MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

• 

  Roger Lorton

  Highest Court in the Land? And the European Court of Human Rights too, which viewed the Mauritians from Chagos as having been adequately compensated.
  
  The Permanent Court of Arbitration has held that the Mauritians can rely upon the promises made in the 1960's and 70's that the islands be returned when the British Government are finished with them, although there is some doubt that Mauritius will then allow a group of British citizens with ideas of self-determination back onto the archipelago.
  
  Now we can look forward to an ICJ decision.
  
  Will any of it make one ounce of difference? Unlikely. Most countries in the world have a system within their laws of 'eminent domain' which allows the Government to remove people from land when that Government feels it necessary. In the UK we tend to call it 'compulsory purchase', not that anyone in England actually owns land anyway. That has not been an option since the Norman Conquest.
  
  The removal of the Mauritians from Chagos was not handled well; but they were never listed at the UN as an NSGT and - IMHO - the Human Rights Court was correct. They were well compensated.

  Aug 15th, 2017 - 02:24 pm +6

• 

  darragh

  Malvinense
  
  You have the gall to accuse somebody of being ‘brave behind a keyboard’ yet you steadfastly refuse time and time again to answer two simple questions:-
  
  a) When is Argentina going to apologise for 1982?
  
  b) Will Argentina enter into negotiations with the Falkland Islanders directly or as a third party?
  
  By not answering my questions you demonstrate quite clearly that you do not have the courage of your convictions and will not state openly what you obviously believe i.e. that the Falkland Islanders have no rights other than to be included in the Argentine South Atlantic Empire.
  
  Why not be honest and admit it?
  
  Continual reference to centuries old events that may or may not have happened is totally irrelevant.
  
  What is relevant is the Falkland Islanders right, here in the 21st Century, to self-determination and their right to freely associate with whom they wish.
  
  It is nothing to do with Argentina.
  
  My apologies to other readers of MP for continuing with this line but as you can see Malvinense is unable or unwilling to be honest

  Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:15 pm +6

• 

  Terence Hill

  Malvinense 1833
  “accept the challenge and show the world the lies of Kohen.” Why don’t you accept that this same nonsense has been met and refuted previously at http://en.mercopress.com/2017/06/04/falklands-goose-green-commemorates-35th-liberation-day/comments#comment467704
  Kohen is a sophist of the worst kind as he continually makes assertions without the backing of legal judgements, simply his own personal opinion, which legally makes such claims worthless.
  For example in the publication Página12 dated Tuesday, March 5, 2013 he writes “This is a plebiscite organised by the British government”. Which is a deliberate lie as many independent publications and witnesses have attested, it was organised by the F.I. government. Then he attempts to discredit the referendum by implying that there is a prerequisite for the UN to be involved, where no such requirement in The Charter et al. Then he carries on stating there are categories of people under international law who are entitled to self-determination, citing the UNGA as his source. With very few exceptions the GA resolutions are not international law, merely advisements.
  It would seem that Sr. Kohen's blandishments have more too do with his continued employment by the Argentine government than with the reality of international law.

  Aug 16th, 2017 - 02:30 pm +6

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