MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Falklands issue was settled” a generation ago says Labour shadow minister Eagle
The sovereignty of the Falkland Islands was “settled” a generation ago, a Labour shadow business cabinet minister Angela Eagle has said despite her leader calling for a new “dialogue” with Argentina on the matter, according to a report in Sunday's editions of The Telegraph. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI've been saying it for ages. The matter is settled :-)
Feb 01st, 2016 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/the-bottom-line.pdf
When you've lost legally, morally, militarily and politically, all you've got left is grievance. Time Argentina grew up and stopped nursing it.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0They cannot ever give up complaining.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0lts in their genes. They have to win ALL the time.
lt festers inside their head when they lose, like a big boil inside their skull.
Thats why they will never be a great nation.
They have no idea how to roll with the punches.
We've lost a lot of battles but we've won a lot also.
You will never see an Argentine Empire, they are incapable of it.
Poor delicate little pansies.
'Settled while I was at University'!
Feb 01st, 2016 - 11:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0She must have had a tough life then.
“she was seen to have got the better of George Osborne” and THATS supposed to impress the electorate? A dead sheep could get the better of him (with apologies).
She is still a Labour idiot.
Stating the blindingly obvious about the Falklands because her leader is a cunt of the first order is not a recommendation.
”Where Mr. Corbyn had said a new “dialogue” was needed over the Falklands, Ms Eagle said: “The Falklands issue was settled when I was at university.”
Feb 01st, 2016 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Corbyn is using the' Argentine method' to run his party-right?
There is probably a million people in the UK who would gladly give up the Falkland Islands to Argentina, and probably 5 million recent immigrants who couldnt care less. Its a free country. But, its reckoned that 85% of the British people who remember the 1982 war and the sacrifices that were made are opposed to any talks on sovereignty to Argentina.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This vast majority will never countenance the handing over of the islands to Argentina. The recent BBC Island Parish programme showed what a nice place the Islands are with wonderful landscapes, wildlife and people. Anyone who has been there will testify to the sheer Britishness of the islands and have admiration for the Islanders and their way of life in what is sometimes a hostile environment.
Angela Eagle is one of the 85% , Corbyn holds a minority view at odds with his party and the vast majority of the British people. He will never wield any power whatsoever over British foreign policy, defence or anything else. He is just a serial protester.
In 100 years the Falkland Islands will still be British
@4. Is that the best you could do? Angela Eagle is 54 years old. She read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at St John's College, Oxford, graduating from the university with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983. So she was at university during 1982. Would you like to tell us of your comparable background? Tell us how many Labour politicians have made such definitive statements since Corbyn weaseled his way to the leadershit.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's good to see that a senior Labour politician is in real touch with the majority of the British people.
Corbyn is an aberration.
@6. Quite right!
Well said The Voice.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the reaction from argentina has been ..................... nothing. Wow, under CFK they'd have been screaming from the rooftops.
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 06
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“But, its reckoned that 85% of the British people who remember the 1982 war and the sacrifices that were made are opposed to any talks on sovereignty to Argentina.”
Where do you get your figures from...?
To what extent do you support or oppose the UK and Argentina opening discussions over the Falkland Islands sovereignty?
British Respondents
%
Strongly support 9
Tend to support 28
Total Support 37
Neither support nor oppose 23
Tend to oppose 14
Strongly oppose 11
Total oppose 25
Don't know 15
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf
Voice.. let me guess, this is an argentine INDEC statistic , considering all percentage of the poll makes up more than 160% together... plop
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@10 Nipper.
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read on, Macduff. (1st figure, Brit respondents, 2nd Argentine)
Which of these options do you think would be the fairest
solution to the Falklands situation? % %
Britain retaining sovereignty over the Falklands 37 2
Falkland Islanders becoming an independent nation 28 6
Britain and Argentina sharing sovereignty over the islands 14 21
The Falklands becoming Argentinian sovereign territory 3 66
Don't know 17 5
11
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear...you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer....
I'm only seeing 100% in that table...
Go ask someone to explain it to you...someone a little brighter perhaps....
12
You are trying to deflect....from the bad news...
I addressed the statement posted @6...concerning sovereignty discussions ...
With actual figures from UK based YouGov poll...
More British people would support opening negotiations with Argentina over the future of the Falklands than would oppose it – 37% would support negotiations, with 25% opposed.
23% neither support nor oppose (don't give a shit)
and 15% don't know...
@4 ChrisR
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just a reminder due to your use of the “c”word
”Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, , discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, RELIGION, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other OFFENSIVE or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.”
@ 14 FATTY
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My description of Corbyn being a cunt is incorrect.
A cunt is useful, I should, rightly, have described him as a bloody cunt, which of course being useless for anything is far more accurate.
Thank you for your correction.
@13 Nipper
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's the same survey, as you know, Conclusion: either the YouGov sample of Brits was hopefully confused, or many people are in favour of discussions with Argentina, but not the forcible imposition of Argentine rule. Curiously enough, this happens to correspond to government policy.
@10
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The figures could be seen as an expression of opinion-but the poll has as much relevance as if the North Koreans, Argentines or Tahitians voted, as I expect none of the people polled were born in or have legal resident status in the Islands. Even the Governor can no longer vote in the Islands.
The British government wished to sell the islands down the river in the 1960s and 1970s but the issue of self determination of the people who were born or lived on the islands, meant according to the UN Charter, the UK was not able to transfer sovereignty without the agreement of the Islanders.
Back to square 1 matey.
You still have a claim without a case.
So why would you think that there is going to be a referendum anytime soon Voice? The 2 major political parties fully support the rights of the islanders as policy and both are opposed to any negotiations. More importantly, the Islanders are opposed to talks and it is only their voice that counts Voice. Perhaps you should find a survey from there?
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The matter is settled. There is simply nothing to discuss on sovereignty.
I'm just giving you the figures of what the British Public think...you know...the ones that have to foot the bill so that it can remain a British Territory....
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is not a bunch of sycophants frequenting a Falklands and South Atlantic forum...
This is the opinions of Joe Public not the Govt...or don't they count..?
When asked a simple question....
“To what extent do you support or oppose the UK and Argentina opening discussions over the Falkland Islands SOVEREIGNTY?”
It's a ticking clock....the more time that passes the more detached folk will become until the young generation will make the Government accountable for their flamboyant excesses...
Who are these people and why do we have to pay for them to exist...on a remote island thousands of miles from the UK...will be the question asked...
The days of the British Empire are over and charity begins at home...
...it is not their voice that counts...islanders should not be deciding how my tax money is spent....
19 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0“islanders should not be deciding how my tax money is spent….” You can sleep easy at night as they have no say as that is decided by the UK government with the approval of Parliament for the payment an inconsequential pittance. Moreover, the UK is legally obliged under her international commitments.
“It's a ticking clock…” It certainly is but not for the UK. “International Hague Court “only alternative” for dispute; Time is running against Argentina because the British have possession of the territory, leaving the issue to future generations, besides irresponsible is equivalent to admitting failure and the lack of new ideas or courage”. states Marcel Kohen June 23rd 2004. http://en.mercopress.com/2004/06/23/international-hague-court-only-alternative-for-dispute
@19 Nipper
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0But you're not giving the figures of what the British Public think. As the survey shows, only 3% think the fairest solution is for the Falklands to become Argentine sovereign territory. But congratulations on cultural sensitivity, at least you're standing proud in the fine Malvinista tradition of posting links that undermine your own argument.
@19 Think, er l mean Voice.
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to worry quite a bit about the “poor British Taxpayer”.
And so you should.
lt cost good money to expel you thieves(or should l say would be, failed thieves)from our lslands.
You are as ridiculous as some of your compatriots, like that stupid hepatia, in trying to drive a wedge between the Brits & the Yanks.
You are mere amateurs compared to us.
But tell me amigo, whats it like being wrong all the time?
@15 ChrisR
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your response shows exactly what a tiny repertoire of the English language you have at your command! Gutter language!
@19
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Who are these people and why do we have to pay for them to exist”
As A British taxpayer, I am more concerned that Argentina pay war reparations and the money they never paid for the ships and helicopters they had off the UK in the 1980s.
People are well aware that the Falklands buy a lot of goods and supplies from the UK, and employ people from the UK, meaning that a lot of money from the Falklands migrates North.
People know why money has to be spent defending the Islands, Argentina has made that plain over the past few years-and most will have seen the Top Gear crew pelted by Argentines, with no intervention from the police-that tells the British public what they need to know about Argentina and why money is spent on their defence.
“islanders should not be deciding how my tax money is spent....”
They aren't -if they decided on UK tax expenditure, there would be no aid for Argentina and as a British taxpayer I would agree with that.
I am concerned that we are wasting British taxpayer's money giving Argentina aid when that aid should come from its buddies, Syria Iran and South America and maybe Spain.
Cunt.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Definition of cunt in English:
noun
vulgar slang
1 A woman’s genitals.
1.1 An unpleasant or stupid person.
Origin:
Middle English: of Germanic origin; related to Norwegian and Swedish dialect kunta, and Middle Low German, Middle Dutch, and Danish dialect kunte.
'tis only a word. An old and venerable one. Fuckin' Germanic Cunts and their cunting language...
;-)
Those who fear language shouldn't post.
Personally, I am proud to be a cunt to some people, some of the time. Especially those dimwitted racists, sexists and god-bothering fundamentalists cunts.
Cunt. Cunt. Cunt, Cunt. Cunt.
there, that didn't hurt too bad, did it now?
'tis just a collection of letters....
As you were.
Peace an' love to all
xx
You are far more naive than I thought Voice. You believe that opinion polls provide the opinions of the British people? Perhaps you could discuss that with the Labour Party. They know a lot about the efficiency of opinion polls.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The voice of the people is quite clear Think - sorry, Voice. The people fully support the islanders right to decide. As that right is enshrined in international law as the right of self-determination we can discuss sovereignty till the world ends - it won't make any difference.
Sovereignty is a dead issue. Has been since 2008 when Argentina tried to put a caveat in a resolution to say that the right of self-determination only existed when there was no sovereignty dispute. The UN kicked that one into touch.
And the British do not pay for the Islanders Voice. The Falklanders are self-sufficient. We pay for the defence of British territories in the South Atlantic and Antarctica - all of them. That wouldn't change.
The matter is settled Voice - regardless of what the pollsters try to suggest.
@ 26 Roger Lorton
Feb 04th, 2016 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0You just said everything I was just about to post.
I Thank You Sir, Top Job!
Much appreciated.
The right is not enshrined in International Law....you talk nonsense...
Feb 04th, 2016 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Show me...
“8 In trying to assess the legal significance of these provisions it should not be assumed that the concept of self-determination became a legally binding principle of conventional international law by the mere fact of its incorporation into the UN Charter.”
“The people fully support the islanders right to decide.”
Show me....
What people...where are figures the only polls conducted..of what the British people think....disagrees with you....
You make bold statements based on your own opinions and you cannot back them with fact!!....
Yeah the British really need 1500 soldiers and a military base to defend Antarctica....if someone stole it WTF would they do with it...there are treaties protecting it....
The tax money....and I might add...my Tax money is being spent without my vote on the matter....and I get fcuk all in return for it....
Who gets the money from the fishing licences to Chilean fishing boats for South Georgia....that's what I'd like to know...
I want my share and I want some oil...and I want a penguin...!!!
Allow me to educate you Voice.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“.. the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self- governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them.” (Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.) Confirmed in Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1975, para. 54.
Perhaps you should send your quoted opinion to the ICJ Voice?
The voice of the British people on the future of the islands is actually irrelevant Think. Bugger, I've done it again. I'll give it a 2nd go - the think of the British people on the future of the Falklands is actually irrelevant Voice. (Isn't that better?)
The British people have no choice but to support the Islanders' right to self-determination. As demonstrated, it is a human right recognised by international law - not something the British people get to decide upon. All the British people could vote on is whether to continue to support the defence costs of the islands. Once informed about the wider territories protected by MPA, there is little doubt which way they would vote. IMHO obviously :-) Not that a referendum seems likely.
Falklands oil will belong to Falklands people. The fish belong to the Islanders too - so says the United Nations in a resolution repeated every year.
Who gets the money from the fishing licences for South Georgia? The British taxpayer Voice - who else?
You already are a penguin Voice.
“Although the provisions concerning non-self-governing and trust territories entail binding international obligations, the general principles of self-determination and of equal rights of peoples, which in the formula used by the UN Charter appear to be two component elements of the same concept, seem to be too vague and also too complex to entail specific rights and obligations. In particular, the UN Charter neither supplies an answer to the question as to what constitutes a ‘people’ nor does it lay down the content of the principle. In the absence of any concrete definition, and taking into account the highly various facts of international life, it cannot realistically be interpreted, applied or implemented like a legal norm and thus primarily possesses a very strong moral and political force in guiding the organs of the UN in the exercise of their powers and functions.”
Feb 04th, 2016 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0....key word..is guiding...
In certain cases it has been applied by the ICJ...but each case and situation is unique and dealt with separately....
It's a principle not a law...
....educate yourself....
30 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 04th, 2016 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”1. Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law
(a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances
14 (i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute.
15 (ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ both in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) (1971) para. 52 and in Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) paras 54–59, it became applicable to non-self-governing territories, trust territories and mandates, notwithstanding the differences and the qualifications of the respective constituent instruments (South West Africa/Namibia [Advisory Opinions and Judgments]; Western Sahara [Advisory Opinion]). As such, it includes the right of the population of a territory freely to determine its future political status.”
Self-Determination Daniel Thürer, Thomas Burri
They also wrote the above. So in reference to your quote, you have an opinion with no support for such a view from the ICJ or et al
Oh no, not Terry...
Feb 04th, 2016 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quoting instances I see...
What's that line there...?
.....“for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute.”
Didn't I say...didn't I say...
“In certain cases it has been applied by the ICJ...but each case and situation is unique and dealt with separately....”
and didn't it say....
“it cannot realistically be interpreted, applied or implemented like a legal norm”
I'm going to go with...
The Oxford Public International Law...
Published under the auspices of the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law under the direction of Rüdiger Wolfrum.
That is specific and not generalisations that cannot be applied to every case....
...are you part quoting again Terry...?
Let me just check your source..
You sneaky so and so...you are....
what does it say about your instances....
(b) Right to Self-Determination: Legal Issues
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com
18 The above-mentioned instances make it obvious that any legal approach to self-determination must address a number of issues. Firstly, it must identify the holder of the right to self-determination. It must answer the question: Who is entitled to the right of self-determination? Who is ‘the people?’ Finding an answer to this question is obviously not an easy task, especially when bearing in mind the troubles that this sort of question causes in other domains of collective rights, such as with the definitions of the ‘minority’, the ‘indigenous population’, or the ‘nation’ (see also → Indigenous Peoples; → Minorities, International Protection). Unsurprisingly, no definition of the term ‘people’ has been generally agreed upon so far.
Link to your source....
http://ilmc.univie.ac.at/uploads/media/self-determination_empil.pdf
32 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 04th, 2016 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have quoted from a similar source, which you failed to cite originally. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 The quotation I gave supersedes your quote as it is comes later in the publication than yours. ”Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law (a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances
14 (i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute.
15 (ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ” Again, it is only the authors opinion as they can show no support from the ICJ or like tribunal for “it cannot realistically be interpreted, applied or implemented like a legal norm”
Really...since when did 14 and 15 come later than 18....
Feb 04th, 2016 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0read @32 again and see your error....
...is that an 18 before “The above-mentioned instances”
I don't mean to brag I don't mean to boast
But we like hot butter on a breakfast toast....
34 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 04th, 2016 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It may well be as you have omitted any numerical references as well as failing to originally show any citation, clear shades of attempted deception. So if there is any error on my part it is simply the result of your intended sophistry. Again staying on topic, the authors show no support from any international legal tribunal for your reliance. Therefore it solely their opinion.
Wow he really can't see this.....@32
Feb 04th, 2016 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” (b) Right to Self-Determination: Legal Issues
Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law www.mpepil.com
➔ 18 The above-mentioned instances make it obvious that any legal approach to self-determination must address a number of issues. Firstly, it must identify the holder of the ”
Should've gone to specsavers...
You do of course realise that we have both been quoting from the same source...
......Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law ....
So either you agree with the authors or not.....not just the bits you want to use to support your argument....
@36 Voice,
Feb 04th, 2016 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Give it up Think.
The boys have tied you in knots.
You are very seldom believable & now you're clutching at straws.
Your very Thinkspeak-“educate yourself”, finally convinced me who you are, you slippery serpent.
l've only heard RGs & m'sieur Think use that phrase.
You SHOULD educate YOURSELF. lol!
36 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 04th, 2016 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may be obtuse as you wish and keep avoiding the conclusion. But , I'm going to keep holding your feet to the fire. Which is, there is no support for their conjecture from any international law judgement. In fact there are judgements that clearly define where self-determination is applicable.
“The subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self- determination applicable to all of them. The concept of the sacred trust was confirmed and expanded to all ‘territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self- government’(Art. 73). Thus it clearly embraced territories under a colonial régime...
... the ultimate objective of the sacred trust was the self-determination and independence of the peoples concerned.”2
2 Namibia (Advisory Opinion), ICJ Reports (1971) p. 31, paras. 52-3.
”SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTINUING RIGHT'. EXPRESSION OF THE POPULAR WILL; 53 Article 1(3) grants peoples of dependent territories (non-self-governing and trust territories) the right freely to decide their international status, in other words, whether to form a State or to associate with an existing sovereign“.
Self-determination of people: a legal reappraisal by Antonio Cassese
”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.9Self-Determination through the Lens of the International
Bottom line Voice.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UN says that the Islanders have the right of self-determination. The UK recognises that the Islanders' have the right of self-determination. The Islanders are exercising their right of self-determination.
So the plethora of varying opinions within the confusion that is known as International Law appears rather irrelevant.
That said - have you read Crawford? “After contentious beginning the principle of self-determination is firmly established in international law, in particular in relation to territories of colonial type.”
The Creation of States in International Law by James Crawford p.122
Crawford currently sits as an ICJ judge by the by
Dear Voice:
Feb 05th, 2016 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are banging your head against a brick wall.
“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html#80k1oBiyWKVP9mcL.99
That one was free, next time I expect payment.
:-)
The UK will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Feb 05th, 2016 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@41 Hepatia
Feb 05th, 2016 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein
You are a fool.
#41 Hepatitis
Feb 05th, 2016 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) The Falklands cannot be 'returned” as you have never managed to hold onto them despite invading in both 1832 and 1982.
b) You have a dramatically better chance of winning the national lottery - without buying a ticket.
:-)
l'm glad that idiot Hepatia keeps posting.
Feb 05th, 2016 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0lt shows that we've got their attention.
Hey Hepatia, the Argentina will return the land you stole from Paraguay, within 25 years.
Bottom Line Lord Ton...
Feb 05th, 2016 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According to the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference,
The recognized sources of international law establish that the right to self-determination of a people is normally fulfilled through internal self- determination – a people’s pursuit of its political, economic, social and cultural development within the framework of an existing state. A right to external self-determination (which in this case potentially takes the form of the assertion of a right to unilateral secession) arises in only the most extreme of cases and, even then, under carefully defined circumstances. 45
The main point of immediate interest is that self-determination was not introduced into the Charter as an unlimited license allowing every group to choose to which State it wishes to belong. If the State to which a group belongs at present is satisfying its obligations to the group, then it is as part of that State that the group exercises the right to self-determination.
In other words British Citizens on British Territory (Falklands) should have only the same Self-determination as British Citizens on British Territory on the Isle of Wight....
They are not a separate people...they are part of a larger group...
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
Free association with an independent State;
or Integration with an independent State.
The Falklands have not fulfilled any of these obligations...
So they remain a colony of British Citizens on British Territory...the only difference is the location...
So I want my oil and my penguin please...
45 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 05th, 2016 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falklands have not fulfilled any of these obligations…” Give it up as you have clearly been defeated, you relied on a publication that has contradictory statements. The section on which you were relying on has no support vis-vi “judge made law”.
So now you've moved the goal-posts and attempt to equate a separatist secession reference by a domestic court to the situation. Doesn't wash, apples and oranges, theres no valid comparison. Both the the Islanders and the UK have for filled their legal requirements under the UN Charter to the tee. If there was any doubt, Argentina has had ample opportunity to have mounted a legal challenge. By not doing so she has acquiesced. Therefore, is deemed to have accepted it as legal.
you..liar
Feb 05th, 2016 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was your source I quoted...
I quoted 18
You quoted 14/15
1. Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law
13
Four instances may inform the principle ofself-determination with a legal dimension.
(a) Right to Self-Determination: Instances
14
(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties,whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute..etc...
15
(ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ both in...etc...
16
(iii) Self-determination might be considered to apply, as was suggested by the Commission of Rapporteurs in the Åland Islands case in 1921, in situations where the existence and extension of territorial sovereignty is altogether uncertain..etc...
17
(iv) Self-determination includes the right of a people of an existing State to choose freely their own political system and to pursue their own economic, social and cultural development...etc...
(b) Right to Self-Determination: Legal Issues
18
The above-mentioned instances make it obvious that any legal approach to self-determination must address a number of issues. Firstly, it must identify the holder of the right to self-determination. It must answer the question: Who is entitled to the right of self-determination? Who is ‘the people?’ Finding an answer to this question is obviously not an easy task, especially when bearing in mind the troubles that this sort of question causes in other domains of collective rights, such as with the definitions of the ‘minority’, the ‘indigenous population’, or the ‘nation’ (see also → Indigenous Peoples; → Minorities, International Protection). Unsurprisingly, no definition of the term ‘people’ has been generally agreed upon so far
Link to your source..
ilmc.univie.ac.at/uploads/media/self-determination_empil.pdf
47 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 05th, 2016 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a spent issue they like you are lone voices in the wilderness. They have contradicted themselves and you can show no judgements to support their assertions. Nor are you able to resolve their contradictions. Also you're unable to show any violation of the Charter by the ULK or the Islanders. You are are also unable to refute the fact that Argentina has acquiesced, so you're flogging a dead-horse.
48
Feb 05th, 2016 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they have contradicted themselves...
Why were you quoting the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law ...
As though it was Gospel...and when I quote the same source it's Contradictory...?
...then try and wriggle and squirm and blame me for your confusion...
I can feel a song coming on...
♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬
But he's got high hopes
He's got high hopes
He's got high apple pie
In the sky hopes
So there goes Terry Hill
It's inevitable
Why he'll never compete
Oops, there goes another shot in the feet..
♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬♬
;-)
49 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 05th, 2016 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're the party that is relying on their publication. I place no reliance on it, I am simply showing why not. Here is their emphatic statement again ”15 (ii) Self-determination—as a result of the practice of the UN under Chapters XI to XIII UN Charter—clearly emerged as the legal foundation of the law of decolonization. As expressly affirmed by the ICJ both in Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) (1971) para. 52 and in Western Sahara (Advisory Opinion) (1975) paras 54–59, it became applicable to non-self-governing territories, trust territories and mandates, notwithstanding the differences and the qualifications of the respective constituent instruments (South West Africa/Namibia [Advisory Opinions and Judgments]; Western Sahara [Advisory Opinion]). As such, it includes the right of the population of a territory freely to determine its future political status.” The only thing you have done is to continually move goal-posts. So your failure to respond to the question of Argentine acquiesce, means I am correct. You're further lack of success in refuting the Islanders and the UK's actions are in complete compliance with their Charter obligations is fait accompli, is also correct. Unless a modern author(s) are able to show any judgemental basis for their conclusion, it is simply unsupported speculation. So all your attempted digressions have come to naught, and your feet are still being held to the fire.
Yaaaaaaawn… . RG twat
Feb 05th, 2016 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clueless Voice in 45
Feb 05th, 2016 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Quebec Case is about integral parts of states as Quebec is of Canada, but the Falklands and other NSGTs are not of their states. The court ruled Quebec that Canada didn't have the right to secede because it is an integral part of Canada.
Requirements for integration in
Principle VIII (Resolution 1541):
“Integration with an independent State should be on the basis of complete equality between the peoples of the erstwhile Non-Self-Governing Territory and those of the independent country with which it is integrated. The peoples of both territories should have equal status and rights of citizenship and equal guarantees of fundamental rights and freedoms without any distinction or discrimination; both should have equal rights and opportunities for representation and effective participation at all levels in the executive, legislative and judicial organs of government.”
Quebeckers participate in the political and judicial system of Canada on the same basis as any other Canadian. They elect MPs, their MPs can and do become Ministers and Prime Ministers. Quebeckers can and do become judges.
The BOTs and the Crown Dependencies are not and never have been integral parts of the UK. They do not participate in the UK political system in any form
R2625 is also quite clear the NSGTs are not integral parts of the states administering them:
“The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it.”
You missed a mode of exercising SD that was added in Resolution 2625 in 1970:
“ or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”
Please let us know how the Falklands doesn't comply with this requirement bearing in mind it says 'any other political status'
#45 Your ability to keep being wrong is amazing Voice.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0a) Crawford represented Canada in the Quebec case and is the recognised expert on matters of secession. He says the principle is enshrined in international law - particularly in the case of ex-colonies.
b) you missed out the 4th option with regard to the exercise of self-determination as added by Res 2625 of 1970 - “ the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people...”
That same Resolution also adds -
“ The territory of a colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles..”
With rather makes a nonsense of your suggestion that the islanders are not a separate people. Keep trying Voice - maybe one day you'll get it right :-)
53 Roger Lorton
Feb 06th, 2016 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's what Crawford has written: ”14.4 TERMINATION OF NON-SELF-GOVERNING STATUS: THE FORMS OF SELF-GOVERNMENT
(1) TERMINATION OF NON-SELF-GOVERNING STATUS: CRITERIA FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT
A territory ceases to be 'non-self-governing' when it has achieved self-government, or rather, in the terms of Article 73, 'full' self-government. The question is which political statuses will be regarded as satisfying this requirement. In view of the omission of the term 'independence' from Article 73,73 it is clear that other possibilities were contemplated, and despite the emphasis in the Colonial Declaration on independence as the primary form of self-government, the Assembly has fairly consistently allowed three alternatives:
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
Free association with an independent State; or
Integration with an independent State.74
In general terms therefore, there can be no doubt about what is meant by 'full-self-government'. It has sometimes been argued, however, that the attainment of a certain standard of material, social and educational progress in a given territory is a prerequisite lo 'self-government' in terms of Article 73 in addition to more formal indicia of governmental authority or internal control. The obligations of the Administering State to 'promote the well being of the inhabitants', and the specific obligations in Article 73a and 73c, are certainly capable of this interpretation: nevertheless a majority of the General Assembly has generally taken the view that, while material and political progress is a correlative of political independence, it is not a pre-condition; that the two should be promoted together, and that ultimately political self-determination is the basis of the enjoyment of other rights.”
THE CREATION OF STATES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW by James R. Crawford. judge of the ICJ
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I know. I have it Terence. It's a very big book, and you have a very small quote.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you read Willetts (2013) on the 4th option?
“In 1970, the situation changed a little by the UN opening up of the theoretical possibility of a so-called ”fourth option“. ... The idea of ”any other political status“ has never been expanded and it is unclear what it could mean. ..”
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/peter-willets-south-atlantic-council.pdf
Res 2625 seems clear enough to all but the lawyers it seems
http://en.mercopress.com/2016/02/01/falklands-issue-was-settled-a-generation-ago-says-labour-shadow-minister-eagle#comment429430: But I don't expect any different results. On the contrary on the day before the return of the Malvinas I expect that you wingnuts will still be denying that which is obvious to everybody else. So you concern about my mental health, while endearing, is unfounded.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0As a much wittier poster than myself previously said elsewhere on this site;
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0” within 25 years Hepatia will be cured!
The idea of ”any other political status“ has never been expanded and it is unclear what it could mean. ..”
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The problem with expanding it is that it stops being 'any other political status' and becomes 'certain other political status or statuses'
@ 25 ilsen
Feb 06th, 2016 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh 'God', FATTY will be beyond himself! Apoplectic won't cover it.
He really believes that I have a limited vocabulary and it seems a limited intellect: and that from a RCC 'believer.
Your post IS hilarious though!
@ 7 Conqueror
She had a miss-spent time at university if all she can do with her education is be a 'New Labour' / Labour 'socialist' idiot.
Look up Chartered Engineer and educate yourself for once. I have also lectured at three universities by 'invitation'.
52/53/58
Feb 06th, 2016 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 02625 (XXV). Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
A clue is in the title...
Among States...
This Resolution applies to States...
“Every State has the duty to...”
“States have a duty to...”
“Every State shall settle...”
etc...
Every State has the duty to promote through joint and separate action universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in accordance with the Charter.
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples referred to above in the elaboration of the present principle of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.
The territory of s colony or other Non-Self-Governing Territory has, under the Charter, a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it; and such separate and distinct status under the Charter shall exist until the people of the colony or Non-Self-Governing Territory have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles.”
This legislation was not legislation for Colonies or NSGT's...
Only insofar that it specifically separated the Colony as a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it..
Meaning...should a State separate...the colony would not be affected..
Nice try...
60 Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Feb 06th, 2016 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN Resolution 2625 (XXV); “2.Declares that:
In their interpretation and application the above principles are interrelated and each principle should be construed in the context of the other principles. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed as prejudicing in any manner the provisions of the Charter or the rights and duties of Member States under the Charter or the rights of peoples under the Charter,” Like I stated earlier re: post #50 “You're further lack of success in refuting the Islanders and the UK's actions are in complete compliance with their Charter obligations is fait accompli, is also correct.”
So the Islanders exercise of self-determination of “the people of the Falkland Islands have decided to retain their status as an Overseas Territory of the UK.” Is completely on a par with Resolution 2625 (XXV). It is further endorsed by a sitting judge of the ICJ. Re: post #54; “A territory ceases to be 'non-self-governing' when it has achieved self-government, or rather, in the terms of Article 73, 'full' self-government. The question is which political statuses will be regarded as satisfying this requirement. … Free association with an independent State;”
So I for one will ignore your unqualified sophistic interpretation of the resolution as a “plain reading” makes it aims and purpose abundantly clear, as justice James R. Crawford elucidation confirms.
clueless voice 60
Feb 06th, 2016 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's in the section headed:
The principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
That's 'peoples' not 'states' The section deals not with the obligations a state has towards another state, but with the obligations a state has towards a people, regardless of whether that people form a state or not.
Little Man, What Now?
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sr. Corbyn you are all alone in the world, even your own shadow cabinet see you as a liability.
62
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A section of the....
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among STATES in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
…The principle of equal rights and self-determination at peoples
By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:
(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and....etc.....
Show me one credible legal expert that supports your claim that UN Resolution 2625 is legislation that applies to the remaining NSGT's and not the State administrating it....
A clue is still in the title...
In # 10, poor, poor retarded Voice links to http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/fjcjgj8uaj/YG-Archives-YGIbarometro-FalklandResults-100412-Summary_WLogo_corrected.pdf
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Q: Taking everything into account, how good or bad do you think the actions and measures taken by the current UK Government over the Falklands have been?
Both Malvinista#1 and Conqueror would have answered “Very bad”.
Because they agree on the question? no, because they agree on the answer to the amateurish question and the amateurish answer options.
Malvinista#1 would have answered “Very bad” [because the pirates keep the stolen islands].
Conqueror would have answered “Very bad” [because our soft, slimy and appeasing government doesn't firebomb Buenos Aires just to teach the argtards to shut the fock up].
@64 Think/Voice,
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stop waffling, Think.
You cannot prove a thing.
Your country won't go to the ICJ.
Your country has failed to intimidate or impress us.
Your only option left is to invade us & you are just not up to it.
Just go away & be thankful that you got out of it lightly.
Next time you might not be so lucky.
Trolling VoiceUnder: “Show me one credible legal expert that supports your claim that UN Resolution 2625 is legislation that applies to the remaining NSGT's and not the State administrating it....”
Feb 06th, 2016 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is implicit in the text, troll.
If you apply for the post of village idiot in Strumpshaw, you can count on my recommendation; same if you apply for a job as a backstop for the air swings.
Voice appears to have lost the plot - again.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Credible legal expert? How about the ICJ?
“.. the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them.”
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.
'(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and....etc.....'
Feb 06th, 2016 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(b) to bring about the speedy end of colonialism...
'Show me one credible legal expert that supports your claim that UN Resolution 2625 is legislation that applies to the remaining NSGT's and not the State administrating it....'
A clue is still in the title.
Credible legal experts:
The ICJ in its advisory opinion on Western Sahara
paras 56 to 58
Malcolm Shaw
Peoples, Territorialism and Boundaries
When did I say the whole of 2625 applies to NSGTs? The section headed 'The principle of equal rights and self-determination at peoples' is the one that applies to NSGTs. The point of that section is the duty of states to ensure that peoples who have not yet exercised their right to self-determination do so.
If it applied to states there would be no need to include independence as an option for a state to exercise self-determination because a state is already independent.
66
Feb 07th, 2016 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think...?
Surely after all this time you can recognise the difference between myself and Mr. Think...
He is a touch taller than me and a fair bit slimmer...
Easy....
69
How can you totally misunderstand a piece of legislation...?
I'm sure the State of Yugoslavia was independent...
This legislation was for the likes of Kosovo etc and such cases where a State may fracture and the people will be able exercise Self-determination and choose one of the following...
The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.
The only part of 2625 that concerns NSGT's, is that it specifically separated the Colony as a status separate and distinct from the territory of the State administering it...
So...should a State like Yugoslavia split and they happened to also be administrating an NSGT, the NSGT would not be affected until they have exercised their right of self-determination in accordance with the Charter, and particularly its purposes and principles....
You seriously need to understand what you are reading....
“... Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples ...”
Feb 07th, 2016 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's talking about “peoples” Voice. The people of the NSGTs for example. And remember - “.. the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them.”
To suggest that 2625 does not include NSGTs is plain weird. Every consideration by academics with regard to what amounts to self-determination by NSGTs refers to 2625 and its list of options.
It would seem to be you that lacks understanding.
2625 is a resolution, not a piece of legislation. It passed in the GA without any opposing votes. It's utter nonsense to say that UN members, most of which don't recognise any right of integral parts of their territories to engage in Kosovo style breakaways, were voting on Kosovo style breakaways.
Feb 07th, 2016 - 04:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0@70 Think/Voice,
Feb 07th, 2016 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Or is it Voice/Think?
So you have actually met yourself?
Well, l suppose you would have done.
You're not fooling anyone Think.
Boooooooooooorring.
What I hear Voice, emits from your rear voice.
Feb 08th, 2016 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 637 (VII) of 1952 - “... The Member States of the United Nations shall recognize and promote the realization of this right of self-determination of the peoples of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories who are under their administration and shall facilitate the exercise of this right by the peoples of such Territories according to the principles and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations in regard to each Territory and to the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, the wishes of the people being ascertained through plebiscites or other recognised democratic means, preferably under the
auspices of the United Nations; ... “
Lord Ton
Feb 08th, 2016 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well it's half time at the Super Bowl...
So I'll be brief...
Um...that is not 2625 or didn't you notice...
Panthers are down....Come on the Panthers....
Back to my popcorn....
I'd already dealt with 2625 above Voice - do try to keep up :-)
Feb 08th, 2016 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0In case anyone has forgotten, The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Territory, by their own Self-Determination, backed by NATO, backed by a Nuclear-Armed Nation with Global Capability, (the UK) and the EU, and there is nothing anyone in the World can do to change that.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can we put this to bed, please?
Yes, please do.
Feb 09th, 2016 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Got it now, malvinistas?
The matter is at an end.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!