations and arguments.

    El Stink and Anal_Voice will always run at facts as they can only regurgitate utter crap. It sounds like crap, it smells like crap, it is total crap.

    Considering you're the same (Argentine sponsored) person (highly probable chimpanzee) El Stinky Anus Voice, please try some factual hard evidence..... We've all been waiting some time to see even a smidgen from you.

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    JollyGoodLiar
    haha like your crap about being able to vote in the Scottish Referendum based on being born there...What a liar...;-)))
    ...should have looked who was eligible before telling porkies......
    BTW
    “...Joking aside, both you and St.John are bang on the nail with your comments, observations and arguments.”
    Where the feck are you from.....
    .....hit the nail on the head ....or.... bang on the money

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @156 - no one had mentioned voting based on me being born in Scotland.... If you note you degenerative I said “I will be voting No”.. Nothing additional regarding where or where not I currently live and nothing said with regard to being able to got due to place of birth....

    You really are a special kind of thicko. If your mother had not been banging your uncle, with you the resultant love child, you'd have an IQ that's at least 80 points.

    I'm from a highland clan, very established, with a long and proud history. How my family and I vote is none of your business. As you're an Argentine you would not understand the voting concept of a family who are very careful of the leaders they back.

    Considering this is the come back you give, all others comments on here about what a lying, diverting, snivelling little weasel you are, have been 100% bang on.

    What about Agentina's legitimate (illegitimate ) claim?

    What about St.Johns factual evidence regarding the UK legal and moral (self determination) right to protect the Falklands from the dark country?

    What about your inability to stay on topic once the factual evidence is given?

    What about the constant lies spouted hence forth from your arsehole?

    The best thing is that many, many people around the world look forward to the soon end of your crap. Argentina'a fall will be soon and hard.

    I for one will enjoy your silence considering you have contributed nothing to debate or reason. Your logic is flawed, your arguments plain stupid. Cristina has wasted more of her (I mean the stolen) money hiring a crap flinging Chimpanzee such as yourself.

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    JollyGoodBullshitter
    What clan is it the MacLiars....?
    Please explain to the rest of us how you circumnavigate the prerequisite of having to be a permanent resident of Scotland and being on the Electoral Roll to vote...
    Take your time...you are going to need it....
    Otherwise you have been caught out in a lie....

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    21 A_Voice

    “The best they would get is shared sovereignty...” I agree but only with Spain, but since Spain withdrew it's claim. That leaves the UK with sole propriety as all other claims are excluded according to the following treaties with Spain.

    Nootka Convention

    ... However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI 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 had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.[5]

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

    Peace of Utrecht

    Article VIII
    ...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America. ...

    While politics may not be black and white international law is. Argentina could no longer apply to the ICJ even if she wanted, because of her failure to bring the issue to the court in a timely manner, as she would be prevented under the the legal doctrine of “extinct prescription”.

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Philippe

    H.E. Mr. Steele is in line for the award: “Idiot of the year 2014.”

    Philippe

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Terry Hill
    So what is this period of time ....under the the legal doctrine of “extinct prescription.
    I am unable to find a definitive reference in International Law that would be recognised by the ICJ...perhaps you could point me in the right direction with a link...

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    I don't have the original link but I do have a pdf copy of the publication and precis text version of which I will now show.
    http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/milrv107&div=5&id=&page=
    MILITARY LAW REVIEW: CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES Volume 107 Winter 1985
    The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute
    Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle ............. 5
    27
    3. Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty

    ...But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sover-
    eignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite
    title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are con-
    clusive in establishing sovereignty. .
    28

    Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription
    to Great Britain's claim results in a different conclusion. Extinctive
    prescription involves possession,... ...However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general principles of international law171 that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
    Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.172
    The League of Nations and, later, the United Nations provided bodies capable of adjudicating the competing claims. ...
    To avoid losing her
    claim by extinctive prescription, Argentina should have submitted
    her claim to the League of Nations, the Permanent Court of Interna-
    tional Justice or the International Court of Justice. Argentina did
    not. ...For over 50 years prior to the

    31

    armed conflict of April 2, 1982, Argentina failed to submit the
    dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims.
    There is no evidence that Argentina was in an

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Terry Hill
    So you are saying, in fact that there is no rule of law that determines a period of time for “Extinct Prescription”.....
    When you do find one be sure to let me know...
    Please save the opinions of some military Major.Whoever.
    I want legislation....facts...links...from the UN or the ICJ otherwise it's just rhetoric..

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    There is no specific international law per se only the opinions of international law experts including the point-man for the US army that I've shown, so they didn't appoint someone whom they had any doubt as to his competency.
    Here's a second expert whom also is not British, who also quotes the former president of the ICJ on the very same issue.
    The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic /by Daniel K. Gibran.
    Diplomatic pressures were the only means available to Argentina up to 1920... ... Nevertheless, Argentina protested, and for a time these protests were effective in blocking Britain's claim to sovereignty by extinctive prescription, had not changing political circumstances intervened. The establishment of the World Courts, initially as the Permanent Court of International Justice and later as the Internationa Court of Justice (ICJ), changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep alive Argentina's claim of sovereignty. In order to avoid extinguishing its claim, Argentina should have resorted to the ICJ rather than continuing to protest. The fact of the matter was that Argentina never submitted its claim to the Court for judgment, Its failure to do so, to take advantage of the requirements prescribed by international law, has quietly ceded sovereignty to Britain by extinctive prescription. Thus by 1982, Argentina's claim was extinguished. The British jurist Rosalyn Higgins arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out: No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.80“ There was therefore little doubt that Britain acquired title to the Falklands by extinctive prescription. In other words, it was in this mode that the strength of the British claims resided.

    80. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,” Obse

    Feb 09th, 2014 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    ThinkVoice ??

    jup, crickets...

    :-)

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ross

    Oh dear me. The Commonwealth is falling apart.with Crenada voting in favour of Aregentina.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    163 A_Voice
    In the total scheme of things things the fact that you want legislation....facts...links...from the UN or the ICJ otherwise it's just rhetoric. Is just your unqualified personal opinion. Whereas, the ICJ would consider such writings in its determination as relevant.

    Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be:
    a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
    expressly recognized by contesting states;
    b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
    c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
    d. . . . judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.11

    Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @166 - Game, set and match. Well done Sir! An excellent and factual argument.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Doggy Rap

    Arseħole_Empty_Noise - what a tosser, totally exposed as a worthless bum.

    Lots of Empty_Noise spouting from the lower orifice of his digestive tract.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @169 Doggy Rap,
    You've got that plonker worked out, alright.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    My previous post @168 was meant to be for @167 and not @166.

    @166 is another iteration of an ousted Argentine Troll trying to divert the otherwise factual and hard hitting evidence highlighting Argentina's non claim, and the UK's sound and robust legal and moral position with regard to the Falklands.

    @169 and @170 - I 100% agree with you both.

    I expect there will be no further comment from A_hole other that to attempt to divert.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Doggy Rap

    @ 171 JollyGoodFun writes

    “My previous post @168 was meant to be for @167 and not @166.”

    Don't worry, the human section of the posters guessed that :-)

    Somewhat annoying that we are missing either 'preview my post' (IMO best) or the possibility of making corrections within e.g. 3 minutes.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    187
    Terry Hill
    I don't why you are attempting to use the Prescription or “Extinct Prescription” argument, when you know fine well it doesn't apply to the Falklands...
    You are cherry picking quotes for something that does not apply anyway...
    Your mention of...
    “a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules
    expressly recognized by contesting states;
    b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
    c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; ”

    Would apply these rules...

    “International tribunals have laid down that possession must be undisturbed, uninterrupted or unchallenged. In the absence of them, the claim of prescription will not be allowed.”

    This is not the case for the Falklands....so what exactly is your basis for Sovereignty.....?
    Not Occupation.....was occupied
    Not Prescription...the use of force or threat ....and has been consistently challenged...
    The only thing the UK have and the one they are pushing...is self determination,

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Rubbish Your claim is absolute sophistry, as they are not my claims but those of two experts, plus the former president of the ICJ.
    International tribunals have laid down that possession must be undisturbed? Would only be applicable to a claim of “acquisitive prescription” not “extinct prescription”. If this is not so then show where and when. While on the same subject of tribunals, the UK could throw this claim into the mix:
    “..in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the
    Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
    Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest,...10 That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...”

    10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949)
    THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice, Dr. SHARON KORMAN

    There's plenty more that the UK can legally rely on.

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Terry Hill
    I know you know what and whom I'm talking about when I say that definition of PRESCRIPTION was from O'Connell...
    ...this is also supported by the opinions of Grieg...Phillimore...Oppenheim Et al...
    ...Territorial Acquisition, Disputes and International Law...Surya Prakash Sharma
    B Requirements and Classification of PRESCRIPTION

    BTW your argument for conquest doesn't hold water in International Law...because there was no state of War between Argentina and Britain....

    I'm still waiting for how the UK can legally claim Sovereignty.....
    ..like I say all they have is Self Determination....
    ...also there is no such thing as Extinct Prescription...it's Extinctive Prescription...

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Terry Hill

    More nonsense from “A_Voice”, a “stateless”, nameless, Troll.

    Check post #79
    http://en.mercopress.com/2014/02/08/foreign-office-minister-hugo-swire-message-to-the-falkland-islands#comment307183

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    175 A_Voice
    More fraudulent claims by you, if you are attempting to refute the the application of “extinctive prescription”, then your clearly going to have to show when and where it is deniable.
    As for “conquest” vis-à-vis a necessity of a “state of war” your wrong again.

    214 THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATE

    'Nevertheless, there occurs, according to international law, a territorial change, provided that the occupation, made with the intention of incorporating the occupied territory into the territory of the occupying State, assumes a permanent character, and that means that the legal order of the occupying State becomes efficacious for the territory in question. Usually one speaks of “occupation,” as a title of acquisition, only when the territory previously did not belong to another State. When, on the contrary, the territory belonged to another State, one speaks of “annexation,” having in mind the case of conquest, that is, the case of taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war. Traditional theory admits that annexation of conquered enemy territory, whether of the whole (subjugation) or of part, constitutes acquisition of the territory by the conquering State, if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, “a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the t

    Feb 10th, 2014 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Terry Hill
    For goodness sake do you never learn to look at the character count to see when you have used them all....
    ...There is nothing fraudulent about my claims...they are from the above stated book...look them up...credible sources.
    Now carry on your post so I can see what easily disputable nonsense you have endeavoured to concoct....
    BTW...I seen all your irrelevant arguments from other sites, so I know what's coming....all easily refuted....
    ...but we might as well go through the motions....
    ....you and Brit Bob both....why not get together...both are walkovers....
    If the UK had a legitimate claim to sovereignty instead of the weak and pitiful one they have...they would have used it by now and not be relying on the self determination farce....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    177 Terence Hill continued.

    the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.'

    General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen

    175 A_Voice

    I'm still waiting for how the Argentina can legally claim Sovereignty..... When she is specifically barred from any proprietary interest in the Islands according Peace of Utrecht and to the Nootka Convention between Spain and the  UK re: post #159. Especially when you have already conceded sovereignty to the UK in post #21 “The best they would get is shared sovereignty...”

    Typical troll sophistry, allude and name drop, and try to shift the onus. Your one asserting and so far failed to have prove anything. Again, trying to shift the burden this time to the UK, when the onus is clearly on Argentina as the complainant. It you who bares the burden to prove, not your opponents to disprove. If you fail then you have once again revealed yourself as a proven liar.

    Logical Fallacies

    Ignoring the Burden of Proof:

    Generally speaking, he who asserts must prove. An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument. Writers sometimes forget this, and their articles can be littered with assertion after assertion. In the end, the duty to support an assertion is on the writer, not the reader (like the burden of proof is on the accuser in court, rather than the accused).
    http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • JollyGoodFun

    @179 - another clear and deciding win.

    More misrepresentation, manipulation, lies, distraction and whataboutery from the Voice of an Anus to follow.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    So to recap, you have been unable to show any legal basis for Argentine claims, while acknowledging UK sovereignty with Spain. Peace of Utrecht prevented Spain from transferring sovereignty of the Islands to any other nation, and the Nootka Convention specifically allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements when Argentina attempted to establish a settlement.
    You have failed to refute the negation that “extinctive prescription” has on Argentina.
    You have attempted to decamp the legally accepted principal that conquest was an acceptable way acquiring territory. By claiming “there had to be a state of war”. This notion was debunked by the jurist Hans Kelsen “Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war...”. I am unable to find one single item that you have proved so far. So I take it that you have no proof to back any of your assertions.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Anglotino

    So now we know why Argentina tries to win sovereignty in the court of public opinion instead of an actual court.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 181 Terence Hill

    Very well done, Sir!

    You have now proven the first (oldest) of the two separate instances of indisputable UK sovereignity over the Falkland Islands in accordance to concurrent (i.e. valid at the time in question) international law, I offered to present in # 134.

    When the dishonest Argentine posters (the absolute majority) have finished wrangling (officially recognised internatonal law is not really internatonal law, etc., etc., similar to what we have seen above - and in other threads - from A_Empty_Noise), you will soon find, that they will pretend they have never read or heard about your excellent presentation of case no. 1, which, BTW, is not far from my version, except I would have used international law from 1836, namely Henry Wheaton: “Elements of international law: with a sketch of the history of the science”, Volume 2.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    183 St.John

    I do use Henry Wheaton and others when dealing with different historical elements of international law.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The two main reasons why I prefer to use Henry Wheaton's treatise, are

    1. the date of the treatise, 1836, only 3 years after the Falkland Islands incident, i.e. contemporary international law, polluted by neither the important changes in 1918 and 1945-6 (and later) nor DoGood-ers.

    2. this beauty: Henry Wheaton “Elementos del derecho internacional”, Tratados de Paz vol. 2 (1855). The Spanish version of the above, used during the 19th century in just about every Spanish speaking country in the world.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Terry Hill
    Let me get you back on track to my original question as you appear to be confusing East Falkland that has never had a Historical British claim with West Falkland which has....
    I'll ask you again...show me the British claim to East Falkland...or is your only claim conquest...which of course the UK denies....
    I'll give you some choices...take your pick...

    What are the modes of acquiring territorial sovereignty?

    (1) Occupation: When a particular territory is not under the authority of any other state, a state can establish its sovereignty over such territory by occupation. The territory may never have belonged to any state, or it may have been abandoned by the previous sovereign. The PCIJ( permanent court of international justice) held that the occupation to be effective must consist of the following two elements
    (i) intention to occupy. Such intention must be formally expressed and it must be permanent.
    (ii) occupation should be peaceful, continuous.
    There mere act of discovery by one state is not enough to confer a title by occupation. There are two requirements (i) the territory subject to claim must not be under the sovereignty of nay state ( terra nullius) (ii) the state must have effectively occupied the territory.
    (2) Annexation:...?
    (3) Accretion: ...?
    (4) Cession: ...?
    (5) Prescription: It means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. Requirements of prescription (i) the possession must be peaceful (b) the possession must be public (iii) the possession must be for a long period of time.
    Prescription is the acquisition of territory which belonged to another state, where as occupation is acquisition of terra nullius. However, international law doesnot prescribe any fixed period for prescription.
    ...As you can see none of those apply to the Falklands...
    We are talking about a claim from 1833 onwards as there was no previous claim...

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    “A_voice”

    or should I say, “Think”?

    This “East Falklands” line seems to be an extension of Thinks obfuscation.

    As a casual observer,
    you seem to ask leading questions, inviting Terence or the Brits to defend, but you connect no definite statements or arguments to a conclusion.

    Ok, no more interruptions - will look in later :-)

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    187
    ...are you not up for the task....have a go....
    ..the onus was on St.John to provide proof of British claim to East Falkland...he hasn't...then Terry thought he would take up the challenge but instead digresses to claims for West Falkland...
    I'm still waiting anyone....is this your best....?

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    It's pretty elementary Spain and Britain had shared sovereignty, when Spain left the Islands that left the UK with the only legitimate claim, as all others were excluded according to the terms of Peace of Utrecht. So Argentina doesn't even legally get a sniff. It's incidental which of several choices the UK uses, since they are all equally valid, as she was at that point the only remaining legal title holder.
    Who cares the bottom line is it's nothing to do with Argentina since she has never been in picture, as she was legally excluded from any possible claim. She was a none-contender in 1833, and so remains to this day a none-starter. Rubbish! there were claims by the UK to Islands prior to 1833, as you have already conceded, in post #21 “The best they would get is shared sovereignty...”
    Another peace of sophistry as you attempt to lay the definitions of “acquisitive prescription” at the door of “extinct prescription”. Two completely different principles of which I have only shown the latter, which is an estoppel against undue-delay in bringing suit. But while on the subject there is a further bar to Argentina bringing suit. That of the “clean-hands” doctrine, to wit:

    INTER ALIA-STUDENT LAW JOURNAL:A COMMENT ON THE CLEAN HANDS DOCTRINE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
    Mr. Rahim Mo loo
    INTRODUCTION
    Equitable principles are a part of international law. The International Court of Justice (“ICJ”) has confirmed that “the legal concept of equity is a general principle directly
    applicable as law. Among those equitable principles that international tribunals have applied is the concept that a claimant's claims may be barred due to its illegal conduct inrelation to the claims he brings. This concept is known as the ”clean hands doctrine.” As Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice has summarized:
    'He who comes to equity for relief must come with clean hands'. Thus a State which is guilty of illegal conduct may be deprived of the necessary locus standi in judicio for complaining of corresponding ille

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    188
    For a supposed 'Scottish resident', who isn't Scottish, you seem to be putting a lot energy into assuming the affectations of a Scot, and even more into studying and arguing against British sovereignty over the Falklands.

    Your fascination seems far more than that of a casual interest or a debating 'exercise' for your Toastmasters group.
    I can't imagine any 'Scot' or UKsian going so far out their way, just to be contrarian, and you don't come across as an Academic.

    You must be a real 'performer' in the pub.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    189
    “It's pretty elementary Spain and Britain had shared sovereignty, when Spain left the Islands that left the UK with the only legitimate claim, as all others were excluded ”

    Great logic by that same premise...when Britain abandoned their settlement 60 years previously that would have left Spain with the only legitimate claim....Doh!

    “Who cares the bottom line is it's nothing to do with Argentina since she has never been in picture, as she was legally excluded from any possible claim.”

    Are you Isolde that comment is an admission that you are unable to state your claim to East Falkland barring...They are OUR islands and nothing to do with you...

    “Rubbish! there were claims by the UK to Islands prior to 1833”

    Show me your claims prior to 1833 for East Falkland...I keep asking and not getting...
    I knew you couldn't make a legitimate claim to East Falkland....
    Please close the door on your way out....
    IS THERE ANYONE ELSE...?
    All are welcome to try.....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, wrote the following nonsense:

    “the onus was on St.John to provide proof of British claim to East Falkland...he hasn't”

    St. John offered to prove, beyond any doubt, indisputable UK sovereignity over the Falkland Islands in accordance to concurrent (i.e. valid at the time in question) international law in two separate instances (these two instances are not related to neither 180+ years possession nor to self-determination as guaranteed by the UN ) under the express condition that ”Before I spend time presenting the evidence, I want a commitment from you, A_Voice, that you will accept the documentation (which you will be able to verify on the internet) and acknowledge that your above statement: “the UK ... would lose.....as they have no Sovereignty claim” is wrong.“

    As can be seen in the posts above, the clinical idiot who call himself ”A_Voice“ did *not* commit himself to accept the unconditional proof and thus St.John withdrew his offer, something ”A_Voice”, has great difficulties comprehending, simply because he is a clinical idiot.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    192
    Are you completely deranged and out of your mind....How can I accept anything as evidence without having read it....
    I will read it and make up my own mind....
    How can I accept something as proof without seeing it...?
    Either produce your evidence or shut up and stop wasting my time...

    How about this....I've got some secret evidence...if you don't accept it's true I won't go to the trouble of showing you it.....

    You are obviously some sort of idiot...say what you have to say....or you know where the door is....and don't forget to shut it on your way out....

    Bloody forum is plagued with crackpots....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, wrote the following nonsense: “How can I accept anything as evidence without having read it.”

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, obviously has a general problem with comprehension. My offer, as can be seen in #134 was: ”I want a commitment from you, A_Voice, that you will accept the documentation (which you will be able to verify on the internet) ”

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, obvious does not understand the expression: **which you will be able to verify**.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    194
    No you stupid, wasting my time Troll...I don't understand...“that you will accept the documentation”
    Accept it as what...?
    Do you not understand English...the only way a person on here can not accept documentation is by not reading it.....
    Finish the statement Accept it as what...? Proof an Opinion, a point of Law...WHAT?
    Better still get lost....and don't come back until you have developed a better grasp of the English Language....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Post 189 Terence Hill continued

    illegalities.

    http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ialia7&div=13&id=&page=

    The invasion in 1982 would appear to be such conduct.

    191 A_Voice

    Again matters that only pertain to the legal title holders that is Spain and Britain, nothing to do with barred Argentina so there is no requirement in international law to placate interfering neighbours. So if there are only two nations involved in a joint tenancy, and one withdraws it's share legally is bestowed on the remaining tenant as all other parties are excluded.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    196
    Ha ha ha is that your proof of sovereignty....you give your own unsubstantiated opinion for East Falkland...no wonder the UK is pushing the Self Determination farce....
    Next time don't make a claim you can't prove...better still ask St. John to produce his secret indisputable evidence....
    ...and shut the door......
    ...and think yourself lucky I don't follow you onto the other forums....
    ...next...

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, has gone completely off his rocker.

    He now pretends that he did not understand the challenge in # 134, although the truth is - as shown by his many idiotic posts - that he was scared and now writes anything that comes to his 3 brain cell mind.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    198
    Ah ha!...you are a juvenile...I can see it now...
    State your proof or get out of my face....
    ...you don't have any do you...?
    ..I think you are a LIAR.....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar is still wrigling t oge tof the hook, and writes anything that comes to his 3 brain cell mind.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    134 St. John

    “My experience with pro-Argentine debaters is that when I have provided the quotes and sources from international law, Argentine and British sources, the por-Argentine debater either “disappears”, no longer take part in the debate or change user name, or simply ignores the evidence.”

    AVoiceofThinkedover,
    It looks like St John only wants an assurance that if he goes to all the trouble of searching and posting, you pay him the courtesy of acknowledging the links are legit sources, and discuss them, instead of ignoring them or running off.

    Do you really want to see them ?
    Is that why you are goading him, or is it the Argie Troll Intimidation Game again?

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Ah!... the penny has dropped...
    I get it now...you had no more proof than Terry Hill, and now that you have seen it doesn't give any legal title to Sovereignty of East Falkland you dare not display it...
    It's obvious that no one would let the opportunity pass to disprove another's facts..
    We are done...

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    197 A_Voice
    As there is no other legal entity left following Spain's withdrawal, other than Britain who else can make a legitimate claim?
    Since international law is is based on the same common principles as municipal law and equity etc. this is how such matters are treated legally, and certainly there appears that Britain and Spain acknowledged such a principle in their conduct towards one another post 1811. But regardless of how they chose to interpret their relationship it still legally excludes third party intervention.

    Joint Tenancy

    This is a form of co-ownership in which the following principles apply:

    a) In theory each Joint Tenant owns the whole of the property jointly with the
    other owner or owners. No party has a specific share in the property while
    joint tenancy continues. This means that the Joint Tenants must have equal
    interests in the property, and are entitled equally to its rents and profits. There
    can be two or more Joint Tenants.

    b) The principle of ‘survivorship’ applies. On death of one Joint Tenant the
    surviving Joint Tenant or tenants acquire the whole property automatically by
    operation of law. It follows that property held in joint tenancy does not form
    part of the estate of the tenant who dies. So a Joint Tenant cannot in her or
    his will deal with property held in joint tenancy.
    http://www.wkp.com.au/Sites/31/Images%20Files/Joint%20Tenancy%20Information%20Sheet%20080307.pdf

    If you check carefully the only definitive claim I've made is that Argentina has no legal standing in the matter. So don't keep inventing things that I haven't said. As in this post is only speculation based on the conduct of the principals not a definitive answer. I am only interested in the legal relationship between the parties as it appears based on their conduct and what reasonable inferences may be drawn.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    203
    You are now really scraping the bottom of the barrel...trying to apply joint tenancy that, from your post, is applicable to people...
    So when did Spain or GB die...?
    Come back when you have something that is commonly known as applicable to acquiring territorial sovereignty?
    Please bear in mind that I have already listed the accepted International modes @186...
    There are no others to apply....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    @ 201 Troy Tempest

    “It looks like St John only wants an assurance that if he goes to all the trouble of searching and posting, you pay him the courtesy of acknowledging the links are legit sources, and discuss them, instead of ignoring them or running off.”

    That was true, but having read the posts written by the clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, I decided against it. No commitment from a lower primate living in accordance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveza_criolla ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viveza_criolla ) has any value.

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liar, will not stand by his word.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    hahaha...knew you had nothing.....swatted like a fly.....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Just for you, A_Voice.
    The lslands are OURS & nothing to do with you…etc etc. lol!
    You're finally getting it…,…,…good to see.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    204 A_Voice

    So if Spain withdrew and Argentina is barred by treaty who else has sovereignty? I'm sure even you can deduce this one. So regardless of your reliance on logical fallacies, the UK has all the legal marbles and Argentina remains as she was, and still is, out in the cold without a legal leg to stand on. But don't worry I've only advanced a partial inventory of all the UK's legal modes of sovereignty, so stay tuned for more exciting claims.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    208
    Terry Hill
    I will stay tuned, but be sure to stick with the accepted principles defining acquiring territorial sovereignty....
    ...otherwise we are digressing into the realm of personal opinion and that really doesn't hold water in International law...
    I'm fairly clued up on the arguments and have yet to see a conclusive case for Sovereignty for Britain of East Falkland and Argentina of West Falkland, hence my first suggestion of shared sovereignty at best....

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    209 A_Voice

    Poor UK their playmate left, and so there was no more legitimate contender, so they truly did inherit from Spain. Not like you know who, that was actually barred from contention under the terms of the Peace of Utrecht.

    Feb 11th, 2014 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • St.John

    Doggy Rap hit hole in one, when he in #169 wrote “Arseħole_Empty_Noise - what a tosser, totally exposed as a worthless bum. Lots of Empty_Noise spouting from the lower orifice of his digestive tract.”

    The clinical idiot who call himself “A_Voice”, who has been proven to be dishonest and a liaris just spouting empty words without any sort substance and without any sort of support.

    Nothing sensible will ever come from the dishonest liar named A_Empty_Noise, the tosser.

    Over and out.

    Feb 12th, 2014 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    As to the specific question re: 186 A_Voice “show me the British claim to East Falkland..”
    already answered re:159 and 181 “the Nootka Convention specifically allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements when Argentina attempted to establish a settlement.” So you can thank Argentina for triggering the treaty, and thus giving the British a bona-fide claim to the eastern island. Now wasn't that easy, in spite of your attempts at obfuscation on the issue.
    I'm glad you consider yourself “fairly clued up on the arguments”, as I don't suffer from such conceit, realizing my limitations, I prefer to rely on those with the proper credentials to give such humble opinions.

    Feb 12th, 2014 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    211
    Sore loser...
    212
    No it didn't...don't state something without illustrating your point.....
    It's difficult for you to be conceited when you fail miserably in an argument....
    I have no idea why you mention the Nootka Convention as this is in Argentina's favour....at the time of signing Spain maintained occupation of the Islands, whilst Britain had abandoned its occupation....
    Also...The British argue that the agreement did not affect the respective claims and only stipulated that neither party would make further establishments on the coasts or “adjacent” islands already held by Spain.....

    Feb 12th, 2014 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    213 A_Voice
    This illustrates the point precisely, as it shows your statement to be completely fraudulent. “I have no idea why you mention the Nootka Convention as this is in Argentina's favour.”

    Nootka Convention

    The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI 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 had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.

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

    I wonder if those limeys were nice enough to send a thank you note to Argentina for dropping such a blessed opportunity into their lap.

    Please keep implying what a winner you are because I need the entertainment. Yes, we can all see how you have effectively refuted every point that has been proffered.

    Feb 12th, 2014 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    214
    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.
    Anyway Argentina as a new state did not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.
    Argentina established a settlement so the treaty was no longer in effect from that point onwards...
    Britain did the same in 1833 therefore negating the Convention also...
    So the Nootka Convention does not apply.....
    East Falkland was not Britain's territory anyway...
    So now we are back to the modes for establishing territorial Sovereignty on land that Britain never had a claim.....
    1..It was already occupied by Argentina...
    2...Prescription does not apply for Britain...threat of force and continuous dispute...
    So where is your claim for East Falkland.....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    215 A_Voice

    Absolute sophistry, as the true legal effect of Argentina's attempted usurpation, was to permit the UK exercise her rights under article 6 of the Nootka Convention
    TNootka was in effect in 1833. The Nootka Sound Convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of war between the two countries, and renewed by Spain and Britain in 1814. The UK didn't breach it, they were released from its constraints by the forming of an establishment by the subjects of another power on the coasts in question, as per article 6 entitled them to be.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention

    Territory is a moot question as it certainly wasn't Argentina's, as she couldn't possibly have inherited from Spain, as Spain was forbidden under Peace of Utrecht from relinquishing any of her territory to any other nation. As the UK stated they were not going to allow Argentina what they had denied Spain. Meaning they were quite prepared to continue to fight for their rights, if it should prove necessary. My understanding is, this is still their policy today.

    No we are not back to proving anything, your simplistic and arrogant unqualified opinions, don't undo, or set aside treaties, that right is sole preserve of the participating parties, and no others. Ironic that Argentine avarice should be the legal catalysis of her own undoing. So in conclusion, the UK was always in the picture, and Argentina never was.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    The problem with you is you don't understand what you write....

    “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.”

    The new Argentine republic established their settlement....
    So End of Treaty!!! End of the Relevance...End of Article 6
    Argentina didn't need to inherit from Spain....Argentina didn't inherit Argentina from Spain ...it took it....
    It didn't even need to fight for East Falkland....it had been abandoned by Spain...funnily enough West Falkland had also been abandoned for more that 60 years.....
    Are you trying to state that the Nootka Convention entitled Britain to evict the newly formed settlement of the Argentine republic ...off East Falkland...?
    What did this Island have to do with Britain?
    What treaty did Britain have that entitled Britain to seize land not previously claimed or possessed...?

    You have no legitimate claim to East Falkland...and you know it....

    SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Pete Bog

    @217

    “You have no legitimate claim to East Falkland...and you know it....”

    The UK and through succession, the Falkland Islander,s might not have had such a strong claim to East Falkland if Spain had not dropped their claim to East Falkland in 1863.

    However, Argentina has no legitimate claim to any of the Islands, East or West.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    218
    Another one to be swatted.....
    There has been no written formal ceding of Sovereignty of East Falkland to Britain by Spain.....
    ..next....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    217 A_Voice
    Well after running you through the treaties with Spain and showing explicitly British entitlements, to the exclusion of all others. The best counter you can offer is entirely speculative, and completely unwritten, and therefor a so-called verbal agreement. The late Samuel Goldwyn summed up such a legal position perfectly , “A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.”
    As for the application of Nootka, Argentina lacks any legal standing in the treaty as she was not a signee, so she has no say as to its use. Argentina attempted to ignore the inconvenience, of the prior condominium arrangement that Spain shared with the UK, and chose to further to ignore official protests from Britain. So after acting unilaterally on the issue, she was absolutely hypocritical in complaining when the UK reciprocated in the same fashion. Moreover, it doesn't matter how much spin you put on it Argentina is a prohibited party from any legal standing in the matter, so go tell it to the judge, because no one else is buying such a bill of goods.
    The UK is the only country that has a claim to East Falkland, thanks to Argentina's attempted usurpation. So I am stating emphatically that the Nootka Convention entitled Britain to evict the newly formed settlement of the Argentine republic ...off East Falkland...

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    “Well after running you through the treaties with Spain and showing explicitly British entitlements, to the exclusion of all others. The best counter you can offer is entirely speculative, and completely unwritten, and therefor a so-called verbal agreement. ”

    ...and there you have it in a nutshell....
    You have failed to show a single piece of legislation specific to East Falkland for the legal entitlement of Sovereignty for the UK.
    Other than they stole it from the Argentine settlement....

    If you don't have any...which I know you don't, then all your arguments are pure speculation...and this debate is at an end.

    The onus was never on me to prove Argentine entitlement, it was for you to prove British Sovereignty of East Falkland.....
    Stick with the Self Determination for peoples, as the UK is doing....as that is all you have....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    221 A_voice

    “The onus was never on me to prove Argentine entitlement, it was for you to prove British Sovereignty of East Falkland..... ”

    Actually, Rumpole, that is not correct.

    The UK currently possesses the islands, and has done do for at least 180 years.
    It is recognised by other governments and the UN as the legitimate owners.
    Fiat accompli.

    If you wish to challenge that notion, it is up to YOU to state your case and prove it.

    Otherwise, they would be constantly defending themselves against niggling nitwits that are “kinda well clued up about them islands”

    Sorry buddy, to quote W. Disney, “ that ship had sailed”.
    But thanks for your kinda “folksy” opinion on sovereignty.

    There is no “next” - you're done.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Actually it is correct....this debate began with me saying that Britain had no case for Sovereignty for East Falkland...then various posters tried to prove that it had....
    They didn't....
    It was not about me proving Argentine entitlement....
    If you are going post, make sure you no what the argument is about otherwise you appear STUPID!!!
    Which is not difficult for you.....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    223 STUPID

    Not even a good try.

    If that is your hypothesis and your contention, your “legal opinion”, PROVE IT, rather than just sow seeds of doubt, or “sh!t-disturbing”, as is your wont.

    You have proven nothing yourself, to negate the status quo.
    As Terence says, your remarks ARE sophistry - and just, remarks.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    When you have something interesting to bring to this debate instead of your usual Trolling....
    If not ...why not just P!ss off....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Give it up.

    What no real rebuttal??

    Greater legal minds than arrogant pinheads like you, have already analysed and reviewed all the arguments regarding Sovereignty of the Falklands, and it doesn't appear to be an issue.

    As I said, Certainly Argentina doesn't seem to be pursuing it, and they've been grasping at straws for generations.

    Looks like wishful thinking on your part, and a great platform for your Trolling.

    Have you tried reviewing Vernet's agreement with Britain?
    That might lead somewhere...

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    223 A_Voice
    Actually the present debate began with you attempting to rebut my assertions, then as we all knew in advance that there had been no formal ceding by Spain. You then asked what was the UK's basis for a claim to East Falkland, and as I have shown it's greater than anyone else's.
    To wit: Whereas they have an entitlement that was on a par with Spain and an agreement that excluded all other parties. So if Spain bailed then title falls to UK by default as theirs is the only viable claim.
    219 A_Voice
    There was no requirement for formal ceding of Sovereignty of East Falkland to Britain by Spain. As Argentina triggered the necessary legal prerequisite under Nootka. Besides, if any thing Spain legally had approved Britain's act by remaining silent.
    “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent.”
    SOMA'S
    DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
    A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker.
    Author And Legal Practitioner
    http://books.google.com.br/books...
    So the UK wins all the legal arguments while Argentina has never had an effective counter.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    Still no evidence... I see..

    “So if Spain bailed then title falls to UK by default as theirs is the only viable claim.”

    show me the legal basis and precedent for that opinion....
    You are saying territory never claimed by Britain...becomes the property of Britain under Nootka Convention.....
    Show me the legal document that states this...
    Otherwise it's just an opinion....
    Admit it you have nothing....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    228 A-'roids

    “show me the legal basis and precedent for that opinion.... ”

    Sorry, 'Roids Rumpole, the onus is on you.

    If you want to assert your hypothesis, YOU need to do the legwork and provide cases and precedents yourself.

    His statements are part of the internationally, UN accepted status quo.
    You can't just say, “ I don't think that's right-I demand you show me!!”
    Sounds very Timerwomanly.

    If you want to overthrow the current existing, interpretations by treaties, diplomats and expert legal rulings, YOU need to build a case with examples of historical and legal precedents and arguments.

    If you know better, show us.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    ....yet still not one piece of definitive evidence to support British claim to East Falkland...
    Go away and don't come back till you have some.....
    Occupied by Argentine Republic
    Settled by Argentine Republic
    Stolen by Britain.....

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @230 A_Voice,
    Give it up mate, Troy & Terence are tying you in knots.
    Btw- since you all are being so pedantic & pure, when do you think Argentina will return the land that they stole from Paraguay in 1871.
    Owned by Paraguay
    Stolen by Argentine Republic…

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    'Occupied by Argentine Republic'

    East Falkland was not Terra Nullius, so no legal effect.

    Settled by Argentine Republic

    Settlement was international and had British permission.

    Stolen by Britain.....

    If it was, it was Spain's prerogative to complain, and Spain never did and by 1863 had accepted British sovereignty.

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Oder 1001

    there has never was a claim by Spain , UK or Argentina for that matter over the east or west Falkland the claims have always for all the islands and should a legal legitimate assessment be made in can only be done in a court of law. Argentina's refusal brings their own credibility and casts doubt on their claim. the UN does not care one bit who has sovereignty only that the islanders interests are “paramount” as stated in the Resolution which Argentina ignores by saying they don`t exist.
    the British have had authority over the islands since 1765 two years later the Spanish were given the French settlement through the treaty of Utrecht 1767 the Argentine claim of inheritance may have some legality to it but since Spain did not recognise Argentina as a state till 1857 it also casts doubt on the legality as inheritor a situation that could only be resolved in ICJ. the UK has had almost 200 years of peaceful administration comparing Argentines rule in Argentina over the same period. We live in 2014 with a whole lot of new sets of rules regulations and human rights which are the tools to resolve such issues
    the only hope for Argentina is through the courts, the Brits have nothing to prove the islands are British legally acknowledged by the UN and 190 years of peaceful rule. if the British are not the legal owners then the plaintiff (Argentina) supplies the evidence in court so the British administration can be declared illegal. The Argentine obsession with the Decolonisation committee who has no remit to discuss sovereignty but will not use the UN officially sanctioned ICJ whose remit is to discuss that very issue,
    it is very clear to see who is avoiding the issue

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    230 'Roid Rage

    Thanks Isolde @231

    “Give it up mate, Troy & Terence are tying you in knots.”

    You've not convinced anyone, Rumpole.

    You can declare yourself , “the winner” as much as you like, but your circular arguments - “ the onus is on him... ” to wriggle out of the noose, gives you away..

    - and the best you can do is, “ but, but , Argentina's garrison was there for 6 weeks before murdering their military commander and being taken home to face trial... Bla... Bla... bla... ”

    So, nothing new, then.

    That didn't work out the way you wanted, did it?

    Bye, troll. ROFL

    :-D

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Pretty simple, all constraints that where the obligatory on the UK towards Spanish interests she was now released from under article 6. Then she was free to pursue what ever her self-interest was. In other words an open license, on the Islands, with pre-aproval of Spain. Oh yes and Argentina was still barred by treaty from any claim, and her unilateral act of usurpation gave the UK carte-blanche to act likewise. Argentina under international law at that time had only two options to be a player, negotiate or fight. She wouldn't do either, so the issue was quickly settled under the aegis that “right was might”. So ditto you show me who has a greater claim, and show me the legal basis and precedent for that opinion

    Feb 13th, 2014 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    What treaty barred Argentina...and when did Spain give pre-approval....?
    So now we are back to conquest....again....
    Well you are the first to claim East Falkland belongs to Britain through conquest...not even Britain claims that...
    Back to making up stuff...
    Conquest is only a title to territory only in the event of war between the “conquering sate ” and the “conquered state”.
    There was no stater of war between Britain and Argentina in 1832
    Furthermore conquest was rejected as a legal basis in the Americas during the first half of the nineteenth century, and a title based on conquest in a colonial situation is not validated by intertemporal law...
    Under the then rules applicable in times of peace, Britain could not justify the use of force to occupy the islands in times of peace.
    So for get the right is might.....
    You still have nothing....

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    236 A_Voice

    Post #159 Peace of Utrecht Article VIII barred Argentina.
    Post #174 Proves absolute validity of claim and exposes you as a liar “conquest...Back to making up stuff.”
    Post #177 and #179 exposes the second time you have lied in claiming there is a requirement of war for conquest to be valid.
    Your claim of “title based on conquest... ...not validated by intertemporal law..”, I am emphatically calling it a lie.
    Nice going you've managed a post that is a total and complete utter lie.

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    Nice summation Terence.

    Cue impotent Troll rage

    Bruce Cockburn sings:

    If a Troll rants in the forest...

    ...does anybody care... ?

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @236 A_Voice,
    “Blah blah blah, rhubarb rhubarb.”
    Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
    We've got the baby & you have not.
    So blah, blah, blah to you too Voicey,
    What are you & your impotent country going to do about it?
    l'll tell you, nothing,nada, zilch.
    But l could be wrong, because l know you'll keep bitching & moaning about it.
    So thats something, l guess.

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    239
    Possession is 9/10ths of the law.
    The adage is not literally true, that by law the person in possession is presumed to have a nine times stronger claim than anyone else, but that “it places in a strong light the legal truth that every claimant must succeed by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of his antagonist's
    237
    There you go again....Still not one piece of of evidence to prove how Britain succeeded Spain's sovereignty claim for East Falkland....
    You are the only person that tries to use the peace treaty of Utrecht as a claim to the Falklands....
    If you were to agree that the treaty does refer to the adjacent Islands this would mean Spain possessed full Sovereignty over the Falklands and Britain's occupation after the fact was illegal...
    Article 8 would also bar Britain from ever settling the Falklands...

    ” it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.
    No one is stupid enough to agree that the treaty is a claim for Britain...

    You are again stupid to claim Britain's title was by conquest....Britain has never claimed this....
    To have a Conquest one would need a Conqueror and a Conquered...this has never been claimed by either state.....
    You then quote a philosophical thesis as a definition of International Law......
    A big clue is in the title...General THEORY of law and state by Hans Kelsen.
    I am still waiting for one piece of evidence in support for a credible recognised claim to East Falkland.....

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Troy Tempest

    We're laughing at you

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    240 A_Voice
    I don't know how you have the nerve to even show up after your deliberate fraud was exposed. I can only surmise that it's because you belong to a culture that approves such behavior.
    The strongest evidence is the application of Nootka article 6, but, conversely there is a treaty that bars Argentina from any claim. So that leaves the UK with the only colour of right to the exclusion of all others. Don't be deliberately obtuse, in trying to place a clog to UK's rights via Utrecht. Especially after you have already conceded that the UK was in a condominium relationship with Spain, from her further acquired rights under the Declaration of 22 January 1771. Utrecht could not have been a bar to the UK as no country had formally attempted to occupy the Islands in 1713. Such a claim is simply a further fraud. But, in Utrecht Spain promises not give any lands that she holds a title interest in to any other country. No one is claiming it gives title to Britain, but, it is a definite bye, bye to Argentina's claim. Conquest is view that was accepted by an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague in 1928 see post #174
    I don't quote “a philosophical thesis”. I quote the view of one of the most eminent jurists of international law to wit:
    Hans Kelsen, teacher, jurist, and writer on international law, who formulated a kind of positivism known as the “pure theory” of law.
    Kelsen was a professor at Vienna, Cologne, Geneva, and the German university in Prague. He wrote the Austrian constitution adopted in 1920 and served as a judge of the Austrian Supreme Constitutional Court (1920–30). After immigrating to the United States in 1940, he taught at Harvard, the University of California at Berkeley, and the Naval War College, Newport, R.I.
    Among Kelsen’s later books are General Theory of Law and State (1945) and The Law of the United Nations (1950–51). In such works as Principles of International Law (1952) he envisioned a world unity un

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    #242
    I presume you ran out of space. Please continue.

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    Yes thanks 243 Clyde15

    unity under law superimposed on the legal order within each nation.
    I’m still waiting to know what Argentina’s claim is as she bears the buden-of-proof as the complaintant, not the UK.

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • A_Voice

    242
    “The strongest evidence is the application of Nootka article 6, but, conversely there is a treaty that bars Argentina from any claim”
    Here is article 6 ...how does this give Britain the right to succeed Spain's Sovereignty...?
    ARTICLE VI
    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.“

    I don't see anything there that gives legal entitlement to East Falkland...or am I missing something?
    By your own admission @242 this is all you have...
    ”But, in Utrecht Spain promises not give any lands that she holds a title interest in to any other country. No one is claiming it gives title to Britain,”

    To sum up...all you have is article 6 that doesn't give title to Britain....
    Oh and let's not forget the philosophical thesis of one man's opinion of Conquest...

    Could you show me where and when exactly that Britain has EVER stated that it's claim to Sovereignty was accomplished by Conquest...
    So that leaves you back at the beginning again...with NOTHING!!!!!
    ...I'm starting to feel embarrassed for you...

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    My mistake I thought the secret article was 6, but in fact it is unnumbered. The relevance of which according to Wiki and Getting it right: Pascoe and Pepper
    ”an  extra  secret  article  removed  the  restriction  on  new  establishments  if  any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts already  occupied” by Spain. 5  In the late 1820s (see sections 12 and 14),  Argentina did in fact  form an establishment at Port Louis  in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention,Britain  therefore  became  entitled to form an establishment in the Falklands as  soon  as  Argentina had become established there.
    Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the  Nootka Sound  Convention  was specifically put in by Britain  with the  Falklands in mind, and that Britain’s  reassertion of sovereignty in 1833  (see sections 18 and 19) was an exercise of Britain’s  rights under this  clause.6 In the opinion of  Professor  Dolzer, the Nootka Sound  Convention was a  purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means  that  Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way.7.”
    The UK will only state the minimum of all their possible legal stratagems, wanting to play their cards close to their chest. So of course, their not going to state something like 'conquest', but, it was legal and remains an option.

    Feb 14th, 2014 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!