MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas: Unasur message in support of Argentina's claims
Unasur and Argentina made public on Tuesday a letter dated last 5 April in which the regional group' Secretary General and former Colombian president Ernesto Samper, strongly supports Argentina's sovereignty claims over the Falklands/Malvinas and other South Atlantic Islands plus the adjoining maritime spaces. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSame old support then, paste and repeat.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Holding against all odds?
Apr 29th, 2015 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0That will be a rather impotent but persitant whine or probably a whinge from argentina occasionaly annoying but of no importance.
The only reason we keep the garrison there is because its cheaper than clearing up the resulting mess if Argentina thought it had a hope of invading. You proved your about as trustworthy as a £3 coin. even if you got the falklands you wouldnt be satisfied you'd want a chunk of Chile and possibly Uraguay as well.
best we keep the falklands you can carry on like a small dog barking at a doberman safe in the knowledge nothings going to come of it.
Enclave (ˈɛnkleɪv Pronunciation for enclave )
Apr 29th, 2015 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Definitions
Noun
'a part of a country entirely surrounded by foreign territory: viewed from the position of the surrounding territories Compare exclave
Word Origin
C19: from French, from Old French enclaver to enclose, from Vulgar Latin inclāvāre (unattested) to lock up, from Latin in-2 + clavis key'
As soon as I read the word 'enclave', I knew the 'fuck wit' doesn't even know where the Falklands are.
Why do they all think that a negotiated settlement means that Argentina will be handed the Islands, where does the UN say that Argentina has sovereignty of the Islands and the UK should hand them over. Hypothetically, how would they react if the UK and the FIG negotiated with Argentina and didn't agree to hand them over, would they be OK with that?
“The UK persistence in holding on to the ...Malvinas ...but statements from the Union of South American Nations, calling or demanding a negotiated solution to the territorial conflict”, writes Samper. “it's worth recalling...where the rule of the law,...must prevail”. Perhaps it is time to remind Secretary General Ernesto Samper of the UNASUR Charter, to wit: 'PREAMBLE; CONFIRMING that both South American integration and the South American union are based on the guiding principles of: unlimited respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity and inviolability of States; self-determination of the peoples; ...and indivisible human rights. ...CERTAIN ..the strengthening of multilateralism and the rule of law in international relations...'
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I understand you to mean the Charter principles you have sworn to uphold, can be swept aside while you engage in empty political rhetoric . Thanks for making that clear we can now give your statement the amount of attention it richly deserves.
And meanwhile, in the real world, things go on as usual.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0What about Aruba, Curacao, French Guiana and Bonaire?
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gollum has just resigned from the Jewish association in TDC.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I bet they were relieved about that: they can now call him a cunt to his face in public.
UNASUR: what's it good for? Absolutely NOTHING.
Apologises to Marvin Gaye
Useless Nations of the Americas Spouting Useless Resolutions
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's Illegitimate Sovereignty Claim:
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.academia.edu/10490336/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
Comment removed by the editor.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a nob… never read it, just disregard this idiot.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't know where you are getting your figures from but the basic pension rate in the UK is £115.95 per week which can be topped up based on your earnings to £276.10. This scheme will be replaced next year when the basic flat rate plan kicks in with a flat rate of £148.00 per week. That's per person so a married couple will get double that.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would tidy up my corner of the world instead of envying my neighbour.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Eleven million Argentines, 26.9% of the population live in poverty conditions
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/02/eleven-million-argentines-26.9-of-the-population-live-in-poverty-conditions
Argentina's international reserves at a six year record low, and sliding ….
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/02/eleven-million-argentines-26.9-of-the-population-live-in-poverty-conditions
Some 60% of Argentine children in urban areas suffer deficit of basic rights
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/02/eleven-million-argentines-26.9-of-the-population-live-in-poverty-conditions
Over a third of Argentine population in poverty conditions says food and nutrition report
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/04/02/eleven-million-argentines-26.9-of-the-population-live-in-poverty-conditions
Economy of the United Kingdom
The United Kingdom has the sixth-largest national economy in the world measured by nominal GDP and eighth-largest measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), and the third-largest in Europe measured by nominal GDP and the second-largest in Europe measured by PPP. The UK's GDP per capita is the 22nd-highest in the world in nominal terms and 22nd-highest measured by PPP. The British economy comprises (in descending order of size) the economies of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In 2012, the UK was the 11th-largest exporter in the world and the sixth-largest importer.
The UK has one of the world's most globalised economies. London is the world's largest financial centre alongside New York and has the largest city GDP in Europe. In 2012 the UK had the third-largest stock of inward foreign direct investment and the second-largest stock of outward foreign direct investment. The aerospace industry of the UK is the second or third largest national aerospace industry, depending upon the method of measurement. The pharmaceutical industry plays an important role in the UK economy and the country h
Crtl + C
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ctrl + V
Same inane crap as usual then... *snore*
Meanwhile the Fox Broadcasting Company and Argentina made public on Tuesday a letter dated last 1 April in which Homer Simpson declared that Krusty the Clown strongly supports Argentina's sovereignty claims over the Falklands/Malvinas and other South Atlantic Islands plus Pitcairn, Easter, and Hong Kong Islands. The plastic lady was so overcome with emotion that she was moved to tears.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as a wisely said, most of the world supports argentina in this issue.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and it has nothing to do with party politics, but with logic and with historic and geographic facts.
so, if you ilseters wanted more integration with the americas, from the u.s. to argentina, you can start to forget it.
isolation and more isolation for the islets is the only response.
We should examine this letter carefully. Starting from a point, if we can imagine it, where the UK gives a toss about unasur. Especially now that it is headed up by a criminal. Noting that his 1993 presidential campaign was largely funded by the Cali drugs Cartel. Some people might wonder if criminal connections, especially in relation to narcotics, is a prerequisite for the post of Secretary General.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But shouldn't we pass over the references to a 'colonial enclave', which the Falkland Islands aren't, and 40 NON-BINDING UN resolutions to the more 'meaty' demands of the Union of South American Nations. Who? Where did these numpties acquire the right to 'demand' anything from the UK?
We can go on to the second paragraph of the article and wonder if Snr Samper is making a threat? How else is he going to 'put an end to an occupation'? And, 'taking into account the commemoration of the 200 years of South American states' independence' has he taken into account that the Falkland Islands have been British for 325 years? And thus considerably predate his little bunch of ungovernable, lawless states.
He goes on to mention British militarisation, conveniently omitting to mention that the UK deploys 4 combat aircraft for defence, whilst South America has 481. Mind you, I understand the concern. Given the example of the Falklands War, an aggressive South America might rapidly find that it only had 80 left.
Finally, it's worth recalling that bullying has no place in an international system where the rule of law, and not force, must prevail.
Thus, as has been proved many, many times, argieland has NO legitimate claim. Go whistle, Samper. The South Atlantic Islands are OURS. And they WILL be defended. Remember that British forces have been blooded many times over the last few years.
@20. So you only have to wait a little over 2,000 years and we 'might' be gone. But the very last Englishman will still be fighting and taking dozens of the enemy with him!
#10
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for that heart felt post. I ALMOST agree totally with everything you say because undoubtedly it is the absolute truth as your befuddled “brain sees it.
If I could take up one point ” The average UK state pension is 66 pounds a week”
In a previous post you stated that it was about £85 or thereabouts.
I had a communication telling me that mine had gone up to £156.17 as from
5 April. Have they lied to me ? My bank statement confirms this figure.
Has the pension been cut in the past 5 days ?
I see that you have moderated your opinion that the whole world is laughing at you TO most of the world. Surely you can see that this is an improvement.
Who knows, maybe we will even approach the exalted position you have reached if we don't keep our sense of reality.
Living as you do in a drug befuddled mental Shangri-la state of mind suits the Argentine psyche as really, you have nothing else to hope for.
Are you sure that you are not mixing up the UK with some place in Argentina or even, heaven forfend...Spain ?
As to Spanish pensions, of course they can pay them because tax payers in the UK are subsidising them from their EU taxes. That is why Spain is teetering on the brink with HUGE youth unemployment as Spaniards do not like paying taxes also mirrored by their blood relations in ARGENTINA.
Is that the best post you can do? Shades of Nostrils self delusion.
13 cont.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0has the third-highest share of global pharmaceutical R&D expenditures (after the United States and Japan). The British economy is boosted by North Sea oil and gas production; its reserves were valued at an estimated £250 billion in 2007.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_economy
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/426779/British-economy-set-to-rocket-as-growth-expectation-doubles-for-2013
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10282920/OECD-revises-up-UK-growth-as-construction-grows-at-fastest-pace-in-six-years.html
www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/02/uk-factories-booming-manufacturing-pmi
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/now-we-are-637m-uk-had-biggest-population-growth-in-europe-over-past-year-8751929.html
www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10597418/UK-confirmed-as-fastest-growing-economy-in-Western-Europe.htmwl
Already rebuffed your assertion “In Britain, we do of cold”, so you are revealed as a liar. But, then what else can one expect from a society that revels in viveza criolla; on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_economy Not one individual was reported as actually dying of hypothermia www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/uk-weather-31000-people-died-2852677
So whatever problems they may have, they're still light-years ahead of your unfortunate nation.
Grandpa
Apr 29th, 2015 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the funny thing is that the uk owes spain more than 400 bn euro, while spain owes the uk just 75 bn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696
but the funniest thing is that spain, along with many other european countries, have to give free healthcare to hundreds of thousands of english patients, because they have more than 3 million people in the waiting list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15748696
no to mention dental care.
as always, these useless english moan while they take advantage of the situation.
england has to be fired from the EU.
the sooner the better.
england has to be fired from the EU.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the sooner the better.
PROVE IT, bla bla bla,
the British Falkland's will remain until the islanders say otherwise,
the disgusting deluded brainwashed corrupt thieving argies can go Soddy offy.
@17 idiot child/payaso/mamarracho/nabo/paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“as a wisely said, most of the world supports argentina in this issue.
and it has nothing to do with party politics, but with logic and with historic and geographic facts.”
I have never read anything so nonsensically and outrageously untrue taking into account that Argentina's claim consists merely of fairy stories, myths, lies and mistaken interpretations pf historical events. The only way for the who stupidity to end once and for all is through the International Court of Justice.
gordo tirapedos
Apr 29th, 2015 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so you have never read anything blablabla, you stinky fatso?
and why the fuck you dont start reading this article first, then?
you are not too bright, eh???
21 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'waiting for surgery or other hospital procedures, including nearly 550 who have been waiting for more than a year. ....A patient’s right to be treated within 18 weeks is set out in the NHS Constitution, the health service’s rule book. ...If they are made to wait longer, they can demand to go privately – paid for by the NHS.' So it's not a perfect system, I don't think anyone was claiming it was. A universal public health system enacted in place in 1948 which has greatly influenced other counties health systems, like Canada. When I was visiting and my little boy had to go to hospital there was no charge. Also, in the UK there is no charge for prescription medicines. It used to be that dental care was free until 21.
Re:Eurozone debt web: Who owes what to whom? UK 'This level of overall external debt is generally not seen as a problem because the UK also holds high-value assets'. Risk Status: LOW
Spain there are fears the country could be thrown back into recession after November's parliamentary elections. The bursting of a housing and construction boom in 2008 had plunged Spain's economy into a recession deeper than in many other European countries. Risk Status: MEDIUM
@24 idiot child/payaso/mamarracho/nabo/paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have read plenty and more than sufficient to know the true story. May I suggest you read this link? http://www.falklandshistory.com.
This is the truth not the crap you seem to believe!
@24 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you always use such a bad langauge? Using names such as “stinyk fatso”, “dumbasshole”, “parasite”, “imbecile”, “retarded wannabe”, “chilote”, “benny.hillbilly”, “uncontrollable farter.” &c, &c. is aginst all “enetiqutte”. It is impossible to respect the wievs of a person using that kind of vocabulary.
@16 Viriato1 (#)
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apr 29th, 2015 - 12:21 pm
What!!
I thought he had a temper tantrum on the 28th, flocking off - swearing never to return- because the editor was “unfair”
Ja ja ja ja ja.... !!
This would be the same parliamentary union that, while clamouring for “dialogue”, refused to admit parliamentarians from the Falklands?
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gotta like this though : “an international system .... where the rule of the law, and not force, must prevail”.
Who could possibly object? Except, of course, Malvinista Arjunteena.
gordo tirapedos
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have read plenty and more than sufficient to know the true story. May I suggest you read this link? www.falklandshistory.com.”
wot?
are you suggesting that crap as your source of knowledge?
lol
now i understand when they say you are just a bunch of brainwashed, ignorant benny-hillbillies.
It will be respited again and again, YES COPY PASTE, colonialist out of America.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0America for the Americans!
Just go back to your Islands in the north and stay there.
@30 paulution
Apr 29th, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Have you actually got a counter argument, or are you just providing further proof that a bile sac is no substitute for a brain?
@30 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Paulito, most of the world does not support you on this issue.
S. America, China and Russia do, for the moment.
But this means most of the rest of the world doesn’t.
From Poland to the Philippines.
Which is why you have never got anywhere with your claims and there is no realistic prospect that you ever will.
Never mind.
@33
Apr 29th, 2015 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The world as you see it must be very small.
Africa, most of America, (Canada out) Europe (UK out), and Asia, that is most of the world.
Sorry New Zealand Uganda support you on this!
pugol en contra
Apr 29th, 2015 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A group of Caribbean countries have agreed to back Buenos Aires and block any ships flying the Falklands flag from docking in their ports.
They include the Commonwealth countries of Antigua-Barbuda and St Vincent-Grenadines, along with Cuba, Nicaragua and Dominica”
not even the commonwealth countries back the uk in this issue.
YOU-ARE-A-JOKE
@33
Apr 29th, 2015 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which is just as well, really, because the claim isn't there to be met, it's there not to be met.
This is quite unusual for a claim, and it requires unusual determination and effort from Argentina to ensure that the claim can never succeed on the one hand, but that it doesn't just die away on the other. In this respect, it's really quite an impressive feat that they've managed to keep it going for nearly 70 years now, while making any likelihood of success increasingly remote. But eventually in my view the population will tire of it, and wonder what it was all about.
I'd give it, say, 25 years.
35 paulcedron Not true as it would be a violation of international law thus:
Apr 29th, 2015 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jan 10, 2012 Chile, Uruguay & Brazil will not blockade the Falklands
Yesterday, the British Foreign Secretary William Hague responded to statements made in South America about the Falkland Islands. “...Whilst we do not accept that the decision to refuse entry to vessels flying the Falklands flag has any basis in international law... All three countries have said that they have no intention of participating in an economic blockade of the Falkland Islands and that all Falklands-related commercial shipping will continue to enjoy access to their ports, in accordance with domestic and international law, if they are flying the Red Ensign or another national flag when docked. .....
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/chile-uruguay-brazil-will-not-blockade-the-falklands/
Symposium on Unilateral Sanctions and International Law: Views on Legitimacy and Consequences
”Unilateral sanctions are impermissible under international law as the Charter of the United Nations addresses only collective economic measures. ... ...Hence, the unilateral sanctions and extraterritorial application of national legislation violates the legal equality of States, and principles of respect for and dignity of national sovereignty and non-intervention in the internal affairs of the State. Application of unilateral sanctions violates basic principles of Charter
of the United Nations and certain other important legal instruments and International Law.”
H.E Prof. Dr. Rahmat Mohamad, Secretary-General of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization (AALCO), Unilateral Sanctions in International Law
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/chile-uruguay-brazil-will-not-blockade-the-falklands/
Unilateral Sanctions in International Law
”The foundational principles that regulate and govern international relations are stated in the Charter of the United Nations and the authoritative 1970 Declaration of Friendly relations an
@35
Apr 29th, 2015 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A group of Caribbean countries have agreed to back Buenos Aires and block any ships flying the Falklands flag from docking in their ports.“
You missed out the next part of the quote: ”Argentina's foreign minister Hector Timerman has said.”
And here's what e.g Dominica said next :
'in a just released statement, the Dominica government says it “has not granted its support to any call for the region to ban ships with the colonial flag imposed on the Malvinas from entering its ports, as stated in the said declaration.
“Dominica therefore disassociates itself from statements regarding the banning of ships carrying the flag of the Falklands from entering its ports,” the government statement said.'
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/15/dominica-disassociates-from-barring-falklands-flagged-vessels-from-its-ports
37 cont.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and Cooperation among States. These include the principle of sovereign equality of states, principle of non-use of force, the principle of self-determination of people, th principle of non-intervention into the internal and external affairs States, the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes, the principle of cooperation among states and the principle of fulfilling in good faith obligations assumed under international law The concept of unilateral sanctions violates certain core principles of the Charter of th United Nations, namely; principle of sovereign equality and territorial integrity, principl of non-intervention, and duty to cooperate.
http://www.aalco.int/52ndsession/EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY.pdf
@34 psql
Apr 29th, 2015 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to prove that, like with proposing a resolution at the UNGA.
No one is going to take your word for it are they!!!
Like, oh, oh, oh pissquill says Africa, Europe and Asia all support Argentina, so of course it must be true, no need for any evidence, hey we just have to give them the Islands.
Then you wake up!!!
@35 paulcedron
Except they don’t stop Falklands flagged vessels from docking, any more than half of S. America does.
YOU just do not know that!!!!!
The same as those commonwealth countries voted in favour of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association resolution, strongly supporting the Falklands and condemning Argentina.
You need to be in the real world.
@36 HansNiesund
You seriously underestimate the Argentinian ability to believe what they want to regardless.
39
Apr 29th, 2015 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yawn.....
...define a “State” and “Statehood” in International Law....:-))))
the consequences will be, of course, a massive, massive isolation of the islets.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0do you want to go to your mecca, punta arenas (lol)?
nope, you can't.
do you want to cross through the latin american airspace?
no, you can't.
do you want to import from latin america fruits, meat, vegetables, mineral water, clothes, whatever the fuck you need and you dont produce (ie everything?).
no, you cant.
you need a ct scanner, magnetic resonator, whatever, and you want to use a chilote hospital?
no, you cant.
you want to use latin american ports?
no way.
42 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Luckily, you don't make foreign policy for all the Latin American countries.
Your government doesn't either.
The Chileans would rather piss glass than be told what to do by Argentina. Just the way it is pal- sorry about that.
Loving your list of things we don't produce; the whole countryside is full of sheep, beef cattle and pigs all running round eating their heads off. Until we put them on the barbeque that is. As for mineral water, the only water I ever drink is natural spring water and it doesn't cost a penny.
Foolish boy.
#42
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When is this ban coming into force ? You have been talking about it now for years,
Will it be Hepatia's....within 25 years. Come on tell us the exact date.
@42 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A completely make believe world Paulito.
In reality the vast, VAST, VAST British territories of land and sea in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic are doing very well.
Argentina is not, and appears to have few if any friends, other than exploiters.
it seems that you 3, monty, clyde and pugol en contra, aka the 3 stooges, cannot understand the concept of hermandad latinoamericana.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and in that, we have to include our beloved hermanos chilotes.
it seems that for you,ignoramus trio, this chilotelandia is the same as when it was ruled by your beloved pinochet, eh???
well, things have changed.
bachelet does not seem too interested in you isleters and even less papa obama.
you are more alone than loco malo. lol
46 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That may be. Unfortunately, the Chileans don't seem to want to include you. Neither do the Uruguayans, come to think of it.
No-one is interested enough in us to do us any harm, apart from you, and you don't have any hold over us at all. Meanwhile in the real world, we and our other South American neighbours just get on with life, the way people do out here in the civilized world.
I can see why that must really get on your nerves.
Never mind.
@46 paulcedron
Apr 29th, 2015 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Understand the concept Paulito, just pointing out that you do not have it in reality, it is just that, a concept.
BTW have you re-frozen Texaco’s assets, as Equator has been asking for???
Oh no, I remember now, they invested a pittance in Dead Cow so you forgot all about your Ecuadorian hermanos.
Then talk to some Uruguayans about how they feel about Argys, or even Paraguayans, the list goes on.
pugol en contra
Apr 29th, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i spend my vacations in punta del este since i was born.
so i know very well what the uruguayans think about us, wonderful, beautiful and intelligent argentines.
of course, there are some exceptions of the rule (not me of course, but the kirchneristas and stuff).
well, do not take them in account.
you have never been to uruguay in your whole life, have you?
#46
Apr 29th, 2015 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0See my post at #44...still waiting for your reply. Or could it be wishful thinking on your part ? All you need to do is provide details of a statement from each government that they have instituted a ban on shipping to/from the Falklands.
You must have this information to be so adamant in your post or are you just making it up as usual ?
I commend you on your omission of swearing ...have you grown up at last ?
50 Clyde15
Apr 29th, 2015 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like to think it's my civilizing influence.
Paul; they are nice people. They aren't going to tell you that your government stinks to your face.
paulcedron lololol
Apr 29th, 2015 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a few truths,
some things Argentina CANNOT stop,
the English air force from fly over Argentina,
the English navy from argy ports,
stop any English flagged ship in argy territory,
Defeat any English army from landing on argy soil
or ===outwit an English man,
go on be silly--prove me wrong...chuckle.
@17. Do try to understand. Here is some logic and some historic and geographic FACTS. No-one in civilisation is interested in 'integration' with sub-humans. But we could be attracted by annihilation. A totally irradiated, empty sub-continent. Good for safaris to hunt the ape men.
Apr 29th, 2015 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@21. You just go on being funny. Now your cross-eyes can't even follow an arrow. Eyes gone? Too much time sucking your prick? Did you notice that your graphic is 4 years old? Prick. But do please get us 'fired' from the EU. We can't wait. It is possible that in the next few years we may go to war. We've beaten Europe before!
@24. Could you twirl on that bayonet up your arse? Please? If you don't have one, ask a Gurkha!
@30. Another half-arsed fart!
@31. But you'll be dead soon! So we don't care.
@34. Based on your scabby 'president' squirming around the world on her belly providing deep throat, arse ramming and handjobs? No-one screws her snatch. Too many there before. Has she cracked 200 per hole yet?
@35. And when they find that they are broke? Like scumland has any money. And, if it does, it'll be seized.
@41. Why?
@42. That's 5 NO's. Any more shit from shitland?
@46. Have you ever heard of the concept known as 'dead individual walking'? Just wait.
@49. No, I'm sorry, you've been misinformed. You weren't 'born'. You were ejected. Human beings, and even subhumans, eject vomit and shit. That's where you are. Shit covered in vomit. And no argie has been wonderful, beautiful or intelligent since the last Ice Age. When it's cock dropped off because it was sucking it.
Paulie,
Apr 29th, 2015 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can you explain Falkland Islands Flagged Fishing Vessels being visitors to ports in Brazil?
Royal Naval vessel that calls frequently in the Falklands also calls into Uruguay.
No FI flagged vessel has ever been refused entry to a Carribean port!
No FI flagged vessel has ever been refused entry to Chile or Uruguay either - they simply go in there under the british red Ensign instead - and you cannot stop that - unless you want Argentian to be blacked and isoilated by say the whole European Union as you would be committing an offence illegal under international law against an EU member state.
And ther eis no way Chile or Uruguay or Brasil would back Argentina on it either- you are in total fantasy land.
52 britarded
Apr 29th, 2015 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it seems you cannot understand that without the help / permission of papa obama, the uk cannot win or do a shite.
not by chance you are known as the poodle of america.
anyway, 1 image says more than 1000 words, so here you have:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-b43V2ajzcm8/UiIf6iVEqkI/AAAAAAAB2No/lEhQKEMt_Qw/s1600/obama-lapdog.jpg
Vitriol01 is gone, Pablo is back- anyone notice a difference?
Apr 29th, 2015 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0toy, you cannot even spell your name properly, so do not try to play the detective.
Apr 30th, 2015 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0you should have some intelligence for that.
and as the whole fucking world knows...it is not your case.
@ 3 Buzzsaw
Apr 30th, 2015 - 03:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0who wrote: “As soon as I read the word 'enclave', I knew the 'fuck wit' doesn't even know where the Falklands are.”
Not only that, but he thinks it happened a few years back, and not as in real life, before Argentina even existed. “an occupation that has lacerated for decades Argentina's dignity”.
One of the usual crapheads.
.
@ 6 knarfw
who wrote: “What about Aruba, Curacao, French Guiana and Bonaire?”
Also, what about all of Latin America which was taken by force from the original inhabitants and subsequently was taken by force from Spain and Portugal.
Much later Argentina stole the provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones from Paraguay and all of Patagonia's 800,000 square kilometers from the remaining indigenious people, killing and enslaving them in a genocide.
Bunch of hipocritical thieves, aren't they?
.
Most of the world supports Argentina. Most of the world takes part in a conspiration against Argentina.
They can't make up their minds, and poor paulito cedronsky once again shows his lack of knowledge of the history of the British Falkland Islands: British before Argentina existed. British by choice in accordance with the United Nations; self determination as defined Charter of the United Nations.
Paulcedron @49
Apr 30th, 2015 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for spending your holidays in Punta del Este. Please spend as much as possible.
On second thoughts, I live in Punta del Este and am in contact with Argentines every day. Most of them are decent people, and not particularly enthusiastic about the “Malvinas” doctrine. They criticise the Argentine gov't even more than we Uruguayans do. Of course the losers from the Argentine slums don't come. I wonder what makes me suspect it's not true that you spend your holidays here?
“hermandad latinoamericana” doesn't exist. It is a dream/nightmare of idiot child/payaso/mamaerracho/paucedron.
Apr 30th, 2015 - 05:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0ynbecile 59
Apr 30th, 2015 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0you live in punta del este?
yeah...right. lol
you are another deluded, brainwashed isleter who has never left pork stanley and counting.
and what the fuck has party politics got to do with the malvinas issue, you moron?
most of the people here, me included, criticise the useless govt we have, and most of the people supports the causa malvinas.
2 different things.
can you understand that?
i guess not.
60 fatso
what can you know about latino america, repugnant fatso?
try to opine about what you know.
ie nothing.
52 britarded
Apr 30th, 2015 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0it seems you cannot understand that without the help / permission of papa obama, the uk cannot win or do a shite.
oooooppppppppps
you changed it from England to the UK,
if only you had two more brain cells you might finish the sentence...lol
britarded
Apr 30th, 2015 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0change england to the uk?
so what, you retarded benny?
they are the same shite.
There it is... in black and white... NSGTs all have the right to self-determination. No mentions of special circumstances or special cases.
Apr 30th, 2015 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/UNdecoded/UNdecoded.asp?NewsID=1320&sID=48
“Secretary General” LOL. This always evokes an image of a short swarthy fellow in a coronel's caps and braid bedazzled uniform with a dark sash slung over one shoulder replete with plenty of dimestore ribbons and medals. Hail!
Apr 30th, 2015 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0STARVE THE TROLLS.
Paulcedron @ 61
Apr 30th, 2015 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How can I possibly be al “isleter” (I suppose you mean someone from a small island)? There are only two islands in the región of Punta del Este: Gorriti and Lobos. Both are uninhabited.
The only time I visited Port Stanley was in the 1960s. However, I suppose I could go back as it still existe. Puerto Argentino, on the other hand ...
On rereading old posts of yours, I don't agree with those who say you're retarded. My theory is that you're deranged.
@61 idiot child/payaso/mamarracho/nabo/pelotudo/paulcedron
Apr 30th, 2015 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0`'what can you know about latino america, repugnant fatso?
try to opine about what you know.
ie nothing.”
You really are a juvenile idiot, aren't you? Each time you appear here you seem to be regressing even further into total idiocy! Your arrogance, typical of a porteño, is beyond belief and is so risible that your postings go nowhere and mean nothing.
Why waste your time with us?
67 gordo tirapedos
Apr 30th, 2015 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why waste your time with us?”
are you even more imbecile than what i suspected?
is that possible?
it seems yes.
it is you stinky fatty fart blower who answers all my posts, you retarded fatso.
now go to your pigsty, you smell, uncontrollable farter.
@ 61 paulcedron
Apr 30th, 2015 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Paulito, I have never been to Uruguay, sailed past it once but that is the closest I have come.
Given the offensive and abusive way you clearly speak to your neighbours, I don’t think it would be a good idea for you to go there either.
By the sounds of you probably couldn’t afford it anyway.
1. enclave.
Apr 30th, 2015 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. m. Territorio incluido en otro con diferentes características políticas, administrativas, geográficas, etc.
2. m. Grupo étnico, político o ideológico inserto en otro y de características diferentes.
Real Academia Española © Todos los derechos reservados
2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/enclave
Authoritative definitions of “enclave” in Spanish and in English. Both examples clearly indicate that the Falkland Islands do NOT constitute an “enclave”.
Samper and UNASUR clearly need some instruction in the use of the word “Enclave”. ¡que idiotas!
68 paulcedron
Apr 30th, 2015 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Believe me when I say that I have your best interests at heart....
I can't help noticing that you have an obsession with men's bottoms, with their general physique and with the way they smell. I am no kind of homophobe; your sexual orientation is no concern of mine, and I wish for every person to be happy and proud of what they are.
I just hope that you remain happy with the fact that you have shared your interest with the internet at large when you've grown up a bit.
All the best,
M
@71 Monty69
Apr 30th, 2015 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps this is little Paulito’s way of “coming out of the closet”.
#71
Apr 30th, 2015 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He does seem to have an anal fixation !
paulcedron, CFKs little poodle..lol
Apr 30th, 2015 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Paulito
Apr 30th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bottoms up, eh!
CFK
Apr 30th, 2015 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I’m voting for the @thegreenparty http://t.co/5Yx7nsML1y
Half-wits of @TheGreenParty have forgotten that we are still an island nation, 95% of food, raw & fuel come by sea http://t.co/5Yx7nsML1y
Stupidity at its worst.
.
pugol en contra
Apr 30th, 2015 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ sailed past it once but that is the closest I have come.”
sailed past it once?
on a raft?
were you trying to illegally enter a south american country?
@17
May 01st, 2015 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ but with logic and with historic and geographic facts.”
Name one historic fact on Argentina's side that cannot be countered by Britain's side.
Geographic fact. In 1833 when Argentina claim that the retention of most of the settlers at Port Louis (in Argentinian this means they were removed , even though they stayed-Argentine logic for you), Argentina was 1000 miles away from the Falklands.
Argentine logic means islands that have been populated by people who have been there for over 180 years trumps 6 months of occupancy.
Not getting you very far though, because it is flawed logic.
Well, now we know for certain that Argentina have the best conmen. They've managed to scam a regional group into believing the Malvinas Lie.
May 01st, 2015 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...put an end to an occupation that has lacerated for decades Argentina's dignity.”
The only “occupation” of the Falklands that was any affront to Argentina's dignity was as a result of their illegal invasion in 1982. That occupation was ended by the rightful holders of sovereignty, enacting their right to self-defense.
Britain wants a peaceful and fair resolution to this dispute. Unfortunately, Argentina refuses to negotiate in good faith, and refuses to consider the interests of the legitimate inhabitants of the Falklands, as *required* by the UN Resolutions they love to throw about.
Argentina may not claim the moral high ground here.
There are three ways to resolve this that are fair and equitable for all involved:
1: Argentina negotiates in good faith, without preconditions and with the Islanders representing their interests. With very little facts on their side, Argentina will eventually agree to withdraw their fake claim.
2: Argentina agrees to ICJ arbitration. Again, with the evidence favouring Britain, Argentina will have to accept that they have no legitimate claim (unless they illegally declare the decision “null and void” as they did with a different ruling).
3: Argentina 'fesses up, acknowledges to the UN that it's lied for several decades, and assumes full responsibility for the 1982 invasion. It then removes all objections in the C24 to the Falklands' decolonisation, and ceases all acts of intimidation against the Islanders.
None of these seem likely to happen, for two reasons. First, Argentina has sunk a large amount of money into perpetuating the Malvinas Lie, even lying to their children about it. They won't compromise because that would mean they wasted their money (sunk costs fallacy).
Second, the path to any of these outcomes requires honesty, something those that perpetuate the Malvinas Lie lack.
@ 77 paulcedron
May 01st, 2015 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn’t aware it was possible for me to “illegally enter a south american country”, I have a British passport.
A far as I am aware it is only illegal for you to try to leave and go somewhere else with your passport, apart from places like Somalia, Libya or Syria or such like.
CKurze30k @
May 01st, 2015 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with what you say, but shouldn't the moral aspects of Argentina's having included sovereignty (and possession?) of the isalands in its constitution be taken into account? Perhaps a moral Argentina should change this immediately, on the grounds that the very action of having done it was profoundly dishonest.
@81:
May 01st, 2015 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for mentioning that ynsere.
That was what I was talking about when I said Argentina refuses to negotiate in good faith.
Argentina added that claim in order to prevent negotiations which would end in them dropping their fake claim.
With that immoral clause in their constitution, Argentina feels justified (if such a thing is possible) in insisting that any negotiations end in their gaining sovereignty of the Falklands, regardless of whether or not the facts back their claim, or any other points to be made.
They demand the outcome favour them even if they cannot make their case. As I said, refusing to negotiate in good faith.
“Perhaps a moral Argentina should change this immediately, on the grounds that the very action of having done it was profoundly dishonest.”
Agreed on both points. Adding their claim in such a way is especially immoral when the dispute is still going.
I wonder if they did it to prevent the case going to the ICJ also, since they'd undoubtedly lose based on the facts?
82
May 01st, 2015 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if they did it to prevent the case going to the ICJ also, since they'd undoubtedly lose based on the facts?
...and what facts does Britain have...
They were not the first to discover the Islands...
They were not the first to claim the Islands...
They were not the first to populate the Islands...
...but they have been squatting on them the longest....
83 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 01st, 2015 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...and what facts does Britain have...” The UK can rely on at least six-planks of international law and three Anglo-Spanish treaties, that support irrefutably her right of sovereignty, while legally Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ or the PCA. Moreover, there is not one aspect of international law that supports an Argentine claim. The UK therefor is the only legal holder of sovereignty, and there is no legal power on earth to change that reality.
“Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ...”
May 01st, 2015 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..there you go with your opinions again....
Your comments sound as though you are relying on two short planks of wood...
85 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al Wrong again if I just proffered my own opinion I would be simply mirroring your behavior, since you have never been able to produce any citation to support your clumsy legalese attempts. Since, Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ or the PCA. It's redundant to even proffer the multi-faceted UK legal reliance. To wit: 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.
May 02nd, 2015 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 080. Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,“ Observer, 2 May 1982.
The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic by Daniel K. Gibran.
”..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. .. ...Great Britain has acquired title to the Islands by extinctive prescription. Argentina did not take advantage of the available international bodies for peaceful adjudication of the disputed title. ...Great Britain’s claim, therefore, is supported by factors that are in accordance with the general
85 wee man
May 02nd, 2015 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0““Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ...”
umm,
here's the wee man playing silly buggers, again.
Thats an incomplete quotation, contrived to misconstrue the meaning.
”... legally Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ or the PCA.” - as 'they have no LEGAL case'.
If you can't be right, at least be contrarian, eh wee man??
84 cont.
May 02nd, 2015 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0with the general purpose of the principle of self-determination and is in conformance with the past practice of the UN...”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain James Francis Gravelle .
@85 wee man
May 02nd, 2015 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, Terry has thumped you again @86 and @88with reasoned logic and references !
so much for your layman's law degree, from The Loch and Troll !
https://www.academia.edu/10490336/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
May 02nd, 2015 - 07:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0..........................STOP THE PRESS!!!
May 02nd, 2015 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's Official.....Argentina cannot go to the ICJ....it is BARRED!!
...BECAUSE....
....Terry Hill says so.....
backed by...
an idiot...Tempest
and blind person that failed to notice his link was uploaded by Brit Bob...(it must be right)...;-)))
From now on everyone on here is barred from ever uttering the well worn phrase...“Take it to the ICJ”....or such like...
.......Don't blame me....blame Terry Fcukwit.....he has proof!!!!!
.....oh no he doesn't.....;-)
91 Voice
May 02nd, 2015 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...Argentina cannot go to the ICJ....it is BARRED!!... ...backed by...he has proof”
I sure do, and and it's duly noted that you have nothing to refute their opinions.
So don't take my word for it, but then whenever have I proffered an opinion that didn't have a genesis within the international law academia community.
The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic by Daniel K. Gibran.
and
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain James Francis Gravelle
92
May 02nd, 2015 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh No....
....prepare to be slapped down...
”40. In the Ambatielos claim (1956),127 the United King- dom Government argued that “the claim of the Greek Government ought to be rejected by reason of the delay in its presentation”.
41. The United Kingdom depended solely on the fact that it was only in 1939 (the claim was originally pre- sented in 1925) that the Greek Government based its claim on the Greek-United Kingdom Treaty of 1886; previously it had referred only to general international law. The Commission rejected the argument:
“There is no doubt that there is no rule of international law which lays down a time-limit with regard to prescription, except in the case of special agreements to that effect, and accordingly, as l'lnstitut de Droit international pointed out in its 1925 Resolutions, the deter- mination of this question is ”left to the unfettered discretion of the international tribunal which, if it is to accept any argument based on lapse of time, must be able to detect in the facts of the case before it the existence of one of the grounds which are indispensable to cause prescription to operate.”
http://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_208.pdf
Slap, slap....and slappity slap...;-))))
93 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 02nd, 2015 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Given that the Argentine claim is from 1833 it would be the longest unfulfilled claim in legal history. Therefore, it is for you to differentiate as to why your claimed case would revoke the application of extinctive prescription. ”There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years. The UK could claim that Argentina as the claimant state has had from 1899 to bring suit via the Permanent Court of Arbitration; The PCA, established by treaty in 1899.Argentina and Great Britain were both admitted as members of the League of Nations on Jan. 10, 1920. The Permanent Court of International Justice was open to all members without condition. “The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits…. Undue delay in presenting a claim, which may lead to it being barred, is to distinguished from effects of the passage of time on the merits of the claim in cases where the claimant state has, by failing to protest or otherwise, given evidence of acquiescence’”: I Oppenheim 526 and 527. See Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), Chap. 18; King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, (1934) 15 B.Y.I.L. 82. Cf. prescription, acquisitive.“
Oxford Dictionary of Law
”Prescription used in the sense of extinctive prescription can be similar to “law of limitation”. Suppose country A has an International claim against country B but fails to bring it before any international tribunal within a reasonable period of time without any obstruction from country B then, it may be rejected by the tribunal later. ”Sovereign State Territory September 2, 2014 By Aditi Agarwal, NUALS ACADEMIKE Lawctopus' Law Journal + Knowledge Center http://www.lawctopus.com/academike/sovereign-state-territory
93 wee v0ice
May 02nd, 2015 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah sure, more nonsense.
Two different things - there was an 1886 treaty or agreement between Greece and the UK.
In the case of the Falklands, there has never been a Treaty tegarding sovereignty between Arg. and the UK.
A petition against another state is not a treaty or an agreement.
94
May 02nd, 2015 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back pedalling...it's gone from being BARRED to...
“Undue delay in presenting a claim, which MAY lead to it being barred”
...do you ever get anything right....?
...and what part of ...
”left to the unfettered discretion of the international tribunal” ...means that Argentina is automatically barred...? (Legal.UN.org)
...swallow some large helpings of humble pie...
This is what you get for cherry picking other peoples opinions....
Come back when you have some indisputable facts....
Of course that's never going to happen because Argentina have never applied to the ICJ for a ruling and so cannot have been barred from doing so....
Oh and...;-)))))
96 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 02nd, 2015 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There's no back-peddling merely a response to your deliberate attempted misinterpretations. “...Argentina have never applied to the ICJ for a ruling and so cannot have been barred from doing so...”
So you can wriggle and lie all you want, it is abundantly clear that her failure to apply for a judicial determination now bars her claim' ”..There is a general principle, first confirmed as early as 1885 in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. The 1885 Williams Case held that “On careful consideration of the authorities on the subject we are of the opinion that by their decided weight—we might say by very necessity—prescription has a place in the international system and it is to be regarded in these adjudications. 6 Further, this principle has been embraced in arbitral jurisprudence as early as 1903. Umpire Ralston, in the oft-cited Gentini case observed: The permanent court of arbitration has never denied the principle of prescription, a principle well recognized in international law, and it is fair to believe it will never do so … The universal opinion of publicists and lawgivers has been that the statutes of prescription or “limitation,” as they have come to be called, were equitable and the outgrowth of a general desire for the attainment of justice … The principle of prescription finds its foundation in the highest equity—the avoidance of possible injustice to the defendant, the claimant having had ample time to bring his action, and therefore if he has lost, having only his own negligence to accuse.7 The doctrine of extinctive prescription promotes the fair exercise of justice; claimants should not be rewarded for negligence.
6 Williams Case, Claims Commission under the Convention of 1885 between the United States and Venezuela as cited by H. Lauterpacht, PRIVATE LAW SOURCES AND ANALOGIES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, 2002.
7 Gentini. H. Ralston and W. Doyle. Venezuelan Arbitr
paulcedron
May 02nd, 2015 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He's right, total blockade of the islands, we need Islanders, and they need all the continent. Nothing approach, Spain open doors to Gibraltar? What for? Just to have a headache. So best overall insulation with squatters .. !!
97 cont.
May 02nd, 2015 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 07 Gentini. H. Ralston and W. Doyle. Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission (1904), 720. The raison d’être for the doctrine of extinctive prescription is set forth in Bin Cheng’s classic study. According to Cheng, the reason for extinctive prescription
reflects: The concurrence of two circumstances:— 1. Delay in the presentation of a claim; 2. Imputability of the delay to the negligence of the claimant. 9 Both of these circumstances have both practical and theoretical value. From a practical standpoint, the doctrine helps ensure fairness as a “long lapse of time inevitably destroys or obscures the evidence of the facts and, consequently, delay in presenting the claim places the other party in a disadvantageous position.” 10 Similarly, the second factor, negligence, supplies a reason for extinctive prescription because where a claimant has “suffered matters to proceed to such a state that there would be a danger of mistaking the
8 Savigny, Volume V, Section 245.
9 BIN CHENG, GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS APPLIED BY INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS 378-79 (1953).
Jurisdiction Ratione Temporis under NAFTA Article 1116(2) Rocio I. Digon Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=student_papers
97,99 Terry
May 02nd, 2015 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and the “wee man” has nothing more than his typical red herring, wittering about a different analogy to an unrelated and irrelevant case, where a treaty is already in place.
It must be easy to fool the other louts at the pub...
@83 Squeak
May 02nd, 2015 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British claim the first confirmed discovery of the Islands, as they went back a year later, in 1593, and began charting the Islands.
The British also claim the first recorded landing on the Islands in 1690.
The British were the first to claim the Islands issuing letters patent, which is probably how the Spanish found out they existed, when they got the copies.
The British were the second to populate the Islands, however Argentinians were not even the first to populate Argentina, never mind Las Malvinas.
The sovereignty of the Islands was decided long before Argentina ever existed.
A fact clearly accepted by Argentina when it signed the convention of settlement 1850, settling all disputes between the two countries, with no mention of the Malvinas.
Legally speaking Argentina doesn’t have a case.
A little basic research on the subject, would prevent posting complete rubbish and making yourself look a complete twat.
101 Pugol-H
May 02nd, 2015 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The “wee man” @83, just likes hearing his own “vOice” and not interested in the truth or historical fact.
Interesting that his rhetoric @83
“
...but they have been squatting on them the longest.... ” is designed not only to inflame and insult, but resembles exactly the party line followed by the Argie Trolls!
Just as he uses the “Pigardo” to insult Picardo of Gibraltar.
Unrelated issues, but the wee man is aligned with Trolls and the Argie party line, on both.
BTW, if it's even worth your time, ask the wee man if he is a born Scot, or if he is “British”.
Does he live in Dunoon?
Who knows?
It took him a few days to produce a photo with a local landmark and a newspaper.
At best, probably has a relative or cohort that is local.
As to his one vaunted, 'local road construction report' - it's easy to get that info from Twitter, that is almost real-time, with very specific locations and local reporting.
I can find all Police road checks, accidents, Highways diversions, in my area, even as they are ongoing - just by checking Twitter
99
May 02nd, 2015 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blah de blah opinions...let's take some direct quotes from the ICJ website in respect to Extinctive Prescription....
“Australia has invoked the concept of extinctive prescription or, in the phrase used in these proceedings, ”unreasonable delay” and that argument was developed by my friend Professor Bowett in particular (CR 91/16, pp. 25-29).
In the Nauruan Written Statement (pp. 48-50, paras. 119-23) it is demonstrated that the lapse of time, as a matter of law, the lapse of time as such does not bar claims and that some other element, such as prejudice to the Respondent State, is required. In fact, Counsel for Australia appears to accept this view, thus resiling from the position by Australia in the Preliminary Objections of Australia (paras. 381-386).
Leaving aside the contradictions in the Australian argument, the key elements, in our submission, are these. AS A MATTER OF LAW, ONCE NOTIFICATION OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION SIMPLY CANNOT APPLY.
As a matter of law...please tell us all when a notification of claim was made by Argentina.....
Oh lots of times I think...going right back to.....
and...
Unlike the position in domestic systems of law where there are usually statutory prescriptions of particular limitation periods for differ- ent causes of action, international law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limi- tation period in the circumstances of each case.
Soooo..no limitation periods in International law...
Show me where it says 20 or 30 or 50 years...
BTW...Australia lost its case at the ICJ...
103 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 02nd, 2015 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina could have asked the UNGA to submit their claim to the ICJ for an advisory opinion. But they didn't, for the same reason that they haven't ever availed themselves of a competent tribunal. In short, their behavior is nothing short of an admission that their claim has absolutely no legal merit.
“AS A MATTER OF LAW, ONCE NOTIFICATION OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION SIMPLY CANNOT APPLY.” Your words Re: 96 “...because Argentina have never applied to the ICJ for a ruling and so cannot have been barred from doing so. ...” “Some liars are so expert they deceive themselves. AUSTIN O'MALLEY, Keystones of Thought. ”As a matter of law...please tell us all when a notification of claim was made by Argentina.“ Never! your own words. ”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.“ Rosalyn Higgins, ”Falklands and the Law,“ Observer, 2 May 1982. ”...no limitation periods in International law..“, already answered re:#94 ”Given that the Argentine claim is from 1833 it would be the longest unfulfilled claim in legal history... ...There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years.“
So the longest estimate is fifty years and Argentina hasn't submitted her claim to a tribunal even though there has been an availability since 1899. Re: #97 ”...that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. ..” Give yourself a shake it's another argument you've lost.
#102
May 02nd, 2015 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All you can say about Voice is that he has a current knowledge of the Holy Loch area which could not be found from press, TV or other sources unless they were local.
He has said that he is not British therefore he cannot be Scottish.
He seems to be anti Falklands and Gibraltar which is at variance with the bulk of the population.
If I could be bothered, I probably could identify him from local sources but I really can't be bothered as his identity is of no particular interest to me.
He ploughs his own furrow and that's that.
@ Clyde15
May 02nd, 2015 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I recall one of his posts when he claimed a public school education and he certainly appears to posses a good intellect. He also alluded to a mixed race set of parents which could explain his irritations with the British establishment and we see that all the time with offspring who have no money problems either in the past or on-going.
He appears to know plenty about super sport motorcycles and his fondness for the US perhaps underlines his attitude to Britain.
I have to admit to being irritated by his 'superior' intellect.
In my experience the people who are really clever do not have the same problem with their personality that Voice exhibits on here.
But it takes allsorts!
104
May 02nd, 2015 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does living in Brazil hinder your understanding of the English language...?
“AS A MATTER OF LAW, ONCE NOTIFICATION OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION SIMPLY CANNOT APPLY.”
What part of the statement mentions the ICJ...?
Does it say... As a matter of Law, once notification of a claim has been made to the ICJ....?
...and here we have you contradicting yourself....
...“please tell us all when a notification of claim was made by Argentina.“”
...”Given that the Argentine claim is from 1833 it would be the longest unfulfilled claim in legal history.
Who did they notify...Britain...
So they have claimed since 1883.....so...“AS A MATTER OF LAW, ONCE NOTIFICATION OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESCRIPTION SIMPLY CANNOT APPLY.”
So let's recap....
You say Argentina is barred from making a claim to the ICJ...
and on the ICJ website we find....“International law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. ”
I aslo quote two cases that used the claim of Extinctive Prescription....and lost at the ICJ....
Why don't you just admit the simple, fair and logical fact that....“It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limitation period in the circumstances of each case. ” (also quoted from the ICJ website)
You have not proved that Argentina is Barred from taking their claim to the ICJ...the best you can do is....
“that claims MAY be extinguished by the passage of time.”
....May, May, May....you May also win a debate with me at some point in the future....but not this time....
better luck next time.....;-))))
105
I have never given a Nationality nor have I claimed not to be British....that was the whole point of being A_Voice....
It's also not a case of being bothered, it's a case of you told me you would stop digging....and I assume that when you say something like that....that you actually mean it...
106
Problems with my personality...?
Which one..?
107 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al'
May 03rd, 2015 - 01:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your interpretation of what you call a claim is not recognized as such, by no less an luminary as Rosalyn Higgins, the eventual President of the ICJ. She describes such actions as mere 'protests' that have no legal effect. Just because your a numb-nut the rest of us aren't. Now, for the third time: “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” “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982. A 'claim' is legal filing with a court of competent jurisdiction. Which you have already admitted has not been done “...because Argentina have never applied to the ICJ for a ruling...”, or might I add, to any other court. With the resultant legal consequence of “...Great Britain has acquired title to the Islands by extinctive prescription. Argentina did not take advantage of the available international bodies for peaceful adjudication of the disputed title. ...” The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain, James Francis Gravelle, et al, etc, etc.
Your finding that on occasion a plea of extinctive prescription is not successful in all instances. In no way impacts on the present issue, the only acceptable rebuttal, is not your unqualified obfuscating opinion, but, a writer with the same prerequisite credentials.
108
May 03rd, 2015 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0So there we have it.....all you have is an opinion of a writer selling a book....
and all I have is ...THE FACT ....
“International law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limi- tation period in the circumstances of each case. ”
Straight from the ICJ website....
So who are we going to go with...a couple of has-beens exploiting a contentious subject to sell books...after all a theory or opinion is just that....
Or shall we go with the known FACT from the horses mouth...?
ps...You are tying yourself up in knots.....If Argentina do not have a sovereignty CLAIM based on.... “A 'claim' is legal filing with a court of competent jurisdiction. ”
...then
Britain do not have a Sovereignty Claim either...“A 'claim' is legal filing with a court of competent jurisdiction. ”
Please also tell me which court was available to present a Claim to (in your words to make it legal”) ....from 1833 to the formation of the ICJ...?
Your problem is you don't think.....you rely on copy and paste of other peoples opinions...
An idiot with a mission....
from Brazil....
109 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 03rd, 2015 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, I have shown at least four books which probably referenced a total of at least six judgments on the issue. Which the ICJ could take into account in making a determination thus: “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.” Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
“...which court was available to present a Claim to...”, already asked and answered, to wit: Re: #94 “...The UK could claim that Argentina as the claimant state has had from 1899 to bring suit via the Permanent Court of Arbitration; The PCA, established by treaty in 1899...” “..Britain do not have a Sovereignty Claim either...” What wonderful sophistry, classical viveza criolla. As you already know it doesn't work that way. As far as the UK is concerned there is no legal dispute, since Argentina cannot bring suit; they are the only holders of sovereignty. It was for Argentina as the claimant to apply for a ruling, and the rest is, as they say, is history. Like I give a rats ass what you think, I rely on what the experts think in reaching my conclusions, and your definitely not one them. Your just another purveyor of subterfuge.
“The UK persistence in holding on to the colonial enclave of Malvinas against all odds”
May 03rd, 2015 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0As the Argentine claim ownership of the Falklands prior to when the Argentine coast was anywhere near the Falklands, I cannot see how the Islands could be an 'enclave' or contained within.
The Falklands are not surrounded by Argentine territory, they are 300+ miles away from it.
This crap about integrity would be understood if the British claimed an area of land inside Argentina, but the Islands are not even 10 miles off Argentina's coast.
Argentina claiming the South Atlantic around the Falklands means bugger all as they are not currently occupying the Islands and have not done since 1853, with the exception of three months in H982 which ended using THEIR principle of utis possessidis (excuse poor spelling folks) as employed by the UK.
110
May 03rd, 2015 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No, I have shown at least four books which probably referenced a total of at least six judgments on the issue.”
There have been no “judgements” concerning the Falklands...
only opinions...
No dispute..?
No competing Sovereignty Claims...?
Name a Country or official international body that recognises British Sovereignty over the Islands....
The UN doesn't either....
Why..?
Because Britain does not have Sovereignty...only de facto administration...
You stick to your copying of other peoples opinions....and I'll stick to quoting you the facts from UN and ICJ websites...
I hope you didn't by those four books...amazing how you can express an opinion and some sucker will pay you for it and quote it as fact....amazing...
ps ...Your argument is falling apart, you are becoming increasingly irrational and is that a nervous twitch of your eyebrow...?
Go on Terry..swear at me..you know you want to.....;-))))
112 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 03rd, 2015 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN News Centre
UN Decoded: Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs)
...The UN monitors progress towards self-determination in the Territories..., of which there are currently 17: ... Falkland Islands (Malvinas)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/UNdecoded/UNdecoded.asp?NewsID=1320&sID=48
Since the Islanders have held their referendum they met all of the UN legal requirements.
Since the issue of sovereignty is strictly a legal one it's totally irrelevant what vox populi opinion is, as it has no legal consequences what so ever.
As it is only a mere political none-binding advisement. Moreover, “there is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie. So to recap, nothing of the status quo will change, and Argentina will continue to bleat because she has blown any and all legal opportunities; and God is in his heaven . So neither your, nor Argentine sophistry accomplishes anything.
113
May 03rd, 2015 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no...there we go again Terry, providing a link that doesn't support your claim...“they met all of the UN legal requirements.”
Why are the Falklands still on the list...? Here is why...
”5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, TO TRANSFER ALL POWERS TO THE PEOPLES OF THOSE TERRITORIES, WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS OR RESERVATIONS, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
Would that be the power to make treaties and have recognised diplomatic relations with other countries...in short be able to SELF-determine their own future...?
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml
Calling International Rescue...Calling International Rescue!!...Terry Hill is in need of a Supermarionation Puppet to help avert another humiliating defeat at the hands of the arch villain Voice...
Do we have one on site...?
114 Voice
May 03rd, 2015 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suggest you read your own quotation again. Nowhere does it equate self determination with the power to have diplomatic relations. And it wouldn't would it, because that would make no sense.
You seem to be saying we can only determine our own future if we've already determined our own future. Or we can only become independent if we are already independent. I don't know what you're finding so hard to understand; we express our will, then something happens. Simple.
Anyway, the crucial point is that it clearly says transfer of powers to the people of the territories. Nothing about transfer to a third, hostile country.
115 Monty
May 03rd, 2015 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The local Council, with the Dunoon Women's Guild, hold adult classes for the locals, in the basement of the old school building.
Tuesday night's, Knitting for Modern Mothers, with tea & biscuits. Thursday, Cmdr. DoD RN Ret. Lectures on Int'l Law - “The World as I see it”.
113 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 03rd, 2015 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 5's conditions were fully complied with by the UK as the Islanders where completely free to exercise any options below that they preferred. The fact that C24 is so 'politicalized' that fails function within the confines of its mandate has no legal consequences.
”3.2 Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975)
In the Court’s opinion the right of that population to self-determination constituted a basic assumption of the questions put before it.29 It further noted that the Decolonization Declaration was complemented by General Assembly resolution 1541(XV) which contemplated three possibilities for the decolonization process of non-self-governing territories, namely (a) emergence as a sovereign independent State; (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State.“ p.9 Self-Determination through the Lens of the International Court of Justice by Gentian Zyberi
So your sophistry i.e. “...that be the power to make treaties and have recognised diplomatic relations with other countries...in short be able to SELF-determine their own future..” is exposed as utterly self-serving without any purpose other than subterfuge.
117
May 03rd, 2015 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like I should refer you to the Cook Islands..a former NSGT....
They were taken off the list because...
They were a territory whose peoples had not yet attained a full measure of self-government to be recognised by International bodies.
The UN requires that territories ...need a territory, a population, a government, and the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations. All of them are indispensable.
The Cook Islands took option (b) free association with an independent State, but they conduct their own diplomatic relations and are able to make treaties and so satisfy all the conditions required by the UN...
Unless you have another reason the UN has the Falklands on the list...?
The Supermarionation puppet that arrived on cue is no help at all....pitiful attempt to deflect from your inability to prove that Argentina is Barred from an ICJ judgement....
118 wee man
May 03rd, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you're very dedicated.
understandable, as this is your raison d'être - to sound important.
If this is how you want to spend your day, and every day - go right ahead.
Terry Hill is doing a great job of showing you up for what you really are.
On the other hand, right from the get-go on this thread, you showed yourself incapable of quoting honestly or accurately.
Enjoy your day. I will.
118 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 03rd, 2015 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I take it that Gentian Zyberi got it right in his book Self-Determination through the Lens of the International Court of Justice 3.2 Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1975) re: #117, as he is a qualified expert unlike yourself. A bachelor of law degree (LL.B) from Tirana University, Albania, and a Master's degree (LL.M) and a PhD degree in International Law from Utrecht University, the Netherlands. Researched, published and taught international law at universities in the Netherlands, US, China and Albania. In 2009, served as legal adviser and coordinator of the Albanian legal team in the Kosovo case before the ICJ.
“...the ability to engage in diplomatic or foreign relations..” Your pretensions are refuted in 'Western Sahara', (b) free association with an independent State; or (c) integration with an independent State.“ So what you claim is unsupported by the ICJ. The fact is that C24 is so 'politicalized' that fails function within the confines of its mandate and in any case it has no legal consequences. ”... your inability to prove that Argentina is Barred from an ICJ...”. I have simply presented the opinions of two experts James Francis Gravelle and Daniel K. Gibran. It is you who is unable to rebut their assertions, with a writer(s) who have the same prerequisite credentials.
Tweedle Wannabe...
May 03rd, 2015 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I provided the links are you implying the ICJ website and the UN websites are dishonest and inaccurate...?
Now if there is anyone else that feels in need of a thrashing...?
..“You've gotta ask yourself one question: ”Do I feel lucky?“ Well, do ya, punk?”...;-)
121 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 03rd, 2015 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I provided the links...” Since General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 'Western Sahara' 1975 is a 'clarification' by the ICJ and is the definitive international law on what was an advisement. The second link is a document that you expect me to extrapolate your argument from, your going to have to prove your own arguments. Meanwhile I'll leave you to your grandiose, self-gratification, all the the hall-marks of an inadequate and insecure individual. Since you find it necessary to keep inserting yourself into the equation.
Mr T.. what a twat you are..
May 03rd, 2015 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0122
May 03rd, 2015 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Looks like we're going to have to do a Michael Finnegan....
and go back to the begin ag'in...
Terry Hill states.....Argentina is barred from taking the claim to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription....(time limitation)
ICJ states....“International law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limitation period in the circumstances of each case. ”
Who shall we believe....Terry Hill....ICJ.....Terry Hill....ICJ.....Terry Hill....ICJ.....
It's a tough one....;-))))
From Mail on Sunday 03/05/2015
May 03rd, 2015 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065719/The-SAS-invasion-Argentina-cruel-cash-war-dead-Former-enemy-intelligence-officer-claimed-scientific-proof-commandos-died-mainland.html
More caca de toro from Argentina.
Again you deliberately misstate state the issue as in “..go back to the begin ag'in...Terry Hill states.....Argentina is barred from taking the claim to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription” At the start of this thread you made the same claim at #85 and at #86 I clearly showed I was simply paraphrasing the opinions of two experts. The ICJ takes no specific stand on 'limitations' which is why so many experts write about the issue. So the choice is between 'expert opinion' or the Voice's unqualified one. Here's what another expert says: 'Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the ICJ Statute refers to “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” It does not say “general principles of international law.” ... ... in civil law it is known as extinctive prescription. But is it a general principle applicable in international law? In 1903 an international arbitral tribunal ruled that there was sufficient consensus to make it a rule of international claims practice (and thus to bar a nearly thirty-year old claim). The tribunal could not say definitively whether the international statute of limitations was ten years, thirty years, or fifty years. The abstract principle of prescription was thus recognized p.31 THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW David J. Bederman
May 03rd, 2015 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0118 Voice
May 03rd, 2015 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands and all the other territories on the list, with the exception of Western Sahara, don't satisfy the three options set out in resolution in Resolution 1541, but they do satisfy the fourth option set out in Resolution 2625
1)The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, 2)the free association or 3)integration with an independent State or 4)the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people. (numbering mine)
The following were removed from the list without them becoming independent, integrating, or entering into free association arrangements.
Puerto Rico
Northern Mariana Islands
Surinam (has since become independent)
Netherlands Antilles (has since been dissolved)
None of them had the ability to enter into foreign relations on removal.
Who else thought Nicola Sturgeon did a terrible job in the Scottish leaders debate this evening? Did she answer a single question with a straight answer? I mean, I know they're politicians but she was woeful. Clyde, what did you think?
May 03rd, 2015 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for this thread: how did such a non-story generate more than 130 posts?
128
May 03rd, 2015 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can take a bow for that one....the thread was dead, so I set a little bait @83 knowing Terry Hill wouldn't be able to resist it...
“Th-th-th-that's all folks!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FHEeG_uq5Y
129 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 04th, 2015 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess your still looking for “experts” to refute the Argentine problem of extinctive prescription. Must be of real concern for them as the legal way would have proved how truthful they were.
129 wee man
May 04th, 2015 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0and the wee man takes the wee man's way out, after a FAIL.
“ I was only kidding... ”
What an important little man you are - admired by all.
That's sarcasm.
#128
May 04th, 2015 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't watch political debates.. I vote according to my own prejudices. All my life I have heard politicians promising “pie in the sky”....to quote from one of Woody Guthries songs.
My definition of a politician is a professional liar and in this respect, she is probably no worse than her peers.
130
May 04th, 2015 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why would I need or have to rely on opinions of experts...when the facts of international law have been made quite clear concerning the ICJ and can be found on the ICJ website....
What part of your addled brain cannot understand this statement...?
....“International law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limitation period in the circumstances of each case. ”
How STUPID are you,,?
There is No treaty
There is no Provision prescribing particular limitations.
Each cases limitation is determined by the international tribunal.
Each case has different circumstances...
What part of this obvious logic are you failing to grasp
Have two cases been identical so far..?
Did I not show you how two cases were lost at the ICJ that were claiming the use of Extinctive Prescription...
There will be cases where limitations may be applied, but it would need to be judged first and evidence submitted and the circumstances determined...
So how can Argentina be Barred from the ICJ.....you friggin idiot!! the case would have to be heard first!!!
ps...I bait you because you are an idiot that thinks he's not...
Your problem is you fail to understand what you cut and paste....
...and you fail to understand ,because...you are an idiot....
...it's not your fault....
..don't blames yourself...
it's genetics....
..You do your best...
we can see that...
and we all appreciate your efforts...
131
You Stupid Wannabe fcuk
What part of my comment @129...says...“I was only kidding.”..?????
If anything it says.... I was Baiting
Now piss off spoiling my Bank Holiday Monday plans.....
Do all Brit Wannabes not understand English..?
@133 the wee man
May 04th, 2015 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Why would I need or have to rely on opinions of experts... ”
LOL, oh, the conceit... “
' I know better than experts in Int'l Law... ' says the wee voice.
PMSL... !!
Your agenda, your political affiliations, your nationality could be anything.
”That's the whole point of being A_Voice... ”.
Your opinions are just that... worthless,
What about a meeting to condemn Venezuela´s violence against those who demonstrate against Maduro?
May 04th, 2015 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What about a meeting to support the struggle for freedom in Venezuela?
.....
133 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 04th, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Numbnuts I have never claimed there was a so called treaty, so keep moving those goal posts. The reality is extinctive prescription is an accepted part of international law. Re:#126 ”..In 1903 an international arbitral tribunal ruled that there was sufficient consensus to make it a rule of international claims practice (and thus to bar a nearly thirty-year old claim)...“ and ”Article 38, paragraph 1(c) of the ICJ Statute refers to “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.” I don't think the ICJ who have any problem applying it to case that has since 1899 to have been commenced. I guess the “experts” must be correct and you are one biased lonely voice that is decidedly wrong.
136 Terence Hill
May 04th, 2015 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, you’ve upset him now, he’s gone off on one of his rabid, abusive, rambling, largely irrelevant rants.
With Squeaky Voice it is all about how clever he thinks it sounds, not about relevance or accuracy.
His idea of “winning” an argument or debate has nothing to do with presenting facts to support his case, it’s about being the last one to post a smart arsed comment.
His ego prohibits intelligent or even sensible debate.
Im sure they just do it to wind the Argies up.
May 04th, 2015 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Say they support the Argie position, get some expensive shopping done, laugh out loud when they get home and book tickets for same talking shop next year.
Haha
133 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have just taken one of the arguments of the claimants representative Professor Brownlie and tried to pass it of as part of the ICJ judgement. If you check the document there is no judicial determination actually made. In fact there was no conclusion, as “On 9 September 1993, the Agents of Nauru and Australia notified the Court that, having reached a settlement, the two Parties had agreed to discontinue the proceedings. http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2. So you are caught fraudulently misrepresenting the ICJ. Which was either deliberate or out sheer incompetency. ”Your problem is you fail to understand what you cut and paste.......and you fail to understand ,because...you are an idiot....”. You sure are numbnuts
Terry andPugol-H,
May 05th, 2015 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0I find it funny when @133 the wee man, says,
“Now piss off spoiling my Bank Holiday Monday plans..... ”
Ha ha,
He spent the whole weekend on here with
his curmudgeonly miserable self, trying to defend his inane statements, in an attempt to save face !!
LOL,
what a life!
Re:#139 the link wasn't copied in full, here is the correct URL http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=6232. On review it wasn't inadvertent fraud it was deliberate as in re: #103 “BTW...Australia lost its case at the ICJ...” The only people to have the temerity to engage in such blatant unethical behavior are those practiced in the art of viveza criolla. So consider yourself “outed” again, in addition to your numerous aliases.
May 05th, 2015 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can see that you are trying to regain face and distance yourself from your ridiculous statement that Argentina is Barred from taking their case to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription..
May 05th, 2015 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Two questions..
Is there a specific or relevant treaty, provision or piece of legislation in International Law prescribing particular limitation periods..
If Yes, quote it from the Statutes of the International Court of Justice.
Does the ICJ or International tribunal have to determine an appropriate limitation in the circumstances of each case?
If both statements are correct then the statement...
“International law contains no relevant treaty or other provision prescribing particular limitation periods. It is a matter of discretion by an international tribunal to determine an appropriate limitation period in the circumstances of each case. ”
Is not an opinion...but a fact....
To verify this fact lets see what Kaj Hobér has to say about this....
”Under most municipal law systems the lapse of time may
influence the possibility to present claims in a court of law or before
an arbitral tribunal. Generally speaking, delay in presenting a claim –
however such delay is defined – may bar a party from presenting a
claim. Municipal law generally contains specific time limits in this
respect. PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH TIME
LIMITS. “
No one is saying that Extinctive Prescription isn't recognised in International Law...
This is qualified by his further comment...
”the principle of extinctive prescription is recognized in public international law. Despite the general acceptance of the principle of extinctive prescription there are a number of open issues, indeed uncertainties, as far as the application of the principle is concerned.“
”The defense of extinctive prescription usually means that the issue of
applicable law is brought to a head, AND THE TRIBUNAL MUST ADDRESS IT
SQUARELY AND RULE ON IT”
How can the tribunal rule on it if Argentina is barred...?
142 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“How can the tribunal rule on it if Argentina is barred...?” Easy, this issue was addressed in Re:#126 and 136 ”..In 1903 an international arbitral tribunal ruled that there was sufficient consensus to make it a rule of international claims practice (and thus to bar a nearly thirty-year old claim)...“ So you can wriggle and obfuscate all you want. If there was an application by Argentina and the UK was to rely on extinctive prescription. The court would consider it under ”A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may raise Preliminary Objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the Court can address the merits of the applicant's claim.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Preliminary_objections. Also known as voir dire(voire dire)[Norman French: to speak the truth] 1. The preliminary examination by a judge ... It is sometimes called a trial within a trial. So this insurmountable hurdle would have to be overcome before the court could go to a full hearing on the merits. The maximum time mentioned is fifty years, which given a starting date of 1899 is more than sufficient. So your sophism fails yet again.
Predictably,
May 05th, 2015 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the wee man will now try to extricate himself and go back to
...but ... but..
“Why would I need or have to rely on opinions of experts...when the facts of international law have been made quite clear concerning the ICJ and can be found on the ICJ website....
What part of your addled brain cannot understand this statement...?”
Followed by an attempt to exit gracefully,
“you idiotic fcuking fcuk fcuks... Voice has left the building... !!”
143
May 05th, 2015 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear you are really getting confused....
you say...
“So you can wriggle and obfuscate all you want. If there was an application by Argentina and the UK was to rely on extinctive prescription. The court would consider it under ”A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court”
Argentina would be the applicant...the UK would be the respondent....
Why would the courts consider the UK “a respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the court”...?
Are you delving into your opinions again...?
How do you know this...have you got a crystal ball...?
It also appears that you are saying that if they did there would be a preliminary hearing and that the outcome would be decided by the courts...would that be the ICJ court...the one that you say Argentina is barred from presenting their case...?
“Often a separate public hearing is held on the Preliminary Objections and the COURT will render a judgment. ”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice#Preliminary_objections
So the court (ICJ) would have to render a judgement....
Which is what I've said all along, Argentina would have to present their case and be judged on it's merits and circumstances...
Not quite the same as being barred....is it...?......;-))))
..you are not very good at this are you....
145 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You try all subterfuge your little Argentinean soul desires “..Argentina would have to present their case and be judged on it's merits and circumstances...” Wrong yet again, the only issue at such a preliminary hearing would be the objection not on the merits of the case. The preliminary issue, i.e. Should extinctive prescription be a bar to the claimant's application? Hmm fifty years max versus availability of courts since 1899, thats one hell of an obstacle to overcome, and accordingly the 'experts' concur. The exception is you, as it is patently obvious your not an expert. Just a “...lonely little petunia in an onion patch...”. Must be good enough since you have not been able to put together a winning hand, even with your proven fraud.
146
May 05th, 2015 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 050 years max...?
...there is no legislation that states this...
Where is that in the Statues of International Law...link please....;-)
...and no more of your opinions...I want Statues...I want legislation...I want Law...
I want agreed treaties that bind, like the outer space limitation for claims of one year...
You've got nothing...
..maybe you should tell Bolivia to withdraw it's petition....how long is that one...since 1880...;-)
You are easily beaten...with your various Has-beens... selling books opinions...
147 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally the grist of the mill. “I want ...” So does Argentina but neither of you are getting, because you are both promoters of a legal fiction. Already answered Re: #94 There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years. The UK could claim that Argentina as the claimant state has had from 1899 to bring suit via the Permanent Court of Arbitration; The PCA, established by treaty in 1899. Argentina and Great Britain were both admitted as members of the League of Nations on Jan. 10, 1920. The Permanent Court of International Justice was open to all members without condition. The proof is the pudding, as Argentina obviously knows it is barred, otherwise why doesn't she bring suit. Bolivia, they've lost as well, the ICJ can't override the treaty they have with Chili. “You are easily beaten” Just a cotton picking minute, before you rush of in a pool of self-gratification, there's the small matter of extinctive prescription, which you have already conceded which, Argentina would have overcome. That is if she wanted to bring suit.
148 Terry
May 05th, 2015 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's funny the sense of entitlement this Argie Troll of the Loch has.
“ I want this, I demand that...” and yet he provides nothing himself.
Very much in character with the Pablos and Nostrils of the 'net!
148
May 05th, 2015 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Told you you were beaten...you have finally admitted there is no fixed time...so destroying your argument of Extinctive Prescription (Time limitation)
A general consensus is not legislation it's something that May be applied and May not depending on the circumstances....
Well... that just about wraps that up....
Apart from.... how come Bolivia are able to have their case heard whether they lose or not...surely they should be barred...considering it occurred in 1880..ever so slightly more than 50 years ago.....;-)))
Now as you suggest ..I think I might as well “rush off in a pool of self-gratification”..
150 wee sophist troll
May 05th, 2015 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0no fixed time, but the precedent has been set, that they should have done something before such a long period of time has past.
Terry @ 148
“There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years.”
Given there is no “set limit”, how do you think the Justices and the experts would deal with it?
Pat yourself on the back for being a pedantic twit.
150 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah the modus operandi, your stock-in-trade, good old fraud. Well you convinced me you are singly an unmitigated liar. I have never claimed there was absolute time limit, I have shown the best available evidence of qualified opinion, which is at maximum fifty-years. Which at 117 years since the clock started ticking are suggesting that claim the extinctive prescription can never be applied because there is no statutory time-limit? Rubbish check any reference to 'absurdity in law for example: Golden rule; “The golden rule allows a judge to depart from a word's normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd result.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law) Absurdity Law & Legal Definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law) Absurdity has been barred in law since at least Grotius and Vattel. In other words the courts do not take kindly to sophistic argumenta. “Bolivia ...surely they should be barred” Thats entirely up to Chile, the respondent state, it's their call.
152
May 05th, 2015 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since there is no time limit and there is no legislation that states a maximum time limit...there is no absurdity...
That wasn't difficult was it...?
What would really be absurd though is stating that “Argentina is Barred from taking it's case to the ICJ through Extinctive Prescription” ...when there is no time limit..
Good job you never said that eh...?
153 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Merely stating your humble opinion is an absurdity. Since it is a majority one, and therefore of no legal effect since there is no statute, case law or what ”the ICJ could take into account in making a determination thus: “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.” Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
Boy I can count an awful lot that on this side of the fence. What do you have NOTHING.
154 Terry
May 05th, 2015 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At this point Terry, you have shown logic, provided precedents, successfully countered the wee man's unqualified examples and opinions, and provided links to support your conclusions.
The only left to say to the wee Troll is,
” wiser men than you have resolved these International issues this way, for the reasons I have described.
If that doesn't satisfy you (wee voice), that's your problem. Too bad”
He's a pedant. You've already indulged him far too much.
He'll be giving a short talk about this at the Dunoon Presbyterian Church this weekend, during the Bake Sale, followed by a puppet show.
It's sure to be a big attraction.
153 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“when there is no time limit..Good job you never said that eh...?” I didn't but you you have twice; which in any case is not true, as I have shown through qualified opinion.
154
May 05th, 2015 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You want an experts opinion on Article 38.....? OK then...
“ Even though Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice strictly speaking is an instruction to the Court, it is
generally recognized as the most authoritative statement concerning
the sources of international law. THERE ARE NO INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY DEALING WITH EXTINCTIVE
PRESCRIPTION. ”
Extinctive Prescription and Public International Law
Kaj Hobér
....you've got nothing ...again...;-)))
You really are a glutton for punishment....
156
“...“when there is no time limit..Good job you never said that eh...?” I didn't but you you have twice; which in any case is not true, as I have shown through qualified opinion.
Do you have the memory of a goldfish...?
Your words.....”THERE IS NO FIXED TIME but the general consensus is fifty years. “
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/29/falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-claims#comment396213
You really are becoming confused...
Remember this...?
”while legally Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ or the PCA. “
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/29/falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-claims#comment396213
....back pedalled ...to” there would be a preliminary hearing of the court....”
You keep contradicting yourself...
...you know what they say about digging and holes....
@157 hopalong
May 05th, 2015 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jeez, talk about flogging a dead horse...
:-D
157 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 05th, 2015 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“when there is no time limit” thank you for confirming it was your statement and mine was “the general consensus is fifty years”. “while legally Argentine is now barred from even submitting a claim to the ICJ” So they are unless they could overcome UK opposition at a preliminary objection. Which would fly in the face of the following legal views of the authors: Daniel K. Gibran, James Francis Gravelle, Oppenheim, BIN CHENG, Aditi Agarwal, H. Lauterpacht, Rosalyn Higgins, David J. Bederman; and Gentian Zyberi blew your other rubbish out of the water on self-determination. Also
extinctive prescription case law: The 1885 Williams Case; Gentini case - H. Ralston and W. Doyle. Venezuelan Arbitrations of 1903, Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission (1904), 720; and Nauru v. Australia doesn't support what you claimed, so you where caught lying. All of the above would be admissible as evidence in the ICJ under Article 38, paragraph 1.
159
May 06th, 2015 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say...
“when there is no time limit” thank you for confirming it was your statement and mine was “the general consensus is fifty years”.
Now you are just lying to save face....
...your comment @148
”Finally the grist of the mill. “I want ...” So does Argentina but neither of you are getting, because you are both promoters of a legal fiction. Already answered Re: #94 THERE IS NO FIXED TIME but the general consensus is fifty years.
.....THERE IS NO FIXED TIME...!!!
So not only do you not have any links to Statues or Legislation ,you have taken to trying to lie your way out of it....
All you have is opinions and no facts...
Show me one link to a piece of legislation that denotes a time limit....
or accept that all you have is NOTHING!!
I can see this is embarrassing for you having to admit that you have nothing to back your statement...
One Link ...one piece of legislation....
or STFU....and stop embarrassing yourself....
157 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
May 06th, 2015 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0The first occasion that these words appeared on thread was Re: #93 “There is no doubt that there is no rule of international law which lays down a time-limit with regard to prescription“ these were your words. My response at re: #94 was a quoted opinion ”There is no fixed time but the general consensus is fifty years.” in which the author is agreeing in part, but has added a qualifier“ I have not seen any writing that has given a longer period, so that is a maximum time period that I know of. In recopying I omitted the quotation marks. But if agreeing with part with is disagreeable, tough get over it. If fighting with your own toe-nails is what you enjoy, bully for you. So anything I have posted has been based solely on the opinions of those that have a far greater knowledge than I have of the subject.
”you not have any links to Statues or Legislation” that's pretty observant of you since I've never claimed any. Any more than I claimed to be the KIng of Siam, your point being? What I do have is a slew of legal writers that refute your fanciful legal notions. I'm sorry they're not in accord with your personal wishes, but that's show biz. I claim no responsibility for the unfolding development of international law.
The UK will be returning the Malvinas within 25 years.
May 06th, 2015 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0162 Hepatia
May 06th, 2015 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0and Argentina will belong to CHINA within 20 years...
147 Voice (#)
May 06th, 2015 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May 05th, 2015 - 04:47 pm
...”Where is that in the Statues of International Law...link please....;-)“...
...”..and no more of your opinions...I want Statues...I want legislation...I want Law...”...
Perhaps you could try the one of Christopher Columbus which is out of circulation behind the Casa Rosada!!!!
164 Simon 68
May 06th, 2015 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Perhaps you could try the one of Christopher Columbus which is out of circulation behind the Casa Rosada!!!!”
It's dismembered, just like the wee voice arguments... !!
164
May 06th, 2015 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well spotted....I never even noticed...;-)
@162
May 08th, 2015 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The needle on your record player is stuck amigo, it keeps returning to the beginning.
Why not use a record that isn't scratched, so the end of the record is reached?
Or to use another analogy, why keep your vehicle in two wheel drive, using fourth gear and high revs?
You are destined to stay in the bog forever, whilst you sink, rather than leaving and getting somewhere.........
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!