MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Hammond begins round of trade and political talks in Argentina
The Chancellor of the Exchequer begins on Wednesday a round of trade, investment and political contacts in Argentina, following a two day visit to Brazil, as part of a tour of South America's biggest economy. It will be the most important visit of a British cabinet minister in over sixteen years to Argentina. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules''The political contacts will refer to the many issues in which both countries hold similar positions in world affairs, despite existing differences over the Falkland Islands dispute.''
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1Dispute? Ah that'll be that ole Malvinas Chestnut.
Falklands- Never Belonged to Argentina:
https://www.academia.edu/31111843/Falklands_Never_Belonged_to_Argentina
Come on Kipper / Hepatia. Do your 25 year BS.
Aug 02nd, 2017 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3In 25 years the Falkland Islands will belong to Scotland. Shame I won't be around to see it (odds are that is).
Aug 03rd, 2017 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@Brit Bob: FALSE. The United Kingdom bases its sovereignty on a discovery that it did not make, in a flag stuck in land that left Byron (the French already were in the islands) and nothing else.
Aug 03rd, 2017 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Malvinense 1833
Aug 03rd, 2017 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3False - Britain bases its sovereignty of the Western Islands on settlement (1765) and of East Falkland on 184 years of peaceful occupation, give or take 74 days.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 02:01 am - Link - Report abuse -3Roger Lorton:
Aug 04th, 2017 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse -2False. There was no settlement in 1765, Byron planted the British flag and left.
The UK knows this, so at least it has the intelligence to refuse to argue.
And you, well, leave it there.
Byron RE-claimed the islands, laid out and planted gardens as a sign of sovereignty. 12 months later (hardly any time at all back then) MacBride arrived with a garrison and settlers.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse +2Sovereignty established and never effectively challenged.
Nothing to argue about. The matter is settled.
Go learn.
Roger Lorton:
Aug 04th, 2017 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Based on what did Byron RE claim the islands?
In the islands there was already a colony. “laid out and planted gardens as a sign of sovereignty.” No sovereignty is established with roses and daisies comic, comic ,comic
chuckle chuckle rechuckle, requetechuckle (Credits El Think)
Malvinense 1833
Aug 04th, 2017 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Based upon the claim by Hawkins in 1594. And there was no colony in the western Islands in 1765. Nobody there at all.
As for gardens - Spain had been leaving iron crosses all over South America to identify its claims. Spain didn't arrive in the Falklands until 1767.
Johnny-cum-lately's :-)
Roger Lorton: Hawkins, False, Davis False First specific map of the Islands ever made. By Captain Pilot Andrés de San Martín in 1520.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/181addf1c9dd4c469ed3d6dbf08d76ee/primer-mapa-de-las-islas-malvinas-28152029-por-andrs-de-san-martn-jg51m0.jpg
END OF LIE
More nonsense from Malvinense 1833. Davis is listed as the first RECORDED discoverer, but Hawkins was not aware of that when he sailed. Prior to Hawkins there had been NO claims to the archipelago, and Spain had not been there before Davis/Hawkins. The suggestion that any captain of the Magellan expedition discovered - or claimed - the Islands has been debunked; not least by Pascoe & Pepper. Any original discovery was by a Portuguese vessel prior to 1517. Magellan never went near the Falklands.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Go learn child - we have the details https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/2-1480-to-1768.pdf
Wait till the end of the month and there will be a few new revelations that have come to light during my most recent researches.
Your lies are failing :-)
Roger Lorton : Oh Noooo more lies!!!
Aug 04th, 2017 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Pascoe and Pepper also admit that a Spanish ship landed in the Falklands/Malvinas and spent several months on the islands in 1540. The vessel was named “Incognita” by Julius Goebel – a renowned American scholar, author of the first in-depth research on the dispute over sovereignty of the Falkland/Malvinas islands – since the vessel’s name had not been recorded. It is surprising that Pascoe and Pepper do not give importance to this fact, instead highlighting the “non-discovery” made by John Davis. The expedition of the “Incognita” was sponsored by the Bishop of Placencia and commanded by Alonso de Camargo. The Falkland/Malvinas islands were sighted on February 4th, 1540, as proven by the ship’s navigation log, which also reads that said Islands “were on the chart” (meaning that they were not unknown). The “Incognita” wintered until December 3rd 1540, that is to say, it spent almost the whole of 1540 moored on the islands. As maintained by Dr. Arnaud, the vessel relied on the map of the “Isles de Sanson ou des Geantz” made by Magellan’s expedition of 1520, as proven by the detailed description of the number of islands and channels made in the navigation log.
Credits Marcelo Kohen, Facundo Rodríguez
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/181addf1c9dd4c469ed3d6dbf08d76ee/primer-mapa-de-las-islas-malvinas-28152029-por-andrs-de-san-martn-jg51m0.jpg
Go read and learn, END OF LIE.
Show me the evidence that this un-named vessel spent time in the Falklands Malvinense 1833. Show me the claim to sovereignty made by its commander. Show me, in fact, any proof that this vessel went anywhere near the Falklands. There is none.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +31540 – January 12th, the Camargo expedition anchors near the entrance to the Strait. January 22nd, two days after entering Magellan's Strait, Camargo's flag ship founders; while the second ship becomes separated. Capt-General Camargo transfers his flag to the remaining vessel and continues.
February 4th, separated, the second ship; “On the Fourth... in the morning, we sighted land which seemed to us to be some eight or nine islands, that were on the chart and we were between two lands. We had land to the N.N.E. to our larboard side, and there was also land to the south. It appeared to me and to all the others that we should be amongst those islands, while according to the chart there were channels between them through which we could pass, and all clear without shoals. … This land appears to be a part of the mainland south of Magellan’s strait.”
“The statement in the log that the charts showed islands is difficult to explain. The only chart of those regions that is left us is the Pigafetta map of the strait. This map shows some islands in the entrance of the strait, but nowhere near the coast are there any other islands.”
(Quoted in Reisenberg 1950 p.45. Anuario hidrográfico de la Marina de Chile 1879 vol.5, which reprinted the fragments of log, suggested that the landfall was in the Bay of San Sebastian; a view supported by Sir Clements Robert Markham in Early Spanish Voyages to the Strait of Magellan (Hakluyt Soc) 1911. With only a fragment of the log surviving, there appears to be no conclusive evidence.)
“… (They) sailed through a strait (Le Maire) and wintered in what must have been the present Beagle Channel, running in behind either New Island or Picton Island.”
(Cape Horn Felix Reisenberg 1950 p.44)
Go learn.
Roger Lorton: Now do not you even believe in your favorite P & P authors?
Aug 04th, 2017 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You must show some evidence.
Show me the evidence, there's a map that certifies that the British did not discover anything. http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/181addf1c9dd4c469ed3d6dbf08d76ee/primer-mapa-de-las-islas-malvinas-28152029-por-andrs-de-san-martn-jg51m0.jpg
They did not discover the islands.
They were not the first to occupy them.
You live in the lie. Go read and learn. :-))
END OF LIES BRITISH.
Discovery is of no consequence, no more than maps in fact (your link shows a map that is NOT the Falklands) and you may find that P&P have adjusted their ideas. After all, the pamphlet by Kohen & Rodriguez attempts to argue against a paper that is 9 years old - and I doubt that you have seen it.
Aug 04th, 2017 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The British were the first to claim the archipelago and the first to occupy the western islands. The French were first to occupy the eastern islands.
Spain was nowhere.
Argentina's nonsense is long debunked. The matter is settled.
Your lies fail again. Go learn child.
AGAIN Roger: “Discovery is of no consequence, no more than maps in fact”
Aug 04th, 2017 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The United Kingdom did not discover the islands, nor was it the first to occupy them. So on what basis did Byron claim the islands?
“The British were the first to claim the archipelago and the first to occupy the western islands. The French were first to occupy the eastern islands.”
In international law, occupation of the main island constitutes occupation of the archipelago as a whole, as long as no other nation is present in any other area of the archipelago, as Judge Levi Carneiro explained in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case before the International Court of Justice.
This was the situation of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands when they were occupied by France.
“Spain was nowhere.”
The territory is Spanish, for that reason in the year 1749 when Anson advised to send an expedition, Spain said no.
Go read and learn, END OF LIES BRITISH .
Byron reclaimed the islands. Hawkins was the original claimant - based upon the fact that no-one else had claimed them.
Aug 05th, 2017 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse +5And no, occupation of one island DOES NOT give possession of all in international law. What is required is effective control. Take a look at the Caribbean.
Spain only purchased the French settlement on East Falkland Island. Nothing else. Nor were Spain able to extend their effective control further than that one island.
Have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain?
ps - I suggest you actually read that ICJ case and not rely upon a Kohen & Rodriguez interpretation :-)
@Malvinense
Aug 05th, 2017 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse +3” No sovereignty is established with roses and daisies comic, comic ,comic”
Yet this is the basis on which Argentina claim that a failed settlement in 1826 was legitimate because gardens were apparently planted.
Make your mind up.
No sovereignty is established by claiming the inheritance of land from a country (Spain)that did not acknowledge your existence in 1813, a country that when it did, sailed into Stanley harbour (1863)and saluted the Union Jack. This is peculiar behaviour from a country claiming the Falkland Islands.
Why did Spain not attack the Falkland Islands, and invade Port Louis in 1863?
So, as it is Argentina claiming the Falkland Islands, when exactly did Argentina land on and settle the Falkland Islands before 1594?
It is Argentina claiming the Falkland Islands.
Not Portugal.
Not The Netherlands.
Not France.
Not Spain.
In 25 years time Argentina will be British again.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Roger Lorton: On what basis did the islands claim? Discovery? No. Occupation? No. Gardens and roses? No. Effective control? Do not.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse -2Davis, Hawkins, Byron, established effective control? .No and No.
France handed over the establishment recognizing Spanish sovereignty. Spain paid Bougainville for the expenses incurred.
Argentina is not Spain, but it succeded as a state (Uti possidetis iuris)
“Nor were Spain able to extend their effective control further than that one island. ” False.
------“The Governors of the islands were mostly preoccupied with maintaining Spanish presence in the southernmost territories of the Empire, and to control the activities of other nations in the region. This was an official and public presence that no other maritime power ignored or could ignore, which was in charge of policing and law enforcement in and around the islands of the entire archipelago. Frequent journeys were made around the archipelago and along the Patagonian coasts. Spanish authorities on the islands also kept a detailed record of the cattle present on the islands, which was considered to belong to the Royal Treasury, and carried out maintenance of military facilities, as proven by the periodical reports on both matters sent by the Commandants to Buenos Aires.”----------
Kohen- Rodríguez
1. Hawkins claimed the Falklands because no-one else had. Terra nullius. Once sovereignty had been established in 1766 it was never abandoned.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse +12. France did not recognise Spanish sovereignty, but agreed to hand over its settlement on East Falkland for a price and with the condition that such a settlement be maintained so as not to allow Britain exclusive control over the archipelago. A conditional agreement. In 1801 France still recognised British dominion over the western Islands - hence its demands at the Amiens peace negotiations.
3. Argentina did not 'inherit' from Spain. Not recognised by Britain, Spain or what stood for the 'Law of Nations' in 1816. Pure fantasy.
4. No, Spain failed to extend its effective control over the western islands which is why Spain only claimed East Falkland in 1811.
Kohen & Rodriguez simply do not know enough.
“1. Hawkins claimed the Falklands because no-one else had. Terra nullius.”
Aug 07th, 2017 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse -2And effective control Mr. Lorton?
“2. France did not recognise Spanish sovereignty, but agreed to hand over its settlement on East Falkland for a price and with the condition that such a settlement be maintained so as not to allow Britain exclusive control over the archipelago. A conditional agreement. In 1801 France still recognised British dominion over the western Islands - hence its demands at the Amiens peace negotiations.” FALSE. France handed over the establishment recognizing Spanish sovereignty. Spain paid Bougainville for the expenses incurred. British dominion??? Spain exercised sovereignty over the islands in absolute solitude, without any claim british, and appointing governors. Again, british dominion :-))
“3.Argentina did not 'inherit' from Spain” FALSE The United Kingdom recognized the succession of states by recognizing Argentine independence. And by the way there was no British claim about the islands.
4. No, Spain failed to extend its effective control over the western islands which is why Spain only claimed East Falkland in 1811. FALSE.
------There are hundreds of examples of the control exercised by the Spanish authorities, but suffice it to cite the following: a note dated August 17th, 1790, requesting the payment of expenses incurred for the transfer and rations of the “British individuals” found fishing illegally in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands on the corvette Sta. Elena.------
Kohen-Rodríguez.
END LIES BRITISH.
1. When Hawkins claimed, effective control was not a recognised necessity. It became so in the early 18th century, hence Byron reclaiming and effective control being exercised over the western islands from 1766.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +12. True. Go learn. France recognised British sovereignty over the western Islands.
3. Britain has never recognised Spanish sovereignty over the western islands. Clearly stated in 1771, 1789 and 1790. Britain never relinquished its title &
4. That is why Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811. Nothing paid, because Britain then forced Spain, in October 1790, to relinquish its extensive claims in all of South America and be limited to 10 leagues around a settlement. The Nootka Convention was a defeat for Spain.
The only lies are from Kohen & Rodriguez LOL
1. Hawkins did not discover the islands. So Byron reclaimed about a non-existent discovery. Byron also arrived when there was already a colony in the islands.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -12.France recognized the Spanish sovereignty and gave its establishment.
3. In 1771 Spain made an explicit reservation of its sovereignty, did not do Great Britain and in 1774 retired.
4. All false. Treaty of 1790, Article IV:
His Britannic majesty engages to take the most effectual measure to prevent the navigation and fishery of his subjects, in the Pacific Ocean or in the South-Seas, from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and, with this view, it is moreover expressly stipulated, that British subjects shall no navigate or carry on their fishery, in the said seas, within the space of ten sea-leagues from any part of the coasts already occupied by Spain.
The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas.
END OF LIES BRITISH.
1. Hawkins did not discover - Davis did, but David did not claim, so Hawkins did. Nobody had claimed before, and there was nobody in the archipelago. Byron re-claimed. There was nobody in the western islands. Just some French in the east.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +12. No, France sold its establishment. France recognised British sovereignty in the western islands in 1801.
3. In 1771, Spain acknowledged that it should not have ejected Britain from the western islands. Britain had no need to make any reservation as Britain was not the loser. In 1774, Britain withdrew its garrison leaving the 'marks & signs' of sovereignty behind - just as Spain would do in 1811 - when it only claimed the one island.
4. Art.4? The '... part of the coast already occupied by Spain... ' was the 10 leagues either side of a Spanish settlement. That gave Spain 30 miles either side of the Soledad garrison, nothing else. A clear renunciation of Spain's vast pretensions in South America. The prohibitions in the Nootka Convention applied to BOTH Spain and Britain.
You need to learn to read.
Spain knew it had lost when Florida Blanca wrote - “... the purpose of the Convention was to avoid a war in the present unhappy circumstances, reserving it for a more favorable time, if it should become necessary. It did not involve an absolute renunciation in case Spain chose not to observe it. ” Only a partial renunciation then?
1790 favours the British, not Spain.
By the way, have I mentioned that Argentina is not Spain?
1.Davis did not discover the islands.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Hawkins did not discover the islands.
Hawkins can not claim some islands that Davis did not discover.
Byron can not claim some islands that neither Davis nor Hawkins discovered.
2.France recognized the Spanish sovereignty and gave its establishment.
http://objdigital.bn.br/objdigital2/acervo_digital/div_manuscritos/mssp0001529/mssp0001529.pdf
3.Britain is the clear loser, did not reserve sovereignty, retired and made no more claims, Spain remained and controlled the entire archipelago.
4. FALSE The prohibitions applied only to Great Britain. The prohibition is crystal clear, as is the fact that at the moment the Treaty was signed, Spain was in sole possession of the Falklands/Malvinas.
By the way, have i mentioned on what basis did claim the islands Byron?
1. Davis is the recorded discoverer of the Islands. Why? Because there is no firm evidence that somebody else did. It is of no importance. Hawkins could claim, because no-one else had.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +12. France recognised Britain's sovereignty in the western islands https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=0zIMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP3&lpg=PP3&dq=Official+Papers+Relative+to+the+Preliminaries+of+London+and+the+Treaty+of+Amiens+published+at+Paris+by+Authority+of+the+French+Government+1803&source=bl&ots=JxO6erYz_Z&sig=Cv3s0ZQLk2x86Enx6Cy3QV2lv6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwipkaausMXVAhUBAsAKHY5VAccQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=Official%20Papers%20Relative%20to%20the%20Preliminaries%20of%20London%20and%20the%20Treaty%20of%20Amiens%20published%20at%20Paris%20by%20Authority%20of%20the%20French%20Government%201803&f=false
3. Spain only claimed ONE island in 1811.
4. Learn to read. The prohibitions applied to both Spain and Britain - see Art. 6 “It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment...” RESPECTIVE SUBJECTS
You have. Byron did not claim. Byron RE-claimed.
And Argentina is not Spain.
1.False. There are Spanish maps before Davies.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -22.False. France can not recognize any British sovereignty when the islands were OCCUPIED by Spain.
http://objdigital.bn.br/objdigital2/acervo_digital/div_manuscritos/mssp0001529/mssp0001529.pdf
3.The government of the new Argentine nation was in charge of the islands.
4.thank you: Art. 6 “It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment...” RESPECTIVE SUBJECTS. And you know something? The islands were OCCUPIED by Spain.
By the way, have i mentioned on what basis did claim the islands Byron?
1. Irrelevant. There is no evidence. That is why Davis is listed internationally as the European discoverer.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +22. France knew that the western islands were NOT occupied by Spain. That is clear.
3. No, it was not. No inheritance. Spain reasserted its claim in October 1833.
4. The islands were not occupied by Spain. the 1790 Convention only recognises settlements and 10 leagues (30 miles) either side of those settlements as being Spanish territory. Learn to READ
Byron didn't claim - Byron reclaimed. Hawkins claimed. Byron mentioned it. Go learn.
1. FALSE1. Spanish sailors are mentioned.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -22.In international law, occupation of the main island constitutes occupation of the archipelago as a whole, as long as no other nation is present in any other area of the archipelago, as Judge Levi Carneiro explained in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case before the International Court of Justice.
This was the situation of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands when they were occupied by France. France recognized the Spanish sovereignty and gave its establishment.
3. Recognizing the independence of Argentina, the United Kingdom recognized the succession of states, that is, its inheritance.
4.FALSE. The islands were occupied by Spain. 1790 Governor Juan José de Elizalde.
END OF LIES BRITISH.
This is becoming circular, so I'll make this my last input as you obviously do not have the capacity to listen or understand. A true Malvinist.
Aug 07th, 2017 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +21. Name names - but you cannot. In reality the first Europeans to see the Falklands were on a Portuguese vessel around 1570. We do not know their names. Perhaps a quote will assist your understanding.
“... while the explorer who is generally credited with a discovery may not have been the first to see land in that spot, the modern historian is bound to give credit only to those who have left more or less accurate records...” (Christie 1951 p.29)
2. Still wrong as the situation in the Caribbean even today clearly proves. You still have not read the 1953 Minquiers and Ecrehos case which Kohen & Rodriguez deliberately misinterpret. One of the main features of the case was the rejection of “mediæval evidence” and concerned islets, not islands. You can argue all you like but the status quo that arose out of the 1771 Convention (which was still being argued over as late as 1775) placed Spain in the east and Britain in the west. That status quo became the recognised situation and was still the case in 1811 (when Spain claimed ONE island) and in 1829 when Wellington referred to Britain not owning ALL the islands. Indeed that status quo coloured all the thinking throughout that period. Why do you think that before Lavalle's desperate act in 1829, even BA only gave licences for East Falkland?
3. Entire nonsense. Britain did not 'recognise' Argentina as a nation state until 1850 (try actually reading that treaty). There was a purely commercial treaty in 1825 and Britain specifically informed Spain that the treaty did not recognise any rights in the UP.
4. Argentina has attempted to twist the 1790 Convention but that is not surprising as Spain set out to do just that from the beginning. We have Florida Blanca's letter to that effect. Why? Because he knew that Spain's position was weak.
Argentina's still is.
End of
1.It is worth remembering that Hawkins’ supposed discovery/claim was not published until 1622 (28 years after the alleged event). Let us examine the fantastic “description” Hawkins himself made of his route:
Aug 07th, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The wind continued good with us, till we came to forty-nine degrees and thirty minutes, where it tooke [took] us westerly. (...) The second of February, about nine of the clocke [clock] in the morning, we discoveryed [discovered] land, which bare south-west of us, which wee [we] looked not for so timely; and coming nearer and nearer unto it, by the lying, we could not conjecture what land it should be; for we were next of anything in forty-eight degrees. (...) The land is a goodly champion country, and peopled. We saw many fires, but could not come to speake [speak] with the people. It hath [has] great rivers of fresh waters. It is not mountainous, but much of the disposition of England, and as temperate.8
It is simply impossible for this description to correspond to the Falklands/Malvinas, which are located to the east of the continent: Hawkins was heading south-west of San Julián, that is to say, towards the continent. He was at latitude 48o south, and the Falklands/Malvinas are located at 52o south. Finally, the bonfires rule out any remaining possibility. The islands were uninhabited. What Hawkins saw (if he saw anything at all) were not the Falklands/Malvinas.
2.Great Britain abandoned Port Egmont in 1774 and since then, for 55 years, there was no official British presence on the islands, nor any official acts relating to them, and less still any effective acts of sovereignty over the islands or in relation to them. On the contrary, there was no official reaction to the destruction of the settlement at Port Egmont carried out by Spain and nothing was said about the continuous and exclusive presence of Spain in the islands, with 32 governors that reported to Buenos Aires.
The British presence since 1833 is due solely to an act of force.
Apologies 1570 should read 1517.
Aug 08th, 2017 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1Hawkins had a witness. :-)
Official acts relating to the Falklands in 1775, 1789, 1790, 1801 & 1814.
Acts of force were perfectly acceptable means by which territory could be obtained. Spain confirmed its claim in October, 1833 but did not pursue the matter with England.
Only came back for the correction, so I'll leave you to your fantasies Malvinense 1833
”The available documentation shows that the United Kingdom took possession of the islands for strategic reasons and used its long-abandoned claim as an excuse, in the framework of its policy of colonial, commercial and maritime domination, against a newborn State, which was overcoming an internal crisis, but which had succeeded in establishing a human settlement on the islands and in proving its feasibility.
Aug 08th, 2017 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1At the moment of the usurpation, not only were the parties not at war, but they had concluded a treaty of peace and friendship. As we will explain below, mutual respect for territorial integrity had to be observed. Besides, a simple act of force did not in itself imply belligerency between the parties. It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war. There was no state of belligerence between Argentina and Great Britain when commander Onslow expelled Argentine agents from the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833. Nor did this fact imply the outbreak of a war between the two countries. The concept of conquest does not therefore apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas. As Sharon Korman explains in her book on conquest as a means of acquiring territorial sovereignty:
It is reasonable to suppose that if the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest, Britain would have appealed to that title as a means of putting an end, once and for all, to the disputed status of the territory (...). But Britain – contrary to what would have been the advice of some present-day international lawyers – did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.”
Kohen- Rodríguez.
The evidence is clear and forceful Roger, but you can continue lying.
Malvi, The UK will never hand over the FALKLANDS to Argentina as long as the FALKLANDERS wish to remain a “ BRITISH OVERSEAS TERRITORY ” or they become an INDEPENDENT NATION in their own right. No point, all the rhetoric will not help Argentina to occupy the FALKANDS. So just forget it and move on. Far better to WORK for the better of your country, if in fact you are an Argentine citizen
Aug 08th, 2017 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Dear Argentina. Please take your vexatious claim to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to the ICJ if you think that you have even the merest resemblance of a case. Oh... you haven't got anything that will hold water any more than, say, a large, WW2 vintage battleship after a swift torpedo below the waterline.
Aug 08th, 2017 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Golfie: My wish is a fair and peaceful solution for the parties concerned.
Aug 08th, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This requires negotiations between Argentina and the United Kingdom.
And if justice gives reason to the United Kingdom, Argentina can once and for all forget the islands.
Sorry Malvi, but you do not seem to comprehend the situation. The FALKLANDERS do not want Argentina to control them because that is what Argentina wants. It is the FALKLANDERS that is the priority as far as the UK is concerned. There is absolutely no way on this Earth that any government of the UK will hand over sovereignty of the FALKLANDERS to Argentina without the FALKLANDERS say so. So in essence the solution is for Argentina to drop its false claim.
Aug 08th, 2017 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Golfie: At no point did I say that the United Kingdom must surrender sovereignty to Argentina, I simply say that a just solution must be found for all parties involved, possibly in the International Court of Justice or arbitration.
Aug 09th, 2017 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0If justice fails in favor of the United Kingdom then constructive relations can be established between Argentina, the United Kingdom and the islands. And forget the problem for ever. Regards.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!