MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Holdout funds, Malvinas: Mercosur presidents back Argentina
Full support also expressed for Venezuela against sanctions from the administration of United States President Barack Obama. Read full article
Full support also expressed for Venezuela against sanctions from the administration of United States President Barack Obama. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesRave on.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can “reiterate”as many communiques as you like-it means nothing.
You can fully support the Argentine Old Dogs Home for all we care.
You're a shower of useless windbags & anything you say will be utterly disregarded.
You are also liars & ratbags.
Go away & try to improve your own countries.
Where does Pepe have his left hand?
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me again about the unilateral actions of Argentina in 1982?
Dec 18th, 2014 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same bullshit, different year.
The UN recognises all NSGTs right to self determination. no exceptions, no special cases.
Britain isn't exploring for oil and gets none of the proceeds.
Perhaps if ANUSSORE members stopped lying to each other, it would be more productive.
And all the time Brazil is working with the Royal Navy and buying our ships, talk about two faced!
Dec 18th, 2014 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0They all look like someone left the door open at the local asylum.
@ 2 falklandlad
Dec 18th, 2014 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, it's made DumbAss smile with No Money Pepe grabbing her ass!
Back on topic. Usual shit, no change there then. :o)
Paul isn't going to be happy! He may start buying some other sovereign debt!
Dec 18th, 2014 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how the (non- Argentine) delegates to these talkfests manage to keep a straight face when they agree these communiques.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0They probably use the standard Argentine - whinge template to save time:
We strongly support Argentine against (............) (..................) and (............)
We absolutely reject (.................) (...................) and (...................)
We permanently and forever more support the legitimate interests of Argentina to (........................), (………………..), (……………………..), (…………………….). (………………………) and (……………..).
We recall UN resolutions (.......), (.........), (..........), (............), (..........), (.........), (.............) which urge both Britain and Argentina to (..................) (...............) for as long as they both shall live.
We, the presidents, reject the British and (......................) (...............)
They also acknowledged Argentina's right to undertake legal actions against (……………………………………………………) with full respect for the International Law and for the Resolutions pertaining (……………………………………………………..)
That will save them hours of drafting time and allow them to get rid of the irritating Argentine delegation much quicker.
HaHaHa Don't these deadbeats understand “ WE DO NOT GIVE A SHIT TO ALL THE BILE COMING OUT OF THESE SO CALLED SUMMITS”
Dec 18th, 2014 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0THE FALKLANDS ARE THE FALKLANDERS.
With reference to the Falkland argentines, dispute between British Argentina and the Falklands,
Dec 18th, 2014 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0British Argentina,,,, belongs to the British Falkland's,
if she can do it,,, so can we claim her land..
They must all be snorting from the same tin of white powder !
Dec 18th, 2014 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Holdout funds, Malvinas: Mercosur presidents back Argentina”
Dec 18th, 2014 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wake me up when the Headline says “Mercosur presidents agree to pay off all Argentina's debts and send a continental invasion force to the Falklands”
Its just an excuse to look big , do nothing and get drunk.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is the 47th meeting and still nothing has come out of it of any consequence.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, but you just wait until the 50th meeting,
Dec 18th, 2014 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lololol
What a load of w-----s!
Dec 18th, 2014 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3. Since you mention 1982, why are they rabbiting about a resolution passed in 1976. Don't they understand that circumstances change? I've mentioned this before. 1982 - Falklands War. Argieland got handed its ass. Or arse as we British would say. Where's the application to the ICJ? No-one could imagine the dunderheads in the UN General Assembly knowing what they're talking about. Why does nobody ever stand up and say “You can't do that”.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Legal principle - 'uti possidetis'. Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty. What, no treaty? So, was there a war? Check. Who lost? Argieland. Check. Who won? Britain. Check. Did Britain recover possession of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? Check. Do the people of the Falkland Islands want any change in their political status? No. Check. So argieland can pick up all that stuff it has dated prior to 2 April 1982 and junk it. All those dates - 1690, 1765, 1770/71, 1806/7, 1820, 1825, 1832, 1833, 1845, 1850, 1941, 1947, 1948, 1955, 1960, 1965, 1973, 1981. All irrelevant. Back to the basics. The Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are ALL British territory. But ONE very important date. 2013. The Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum. Voter turnout 91.94%. Those in favour of retaining the current political status of the Islands. 99.8%.
And just a little bit more. Are the Falkland Islands a member of the UN? If you just happen to reside in the same town as a rugby club, do its rules apply to you? No. Its rules apply to its members. Could cause some difficulty. UN tells argieland and UK what to do. As usual, argieland ignores. UK asks Islanders who say “No”. And thus the problem is resolved. Like argieland, the UN is toothless. So come on, Falklanders, tell the UN where to shove its resolutions!
^
Dec 18th, 2014 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nobody recognizes that bullsht referendum stunt.
heres a referendum result on free beer from the guys in the corner of the bar.
heres a referendum result on Christmas from the concerned turkeys union.
no UN, EU, US recognition because of what it is.
is that a Communal mug shot?
Dec 18th, 2014 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A Hit list?
Gads all they are missing is North Korea and Iran.
Back Argentina?...bollocks.......'...communiqué reiterating their permanent support to the legitimate interests of the Republic of Argentina in the sovereignty dispute relative to the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands and recalled Resolution 31/49 by the General Assembly of the United Nations.'
Dec 18th, 2014 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So we have gone from legitimate rights, to legitimate interests, guess they couldn't get everybody to sign up to 'legitimate rights'. As they are the only party who dispute the sovereignty of the Falklands, then of course they have a legitimate interest, doesn't mean they have a case though.
“Holdout funds, Malvinas: Mercosur presidents back Argentina”
Dec 18th, 2014 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what ? means absolutely nothing. Just mental masturbation...or in CFK's case, probably physical.
Come on people. The world is changing fast under our eyes and you still bring your old, tired cliches. It's not because the circus has gone on for a long time that it will keep going forever.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For reference, take a look at what's happening with the U.S.-Cuba relations.
History has a way of making things happen. And the Malvinas will eventually come back to where they always belonged: Argentina.
@21 Never going to happen just as Cuba is never going to be a part of the U.S.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have long criticised the U.S. policy towards Cuba. The more they bullied Cuba, the stronger the resolve of the Cubans.
#21 please........aside from relations, tell us what is happening with Cuba and the USA? Is the USA Congress going to lift the embargo? Whether I agree or disagree with it is not my POV. I am asking you is the Republican controlled House and Senate going t send Obama a bill to sign to life the embargo? Will Cuba repatriate the stolen assets of American businesses. Please....tell us all what happens next?
Dec 18th, 2014 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21 That is funny Enrique, until I read your last sentence, I thought you were talking about the Argentine circus of the 'Great Malvinas Lie'.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oh...and no they won't
#17 Bahahahahaha You are missing the whole point of the Falklands referendum. It wasnt held for Argentinas benefit or the benefit of anyone other than the Falkland Islanders and people of the United Kingdom! We DON'T CARE what you or anyone else thinks. We only care about our people. You can all go the same way of your invading troops that were thrown out and shove it!
Dec 18th, 2014 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remember to enjoy TOP GEAR… your knuckle dragging mates are on it!
I see mass gloating suddenly re-appear in the Anglos (NorthAmoans and Brittos). They sure are happy and giddy that mailand Europe, Russia, China, Brazil, India, and other economies are suffering, because they are covetous, jealous types that couldn't stand the last 8-10 of being 2nd economic fiddles.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So they prayed with all their wonderful warm hearts that everyone else would also eventually crash or decline, that others suffer and that children go hungry... all that mattered is to get back their gloating mojo.
Now that they think they got it back... watch out! They are out in full force insulting, humiliating, laughing, and celebrating the misfortunes of other nations around the world.
Anglos will be anglos.
Ah! Its EUROPEAN TOBY! Thats a very European observation you are making? We are not gloating, we are just laughing at you because you are as ever, a joke. Latin Americans want to be European but… Europeans see them as untermenchen, to be pitied. Constantly whining about something or or other, doing nothing, contributing nothing to the development, stability or health of the world. Contemplating their navels, or planning on stealing something that doesnt belong to them. A total waste of space. If the whole continent sank in the sea (except for the worthy isles of course) would anyone notice?
Dec 18th, 2014 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how they would react the islanders, if all countries of South America support their positions? Surely they would feel elated .. !! They would say that is overwhelming support received. Now, as the strong and unanimous support is for Argentine postulates have no more than detracting and try to reduce it. I would define it as a typical colonial attitude of hypocrisy.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@27
Dec 18th, 2014 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I rest my case.
@29
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What case son? you do not have one. Your country does not give a shit for Europe so why should we give a flying fuck for you.You chose your so called government live with it. You want to borrow money just return the money you have already stolen. Once bitten twice shy, Hows the investment going for PUTA MUERTE?
No, we only saved you twice from famine (once by taking in 8 million of you tossers), the next by selling you food at firesale prices for 50 years, then in WWII (both sides were greatly fed by us).
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How did you traitors repay stuffing your mouths? Destroying our industrial development in the 1940s and 1950s.
You can tell it Christmas,
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all the argies are asking for the Falkland's,
sod what's happening to their own country,
its the Falkland's or bust,
bust being the future word of Argentina...lol
Nothing is happening to Argentina.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meanwhile, I've been told that Kim Jong Un is now CEO of the combined new Regal/Cinemark/Village movie chain. I hear he even gets to pick the films Brittos and NorthAmoans see.
hahahahahaha
@33
Dec 18th, 2014 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand your “voices” tell you all kinds of things, Chopper. I guess you are lucky they ran out of your meds, as it means you never need to be alone again! ;)
Gotta love that family Christmas picture.
Dec 18th, 2014 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their creepy and their spooky
mysterious and hookey
Their altogether kookey
The Mercosur family.
#34......giorgio is still scrambling for his estrogen shots. Perhaps you were not around for his transsexual confession. Hence he stopped being TTT.....actually I think he was the Truth Telling_Troll at the time. His dad really “fucked” him over but good.........figuratively and literally.
@31
Dec 18th, 2014 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea of history we gave you Gloster Meteor planes you dickhead.
@31
Dec 18th, 2014 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really don't have the faintest clue of what happened , do you ?
Now why would the Brits destroy your “industrial development” in the 40's and 50's ?? they built the infrastructure , which made it possible.....and then, idiots like you and your hero Juan Domingo Peron managed to fuck it up....all by yourselves....no foreign help was needed.
@31
Dec 18th, 2014 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Lancaster bombers. What engines powered your Pulqui 1 and 2 designed by a Nazi?
Argentinian designed jet engines were they ?
@17
“nobody recognizes that bullsht referendum stunt”
Could you inform us what the Argentine definition of 'nobody' is ?
The British definition is no one at all, zilch. nothing, jack squit.
Does the Argentine definition of nobody mean 'excluding the countries of the Commonwealth?'
In that case it cannot possibly be 'nobody .'
Think about this, very, slowly, until the very simple concept is accepted in your brain....
@21
“And the Malvinas will eventually come back to where they always belonged: Argentina.”
Your definition of 'always' seems to mean April 2 1982-14th June 1982. try looking up 'always' in the dictionary (not the one issued by INDEC).
17 Vestige
Dec 19th, 2014 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The UN, EU or US hasn't made any pronouncements about the Falklands referendum, and the legal consequences means their approval thus: “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. ... ... Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
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 ...
2. But in fact it was at least recognized by the UN's top honcho.
”The impression is that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future. And that is the main criteria of the main UN bodies. Having independence or having some kind of government in their territories. I don’t think it’s an abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”, said Ban Ki-moon.
Secretary General Ban Ki-moon Mercopress.com November 12th 2012
http://books.google.com.br/books
3. Argentinean by failing to take any legal action against the referendum has legally acquiesced, and therefor tacitly approved of it.
39 - silence = approval lol, yeah that will stand up in any court ... need I bring up the unpleasant obvious, use a little imagination. what an utter crock.
Dec 19th, 2014 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0the quote you give doesn't side with you, its probably the most neutral thing Ive read all year, impression, access to something something.
loving the theory in no.3 too, you've been feeling inventive lately haven't you.
the shamendum was only ever 'recognized' by a private paid organization with a 1 page html site that I could recreate in 2 minutes. But they do have a logo and bodywarmer jackets sooo ... yeah progress.
25 - i will watch it, dont know what you're so excited about though, although it is more high profile than that false referendum thing that rumor has took place on the malvinas though.
no rush.
40 Vestige
Dec 19th, 2014 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not here to just blow hot-air with my own unqualified opinions, unlike you. So here is some more definitive international law, try neutralizing these, as all of my assertions are supported with citations.
'In establishing whether a state has recognized a particular norm of international law, the issue of the “silence” of a state... ...As I. Brownlie correctly points out, “silence may signify either tacit consent or or absence of interest in a particular matter.”'14
14. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
Theory of International Law By Grigoriĭ Ivanovich Tunkin
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=CuW4sEd-I0sC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=silence+in+international+law&source=bl&ots=9GaeYwg35s&sig=IgXZJP-ZGON9d8zNp-uuf8o6EFw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UZGTVP_WM4vjsATth4CQBQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=silence%20in%20international%20law&f=false
Overview of International Law and Institutions
Sources of International Law
“Nations that remain silent, however, may become bound by the rule, even if they did not expressly support it. Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
https://books.google.com.br/books?id=CuW4sEd-I0sC&pg=PA129&lpg=PA129&dq=silence+in+international+law&source=bl&ots=9GaeYwg35s&sig=IgXZJP-ZGON9d8zNp-uuf8o6EFw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UZGTVP_WM4vjsATth4CQBQ&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=silence%20in%20international%20law&f=false
may.
Dec 19th, 2014 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Oxford English Dictionary (OED),
Oxford University Press
1884
http://www.oed.com/
1.1 Used when admitting that something is so before making another, more important point:
yes, blowing hot air is exactly what you are doing.
then a cherry picked, out of context, random citation to wrap your ... cherry ... in for a semblance of internetz authenticity.
- Honorary Ed Lolington. 2014.
The prosecution rests.
Vestige,
Dec 19th, 2014 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your country has no valid case & you know it.
Just hoping that you do, does not make it so.
You cannot bluff us out of OUR lslands,
You cannot expel us from OUR lslands,
You know that you are in the wrong because you will not present your case to the ICJ.
You have nothing to offer us, so you cannot “win our hearts & minds”.
Your country is hoping for a miracle, but unfortunately for you, you are not going to get one(maybe you'd like to see us invaded by the Chinese Navy?).
(they are your new friends, ne c'est pas?)
You have no cards left, so you are out of the game.
Just go away & try to sort out the mess of your own country(which does NOT include the Falkland lslands).
A friendly word of advice(& as neighbours, we should be friends),
Be very careful of your links to the Chinese, lf you appease them too much, you will indeed have the Tiger by its tail.
42 Vestige
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets recap, my initial assertion at #39 was emphatic that “who keeps silent consents;” from an authoritative legal source. Your counter was simply your own unqualified opinion at #40, merely “hot-air”. I reenforce my claim with two more citations specific too international law, again from authoritative sources at #41. You then attempt to quibble over one word that definitely doesn't say “may not”, without any reference to authoritative legal text. While ignoring the express statement from Harvard Law thus: ”Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.”
implicit
2. a. Implied though not plainly expressed; naturally or necessarily involved in, or capable of being inferred from something else.
Oxford English Dictionary v4.0.
If one is not capable or willing to read the truth,
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0then one has to assume that one is brainwashed,
something you argies hold on tight to,
still,
as long as CFK says its true, then it must be...
No UK-Argentina relations today!
Dec 19th, 2014 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No UK-Argentina relations tomorrow!
And no UK-Argentina relations F-O-R-E-V-E-R !!
#46 TruthTellingTroll shows up as Giorgio. Why did you abandon you TTT name after confessing you are a transsexual? No one will judge you titti boi. DOes the latin machismo help or hinder you? Being a Euro-Latino and a tranny at that must be a bitch......daddy make you squeal today TTT?
Dec 19th, 2014 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PSSSSSTTT you can go to Cuba and they will make your penis a vagina.....for free!!! Then you can really fuck yourself.....or charge others to do it for you.......the proper way.
No UK-Argentina relations today!
Dec 19th, 2014 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0actually we have relations, including exchange of ambassadors..
No UK-Argentina relations tomorrow!
Actual, tomorrow, never comes..
And no UK-Argentina relations F-O-R-E-V-E-R !!
Only if you pay back what we donate to you in aid,
but to end relations, you could start the new year by removing your representatives from the uk.lol
@17. Small point. WE recognise it. Nobody else gets a say. You see, as I pointed out @16, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are BRITISH territory. Argieland ignores international law unless it suits. Argieland ignores the UN Charter unless it suits. If argieland were an individual, it would be convicted and executed.
Dec 19th, 2014 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21. Let's make a few things clear. You want Malvinas? But you already have them. In Cordoba. If you are talking about THE FALKLAND ISLANDS, they may 'come back'. If and when argieland becomes a possession. Or it is depopulated. Think about that. You are looking into the abyss. Only Britain's restraint is keeping you in existence.
@26. Yeah. It turns out that shit (like argieland) actually turns out to be shit. As we go on more shit, like North Korea, China, Russia, spain, italy, bulgaria, romania, uruguay, most african states, terrorists will find out how people want to deal with shit. By extermination. Flush it all away. Never to be seen again.
@28. Perhaps you could consider that strong and unanimous support for argieland puts YOU on the target list. Perhaps if you considered the 'strong and unanimous' support for nazi germany?
@29. Case dismissed. The judgement of THIS court is that argieland must pay US$500 billion and that the advocate be executed. By being, literally, torn in half.
@31. Don't care. You're just making it up. You were scum then, you're scum now. No-one cares what happens to scum.
@46. Oh no, there will be relations. Contrails criss-crossing the argie skies. The bombs. The missiles. The artillery. The tanks. The obliteration. Maybe you're right. No UK-Argentina relations. But then there wouldn't be any argies with which to relate. There may be a few with friends who might want to save them. The rest of you scum are just dead meat. The only question is when. Count your days. All our submarines have you in their sights!
Give Giorgio a little slack.......his daddy was making him squeal like a pig all morning.
Dec 19th, 2014 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46
Dec 19th, 2014 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“No UK-Argentina relations today!
No UK-Argentina relations tomorrow!
And no UK-Argentina relations F-O-R-E-V-E-R !!”
Go ahead and remove all Rolls Royce jet engines from Argentine airliners and replace them with Argentine manufactured jet engines.
ahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa....ROFLMAO......on and on and on...!!
Dec 19th, 2014 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Estimados Malvineros,
Dec 20th, 2014 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hate to be a spoiled sport and ruin your fun, but you are not talking about the text of the article. I realize it is always more enjoyable to spew out epithets than it is to comment intelligently on the subject at hand, but when you do that, those of us who have read the article always wonder what you are talking about. So I would like to hear some commentary from all the usual suspects that is on topic.
If you have forgotten what this piece said, I'll summarize the most important point for you. All the nations at the mercosur summit issued a statement urging the British occupiers of the Malvinas to refrain from exploiting all the local resources until everyone is settled on the issue of sovereignty over the islands. That means hands off the offshore oil, quit passing out fishing permits and for god's sake stop melting down penguins for oil. Well, maybe you already quit rendering penguins, but don't start up again until you have a green light from the rest of the world that you actually have the right to do so.
Oh, and I have one more question for you squatters. How many countries in the world recognize The Falkland Islands as an independent nation? I'm just too lazy to look this up, but I'm guessing that it's the U.K., the USA and Israel. Are there any others?
The fact is that the world in general has more important issues at hand, than Argentina's vain claims to the Falklands. To the countries that have gone as far as expressing their support, it's only to get CFK off their backs . Who in hell, besides Argentina, has any REAL interest in seeing Argentina's claim go forward ? Absolutely NO-ONE...And it's been said a hundred times, if the Argie government really believes their claim is a just one, why don't they go to the ICJ ?? the fact that they don't, says it all.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 053 El Polaco
Dec 20th, 2014 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear and what do you do with this prior commitment, but besides Mercosur's jurisdiction is limited strictly to its own members.
CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
Part One Chapter II PRINCIPLES Article 3
The American States reaffirm the following principles:
a) International law is the standard of conduct of States in their reciprocal relations;
b) International order consists essentially of respect for the personality, sovereignty, and independence of States, and the faithful fulfillment of obligations derived from treaties and other sources of international law;
e) ..and has the duty to abstain from intervening in the affairs of another State.
Chapter IV FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
Article 11
Every American State has the duty to respect the rights enjoyed by every other State in accordance with international law.
Article 12
The fundamental rights of States may not be impaired in any manner whatsoever.
Article 13
The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its preservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate concerning its interests, to administer its services, and to determine the jurisdiction and competence of its courts. The exercise of these rights is limited only by the exercise of the rights of other States in accordance with international law.
Article 19
No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. The foregoing principle prohibits not only armed force but also any other form of interference or attempted threat against the personality of the State or against its political, economic, and cultural elements.
Article 20
No State may use or encourage the use of coercive measures of an economic or poli
53@
Dec 20th, 2014 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we aint playing british bull dog ya no,
it matters not,
the point and legal facts are simple for even the more uneducated in this things to understand,
1, that have a basic right to be there
2, they are entitled to self determination,
3, they are entitled to human rights,
4, they comply to ALL UN Rules ,
5 and most importantly,
ARGENTINA signed up to these rules.
so either you guys accept their right to be there,
or take it to the ICJ,,ICJ,.ICJ
simple.
@53 El Polaco,
Dec 20th, 2014 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, l was going to refute your ridiculous argument point by point, but the posters at 54, 55 & 56 have already done so.
However l must correct you on one point.
The Sovereignty of OUR lslands is not in doubt.
We have no problem there.
lt is your country that have a problem & thats just too bad! lol.
We will exploit OUR resources as we see fit & it has absolutely nothing to do with you or your silly country.
As many before me have told you(repeatedly), if you think that your case is so just, then present your evidence to the ICJ.
That you don't do this tells us that you know that the Falklands are not yours & are just trying to bluff & intimidate us, so that we agree to Argentine colonisation. Not going to happen.
And as for squatters, you Argentines are squatting on lndian land.
You know, the people who you murdered in the 19th century.
Look in the mirror, Pollack.
Hypocrite
IN JUST ONE YEAR.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On dicember 10th of 2015 will be already in office the new president of argentina, who will be chosen in october of next year.
Of course i want fpv to win the elections again, but even if the government loses them, the most important is the legacy that kirchnerism will leave for the country, when c. f. k. ends her second administration.
Let's sopose for a minute that conservatives win next year, although they try to return to the neoliberal policies, they won't be able to dismantle the achievements that workers got since 11 years ago, in fact they won't be able to return to the high levels of unemployment, characteristics of the 90's, which is something that bussinssmen want, due to they want to pay misserable salaries, this is something that all candidats know very well, and that's why they don't dare to make a strong defence of those ideas, although it's well known that they agree on them.
There is a mountain of legitimate critics that anybody can make to c. f. k's government, beside, even if justice determines that the president, or some of her functionaries committed corruption delits, nobody can deny that her pulse didn't tremble when she decided to make a strong confrontation against economic power, which made 9 economic runs since 2007, with the purpose of braking her government down, as they did with raul alfonsin in 1989.
I am not a defender of the moral integrity of any functionary, if justice determines that they committed delits, then i hope they go to jail, but what i will always defend, and i have no doubt that millions of people in the whole county will do, is to empower of the achievements that we got in these years, beside its also shameful to see such coward politicians from the opposition, who promess economic power that if they win the elections, they will derogate the laws that try to put a limit to the abuses of the corporations.
53. Don't like freedom of speech? All you south American trolls. Fuck off.....especially you axel. You fucking know job.
Dec 20th, 2014 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 053 El Polaco
Dec 20th, 2014 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0El Polaco is absolutely right. The pro-Brit trolls do not even read the articles; they just keep repeating, like a broken record, their tiresome rant; the “Falklands are ours and will remain so” and then spew s...t about Argentina, while the world is telling them that the usurpation of the islands is a remnant of old-fashion colonialism and will have to end, sooner or later.
60 Enrique Massot
Dec 21st, 2014 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably its right of sovereignty, while conversely specifically legally barring any Argentine claim.
@60 Enrique Massot,
Dec 21st, 2014 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You kid yourself when you say that “the world is telling us that usurpation is a remnant of old fashion etc etc”
Most of the world couldn't give a rat's arse about Argentina & its ridiculous “claims”.
The Falklands have NEVER been yours, only in your head.
Taking you at face value, you are a new malvinista.
So tell me this, do you support Argentina's claims to South Georgia & other British Antarctic territories?
Bearing in mind that we claimed them many years before Argentina was a nation & no Argentines have ever lived there.
lf you do support Argentina's claims then please list your reasons.
Please refrain from frivolous excuses like “because they are closer to Argentina than the UK, or because they're ours” etc etc.
Real reasons that would stand up in a court of law.
Gracias
60#
Dec 21st, 2014 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0”like a broken record, their tiresome rant; the whole world is telling will remain so”
Yep the same old broken record from the Argentine trolls, never mind about the topic, just keep banging on about how you were ripped off in 1833 and then list the 1001 reasons why you should be allowed to colonise the Islands. Including the latest one - your Pressy is sitting in the pink house while her heart yearns! Yearns for the Falklands. (How pathetic!)
And the whole world agrees with Argentina! Oh really? Given your governments aversion for the truth, you need to prove that one and refer us to the documented evidence. Not vague communiques from your unfortunate neighbours, who pay lip service to all your ridiculous claims just to keep the peace, but solid evidence. The fact is that not even the UN supports Argentina’s claim to the Falklands. They support dialogue that is all.
You are too weak to assert yourself militarily in the Islands and to stupid and inflexible to broker a diplomatic solution. This is despite the fact that the world is full off situations not unlike the Falkland’s where countries in dispute have come to amicable agreements. So instead of acting like adults, you yearn and whinge and whine and expect the Pope, the UN, Mercosur, Venezuela, Russia, President Obama etc. etc. etc. to do your dirty work for you and deliver up the Falklands.
What a disgraceful bunch of tossers you are.
@58 Axel,
Dec 21st, 2014 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0reading your long-winded post, I conclude that if you lived in Brazil, you would no doubt be a petista. Their main characteristic, besides belonging to the lower social classes - note: I had considered saying “less privileged classes”, but that would be innacurate and unfair to those who worked to earn their privileges - is being brainwashed into thinking the government actually cares about them ; this false assumption stems from the massive government propaganda they are fed, and willingly swallow, because they are not sufficiently educated to realize they are being 'had'...the fact that Dilma and CF get on like a house on fire, is a clear indication that they are both made of the same crap. And the fact that you support CF, shows that you, unfortunately, aren't too smart.
JACK BAUER.
Dec 21st, 2014 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are absolutly right in one aspect, if i were brazilian i would be petista, in fact i love lula and dilma. Anyway, i have something that it's evident that you don't, i mean respect.
There are many people who can't have a serious discussion without insulting or underestimating all those who have a different ideology from them. I don't think you are an idiot, and i dont think you are being brainwashed to dissagree on pt and kirchnerism, i respect your posture, but you have to learn to underestand that people who suppport those parties should be also respected.
Like it or not, all people have an ideology, and all of them have reasons to support or not a government.
On the other hand, if you live in brazil, you must know that the most important chanels and newspapers aren't pro pt, i sometimes watch some brazilians chanels, and i feel ashamed for the lack of arguments and the too partial lectures that many journalists who hate pt make about dilma's government.
The day you learn to discuss without underestimating all those who don't think like you, i'll talk to you again, and i'll answer all your questions, however today i decided to answer your comment because i didn't want to avoid telllig you how much i love lula and dilma.
44 - what utter ass-hattery, anyone can take an isolated piece of legal text and apply simple laymans logic to it.
Dec 21st, 2014 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Theres a law on the books in the US that in a certain city a man must walk infront of his car with a red flag if his wife is driving, although perfectly reasonable at first appearance, something tells me it wont stand up in court.
I believe theres still laws on the books in GB that say you can legally kill a Welshman after midnight but only if you use a longbow.
I wouldn't take a piece of random isolated legislation literally though, especially with no context, cause that would just be fcking stupid.
But since it is a Harvard link and a real credible direct legal citation, why not Email your random internet finding to the UN - it may resolve the issue and prove me wrong.
Let me know how you get on.
43 - thats the attitude.
..... of Britain in India in the 30's ... in kenya in the 50's .... in Ireland in the 70's .... Hong Kong in the 80's.
The slowly dragged kicking and screaming attitude. Time will tell.
66 Vestige
Dec 21st, 2014 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have proved that your original claim at #17 “nobody recognizes that bullshit referendum stunt. ... ...no UN, EU, US recognition” is completely untrue. So at the end of the day you are unable to refute any and all of the norms of the cited international law, I have proffered. Which is where there is silence from international bodies concerning the Islands referendum. It is viewed as signifying either tacit consent or absence of interest. So in the end you are reduced to an argumenta ad hominem. Thats what happens when when you let your ego get in the way of logic. Incidentally, as to your “time will tell” statement. According to Marcelo G. Kohen : “Time is running against Argentina because the British have possession of the territory,”
http://en.mercopress.com/2004/06/23/international-hague-court-only-alternative-for-dispute
So time is entirely on the UK's side.
60 Enrique Massot
Dec 21st, 2014 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you have just correctly stated,
[[ a remnant of old-fashion colonialism and will have to end, sooner or later. ]]
And Argentina and most other South American countries are just that,
Remnants of old empire who robbed, murdered destroyed and stole of the original inhabitants,
And it must end; you must leave and give them the country back to its rightful owners,
And im sure my fellow bloggers would agree with that, and even you, as you stated it,
But the Falklands on the other hand,
Was NOT stolen , neither did we murder the inhabitants , so the British settled it peacefully,
But as you guys cannot or refuse to leave your past behind, even today you argues still want to take and steal what is not yours,
The only vermin in the south Atlantic ARE Argentina amongst others, a remnant of old-fashion colonialism and will have to end, sooner or later
Just my opinion.
.
67 - http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/302/32/IMG/NR030232.pdf?OpenElement
Dec 21st, 2014 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN called upon both parties to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications which would alter the situation while the islands are going through the decolonization process.
I elect to call the apparent referendum a modification, and interpret this in a unilateral way convenient to my views in the same manner as you do with your random extract. The attempted referendum contravenes the noted resolution. Thus there is no recognition. Only an absence of evidence for your claims.
Statements such as “Thats what happens when when you let your ego get in the way of logic.” only serve to show that your motives are emotional and biased and not guided by reason. If you cant debate the point dont take out your frustration on me. ;)
I disagree with Marcelo Cohen. I think the pattern of Britains historical colonial expansion later contracting has been consistent over the decades.
69 Vestige
Dec 21st, 2014 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UNGA creates merely political advisements which are not binding international law. I draw your attention to my post at #55 CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES, in particular the following which Argentina has blatantly violated:
Article 13: The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States. Even before being recognized, the State has the right to defend its integrity and independence, ...
Article 19: No State or group of States has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. ...
The Referendum is their Charter right, which in such instances has been consistently reaffirmed by the ICJ. Moreover, that right is protected from any resolution impinging on it. Article 103; In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
My views are shaped by what the legal authorities tell me international law is, otherwise I'd be going around in circles with one foot nailed to the floor like you.
The UK has divested itself of most of its colonies, To the remaining it has a Charter duty as per: CHAPTER XI DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73: Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount...
All very good, but getting back to the fact of no-one recognizing the shamerendum. (barring of course the paid observers with their 1 page website)
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html
The British Mission to the UN criticized the committee for .......
aahhh....le sigh......ignoring the outcome of last year's referendum.
“It is disappointing that once again the C24 [the Decolonization Committee] has not respected the clear and democratic expression of the Falkland Islanders' wishes and continues to describe the Falkland Islands' constitutional relationship with the UK as a ‘colonial situation,’” the mission said.
AP
:)
Is that the best you can proffer C24, a a very minor UN sub-sub committee, that I understand so ignores its own remit and is so compromised that the UK hasn't even attended their sessions in well over a decade. More importantly it doesn't speak for the UN, unlike the GS Ban Ki-moon who stated “..that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future.. ..Having independence or having some kind of government in their territories. ..” Five moths to the day after the Referendum was announced,
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you have conceded the following.
1. That since there has been no rejection by international groups “Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.” is settled international law.
2. The Referendum is a protected right under binding international law that is impervious to any interference.
3. That the UK is bound by the UN Charter, CHAPTER XI DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73: ”..recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount...”
Well thats one heck of a neutral quote from Mr Ban.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can take the silence to mean what you want it to mean, in the meantime the UN completely blanked you. Rightly so.
Stop grasping at straws.
“ignoring the outcome of last year's referendum”. - British mission to the UN.
“Ignoring”.
“Referendum”.
....... ignoring. :)
I'm just stating for the record, as Ban Ki-moon statement clearly endorses both the Islanders and the UK positions “..that people who are living under certain conditions should have access to certain level of capacities so that they can decide on their own future...I don’t think it’s an abuse or violation of relevant UN resolutions”, conversely Argentina can draw no support from such a statement. So its effect is not neutral to any impartial observer.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0More importantly, international law is firmly on the side of Islanders. So the politicking of an insignificant, biased very minor sub-sub committee is legally ineffectual. Amazing how international law works so effectively against the wrong doer, and conversely in favor of those in the right. ”..the universe is unfolding as it should.” Max Ehrmann
My original statement - noone recognizes the shamerendum.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0British UN mission - everyones ignoring us.
Keep talking. Las Malvinas SON Argentinas, and Britain will eventually negotiate them. Point. The reason? Just proximity and common sense! Colonialists, get ready to go home.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 075 Vestige
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since the dispute is entirely legal and the UK position is unassailable, its irrelevant whether the referendum is overtly recognised or not. But, since no major international organization has a rejected it, then that is a de facto endorsement. As “Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.” is settled international law.
Typical Argentine viveza criolla at work, deliberate misquoting, heres the true quote.
“The UK ambassador regretted that the Special Committee on Decolonisation continues to ignore the Falkland Islands Government’s invitation to visit the Falkland Islands..”
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/12/21/c24-slammed-for-failing-to-visit-falklands
76 Enrique Massot
The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine...By Roberto C. Laver p.74
'International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea continental shelf cases, in which Denmark and the Netherlands based their claim inter alia on the doctrine of proximity, i.e., that the part of the continental shelf closest to the part of the state in question falls automatically under that state's jurisdiction. In these cases the ICJ rejected any contiguity type of approach. As for continuity, it is argued, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article 1, now contained in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,”'
I quoted direct copy from a UK paper. So...your conspiracy theory, wrong again. (my post:#71)
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0The link again.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html
So now you're just being butt-hurt.
If you believe in your interpretation of an isolated tiny paragraph of text go build a case around it and get a judgement in the real world instead of just your imagination.
Or maybe just pay an “”observer“”.
77# Terence Hill
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well-argued mate, they are always twisting the truth and drawing false conclusions regarding UN resolutions. Trying to destroy the legitimacy of the referendum and the rights of the Islanders to pursue their own destiny is standard operating procedure for this crowd; they have been trying to do that for decades. And as for the C24 Decolonization Committee, in their present make up they are not meeting their obligations and are just a bunch of partisan, unrepresentative swill!
78 Vestige
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Heres your quote on Mercopress “ignoring the outcome of last year's referendum”, and here is the only immediately available source en.mercopress.com/2014/12/21/c24-slammed-for-failing-to-visit-falklands
As your a liar claiming “The link again” when you posted no such link originally. I can only evaluate the evidence you reveal not what you fail to reveal, which is fraud. So I stand by my claim as otherwise it would allow you to benefit from your own fraud.
If my citations draw an incorrect conclusion, then you would be able to counter with viable citations. But you can't because I'm right on the money.
@76 Enrique Massot,
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0ln your dreams Bucko.
Neither you, nor your silly country could fight their way out of a wet paper bag!
lf you think you're hard enough, well we're waiting for you.
lsn't it time you Argentines went back to Spain & ltaly?
Colonialists.
78 Vestige
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I stand corrected on that point as you did in fact post a link, which I missed in dealing with the actual statement of the committee. Which in any event, is a forgone conclusion, and assumed you were referring to the most recent statement by the UK ambassador. But regardless, political machinations do not effect the the UK's unassailable legal position.
Since the committee's resolution is merely a none-binding advisement the UK can rely on their entitlement under international law namely:
“there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Professor Ian Brownlie
and “The precise scope of the obligation is, however, that states should settle disputes peacefully, not that they should settle them. In other words, there is no general rule requiring a state to settle its grievances. Rather, the rule is that if a state does decide to settle, this must be done in a peaceful manner.” page 275; Textbook on International Law By Dr. Martin Dixon
http://books.google.com.br/books...
It seems the electricity....or lack of it is keeping the trolls away.
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@65 Axel
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yr confirmation that you love Dilma and Lula is no surprise. Proves you haven't a clue regarding the havoc the PT has wreaked upon Brazil. After 12 years in power, the only thing they can claim is the 'uncontrolled' expansion of the social programs for the poor, created by FHC ... I say 'uncontrolled', as the PT deliberately uses them as a tool to garner votes from the lower classes. Much like VZ. Other than that, it's just been an unending series of scandals, the latest one being Petrobras ...and Dilma is doing all she can - prompted by Lula, backstage - to obstruct the investigation. The PT's trademark, since they got into power, is any wrongdoing is always someone else's fault. But the facts speak for themselves....Dilma refuses to sack the Petrobras directors, despite overwhelming evidence of their criminal involvement, conveniently covered up just long enough so as to not spoil her re-election in October. It's the 9th year that GDP has shrunk, with an accumulated deficit in the foreign balance of payments of US$ 90 billion ; 6 years of uncontrolled inflation, an enormous internal public deficit, and lousy perspectives for 2015/16 ...yet, Dilma is reluctant to listen to anyone, she always knows best....
While I have no problem in accepting the fact that people may have an ideology different to mine, what I can't accept is that under the surface, here in Brazil, it's just a load of hypocrisy... while the PT preaches socialism, claims they identify with the working class, and only have the peoples' interests at heart, they steal as much as they can. In Brazil we call them the 'esquerda caviar'....needs no translation.
And, just for yr info - although the Press is 'officially' uncensored, a good part of it, in the pocket of the PT, is encouraged to refrain from publishing anything which might hurt the latter's image. Unless you live here, it's unlikely you'll understand it.
axel......as a socialist, why do you loath the concept of someone who works harder should get more than someone who does not? Hell, in the case of Argentina, someone who works at all should get more than someone who does not?
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What do you have against self sufficiency? To use an old adage, give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach him to fish and feed him for life. You commies prefer to hand out fish.....WHY?
Also......Why is the Castro's multi billionaires and all his people live in abject poverty? This is a great system of equality?
Why does Cuba need the USA markets is his economic system is so great?
Why did it need subsidies from the USSR and Venezuela is it worked so well?
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
no matter what we say, what the UN says , what the islanders say,
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0these brainwashed argies are not the slightest interested ,
they want it all or nothing,
they will ignore all rules , ignore the UN , ignore the right's of the people , just to get what they want , written by them, for them ,
they will keep on pushing and pushing and pushing , until the inevitable happens,
and like all 4th rated fools and cowards,
after the dust has settles , after the bloodbath , the deaths of hundreds possible thousands,
they the great uneducated self rictus brainwashed will sit and sob the now famous argy un-intelligent motto,
WE ONLY WANT TO TALK.
Boxxoks , let the fxucking people live in peace and Soddy offy before you start something YOU will surely regret,
is their not enough bullshit and bloodshed in this stinking world without a bunch of brainwashed ungrateful selfish fools like you,, you got your pound of bloody flesh,
just my Christmas opinion..
#86 Briton
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ignore the UN? What have you smoked? Go and read a bit, big boy. Start by:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html
You do not understand a basic thing. Galtieri did not do us any favour--indeed, he gave Baronesse Tatcher the opportunity of her lifetime. Now Argentina is in democracy, and we are not even thinking in using force, just our absolute right to the Malvinas that Britain continue to usurp in spite of most countries' advice.
Why on earth do you believe you have an “absolute” right to the Falklands that never had an Argentine population established on it?
Dec 22nd, 2014 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it proximity to Argentina you feel give you this absolute right?
If I felt so high and mighty over my “absolute” right to something and could not get it, I would bring it to court. Why do you not? Fear that when you do lose there is no other legitimate recourse? Without an absolute resolution like a legal decision, you can always cry foul.
BTW, Britain offered to talk. You just have to accept the people you discount are included. I say North Korea has a better chance of making the Chair of the UN Human Rights Committee than Argentina getting control of the Falklands.
On another note, words is that North Korea has absolutely ZERO internet between it's military and government agencies.........Oh My!!!
Terrence - you can't even be trusted to correctly read a news link when its highlighted and pointed out to you - twice.
Dec 24th, 2014 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0UN bodies also become irrelevant when y0u choose, and you cant accept that what I say lines up well with a statement from your own govt without having the balls to falsely accuse me of being a liar....yet then not apologize properly. Classy.
Terrence,
Your single paragraph of isolated out of context legal text has as much legitimacy as the sham referendum has with the modern world. None.
87 Enrique Massot
Dec 24th, 2014 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you cannot have what is not your to have, unless you steal it against those who own it,
the Falkland's have a right to the islands,
you do not.
leave them along and think of your own crumbling country.
Would like to use this opportunity to wish all the posters in Mercopress, especially the Falkland Islanders - with the exception of the Argie Trolls, one false USAF member, and the Brazzasshole - a merry Christmas and a good 2015 !/ Jack
Dec 24th, 2014 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Merry Christmas, Jack.
Dec 24th, 2014 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Same wishes back to you Jack, from one of those Argie Trolls.
Dec 24th, 2014 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@94
Dec 25th, 2014 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Henry....one of the few that might still be able to be saved....
Merry Christmas and a merry new year to all...
Dec 26th, 2014 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 078 Vestige
Dec 26th, 2014 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0You stated originally that the referendum was not recognised by the UN, EU and the US you have been unable to rebut my contention that under the rules of international law in fact it was. You have engaged in continuous personal attacks and impugning my character. Without offering one iota of international law by way of evidence. As to my error I am perfectly protected by by the legal precept E&OE.(http://www.myamicus.co.uk/content.php?313-E-OE).
The UK is legally bound not to attempt to resolve the dispute with Argentina as her claim is predicated on a deliberate fraud and “no party may profit from their own wrong doing”.(http://www.myamicus.co.uk/content.php?313-E-OE). Moreover, since Argentina is now barred from even attempting to have the issue adjudicated, and any attempt would be considered an “abuse of process”.http://www.myamicus.co.uk/content.php?313-E-OE).
Merry Christmas to all the true believers who reject facism and support the rights of the Falkland Islanders to chose their own destiny. I have enjoyed reading your excellent contributions this year and I think that collectively you have help improve the knowledge that we all have about the Falkland Islands.
Dec 26th, 2014 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 096 - by your interpretation the shamerendum was recognized, no-one elses.
Dec 26th, 2014 - 05:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0a link to the eu recognizing it please.
wheres the beef.
I am your biological father. E&OE
98 Vestige
Dec 26th, 2014 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0All ready proven that the EU's position legally is considered at post #41, since they have made no official statement on the referendum thus: “ Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.” Of which you are still unable to show a counter opinion under international law to refute that view. So there is no requirement for me to show a link from the EU supporting the referendum. The onus is on you since you made the original assertion at post #17 ”nobody recognizes.. .. referendum stunt.. ..no UN, EU, US recognition”
To wit: Logical Fallacies; Ignoring the Burden of Proof:
..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. .. .. 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
Very well - burden of proof:
Dec 26th, 2014 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have the British UN mission saying that the UN is ignoring the false referendum. As I said.
What do you have - your unqualified opinion/laymans legal interpretation on an internet forum.
US maintains its opinion beside the UN that there needs to be bilateral negotiations, China openly dismisses the paper-plate sham referendum with its paid observers complete with 1 page website.
Unlike your sophistry, I have only given properly cited opinions concerning the effect of silence under international law. Here's a fourth one: Customary international law; Silence as consent; Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law. ...
Dec 26th, 2014 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law
So give it up, you shot your mouth-off and have been proved wrong, so don't try and move the goal-posts, game, set and match .
no, you cited a piece of text and gave your interpretation... thats all.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thinking that the prestige of it being a Harvard site might give you some legitimacy. It didn't.
You remain a unqualified internaut theorizing about international law on a forum.
Meanwhile I can point to the consistency between my original statement and the words of the British UN mission....in that real world place outside the window.
Me - The worlds ignoring the referendum.
Britains UN mission - (in so many words) the worlds ignoring the referendum, disappointed etc etc.
Problem ?
I have given no personal interpretation I have just copied four citations verbatim, the consistency between your original statement is a presumption that your personal sophism out-weighs that of four experts of international law. Also attempting without success to move the focus to subsequent irrelevant secondary issues. Well I'm holding your feet to fire re: post #17 “no UN, EU, US recognition” isn't true. “ Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.” is true.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0What the world does is irrelevant as the dispute is purely a legal issue that is unaffected by vox populi considerations. The point is that the UK is legally in an unassailable position and there is no legal force to change the status quo ad infinitum. So there is no problem for the UK.
“ Silence, in other words, is considered a form of implicit acceptance.” is true.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0.... that is your unqualified internaut interpretation of how an isolated piece of verbatim text should be applied in a hypothetical legal sense.
It exists only as an idea for a legal argument in your own biased imagination while you're in this virtual forum. And nowhere else.
I however have the British UN mission effectively saying the “”referendum“” was ignored. In the real world.
My argument : is in the real world. Actually happened. Can point to proof/results.
Your argument: is in the world as you see it. May or may not have technically happened. Can't point to proof of application/results.
A case name/number please. An official document linking this text to the disputed territory please. lol.
@104
Dec 27th, 2014 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Give it up....it takes a man to admit he's wrong, and a fool to insist....which of the two are you ?
104 Vestige
Dec 27th, 2014 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot point to one single occasion where I have given a personal opinion on the legal effects of silence. That is why such statements are within “quotation marks”, as they are the words of international law experts. How does the British UN mission relate to your claim in #17 “..no UN, EU, US recognition” which was defeated? Let me know when you've finished moving the “goal-posts and are back on topic. The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably its right of sovereignty, while legally barring any Argentine claim.
For each item of international law or treaty support I provide. You provide a reciprocal source of support for an Argentine claim , otherwise you are conceding her claim as fraudulent.
Here's my first, so much for the bogus inheritance claim.
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.“ Wow! isn't international law a bitch, it never supports Argentina.
Re: ”referendum“ the C24 is not exactly the real world, for one, its been rejected by the UK with stated reasons for many years. The legal effect is forfeiture of any meaningful credibility, of any of its unenforceable advisements.
105 - funny feeling your judgement might be just a little bit less than impartial .... to that end you can be ignored. Like the sham referendum.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terrence - theres nothing wrong with your quote.
Its just that you quote it in isolation as though it was an already applied judgement. And in this case funnily enough you just happen to be the judge.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/un-committee-backs-argentina-over-falkland-islands-9566894.html
The British Mission to the UN criticized the committee for ignoring the outcome of last year's referendum.
“It is disappointing that once again the C24 [the Decolonization Committee] has not respected the clear and democratic expression of the Falkland Islanders' wishes and continues to describe the Falkland Islands' constitutional relationship with the UK as a ‘colonial situation,’” the mission said.
AP
As I thought, thanks for confirming once more that Argentina cannot find one vestige of international law to prop up her fraudulent claim. I'm sure the British are not really too perturbed as to what some sub-commitees none-binding advisement's say as it doesn't effect the overwhelming British legal advantage, which is after all, is all that really counts.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in your sole unqualified internet forum opinion.
Dec 27th, 2014 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!