MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands' lawmaker: don’t leave dispute with Argentina to future generations
“We should not simply leave the Falklands dispute with Argentina for future generations to deal with”, was the message from outgoing Falklands Member of Legislative Assembly Mike Summers, in his final Speech to the Motion for Adjournment. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSecretary-General's Comments on Self-Determination – Ban Ki-Moon stated that 'according to the Charter of the United Nations and relevant General Assembly resolutions, a full measure of self-government can be achieved through independence, integration or the free association with another state. The choice should be the result of the freely expressed will of the peoples of the Non-self-Governing Territories' (Ban Ki-Moon, Pacific Regional Seminar on Decolonization, Managua, Nicaragua, statement delivered by Rie Kadota, Senior Political Affairs Officer, UN/Col/3290 31 May 2016).
Sep 29th, 2017 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse +3Falklands – Self-Determination: https://www.academia.edu/11325329/Falklands_-_Self-Determination_single_page_
The dispute caused by the false claim of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands from Argentina can be resolved very quickly by the Islands declaring independence.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1I agree with him, but then why did he not try and do something when he had the chance? Seems like he has indeed left it to future generations to deal with.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1@gordo1
Not necessarily. Look what happened to East Timor, or Somaliland. Or Northern Cyprus perhaps.
“I think there is hope for as long as there is relative peace in South America and as long as they don’t revert to military style dictatorships, as long as they continue to have and to elect democratic governments and embrace the concept of democracy and with it embrace the concept of the rights of people and human rights, then there is hope.”
Sep 29th, 2017 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse +3So where is change necessary?
Didn't you read the article?
Sep 29th, 2017 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1MLA Summers said: “There is a problem because we are constantly trying to solve it. When you look at the sanctions regime the reason that is in place is because we have an issue, we have dispute.”
He said the message was for those who believed the Falklands were better served by being isolationist and staying away from any kind of forward movement, ”frankly because we are scared of what might happen.”
I did, did you?
Sep 29th, 2017 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +3”As an example he said Chile had matured in their examination of issues compared to other South American countries: “So what we have to do is to hold our position but be ready to engage if there are things that are to our benefit and push forward with, but not give anything if we don’t have to.”
He accepted, “it probably will take another 30 years frankly, for democratic concepts to broaden and deepen, not only in governments but in the community; that’s where ultimately it will blossom. When people really do believe that the rights of people are more important than land grabs, then there’s hope.”
The effort has to do also the Argentines, self-determination is the keynote, human life can not be in the background, they only think in terrain concept - parameter without considering who lives inside, it needs to speak them as to the children, hoping they don’t forget what they have signed if you want to dialogue with them !! But the dialogue is a necessary way to grow together, without prejudice, we are in 2017 .... considering that cars should fly already :)
Sep 29th, 2017 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The quest for a solution as I propose is to be radical? There you have the expressions of Mr. Mike Summers. The search for a solution is rational. And if the solution involves a benefit to the UK, welcome it.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Mike Summers and I have a coincidence, and it is a great step forward for the benefit of all, especially of future generations.
@RL
Sep 29th, 2017 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Let me explain then. He says his message is aimed at isolationists; I suppose he is talking about the kind of people who oppose extra flights to the Falklands if they must call in Argentina, and oppose negotiations and making changes, even when they benefit the islands, even when they don't involve sovereignty.
It's those people who need to change their attitude, to allow for a solution eventually. Just like you quoted: “So what we have to do is to hold our position but be ready to engage if there are things that are to our benefit and push forward with, but not give anything if we don’t have to.”
What he didn't say was “It's settled. We need do nothing.” ;)
And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: “I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours.”
Sep 29th, 2017 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -8The study was regarded as so explosive that the British government withdrew it from public view during the Falklands war, but it's now available in the National Archives.
Is it not time for Britain to stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and heed the call of the United Nations to discuss the question of sovereignty with Argentina?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain
La realidad NO puede ignorarse, ....desde 1833 ha habido una disputa de soberanía, entre dos (2) naciones......hasta el punto de un enfrentamiento bélico, a partir de la cual, se pretendió “involucrar” a un tercer comunidad....con lo cual, si hay una “disputa / diferendo ”, la solución NUNCA podrá edificarse , sobre la NEGACIÓN ABSOLUTA de uno de los “disputantes”......NUNCA las soluciones duraderas han sido logradas, otorgando a una de las partes el 100% de lo pretendido....y a la otra 0% !!!.....NO traslademos el grave problema a nuestros hijos !!!
Sep 29th, 2017 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Malvinense 1833
Sep 29th, 2017 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stardate 2017, and if there is no case to present to the international courts the so-called
claim can only be described as illegitimate.
Argentina's Illegitimate Sovereignty Claims: -
https://www.academia.edu/27599163/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
En este mismo link, (MP), se publica como noticia, la CONFESIÓN DE LA HIPOCRESÍA BRITÁNICA....acerca de la validez (otorgada por Inglaterra), de las “autodeterminaciones” de los pueblos: http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/27/uk-does-not-support-referendum-being-held-in-the-kurdish-region-of-iraq
Sep 29th, 2017 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Demon Tree - let you explain? Why? I can read. Where did he mention flights? -
Sep 29th, 2017 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” He said the message was for those who believed the Falklands were better served by being isolationist and staying away from any kind of forward movement, ”frankly because we are scared of what might happen.”
Besides, I can always ask him. Islander opinion is divided on this issue of extra flights. Mike Summers is in one camp.
He didn't say the matter was settled. That was the Defence Secretary in early 2016; followed shortly afterwards by the then deputy of the Labour Party. I seem to recall their comments were recorded in this newspaper.
Malvinense 1833 - The 'study' as you refer to it was 3 months research conducted in the FO archives only by an assistant librarian by the name of Gaston de Bernhardt in 1910. In all its glory it can be found here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/memorandum-respecting-the-falkland-islands.pdf
It is of little consequence more than a century later. Berhardt himself complained that he was not given sufficient time nor access. It did colour some thinking in the first half of the 20th Century but as usual you present half the story. Do you want something younger?
Did you read Ambassador Lyall Grant's letter to the UN in 2012? A mere 5 years ago. I have that too, but apparently I cannot put down more than one link. It's on the resources page of the Timeline blog site. I'm sure you have the address.
Sigh. The flights are an illustration of the sort of people he might have been talking about, since you seemed to be having trouble understanding what you read. But if you can just ask him what he meant, then please do so, instead of posting stupid questions on here.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I'll have a look at that memo though, I was just thinking how annoying it was that no one had put it online yet.
@ Roger Lorton: Assistent librarian?
Sep 29th, 2017 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“In 1910, a 17,000-word memo was commissioned by the *FOREING OFFICE* to look at the historical dispute over sovereignty. The study highlighted many weaknesses in the British case and can be seen as our equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, the leaked study of US policy in Vietnam.
The holes in the British case shocked many officials in Whitehall. The head of the Foreign Office's American department, Gerald Spicer, wrote: ”From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed.”
You understand? FOREING OFFICE.
Malvi, there bis no such thing as a “ FOREING OFFICE ” just Google it.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Demon Tree - you put words in Summer's mouth, not me. And my 'stupid' question was - “So where is change necessary?” The answer certainly seems obvious to me. I'll leave you to your own opinions.
Sep 29th, 2017 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense 1833 - yes, an Assistant Librarian. It's the way we do things. It was merely a Memorandum.
Why was it requested? Because of Grousac's 1910 book.
Was it considered important? Not really. There were no central archives back then, and digging through bundles of papers was tedious work. It was always delegated down to the lowest denominator. Which is why the assistant-Librarian ended up with the job.
Have you read it? I found it a little disappointing. Thought there would be some earth-shattering revelation in there, but no. Bernhardt didn't even give an opinion. Robertson went a little native and the documentation of the time suggests that the Islands Governor certainly did not agree with Robertson's opinion. As the FCO said in 1983, with all contentious subjects, it is hardly surprising that there are differences of opinions. Mostly by clerks, occasionally by Ambassadors but never by Ministers. Which reminds me. Where is Mitre's 1884 review? Still missing I hear.
Was Bernhardt's the only Memorandum on the history? No. There were at least 4 others before 1960. I suspect another in 1966 and then we leap forward to the FCO submissions to the Foreign Affairs Committee in 1983.
Things have moved on, and old opinions are just that - old.
Did you read the 2012 opinion of the FOREING Office (or even the FCO)? No? It can be found here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/27-jan-2012-uk-note.pdf
This is the 21st Century Malvinense 1833 - do try to keep up
@RL
Sep 30th, 2017 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse -3Why must you keep playing dumb? I said “I suppose he is talking about...”, that's nowhere close to claiming he actually said those words. But remember it was a message to the Falklanders to do something, not to Argentina.
I thought the memo was interesting, especially this bit:
“If the expedition of the ”Clio” had been confined to West Falkland (Port Egmont) Señor Moreno pointed out that it might be said that His Majesty's Government had reinstated themselves in the status quo stipulated in the Agreement of the 22nd January, 1771; but the “Clio” had gone to East Falkland Island (Port Soledad or Port- Louis), which had never been English, and had transferred to the British flag “a territory, never before trodden by an English foot,” with buildings, stock, &c., which were the products of a nation of the American continent, which had succeeded to the territorial rights of Spain.
“The Argentine Government therefore, having reconsidered the question in all its bearings, declared that it could not acquiesce in the conclusions which Lord Palmerston had drawn from their protest which they repeated and confirmed, and requested that East Falkland Island might be restored to them.”
He had a point, didn't he?
He did, and I have long said that while our sovereignty of the western islands had not been effectively challenged there was no doubt that Spain's title to East Falkland Island (the only one they claimed in 1811) was unassailable. Spain's title.
Sep 30th, 2017 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse +2Indeed Spain confirmed all its claims in a letter to the USA in October, 1833 ( I am unable to find any record of its receipt in Washington however) - a time at which it must have been well aware of the action by Clio in January, 1833.
However, Spain did not complain. Much of that was to do with timing I suspect. Ferdinand died unexpectedly in 1833 and the Regency that took over had very different ideas about what to do with the old colonies. As a result, Spain acquiesced in Britain's annexation of East Falkland.
I have said many times that Argentina was never in the game. It's claims are based upon that mythical 'inheritance' which was not recognised by any State outside of the emerging Sth American nations.
Without an 'inheritance', Argentina has nothing.
That would be a pretty convincing argument if Spain had sent a ship in 1833 and thrown out the Argentine garrison, and it would still be somewhat reasonable if Argentina claimed to inherit them but had not bothered to send anyone there after independence. But they did have a settlement, at least until the Americans came and blew it up. So what's the difference between East Falkland and Buenos Aires? Do you think the latter also still belonged to Spain in 1833?
Sep 30th, 2017 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -5No. Buenos Aires was in the hands of revolutionaries, and revolutionaries get what they can hold. Those particular revolutionaries held BA, but failed to hold onto East Falkland.
Sep 30th, 2017 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +4However, if the case of Buenos Aires had gone to a tribunal, Spain would likely have won. After all, one man's revolutionary, is just another man's terrorist.
Is it realistic to think that you can resolve this without both parties talking and negotiating this issue?
Sep 30th, 2017 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Livingthedream
Sep 30th, 2017 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +4It only takes one domino to fall such as the C24 recognizing that self-determination is applicable to the Falkland Islands then the Malvinas myth is doomed...
@RL
Sep 30th, 2017 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -4So if some other country decided they wanted a piece of the UP, they could just come and take it? Actually I think Portugal/Brazil did do that with Uruguay, but they had a war over it and it ended up independent.
What if Britain never had any interest in the Falklands? When and why, according to you, would they stop belonging to Spain and become part of Argentina?
Neuquen 29 Le están ignorando por una sencilla razón - el idioma oficial aquí es el inglés. No le van a tomar en cuenta. Hasta Malvinense 1833 respeta ese requerimiento.
Sep 30th, 2017 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvinense 1833 What on earth is the FOREING OFFICE?
el idioma oficial aquí es el inglés.
Sep 30th, 2017 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -2...are you having a laugh...practice what you preach...
DT - when Argentina gained effective control.
Sep 30th, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Uruguay was complicated by Brazil's pretensions, but it was variously in the hands of warlords from Buenos Aires who promptly gained their own pretensions - Jose Artigas leaps to mind from the early 1820's. Remember also that Paraguay had been part of the Viceroyalty, but BA was unable to hold that.
The peace of the Banda Orietal was negotiated by the British Minister to BA, Ponsonby. It lay behind the Lavalle coup, and it was Lavalle that laid out BA's pretensions to the Falklands in the open.
Revolutionaries kept what they could hold. They did not inherit.
Well then, what constitutes effective control? I assume 'able to defeat Britain in a war over it' is not the rule?
Oct 01st, 2017 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse -1Ponsonby was the one who said Uruguay should be a buffer state, wasn't he? I remember LukeDig complaining about him.
There were actually a lot of disputes and breakaway regions after the Spanish colonies declared independence. But most of them have been resolved since then either through wars or agreements, rather than dragging on into the 21st century.
there is no definition of 'effective control' in international law, but a quiet period of some years appears to be required. It is one of the problems is determining when Argentina actually attained independence. Declaring it, and attaining it being two very different things.
Oct 01st, 2017 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse +3Argentina's history between 1816 and 1860 is one of internecine war. Buenos Aires even declared it self a separate State between 1853 and 1859.
Effective control requires peaceful rule.
Actually, quite a few boundary issues remain in this 21st century. Venezuela. Bolivia. Just to name the two that leap to mind.
Okay, so according to you Argentina's claim rests on whether it had effective control of the Falklands. You believe it didn't, but it isn't defined in international law.
Oct 01st, 2017 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Not exactly cut and dried as people here like to make out, is it? And not all myths and fairy tales either.
Why didn't the British take Patagonia when it was up for grabs? I would think that would have made for a better place to settle.
Oct 01st, 2017 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Demon Tree
Oct 01st, 2017 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The law of the time did not accept inheritance without settlement and stated that ''an unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Book II, Original Contents, Cpt XI, Section 149, page 191, Vattel, E, 1797).)
'Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable. The islands were not res nullius, but they were not yet clearly recognised by the international community as being under any nation’s sovereignty.' (The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland Islands, Gustafson L.S. 1988, P26).
Un-opposed settlement..?
Oct 01st, 2017 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you mean like the British un-opposed settlement of Saunders Island...?
Did I say Saunders Island...I meant Falkland Island..
Did I say settlement...I meant Garrison...
Did I mention un-opposed period of time...what period of time...
...and yet somehow this has given Britain sovereignty over the whole Falkland archipelago...
One rule for Britain and another for anyone else...
...bit like Bob's selective support for self-determination I reckon...
Britain's claim is seriously flawed...
Was there any law at all about inheritance at the time? How many other colonies had fought for and won their independence before that? I've only heard about the ones that became the USA.
Oct 01st, 2017 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1And like Voice said, if unopposed settlement of some years was necessary, isn't that a problem for Britain's claim at Fort Egmont too?
@Livingthedream
Now I am wondering that too. AFAIK no one had ever had a settlement on TfF at the time, so why not claim that and build a colony there instead if Britain did not believe in inheritance?
Maybe because Patagonia was full of hostile natives who would fight back? Or because the climate was even worse further south?
There are degrees of sovereignty. Simple discovery provides the lowest degree of claim. Years of peaceful settlement the highest. Britain's claim to the western islands was of a low category but was never effectively challenged by Spain, which only claimed one island when it left. Luis Vernet never attempted to settle the western islands.
Oct 01st, 2017 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No mention of 'Saunders' Island back then, only Falkland's Isle or the Great Malouine.
As for Patagonia. There were enquires made in the 1830's with the British Government about settling those uninhabited regions. Palmerston wouldn't accept it as we simply could not defend the people there. If they had gone and settled successfully however, I have no doubt that the British Government would have later acknowledged them.
And don't forget, Ushuaia was founded by British missionaries and had the Union Jack hoisted for a number of years until they were persuaded to change it for an Argentine flag. Name of the persuader escapes me for the moment. He was later granted Statenland.
As usual Voice talks out of his arse, or perhaps just for the sake of it. Usucaption alone gurantees Britain's claim.
Demon Tree
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So what's the difference between East Falkland and Buenos Aires? “ The Treaty of Utrecht, and Nootka Convention Anglo-Spanish treaties that specifically bars any claims by third parties. It further allows unfettered UK’s territorial expansion in such an event.
“..had effective control of the Falklands. ..but it isn't defined in international law.” It has been, in spite of those who are unaware, and believe their uninformed opinion should be accepted as fact.
For example here is an emphatic definition of effective control. An international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: “titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.”10 That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
“Britain's claim is seriously flawed…” Yours most certainly is as from our last meeting it was revealed that you suffer from some credibility issues as I was able reveal.
“Your claim of judgement vis-à-vis opinion as “Not one and the same” You keep lying and I keep schooling you. Game ….. Set ….. and …… Match.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/21/argentina-claims-at-un-its-falklands-malvinas-legitimate-and-imprescriptible-sovereignty-rights/comments#comment474265
Forgot to add - going back to the original article, that Mike Summers has made some comments on Facebook with regard to this Mercopress page.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 02:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I quote -
“The headline as ever does not reflect the full text.”
”The point I was making (and have consistently made) is that as democracy and democratic principles deepen in South American countries (as opposed to power through politics) it will become more apparent to people (and eventually Governments) that the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands must be the determining factor in who governs them. It will happen in time.“
”... in making this point I do not believe we should be seeking some kind of dramatic instant compromise, but keeping our minds open to the possibility that things can change, and be prepared to engage if there is potential benefit.”
@RL
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse -1I can't imagine anyone who read the article as well as the headline would think he was calling for a dramatic instant compromise. But it does answer my very first question: he hasn't done anything about the dispute himself because the time is not right yet.
Even so, I'd like to know how his speech went over in the Falklands, considering I was downvoted above just for quoting him. Was it unpopular?
@TH
“there is no definition of 'effective control' in international law”
It was Roger who said that, so take it up with him.
Voice
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say 'Britain's claim is seriously flawed'
If Argentina does not have a legal argument to present to an international tribunal her claim can only be described as 'illegitimate.'
Argentina's Illegitimate Sovereignty Claims: -
https://www.academia.edu/27599163/Argentinas_Illegitimate_Sovereignty_Claims
DT - It was an interview I understand, not a speech. I have not seen any Islander criticism, but will await Friday's Penguin News.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse +1As for 'effective control' the problem mostly lies with the word 'effective'. There are circumstances that have been considered but I am not aware of a definitive definition. This is not helped by the ICJ not being bound by its previous decisions, and can therefore make it up as it goes on each occasion.
This is one of the issues I have with 'International Law', which, as far as I can see, consists of a mass of differing opinions; some of which, rarely, get to the highest international court in the world, whose adjudications are promptly ignored or rejected by half the nations of the world.
As some other Pirates may say - not so much laws as guidelines.
I am coming dangerously close to Voice's opinion on international law. I may need to lie down.
No need to wait, the article (with the same headline) is already in Penguin News:
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse -1http://www.penguin-news.com/index.php/headlines/all-headlines/15-politics/110-don-t-leave-dispute-to-future-generations
Rereading it, it was an interview about his final speech, but anyway there should have been enough time for a reaction.
International law doesn't seem well defined or predictable at all, so perhaps it's not surprising Argentina has no interest in going to the ICJ even if they believe they have a case. And besides that, there is no real way to enforce the law, so the strongest countries simply ignore it, like Russia with the Crimea and the US invading Iraq. If the ICJ decision on Diego Garcia goes against the UK, I expect we will ignore it since the US won't want to lose their airbase there.
The letters however will be in next week's :-)
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There is more evidence in support of the exercise of state authority by Argentina, and British awareness of those acts. In 1825, before the imminent outbreak of war with Brazil, Jorge Pacheco pretended to cede the rights granted by the government of Buenos Aires to two British subjects, Mr Green and Mr Hodgson, both merchants living in Buenos Aires. The aim that simulation was to safeguard his property, which could be considered enemy property and confiscated by Brazilian forces because of the war. The deed of cession and the counter-document stating the true are respectively dated October 10th and December 10th, 1825. The deeds were certified by the British consul in Buenos Aires, Richard Ponfsett, on January 3rd, 1826,49 without eliciting the slightest reaction from Britain. If the islands were British, Great Britain´s representative in Buenos Aires would have objected to such concessions being made by a foreign government. Not only was there no reaction, but the British consul certified the authenticity of the Argentine documents. Again, Britain kept silent, when in fact it should have reacted if it really considered itself to be the sovereign of the Falklands/Malvinas Islands”.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Marcelo Kohen.
Malvinonsense, do you know its been revealed that Noddy was beaten up by Big Ears and the Flowerpot Men behind the church at Trumpton. I thought I would mention that because it has similar relavence to the tripe you and other morons like Think/Voice/Dover keep trotting out with regards to the sovereignty of the British Falkland Islands.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands were never British, did not discover them, nor occupied them first as Palmerston once said.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Demon Tree
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I am aware of what Roger is relating to which the required time period for acquisition to become effective. But it is you that claimed the following which is clearly incorrect as I have shown. “..had effective control of the Falklands. ..but it isn't defined in international law.”
Malvinense 1833
“There is more evidence in support of the exercise of state authority by Argentina” Your claiming that any and all illegal acts are sanctioned if the UK government of the day is unaware of them. You’ed better show where in international law such a view is accepted.
“The islands were never British…” said a voice in wilderness. What is important is how British title has been accepted under international law post 1771, and was additionally emphasized in 1833. As the British inclined they were prepared to defend their claim with Spain by war, the same opportunity was available to Argentina. Under the claim that ‘might was right’ as the accepted standard of that era. You because you're losers, get over it because you will never win.
@ Roger Lorton: “It is one of the problems is determining when Argentina actually attained independence. Declaring it, and attaining it being two very different things.”
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -3A little refreshment for your memory: Spain recognizes Argentina's independence on September 21, 1863, in its article IV establihes: the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations.
This collapses the british myths:
The Argentine state did not happen to the Spanish state.
The Argentine state did not inherit anything from the Spanish state.
The United Kingdom recognized the Argentine independence, therefore recognized the succession of states.
The Falkland Islands were part of the new Argentine state because they were part of the Spanish state.
It's all very clear. End of the British lies.
@TH
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -3In that paragraph I was attempting to summarise what Roger had said. It's not what I believe; I'm not claiming anything. Take it up with him if you object.
RE Malvi: “Your claiming that any and all illegal acts are sanctioned if the UK government of the day is unaware of them.”
No he isn't. He's claiming the acts were sanctioned because the UK government of the day WAS aware of them. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if there's any truth to this, but at least understand what he's saying before you argue with it.
@Malvi
Can Spain's decision in 1863 change the law in 1833? What if they had decided otherwise?
Malvi 1833 - what got certified ..... exactly? Some private arrangements on the Island still owned by Spain?
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Art. 4 of the 1863 treaty is concerned with outstanding debts and responsibilities - which you would know it you actually had read it. And no, it only established the 1810 date as that for the settlement of debts.
End of Malvies nonsense LOL
@ Demon Tree: The illegal act of British usurpation does not change anything, because Spain recognizes like critical date of succession 25 of May of 1810.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -3@ Terence Hill: What's??
(...) the Prince of Masseran declares, that his Catholic Majesty engages to give immediate orders, that things shall be restored in the Great Malouine at the port called Egmont, precisely to the state in which they were before the 10th of June, 1770. For which purpose his Catholic Majesty will give orders to one of his Officers, to deliver up to the Officer authorized by his Britannic Majesty the port and fort called Egmont, with all the artillery, stores, and effects of his Britannic Majesty and his subjects which were at that place (...) The Prince of Masseran declares, at the same time, in the name of the King his master, that the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.
The only country that made reservation of its sovereignty was Spain.
Malvinense 1833
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Name one aspect of international law that Argentina has to place before an international court that supports her Falklands claim? If you can't name one, then her sovereignty claim is i l l e g i t i m a t e.
Demon Tree
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“UK government of the day WAS aware of them.” Please enlighten us as to evidence of such, perhaps FO archivers or Hansard. Where under international law can some private arrangement enable an encroachment on the UK’s sovereignty?
Malvi 1833 - Spain could not give you in 1863, that which it no longer had.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The only country that HAD TO in 1771 was Spain - having lost the face-off.
Never forget Malvi, that in 1811, Spain only claimed the ONE island.
And, while I'm at it, don't forget that Argentina changed its claim in 1834 to just the ONE island.
@TH
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I have no idea what the evidence is; ask Malvinense, it was his quote. Perhaps the sources are listed in Kohen's book?
Demon Tree
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“I have no idea what the evidence is” Thank you for your omission that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Malvinense 1833
“The only country that made reservation of its sovereignty was Spain” No their act of restoration contradicts your claim and is refuted thus:
Foreign Secretary Palmerston to Don Manuel Moren, jan. 8, 1834,22 BRITISH AND FOREIGN STATE PAPERS (1833-1834), at 1384 (1847).“No answer was, however, at any time returned, nor was any objection raised..to the rights of Great Britain, as asserted in that protest; but the Buenos Ayrean government persisted..The government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata could not have expected, after the explicit declaration…,that his Majesty would silently submit to such a course of proceeding; nor could that government have been surprised at the step which his Majesty thought proper to take, in order to the resumption of rights which had never been abandoned, and which had only been permitted to lie dormant, under circumstances which had been explained to the Buenos-Ayrean government.
The claim of Great Britain to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands having been unequivocally asserted and maintained, during those discussions with Spain, in 1770 and 1771, which nearly led to a war between the two countries, and Spain having deemed it proper to put an end to those discussions, by restoring to his Majesty the places from which British subjects had been expelled, the government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.”
“Thank you for your omission that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Omission...i think perhaps you need to add something to that.....;-)))
Terry and his grasp of the English language..oh dear...
He still doesn't realise that “judgement ”doesn't necessarily mean the same as “A judgement”...
A judgement in law being a decision...
Does he really know what he's talking about...?
Its no use arguing with a naive brainwashed Argie. Nothing any of you say will convince these propaganda victims. If the Argies had a real case it would have been argued out in the ICJ, but they dont dare take it there because they know they havent got a case. The sole reason for Argentinas claim is to divert attention from their politics. Used by the Junta, the Peronists and now a weak government is afraid to tell the truth.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Its no use arguing with a naive brainwashed Argie.”
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I see they are not the only people it is no use arguing with!
@TH
“Thank you for your omission...” Lol, nice malapropism.
I know perfectly well what I'm talking about, so why don't you trot out your favourite quote about shifting the burden of proof and remember that Malvinense is responsible for proving his own claims, not me?
@Malvi
“because Spain recognizes like critical date of succession 25 of May of 1810.”
Is Spain in sole charge of creating international law, then? Argentina was claiming those islands long before 1863, so your claim obviously did not depend on Spain's recognition.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2We’ve no need of any verification on any source that originates with you. As its a foregone conclusion it will not be true on any subject matter. You keep lying and I keep schooling you. Game ….. Set ….. and …… Match.
http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/21/argentina-claims-at-un-its-falklands-malvinas-legitimate-and-imprescriptible-sovereignty-rights/comments#comment474265
Lies...?
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -3A Judgement...
In law, a judgment is a decision of a court regarding the rights and liabilities of parties in a legal action or proceeding. Judgments also generally provide the court's explanation of why it has chosen to make a particular court order.
A decision by a court or other tribunal that resolves a controversy and determines the rights and obligations of the parties. (legal-dictionary)
The official and authentic decision of a court of justice upon the re- spective rights and claims of the parties to an action or suit therein litigated and sub- mitted to its determination.
(Black's Law Dictionary)
You might have noticed that the key word there is DECISION...;-))))
Game ….. Set ….. and er.... Match. I think...;-)
DemonTree the slavish follower
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I know perfectly well what I'm talking about” If you merely parrot someone else you think you don’t have a burden proof? Give your head a shake, if that was true you’d be able to cite a source. Since you can’t then it’s BS.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
What you have really stated, no amount of viveza criolla will able to repudiate your lies. “No...legal judgements are in fact judgements not opinions..” http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/21/argentina-claims-at-un-its-falklands-malvinas-legitimate-and-imprescriptible-sovereignty-rights/comments#comment474159
@TH
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Slavish follow of who?
You had obviously misread what Malvinense wrote, I was merely trying to correct your misunderstanding. I'm not parroting anyone, I'm not claiming he's right, I'm not inclined to agree with him, and I'm certainly not going to do the work of finding evidence for it.
For the third time: if you want evidence, ask Malvinense.
@Roger Lorton
Forgot to say before: I don't think one can see the letters in Penguin News without a subscription, so please could you let us know how people feel about the interview when they are published?
DemonTree
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +4If you make claims you can’t verify then no amount of equivicating will remedy your error which is otherwise BS.
@ Roger Lorton: False. Spain recognizes as critical date 25 of May of 1810, at that moment the new Argentine nation succeeds to Spain.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Two very important points:
1-At that time, Spain was in possession of the islands. Therefore the islands happen to what today is Argentina in that date. The country that exercised sovereignty was Spain, not England.
2- The First Government Patriotic to five days of being established establishes the first administrative act in relation to the Malvinas Islands.
In 1834 in a desperate act and in the attempt not to lose everything, Moreno tries to recover, at least, an island, that does not invalidate the Argentine claim.
On the contrary, it strengthens it. You said that you are not sure about the British possession of East Falkland Island, right ?.
So, the Argentine claim is not so crazy. :-))
@ Demon Tree: Argentina was claiming those islands long before 1863, so your claim obviously did not depend on Spain's recognition.
Exactly!!!
I haven't made claims I can't verify. You are repeatedly demanding that I verify someone else's claims! And after I said in the very same post “I don't know if there's any truth to this,” too.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Now THAT is bullshit.
Malvi 1833.
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +7You do talk some rubbish. Nothing of importance happened in 1810. Buenos Aires declared for Ferdinand. That was of no consequence.
Prof James Crawford has clearly identified that a declaration of independence is a necessary precursor to the attainment of independence. Argentina declared in 1816 - not 1810.
And as I said - Spain was only in possession of one island when it withdrew its garrison in 1811. (not 1810)
Did you miss the bit about Spain only claiming one island in 1811?
And BA didn't do anything about the islands in 1810. It sent the bill for Bordas's wages back to Montevideo for payment. Not an act of sovereignty. Not even an administrative act. Just a refusal to pay. Typical BA in fact.
In 1834 Moreno changed the Argentine claim because he could not prove the grounds for the whole archipelago that he has used in the 1833 protest. That doesn't strengthen anything. Merely reveals the weakness of Argentina's case.
And Argentina didn't claim anything between 1850 and 1884.
By the way, have I ever mentioned that Argentina is not Spain? Or the myth of inheritance? Yes? Seems you haven't grasped that then.
”No...legal judgements are in fact judgements not opinions..”
Oct 02nd, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -4huh..?
Isn't that exactly what I have just reiterated in the above post..a legal judgement is a decision not an opinion..duh!
I'm guessing you are the proud owner of an anorak and a flask...
Malvinense 1833
If Argentina believed they held sovereignty and responsibility over East Falkland why didn't they feel obliged to compensate Vernet for his losses instead of Britain compensating him...?
”On October 22, 1821, a law was passed by the Legislature, then of Buenos Aires, regulating the extraction of various products from the Patagonian coast, establishing the right to export these products, and establishing certain franchises at the same time in favor of the individuals who are located on those coasts and (who) exploit the products.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1On January 5, 1828, the Executive Power of the Province of Buenos Aires, on the basis of that law, issued a decree giving Mr. Luis Vernet the property of Isla de la Soledad (part of the Malvinas) and the Isla de los Estados, on condition, as the decree itself implies, that it was to establish colonies and maintain populations there for three years, after which Mr. Vernet should give an account to the government of the state of the colony, for a resolution.
The law, on which Mr. Vernet's application is based, is part of that decree. In the opinion of the Commission, that decree does not grant him any right, and, even if it did, he would have lost it.
It does not give him any rights, because the law of October 22, 1821, which was the provincial law of the Junta de Buenos Aires, did not authorize the assignment of that territory. ...
Consequently, the claim of Mr. Vernet's heirs on the Isle of Soledad has no effect for the reasons I have given previously; because it was given without right by the Government of Buenos Aires, because its possession was not maintained, and because the Nation had no obligation, even if it had been legally given, to clear up the eviction from territories that had been given free of charge.”
Congreso Nacional: Camara de Senadores: Sesion de 1882
Fuller version here on pages 469 & 470 https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/8-1860-to-1899.pdf
In 1887 the decision was reviewed & reversed (pages 485-487) without a recorded discussion by the senate. This followed the affair of the Map.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“No...legal judgements are in fact judgements not opinions.. Not one and the same...” Is what you previously stated, but it is refuted by this authority https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/judgment which states there is no differential between judgements and opinions. I’m glad to show you in your true light all wrapped up in viveza criollo .
Oh dear Terry..did you even bother to read the opening paragraph of your link...?
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse -1Here it is...
“As you probably know the judgment is the DECISION of a court on a particular matter or issue before the court”
“As you probably know”
Well yeah everyone does...apart from Terry the Merco legal expert.....Not..;-)))))
Oh and...;-))))
Give up whilst you are still behind...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse +1Sorry your little red herring doesn’t absolve you from being emphatically wrong and making a complete horse’s ass of yourself.
Voice/Malvinense 1833
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse +2Name one aspect of international law that Argentina has to place before an international court that supports her Falklands claim? If you can't name one, then her sovereignty claim is i l l e g i t i m a t e.
uti possidetis juris (UPJ) is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States. Originally applied to establish the boundaries of decolonized territories in Latin America, UPJ has become a rule of wider application, notably in Africa. The policy behind the principle has been explained by the International Court of Justice in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) Case:
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Did I name one...;-))))
Uti Possidetis of 1810? (actually 1848 - backdated)
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Uti possidetis juris was a rough and ready agreement between the new Latin American states to establish their respective territorial limits. As a principle, it could be applied only to a dispute between Latin American nations. For example, it could be invoked if Uruguay claimed the Falklands on the grounds that, at the 'critical date', the islands were, in fact, administered from Montevideo, and it was the Governor of Montevideo who withdrew the garrison and settlers. Whether it is applicable in a dispute with a non-Spanish American nation is open to doubt.” [Prof. Metford 1968]
“The doctrine itself had been designed to protect the emergent Latin American States from a fresh wave of European colonisation. It never proved an effective means of demarcation amongst the new States themselves. It certainly did not preclude the assertion of claims by one State on the basis of a de facto occupation of areas that may well have formed part of a Spanish Vice-Royalty which later constituted the territory of another State. Nor did it prevent the later adjustment of territorial rights by reference to such acts of occupation.” [ The Beagle Channel Arbitration D. W. Greig Australian Year Book of International Law (1976-1977), pp.332-385]
“... the uti possidetis principle,.. is essentially an accord on boundaries between successor states of the same (Spanish) empire, not an assertion of sovereignty against outsiders.” [Falkland Title Deeds Malcolm Deas 1982]
“Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.” [Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World Abdelhamid El Ouali in International Law and States Quest for Survival 2012 p.134, fn 98]
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse +2“I don't know if there's any truth to this, too. Now THAT is bullshit.”
So your claim now is you don’t take any responsibility for what you have previously relied on. You also claiming you don’t know what you’re saying. A claim of diminished responsibility. Now THAT is bullshit.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
So My claim that “all legal judgements are opinions and thats a fact.” Is endorsed by TransLegal; The Legal English Dictionary
While your claim “No...legal judgements are in fact judgements not opinions…” is refuted by them. So your further claim “Terry the Merco legal expert.....Not..” Isn’t holding up to well. Whatever I am is sufficient to prove my claim, while refuting your’s with the authority of legal experts. So I don’t even have to verify my own credentials. Since my proof is from independent legal experts.
“uti possidetis juris (UPJ) is a principle”
Such an application of the doctrine in law is only to those nations that are signatories, and no others. In any case it could not be applied to Islands as the dispute arises from 1833, and it was not accepted law formally among the former Spanish colonies until 1848. As there is in international law a bar against applying laws retroactively.
@TH
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse -2Since you evidently have a serious (and baffling) problem with reading comprehension, I'll spell it all out for you.
Here is an exact quote of what I originally wrote:
“No he isn't. He's claiming the acts were sanctioned because the UK government of the day WAS aware of them. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know if there's any truth to this, but at least understand what he's saying before you argue with it.”
When I say “He's claiming...” that means “Malvinense is claiming”. It does not mean “I am claiming”. Do you understand the difference, Terry?
When I say “I don't know if there is any truth to this,” that means that I don't know if he is right, it does NOT mean “I agree with him”.
Do you understand this?
Voice
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2UPJ is optional. Countries opt-in to use it. Britain, Brazil and France have 'never' opted-in to use UPJ.
As Roger Lorton has explained above,
'“Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.” [Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World Abdelhamid El Ouali in International Law and States Quest for Survival 2012 p.134, fn 98]
Therefore Argentina can't use UPJ without the UK's consent so she has 'nothing' to put before the international courts that supports her claim.
@Brit Bob
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3So what? He did name something they have to put before the ICJ. You and Roger believe they would reject it, but that's just your opinion, and as far as I know neither of you are lawyers.
Unless and until the ICJ consider the case, we don't know what they would decide. That's kind of the point of a court, to decide case where people disagree.
@Voice
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Did I say settlement...I meant Garrison”
Bougainvillle to his credit had a settlement.
The Spanish followed this up with a............ garrison.
So what 's your point here?
@Demontree
“ If the ICJ decision on Diego Garcia goes against the UK, I expect we will ignore it since the US won't want to lose their airbase there.”
I believe Mauritius would let the US keep the airbase, however the Chagossians here do not want Mauritian sovereignty, they want to be a BOT.
Therefore I am unclear as to why the UK will not resettle British people, some with 6 generations of family buried in the Islands, whose descendants were therefore British (i.e.after the French ownership of the Chagos; most Chagossians continuously lived in the Islands, not in Mauritus and the Seychelles, before 1968), who are proud to be British, who want to be a BOT, who would through self determination, enable the UK to hold onto the Islands.
As it stands looks like the UK will lose the islands if the Yanks accept Mauritian sovereignty which enables them to keep the base.
The UK government under May has inherited the Argentine trait of taking a loaded automatic rifle, pointing it to the foot, and emptying the magazine.
Hence, despite the Catalans supporting Gibraltarian self determination, despite the UK granting Scotland an independence referendum, despite Rajoy's ships violating Gibraltarian waters, the UK government have supported Spain's constitution, instead of supporting the Catalan's right to democracy.
What grovelling drips.
@Voice.
”uti possidetis juris (UPJ) is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States”
Argentina claim various dates of independence from 1810 to being 'Argentina' in 1853.
If the date is 1810, the Argentines were not in the Falkland Islands in 1810.
The Spanish garrison there did not mutiny and declare independence as Argentines, they left as ...Spanish, not Argentines.
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Understood completely you want carte blanche to add your 2% worth. But such comments cannot be challenged as: 1. They didn’t originate with you. 2. You are not accountable for the truth of such statements. “Now THAT is bullshit.”
“They would reject it, but that's just your opinion,” No that is a verifiable fact that has been cited versus your uninformed opinion.
In 1810, the process of independence began in the Spanish colonies of South America. The starting point in the Río de la Plata was the Revolution that took place on May 25th, 1810. The Viceroyal authority was replaced by a “Creole” Governing Junta. Upon losing control over the capital of the Viceroyalty, the Spanish forces concentrated in Montevideo, where Gaspar Vigodet was Governor, and appointed Francisco Javier de Elío to act as the new Viceroy. Shortly after, Gaspar Vigodet was to succeed the latter in directing the royalist forces. The Governing Junta of Buenos Aires and the Viceroy in Montevideo each considered themselves to be the only legitimate authority for the entire territory of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. They were to continue fighting until Vigodet´s surrender in 1814.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It should be highlighted that one of the first acts of the Governing Junta of Buenos Aires concerned the administration of the Falklands/Malvinas. Upon arriving in Montevideo from the islands, the penultimate Commander of the Malvinas, Gerardo Bordas, had requested the payment of salaries and rewards corresponding to his position, which were equivalent to those of the Navy captain of a ship at sail.
Demontree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +2''So what? He did name something they have to put before the ICJ.''
They can't use UPJ - '“Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.” [Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World Abdelhamid El Ouali in International Law and States Quest for Survival 2012 p.134, fn 98]
If it can't be used it is pretty pointless turning up with it. Ha ha.
DT - all of International law is a matter of opinion. Even the adjudication appears to be subject to differing opinions on whether to recognise it or accept it. For example the case of Kosovo. The World Court/ICJ deliberated and announced its decision. Half the world promptly - and very publicly - rejected the adjudication.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So much for decisions over opinions.
There does not appear to be any great willingness on the part of the UK to go to the ICJ despite the 1966 legal opinion which suggested that the UK would likely win. Argentina, on the other hand, has a reputation for signing agreements/treaties to accept arbitral decisions and then breaking those when the decision goes against it.
So much for international courts.
Malvinense 1833 is rambling on about nothing. In 1810, the Junta in Buenos Aires declared for the Spanish King - hardly an act of independence. And, as I've already said, the issue of Bordas's wages, which preceded May 1810, was sent back to Montevideo for the attention of the Royal Spanish Navy there - accompanied by a copy of the 1806 instruction that said such debts belonged to the navy. It is of no consequence Malvi - but I have written it up fully, should you wish to learn. It's the chapter that covers 1810 - you know the address. Bordas was paid by Spain, not BA.
Far more important is that the Spanish garrison at Soledad remained loyal to Madrid and was not withdrawn until 1811, when the claim to the ONE island was nailed to the church door. Indeed to every door of the garrison site.
The Viceroyalty ended up getting split between Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.
So much for uti possidetis juris.
Isn't history fascinating?
:-)
It fell to the Governing Junta that replaced the Viceroyal authority to deal with the matter. The Buenos Aires Junta notified the “Navy Commander of this Station” of the order dated December 13th, 1806 by virtue of which “for the matter of expenses and payments, the settlement in the Malvinas be regarded henceforth as a ship at sail, and all employees in that location as dependents of the same ship” and, taking into account that requests for certain payments by the Royal Treasury have been made and some of these have even been paid in this City, such as the rewards for the commander and ministers, armory wages, and some other payments: I have determined, that from now on, all salaries, rewards, wages and other expenses incurred for these premises or locations belonging to them, are paid by the Minister of the Navy of this Station, [...] I am submitting this information to you for your intelligence and I have forwarded it to the Minister of this Station, advising him that on this date I am notifying the General Treasury of the Army and the Royal Treasury to issue certified copies of the Royal Orders kept in the same General Treasury regarding allowances or some other issues of the Malvinas islands. The key importance of this public act of the first national government, only five days after its constitution lies in the evidence of governmental continuity in regard to the Falklands/Malvinas. The previous decisions of the Viceroyal authorities, concerning the remuneration of staff assigned to the Falklands/Malvinas, were taken over by the new authorities, who ordered the payment of the rewards owed to the former Commandant of the Malvinas, Gerardo Bordas.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Quote: Marcelo Kohen- Facundo Rodríguez.
I mentioned that the UK recognized the Argentine independence and therefore the state succession?.
Malvinense 1833
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“I mentioned that the UK recognized the Argentine independence and therefore the state succession? “
The former is so. But, there is no evidence of the latter. Ergo, it’s BS.
Malvinense 1833
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Voice has failed but can you - Name one aspect of international law that Argentina has to place before an international court that supports her Falklands claim?
If you can't name one, then her sovereignty claim is i l l e g i t i m a t e.
1810-1811-1816 the United Kingdom was not in possession of the islands, there was not a single claim, nor at the moment that Spain evacuated the islands by the struggles of independence.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The islands were never British.
@ Brit Bob: The English occupation only showed negative facets: it was illegal –since it violated existing treaties; it was
clandestine, that is, it was kept secret until the Spanish found out about it; it was belated, because it took place after the effective occupation of the French
who handed it over to Spain; it was challenged, because Spain resisted it and made an express reservation in its regard; it was partial, because it only applied to Port Egmont whilst Spain possessed Port Soledad and the entire Archipelago; it was fleeting, for it only lasted eight years; it was precarious, for after 1774 it was no more. On the other hand, while the Spanish occupation preceded the English, it coexisted with it without disturbance and outlasted the abandonment by England. The 1833 British arguments only serve to cloak a clear fact: the use of
arms against a new nation that possessed the Islands by virtue of its rights as the Heir to Spain, rights which were unchallengeable.
Quote: José María Ruda.
Did I name one??...
@Roger Lorton
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You have said before that the ICJ does not follow precedents, do you agree that this means they could indeed decide to apply this UPJ principle, even if you think it unlikely?
@TH
“1. They didn’t originate with you. 2. You are not accountable for the truth of such statements.”
Yes! Well done, you've finally understood, and I only had to tell you the same thing 5 times.
Now if you still want to challenge the claim, you can ask Malvinense to prove what he said, just like I have been telling you all along.
“No that is a verifiable fact that has been cited versus your uninformed opinion.”
Wrong. The rulings given in past cases are verifiable facts. A ruling in a hypothetical case obviously cannot be, unless and until it actually happens.
@Pete Bog
Don't expect me to defend the competency and good sense of the current government, or any of our recent ones. I agree the Chagossians should be allowed back, although I don't think our government should promise them self-determination.
Most likely the reason they won't allow them back is that they signed a contract with America to provide them with an uninhabited territory for their airbase, and they are more worried about pissing off the USA than anything else. But perhaps they also don't want another area like the Falklands or Gibraltar to defend, in both the literal and the metaphorical senses.
“I believe Mauritius would let the US keep the airbase”
Did they say that? And how much do the US trust them not to change their minds?
The UK did not agree to go to the ICJ which AFAIK makes the decision non-binding. I believe the island of Diego Garcia is leased to the US until 2036 for their military base, so IMO it's likely the UK will keep the territory until then and return it to Mauritius once the lease runs out. And Mauritius probably won't let the islanders back either. :(
@Malvinense
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“it was kept secret until the Spanish found out about it;”
No, the British and French stumbled upon each other before the Spanish turned up.
“for after 1774 it was no more”
No more? What about 1833-2017?
The Royal Navy surveyed West Falkland in 1790, 16 years after 1774.
Where were the Spanish sailors-having a siesta during 1790?
I haven't read that the royal Navy called into Soledad to ask permission to survey West Falkland?
“ it was fleeting”
Though in comparison to 192 years, 44 is 'fleeting'.
“after the effective occupation of the French”
1 year after, not 149 years after.
“The English occupation only showed negative facets: it was illegal –since it violated existing treaties.”
Which ones? Certainly no treaties with Argentina.
“while the Spanish occupation preceded the English”
At Port Louis but not at Port Egmont, the Spanish never established any base on West Falkland.
When the Brits turned up in 1833, the Spanish were gone.
I can not be certain, but I am sure than research will come to light that prove that not all of the men manning Port Egmont were English.
You do have a problem with differentiation between English and British.
No doubt you claim that Brisbane and Dickson (1833) were English?
Malvinense 1833
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“The islands were never British. .. Quote: José María Ruda.” My there’s a bastion of truth.
“This brief paper examines the historical assertions made by Argentina at the UN, which have remained largely unchanged since José María Ruda’s presentation in 1964. His speech would be hard to beat for sheer concentrated inaccuracy. Among many others, he made the following untrue assertions, some repeatedly – the number in brackets at right indicates how many times he stated each one:
1. That Spain made an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22 January 1771 which ended the crisis caused by Spain’s peacetime attack on the British establishment at Port Egmont in 1770; (6)
2. ThatArgentinaputagovernorintheFalklandsin1823; (1)
3. That Britain expelled the Argentine population from the Falklands in 1833; (5)
4. That the Argentine inhabitants resisted the British “invaders”; (2)
5. That Britain replaced the Argentine inhabitants with British subjects; (2)
6. That there has been no international agreement to confirm Britain’s possession of the Falklands; (1)
7. That Argentina has never accepted Britain’s possession of the Falklands; (3)
8. That Argentina has never ceased to protest at Britain’s possession of the Falklands; (6)
9. That Argentina’s claim is imprescriptible, i.e. eternal unless freely given up; (2)
10. That the present Falkland Islanders are a temporary population; (2)
11. That Britain’s possession of the Falklands violates the territorial integrity of Argentina; (4)
12. That Britain seized South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by force from Argentina. (2)
All those assertions are untrue.
Altogether José Maria Ruda’s speech contained dozens of historical errors, some of them repeated several times, ..”
The rebuttals are listed in the original pamphlet False Falklands History at the United Nations by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper; p.2
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012-false-falklands-history-at-the-u
@ Roger Lorton
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -4“At the beginning of the fight for independence, the Spanish forces under Vigodet´s command controlled the Rio de la Plata and the adjacent maritime areas. With the aim of joining the entirety of navy forces to fight the patriots, a Spanish war council meeting in Montevideo decided on Spain´s withdrawal from the Falklands/Malvinas on January 8th, 1811. The decision states:
that this Port [of Isla de Soledad de Malvinas] is to be abandoned, by sending a ship to said port [...] with the aim that all belongings, both of Artillery and any other nature, found there are collected and brought to this City, as well as the Church ornaments, leaving all buildings well sealed and placing the King´s Coat of Arms to demonstrate ownership, and that in the meanwhile said abandoned Port remain, that annually a ship is sent for reconnaissance of the port, verifying that in it or in any other port of said Islands no other Power has established any kind of settlement. The brig “Gálvez” fulfilled this order on February 13th, 1811. On March 30th, 1812, the Courts of Cadiz approved the decision adopted in Montevideo, “thinking that when circumstances change, the Regency would take care to ensure that the islands would be occupied as before”. The Spanish withdrawal of 1811 is notably different from the British withdrawal from Port Egmont in 1774. Great Britain only left behind a plaque, fully aware that at that very moment the Spanish maintained their presence on the islands through their settlement at Puerto Soledad. At the very least, they lacked the will to ensure exclusivity, one of the characteristics of territorial sovereignty. This is unsurprising, taking into account the fact that the British never had an exclusive presence on the islands. On the contrary, at the moment of Spain´s withdrawal, there was no foreign settlement in the islands, and Spain envisaged the necessary measures to ensure there would not be any in future.”
Marcelo Kohen-Facundo Rodríguez.
“Among many others, he made the following untrue assertions, some repeatedly:
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -21. That Spain made an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22 January 1771 which ended the crisis caused by Spain’s peacetime attack on the British establishment at Port Egmont in 1770”
Didn't we already establish that this was true earlier in the thread? Am I missing something?
Malvinense 1833 - thank you as you prove my point. The issue of Bordas's wages was sent back to Montevideo ..... which had stayed loyal if you remember. It wasn't BA's bill & they didn't pay. Do try to think straight LOL
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Britain's claim to the western islands remained unchallenged between 1774 and 1829. There were no protests from Spain to Britain. Not one, despite all those visiting sealers. Spain failed to gain effective control over the western islands and only claimed one island in 1811 when that garrison was withdrawn. And Vernet did not attempt to take control of the western islands. Indeed, the first public notice of Argentina's pretensions was in 1829 - and Britain promptly protested.
Spanish occupation commenced in 1767 - AFTER the British Malvinense 1833. Can't you count?
Ruda? Now that old dog's name rings a bell - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012-false-falklands-history-at-the-un-2nd-ed.pdf
DT - the ICJ is not bound by precedent, so I suppose anything is possible. One of the quotes I gave said that they never had - not that they couldn't.
Malvinense 1833 - have you read the English language version of K&R's book? Seems to have quite a bit missing. Mind you - both versions missed out Spain's actual claim
“This island with its ports, buildings, units and contents belongs to the sovereignty of Sr. D. Fernando VII King of Spain and the Indies, Soledad of Malvinas 7 February 1811 Governor Paul Guillén.”
Strange how K&R forgot to mention that in both of the versions of their pamphlet. No? Most other Argentine historians mention it. It was from Destefani that I got the information that the claim was nailed to every door. In fact the Spanish withdrawal was remarkably similar to that of the British in 1774.
Aren't facts fun?
And I keep telling you - if you rely on that pair of deceivers, you'll end up with egg on your face.
@RL
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“the ICJ is not bound by precedent, so I suppose anything is possible. One of the quotes I gave said that they never had - not that they couldn't.”
Thank you, Roger. So that is an aspect of international law that Argentina could place before the ICJ, and the court would decide whether to apply it or not.
Do you have a list of cases where the court considered UPJ, and decided to either apply it or not, so we can compare them to the Falklands and look at the reasoning they used? That would give us a better idea of what they might decide.
I suspect Kohen and Rodriguez only included the cases that support their argument, and Pascoe and Pepper likewise.
Also, your own website agrees with the first point on Terry's list above:
“1. That Spain made an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22 January 1771 which ended the crisis caused by Spain’s peacetime attack on the British establishment at Port Egmont in 1770.”
So is it true or not? What about the rest of the list?
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes! Well done..” I was being deliberately facetious. “Now THAT is bullshit.” As you are still obligated to meet your burden of proof and can’t rely on the excuse that they didn’t originate with you anymore than a slanderer can.
“we don't know what they (ICJ) would decide.”
We know for uti possidetis, the ICJ could not of their own volition apply it. As it is a treaty that requires the parties to be signatories for it to be applicable. So we do in fact know they could make no application without this precondition.
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)...ICJ
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -3This is Africa not Latin America...
“In its Judgment delivered on 22 December 1986, the Chamber began by ascertaining the source of the rights claimed by the Parties. It noted that, in that case, the principles that ought to be applied were the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization and the principle of uti possidetis juris, which accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and whose primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time when independence was achieved. The Chamber specified that, when those boundaries were no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign, the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris resulted in their being transformed into international frontiers, as in the instant case.”
It also indicated that it would have regard to equity infra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law and which is based on law. The Parties also relied upon various types of evidence to give support to their arguments, including French legislative and regulative texts or administrative documents, maps and “colonial effectivités” or, in other words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period. Having considered those various kinds of evidence, the Chamber defined the course of the boundary between the Parties in the disputed area. ”
Voice
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The African Union 'agreed' to apply UPJ to boundary disputes.
'“Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.” [Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World Abdelhamid El Ouali in International Law and States Quest for Survival 2012 p.134, fn 98]
Again, Britain, Brazil and France have never opted-in (agreed) to use UPJ.
Malvinense1833
No, you still haven't managed to name one aspect of international law that Argentina has to place before the international courts.
”Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.”
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2In what way does that quote indicate that an arbitration tribunal like the ICJ can't use the principle....it merely states that there hasn't been any so far...
How many disputes have been submitted to the ICJ concerning uti possidetis...?
3..5..10...? so out of say 5 it hasn't been used proprio motu...so what...
If the two countries took the case to the ICJ they are agreeing to a judgement...how it is judged is up to the ICJ...
I'm pretty certain that if you submit to the jurisdiction of the court you can't dictate how it judges...
Hasn't doesn't mean can't in any language...
I named one and you have provided no evidence that it CAN'T be used...
....Bob
Voice
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If it wasn't optional there wouldn't be anything to stop Mexico claiming Texas and California back. Common sense.
Falklands – Uti Possidetis Juris (II):
https://www.academia.edu/33316156/Falklands_Uti_Possidetis_Juris_II
There is nothing in your link that says it can't be used...
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Show me where the ICJ says it is optional...
You are becoming desperate and unsure of yourself..have Mexico and the US submitted to the ICJ concerning California...?
I don't think so... ...Bob
@TH
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -7That's a shame. I thought you had finally seen sense.
I don't know if you are really too stupid or deluded to understand when you are wrong, or simply unable to admit it, but either way it is pointless to continue this conversation. I will still reply to your other points, but only for the benefit of other people reading.
@Brit Bob & TH
Roger disagrees with you:
”the ICJ is not bound by precedent, so I suppose anything is possible. One of the quotes I gave said that they never had - not that they couldn't.”
Are you calling Roger Lorton a liar?
How many times have we to go round and round in circles. Do the Argies understand, No. If you have a legitimate claim take it to the ICJ otherwise it is status quo. Self Determination is paramount in this case,argue all you like go back a thousand years but self determination will still be in effect. just live with it.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Voice/Demon Tree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Since it has never been used 'without the consent of both parties' by any court or tribunal in the past 150 that is pretty conclusive evidence that it can't be used by Argentina in respect to her Falklands claim. Britain has never opted-in. Comprende?
@Brit Bob
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Depends. Has one party ever tried to use it without the consent of the other and been denied? If not then it doesn't prove anything.
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Consensual Nature of UPJ - it is on the basis of a mutual agreement between the two parties and not on its own that the ICJ will declare that uti possidetis juris will be applied to a particular case. This was again confirmed in the Opinion of 16th March 2001, when Judge Torres Bernárdez stated that, ‘Moreover, in the present case, Qatar rejects the
application of uti possidetis juris in its relations with Bahrain. Therefore, there is no agreement between the Parties as to the retroactive application of uti possidetis juris by the Court to the present case.’ (ICJ Maritime Delimitation & Territorial Questions Qatar/Bahrain, 16 March 2001, Diss Opinion Judge Torres Bernádez, p372, para 430).
How would maps of the world look if one party could just turn up at an international arbitration and use UPJ without consent? Even in South America - A comparison between maps of Latin America under Spanish rule and at the turn of the twentieth century reveals that colonial lines accounted for only 10% of the new international boundaries. It can be argued that as a principle of Latin American Law, uti possidetis juris was applied strictly on the basis of a contracting-in by the parties involved. ( Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p56).
Like I said, common sense.
They are like two peas in a pod Terry and Bob...when challenged with simple logic they have nothing to fall back on, but inane repetition...
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I have never eaten Oysters in my whole life, but it doesn't provide conclusive evidence that I can't eat Oysters...
Uti possidetis is a principle first and foremost and it is a principle that would need to be applied to the Falklands dispute because the Colony did administer the Spanish possession at the time of Independence and logically it would become part of their territory..
It is all part and parcel of the Argentine claim...
The UK has never had any claim to more than Port Egmont on Falklands Island even by treaty with the Spanish...
You still haven't shown me where the ICJ says it is optional...
...Bob
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Am I missing something? … If not then it doesn't prove anything.” Yes quite a lot, already asked and answered.
What a moron, all treaties must be mutually inclusive otherwise they are unenforcible. With this kernel in mind, the ICJ, even if it so desired cannot impose such a condition if one of the parties doesn’t want it. ” I say what I want and it can't be challenged if I'm the not the source, If this where true most libellers and slanderers would rely on it to mitigate their culpability. I've never heard of such a criteria in logic or law. Or are we supposed to accept your unsupported contention. No! doesn't work that way the burden is your's as you're the one making the claim.
Hey Bob the decision of the ICJ not to apply Uti Possidetis to the Bahrain case had nothing to do with consent...
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -6“147. For al1 of these reasons, the Court concludes that Bahrain has sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, and that it therefore cannot uphold the submissions of Qatar on this question.
148. The conclusion thus reached by the Court on the basis of the British decision of 1939 makes it unnecessary for the Court to rule on the arguments of the Parties based on the existence of an original title, efy'c- tivitas, and the applicability of the principle of uti possidetis,juris to the present case.”
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/87/087-20010316-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf
I found a page about the Bahrain-Qatar dispute that expands on the UPJ aspect, and it's all very complicated. However, this section seems particularly relevant:
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -6“What the two situations just mentioned have in common is that administrative, i.e., non-international boundaries are turned into international boundaries. It would be nonsensical to apply the principle to a boundary separating the colonial territories of two different colonial powers. That boundary was already an international boundary and as such protected by international law.”
If you suppose Britain still had a claim on West Falkland, or part of it, isn't this exactly a situation of already existing international boundaries, where UPJ does not apply *because they are already protected by international law*?
Then the only question would be whether this was true even in 1833, because the case in question was all about stuff that happened in the 20th century.
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Then the only question would be whether this was true even in 1833” No because of the reasons stated at http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/29/falklands-lawmaker-don-t-leave-dispute-with-argentina-to-future-generations/comments#comment474376
Supported by: ”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. …”
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
DemonTree
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Bahrain and Qatar territorial dispute dates back to 1868...hardly 20th century...
DT - Brit Bob knows far more about UPJ and the cases than I do. he is correct in what he says about it never having been considered by the ICJ without the agreement of all the parties to a dispute. I am also correct in saying that ICJ is not bound by precedent. That leaves the possibility open, although the court's actions todate suggest that they would not proceed without that agreement.
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +2As for the list TH's list - he is merely quoting that given by Ruda in 1964.
1. What Spain wrote was - “... the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.” All that was left open was the question of right. A question that was up for discussion supposedly after the restoration but one which never took place. Mostly it never took place because Spain preferred to believe the supposed 'secret promise' as reported by the French Ambassador, de Guiness, which in 1774 he admitted was just rumour.
2. There is no evidence of anyone being given the title of governor in 1823. There was a request for Areguati to be given the title of comandante, but he only stayed 4 months and there is no paperwork indicating that it was given. Vernet was very good at keeping the paperwork.
3. As you know, Britain expelled the trespassing garrison in 1833, not the settlers. We even went to great lengths, including paying the gauchos outstanding wages, to persuade the settlers to stay. K&R suggest that the garrison were settlers which is nonsense.
4. Other than some muttering by Pinedo there was no resistance in 1833. Not a single shot fired in protest
5. Britain didn't consider the place a colony until 1842 and opened it up to colonists on the same basis as Australia etc. We didn't make people go and we didn't implant anyone. Abject nonsense.
Run out of words, I'll try & pick it up lat
@Voice
Oct 03rd, 2017 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't see that anywhere; all the dates that were mentioned were in the 20th century, and it says the case was decided based on a British judgement in 1939 that both countries agreed to.
It would make sense to say a country that declares and wins independence gets to keep everything the colonising country owned. On the other hand, wasn't it a situation that hadn't happened often before? So how could there be any laws about it other that what people make up as they go along? Indeed I gather that UPJ was invented by those countries at the time and later extended to the rest of the world, so how would the court decide?
@RL
As I read the case, UPJ was rejected because it does not apply retroactively, but if Qatar had agreed, they could have used it anyway. This implies that agreement is only required if UPJ would not otherwise apply, so is not always necessary.
As for TH's list, it certainly sounds like Ruda was correct in his first point. On what basis do Pascoe and Pepper say this is untrue?
Some of the other points certainly do appear to be untrue or debatable. On point 5 I suppose he would argue the effect was to replace Argentines with British subjects, even if some of the original settlers were asked to stay and the British citizens moved there freely. There were no incentives to move there were there?
DemonTree
Oct 04th, 2017 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse +1“On what basis do Pascoe and Pepper say this is untrue?” Here is the citation again for the sightless.
The rebuttals are listed in the original pamphlet False Falklands History at the United Nations by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper; p.2
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/2012-false-falklands-history-at-the-u
Firstly, as I understand it the ICJ require that the parties to a dispute identify exactly what it is that they are to adjudicate upon and any boundaries/limits that apply. This is in the form of a treaty agreement that presents a specific issue to the court. The court has NEVER (sorry to shout) considered UPJ where one of the parties a) hadn't accepted the principle of UPJ and b) had not previously relied upon it.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2Ruda was not correct on his first point. There was no reservation of right. Merely a reservation that the question remained open. Now if it had said - “cannot nor ought any wise affect the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands,” then Ruda would have had a case. It did not say that.
On point 5 - what remained of the settlers after the Lexington visit was a mixed bag. The Charrúa Indians were from the Banda Oriental; the other gauchos were probably from lands now viewed as Argentine. Whether they were settlers is moot as they were viewed by Vernet as employees and not treated by him as settlers. Onslow noted 12 gauchos (inc. the Charrúa) and 6 settlers. -
“William Dickson is an Irishman, Jean Simon, French, Antonio Werner and Charles Kusserley are German, while William Jones is English. Benjamin Pearson hails from Jamaica. There are also three women; Antonina Roxa, and two black slaves, Gregoria and Carmelita who has a child.” [PRO FO 6/500]
Of those that returned after Onslow had left - Mathew Brisbane was a Scot, Ventura Pasos was from BA, Manuel Gonzalez was a Charrúa Indian from the Banda Oriental, and the guachos Juan Brasido and Domingo Valleja were probably from Argentine lands.
At various times inducements were offered to all colonists in all colonies (free passage etc.) but with little effect on the Falklands population. There were warmer places to head to.
I'm running out of characters again, but the reason that Argentina argues both for a violent take-over & implantation of settlers comes down to the nature of UPJ.
@RL
Oct 04th, 2017 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse -3After reading about that case I'm not even convinced UPJ is the principle Argentina want to apply, but if not then I have no idea what the right rule would be.
I was wondering whether the ICJ had considered any disputes involving Brazil, as that would give a much closer parallel (due to being colonised by a different country), but the only one I could find was a diplomatic spat with Honduras which isn't relevant.
On Ruda's first point, so what he said was ”cannot nor ought any wise to affect THE QUESTION OF the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands,” and the words in bold are what you say make the difference? My interpretation of that was that Spain agreed to return the fort to Britain but did not concede Britain had sovereignty over anything there (which is not the same as declaring that Spain DID have sovereignty). Do you agree?
About the settlers, were they still there when Britain opened the islands up to settlement from Britain? Do any of them still have descendants on the islands today?
I guess it's true there were inducements to move to the colonies, and I'm sure I've heard of people being offered cheap passage to Australia even after it became independent.
Did Argentina have anything similar to get people to move to TdF? I imagine they'd have a similar problem with the climate putting people off.
RL
Oct 04th, 2017 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse +2. “Other than some muttering by Pinedo there was no resistance in 1833. Not a single shot fired in protest”
And the request for Pinedo's military to leave delivered by letter. Hardly dismissal by gunpoint.
I am trying to discover more details about the British mercenaries employed to crew the Sarandi.
It may not be of crucial relevance legally to 1833, but technically it is British born mercenaries that seem to be to blame for the Sarandi's crew offering no resistance to Onslow. This circumstance never seems to be mentioned by Argentina.
Antonio Werner and Charles Kusserley , the Germans, represent some of Vernet's preferred settlers. There were more Germans prior to 1831 after the Lexington visited.
William Dickson would in 1833 be of British origin as would Benjamin Pearson.
Claiming land as a country may not depend on the nationalities associated with that claim, but the Falklands were certainly not exclusively manned by settlers of South American origin.
So does this weaken the Argentine claim?
I say, no more fanciful than the Argentine claim that they inherited from Spain.
Vernet's settlers (pre 1831) were not all 'Argentine', unless the Germans, North Americans , French, Spanish, and British settlers considered themselves 'Argentine' rather than emigrants wanting to live in the Falklands.
The British connection with the Falklands, continuing presence of British ships, British sealers, Vernet's British settlers and Pinedo's British born crew mean Argentina cannot claim successfully that the Falkland Islands were a no go area for British people.
@DT
“ I suppose he would argue the effect was to replace Argentines with British subjects.”
Interesting point.
By this do you mean that as the 'Argentine' settlers remaining in 1833, became British subjects,(thus being 'replaced' by their change of nationality), or that Argentine settlers were replaced by emigrants from Great Britain?
DT - Spain was not conceding sovereignty I agree, nor recognising it, but neither was it a reservation of sovereignty. In fact the matter was supposed to be decided later. There is a suggestion that when Ambassador Moreno first submitted the 'Declaration' it was worded more strongly but that Rochford made it plain that the statement would not be accepted. It is said that Rochford rewrote part of the Spanish declaration to make it acceptable. If that was the case I have no doubt which words he added.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse +4Shortly after the accord was signed, Moreno approached Rochford for a discussion on sovereignty. Rochford said that it would have to wait restitution. After restitution, Rochford invited Moreno to discuss sovereignty, but Moreno could only say that he had “no instructions.” There the matter was left. A stand-off that became the status quo and which endured (with some probing) until 1833.
Going back to UPJ and Brazil in particular. Brazil did not sign in 1848 (not even invited) and Brazil, technically, has never accepted UPJ as a legal principle, preferring the older - 'uti possidetis, ita possideatis' (Who owns by fact, owns by right). This was stated in the 1750 Treaty of Madrid between Spain and Portugal - a rejection of the Treaty of Tordesillas.
As for the settlers, yes many were still there in 1842. Antonina Roxa (who had arrived as the wife of one of the garrison members - later executed) was one of the first to swear an oath to the British Crown. The last of them died off in the 1870's I think. The son of Juan Simon was certainly there until he received part of Vernet's compensation which had been held over to pay debts owed to Simon (murdered in 1833). After that he, and his brothers seem to have gone. I am not aware of any of Vernet's settlers or gauchos having descendants on the Islands now.
I do not know whether Argentina offered inducements to TdeFuego. They offered land to the Welsh in the 1760's.
Out of characters again - all in the Timeline
Voice/DemonTree
Oct 04th, 2017 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse +199.9% of people will understand that UPJ is consensual and only applicable to those countries that have opted-in to use it. As I have said, common sense.
And if this has been the situation for the past 150 years (and it has) - '' Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.'' ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Then that proves the point and your comments are pretty much irrelevant and worthless.
PB - sorry, I have no information regarding the Brits employed on the Sarandi. 'Mercenaries' is a little harsh. South American states simply did not have sufficient trained sailors to operate their ships so they made it worthwhile for those of other nations to work for them, British sailors were highly prized as they generally knew what they were doing.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse +5The varied make-up of Vernet's settlers is quite irrelevant to Argentina's claim IMHO as Argentina's claim is solely based upon a non-existent inheritance.
The Falklands were certainly not a 'no go area' for British ships. Nor those of the USA. There were so many north American sealers & whalers that the UK worried in the 1840's & 50's that the USA would make a claim to part of the Falklands archipelago - New Island in particular.
DT - I have the histories of Vernet's settlers in the Timeline. Not always happy, at least one committed suicide and there were accidents. Roxa was probably the most successful of them.I have long said that the Islanders should have a statue up to her somewhere. There's a valley that carries her name apparently, but not many Islanders seem to know about it.
@Pete Bog
Oct 04th, 2017 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good question. Most probably he meant the latter, but who knows? Since Argentina is a country largely made up of immigrants, and many of the settlers were apparently immigrants to Argentina, I don't know how he would think about it. And nowadays, it's not like they can really object to the Islanders being descended from Brits, because so are plenty of Argentines. So I guess their objection is that they are culturally British?
@Brit Bob
Now you are starting to sound like Terry. 99% of people have never heard of UPJ, and it is irrelevant what they think anyway. What matters is what the judges believe.
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat something, it doesn't make it any more true, and neither does using fancy Latin words. Just because something has never happened, doesn't mean it can't happen. The question is whether there have been any similar cases where one party tried to use it and the other refused.
Your example of Bahrain vs Qatar might have helped, except that it rather tends to prove the opposite of what you claim. Are there any more examples?
@RL
RE sovereignty, that makes sense, except that after Britain withdrew its garrison it's not surprising Spain had no desire to reopen the question. Since they had possession in practice and Britain was not pressing its claim there was no reason to.
It's a shame Brazil has never gone to the ICJ, if they don't accept UPJ. Have they had any border conflicts with the other SA countries that went to arbitration, or were they all settled in other ways?
That's pretty sad about Vernet's settlers, especially after all the trouble they had earlier. And as for statues, some journalist said they should really erect a monument to Galtieri, because they'd probably be Argentine by now if not for him!
Still waiting for Bob to show me where the ICJ states the UPJ has to be consensual...
Oct 04th, 2017 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Bahrain case does not state that UPJ was not applicable because Qatar had not agreed to it...
UPJ was considered by all the judges and deemed not applicable for other reasons even by Judge Torres Bernádez..
457. In conclusion, in the light of the considerations above, 1 reject Bahrain's uti possidetis ,juris plea because this principle or norm of general international law does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Utipossidetis juris is irrelevant in this case and therefore cannot become the source of a derivative title of Bahrain to the Hawar Islands. Through its uti po.s.sidetis ,juris plea Bahrain cannot avoid proving to the Court that it is in possession of an internationally valid legal title to the Hawar Islands. Legul title should exist to uphold a judicial determination based upon uti possideti.~juris, because effective possession is by no means uti possideti.~juris legal title.”
Like Terry you have a fondness for part quoting the bits you like in an attempt to mislead people...
Do you really think that we won't read the whole summation ourselves...?
http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/87/087-20010316-JUD-01-09-EN.pdf
Hey Roger you can SHOUT all you like, but NEVER still doesn't mean CAN'T...
Or do you have a quote where the ICJ states that UPJ can't be applied unless agreed by both parties...
...thought not...;-)
@ Roger Lorton:
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The quote proves much more than its point, did not read the full text?
False. The claim Britain did not directly exist, it left the islands, with another country occupying them and never protested, neither when the facilities of Port Egmont were destroyed.
Are You Drinking Good Scotch Whiskey ?.
How can there be Spanish protests in the period 1774-1829 if the islands were in the possession of Spain at that time?
Argentina executed administrative acts since 1810. There were no protests.
“Three years later, General José de San Martín, at the time Governor of the Province of Cuyo, sent a letter from Mendoza dated August 14th, 1816 to the Lieutenant Governor of San Juan informing him of a note of the Minister of War proposing that criminals ”that are imprisoned in the jurisdiction of your command sentenced to the prisons of Patagones, Malvinas, or others, are sent to this capital”. It is clear beyond doubt that in the eyes of the officials who wrote the note (and those that dispatched it) that the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were part of Argentine territory.”
Argentina officially takes the islands in 1820. Posted in The Times of London. There were no protests.
Argentina successfully maintained a colony on the islands despite all the difficulties, including the civil wars and the dismemberment of the former Viceroyalty that you mentioned.
Sealers do not give sovereignty.
The Spanish occupation began in 1764 by the transfer of the French colony to Spain. Legally the year of Spanish occupation is 1764.
I mentioned that the English did not discover the islands, and were not the first occupants?
DemonTree
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Now you are starting to sound like Terry. 99% of people have never heard of UPJ, and it is irrelevant what they think anyway. What matters is what the judges believe.”
Are you stunted? You know nothing about the issue at hand and yet you continue to make arguments out ignorance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Again, uti possidetis is a treaty that takes at least two parties to make a voluntary agreement. Therefore, no judges can intercede and impose it over the wishes of parties that have not consented. It's your burden prove but you won 't because you're cut from the same cloth as Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, and Proof-less and Truth-less
When argueing with lemons its intelligent to understand that you are argueing with lemons and therefore its a waste of time. And...in a situation that aint gonna change why waste your time?
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -2@Demon Tree:Spain made restitution of the fort and port Egmont to save the honor of the British crown. In the same statement Spain expresses that the restitution can not and should not affect its previous right of sovereignty.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Hence, in that statement, the question of law was closed.
@Malvi
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain couldn't give two shits about the honour of the British crown, they gave back the fort because they didn't want to go to war at that time. They stated that giving it back did not mean they accepted British sovereignty, but that didn't change anything from how it was before.
@TV
Don't you mean “when arguing with turnips...”? ;)
Malvinense 1833
Oct 04th, 2017 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Spain expresses that the restitution can not and should not affect its previous right of sovereignty.”
“Spain did not make an express reservation of its sovereignty in the treaty of 22 January 1771 which ended the crisis caused by Spain’s peacetime attack on Port Egmont in 1770. Both Britain and Spain reserved their sovereignty in that treaty.
An early draft version of the treaty read that “nothing can diminish the Spanish King’s prior right of sovereignty” over the Falklands, but Britain would not accept that wording. The final text said that the return of Port Egmont to Britain:... cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, otherwise called Falkland.
That statement left the respective claims of both countries exactly as they had been before the Spanish seizure of Port Egmont. It did not specifically reserve Spanish rights” False Falklands History at the United Nations.. by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
DemonTree
Regardless, “The principle of uti possidetis iuris favors actual possession regardless of how it was reached and does not distinguish between de facto and de jure possession. ... (Hall 1895) http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0065.xml
@RL
Oct 04th, 2017 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -5TH's link includes this line:
“The principle of uti possidetis was also used to resolve border issues in Latin America relating to territorial disputes between Portuguese Brazil and neighboring states.”
Was it used despite them not agreeing to it, or has Brazil accepted it as a legal principle after all? I had a look for Brazil territorial disputes, but I'm only finding current ones so far (mostly with Uruguay, which AFAIK got independence from Brazil not Spain so would be different).
@ Terence Hill: The text is very very clear.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The statement is Spanish, it is absurd that a country that is defending its sovereignty, reserve the sovereignty of the other, right?
The only country that made reservation of its sovereignty was Spain, later confirmed with the British abandonment.
Malvinense 1833 - if Spain was occupying the whole archipelago from 1776 (not 1774, as they didn't confirm Britain's withdrawal for 2 years) why did France demand an establishment on the Falklands in 1801 from the British? Why did Spain not protest about that? And why did Spain only claim ONE island in 1811?
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2And where is San Juan in relation to the Falkland Islands? Exactly? You own historians laugh at the suggestion. I quote - “1) The letter is not written by San Martin, only signed. Those of us who study the numerous correspondence and offices of the Liberator notice at first glance that this letter does not correspond to the Great Captain. Noticeable differences can be observed between the calligraphy of the letter (of anonymous clerk) and the particular known letter of San Martin. 2) The letter is not addressed to the Minister of War, Antonio Berutti, … It is addressed (as shown at the bottom of the second sheet) to the Gov. of San Juan, and the text is a transcript of the orders of the Minister of War, Berutti. That is to say, San Martin was only resending the order received from Buenos Aires to the Governor of Cuyo. Obviously, the mention of the Malvinas in 1816 as a territory of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata in that document and the signature of San Martin are a flight of imagination … to reaffirm the claims of sovereignty based on historical documents.” [ Argentine historian, Roberto Colimodio]
An obscure newspaper report in the bottom right hand side of an inside page of the Times in 1821 does not a sovereignty claim make. There is no evidence the British Government even noticed it, and if they had, it was Spain's problem. Jewett had only visited East Falkland (Soledad) after all.
Argentina maintained nothing in the Islands. The PROVINCE of BA only announced its pretensions in 1829. NOT an act of Argentina according to the Senate in 1882.
Spain didn't get to the islands until 1767, and no, buying a settlement did not give Spain extra time
DemonTree
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Was it used despite them not agreeing to it, or has Brazil accepted it as a legal principle after all?” Obviously the latter since it cannot be imposed unilaterally.
“Publicists such as William Edward Hall (Hall 1895) applied uti possidetis to international boundaries in cases in which territory was not acquired through war but through occupation.”
DT - I am not aware of any ICJ case where Brazil agreed to the application of UPJ. Brit Bob's area - he may know more.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“The principle of uti possidetis was also used to resolve border issues in Latin America relating to territorial disputes between Portuguese Brazil and neighboring states.”
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Brazil used uti possidetis de facto, not de jure
Does the ICJ really need agreement...?
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The International Court of Justice subsequently applied the doctrine of uti possidetis juris in several cases,43 but its definitive pronouncement on the subject was in the Burkina Faso v. Mali case.44 In that case, the court had to draw the border between Burkina Faso and Mali, both of which emerged from a single French colony called French West Africa. The court noted that the parties had requested a ruling on the basis of uti possidetis juris, BUT EVEN IF THE PARTIES HAD NOT SO AGREED, THE COURT WOULD HAVE USED THE DOCTRINE ANYWAY.45
The court explained that uti possidetis juris was a doctrine of customary international law, applicable throughout the world.46 The court also seized the opportunity to explain the scope of uti possidetis juris, stating that where the colonial administrative lines, and the exercise of colonial authority within those lines, were clear, the lines would serve as the boundaries of the new state even where the new state did not actually possess the territory.47 Therefore, a state that acquired territorial sovereignty over territory through uti possidetis juris would not lose sovereignty simply because another state possessed and administered part of that territory. Additionally, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris would take precedence in establishing borders given the paramount importance of stable borders in maintaining the peace, notwithstanding the importance of the principle of self-determination in determining governing arrangements in the post-colonial world.48
http://arizonalawreview.org/pdf/58-3/58arizlrev633.pdf
Voice
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It's irrelevant whether UPJ is international law today. What matters is if it had already become international law before 1833. For that there is no evidence at all.
Voice
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Burkina Faso v. Mali - All countries in Africa have 'consented to apply UPJ - as I've already explained.
DemonTree
And if this has been the situation for the past 150 years (and it has) - '' Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.'' ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
The UK has 'never opted-in' to apply UPJ so it can't be used in respect of the Falklands 'without consent'. What would the world and South America look like if UPJ was applied without consent? Common sense really.
If UPJ requires the consent of the parties before it can be considered, it is hardly applicable throughout the world Voice.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.”
[Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World Abdelhamid El Ouali in International Law and States Quest for Survival 2012 p.134, fn 98]
Malvinense 1833
Oct 04th, 2017 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“it is absurd that a country that is defending its sovereignty, reserve the sovereignty of the other” The answer is simple the UK was fully prepared to go to war over the question. Conversely Spain was not, hence the climb down.
“The claim of Great Britain to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands having been unequivocally asserted and maintained, during those discussions with Spain, in 1770 and 1771, which nearly led to a war between the two countries, and Spain having deemed it proper to put an end to those discussions, by restoring to his Majesty the places from which British subjects had been expelled,..to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself Palmerston to Don Manuel Moren, jan. 8, 1834
“the infringement of the unquestionable rights of Great Britain on the Falkland Islands shall not be allowed.” Aberdeen to Moreno in a letter dated February 15, 1841.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“But even if the parties had not so agreed, the court would have used the doctrine anyway.” Not if one of the parties refuse, that would be end of that attempt. But regardless, it is not applicable as iUti possidetis juris was adopted in 1848 which is post 1833 and would be barred under : ”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. …” The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
,
It is quite clear from all the ICJ cases I have shown in particular the Bahrain case that the decision of the court and the reasons stated had noting to do with any agreement between the parties...
Oct 04th, 2017 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Both parties submitted themselves to the court for adjudication concerning the disputed territory...leaving the court to explore and deem applicable all international law available..
There would not have been any reason for the court to go into lengthy detail of why UPJ was not applicable..
A simple footnote explaining that one party had disagreed would have sufficed..
I am still waiting for one of you supposed experts to give me a link from the ICJ stating that it CANNOT apply UPJ unless both parties agree to the doctrine...
Am I going to wait forever...?
It's clear from what Voice posted that UPJ can indeed be applied without the consent of the parties now. It's irrelevant if this has never actually happened, no matter how many times people repeat it.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3As even Roger agreed, it never having happened does not mean it never can happen.
So the only question left is whether it would be applied to events from 1833.
@dab14763
You say UPJ had not become international law in 1833. Do you have any evidence of when it did become international law?
“Brazil used uti possidetis de facto, not de jure”
What's the difference? And do you have any examples? That would save some time.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 04th, 2017 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“I am still waiting for one of you supposed experts to give me a link from the ICJ stating that it CANNOT apply UPJ unless both parties agree to the doctrine…” Then it will long wait since it is you claiming the contrary. As the court has never attempted to impose such a condition. So your claim an absurdity in logic and law since it is an impossibility to prove a negative, which has never been applied. If you’re claiming opposite is true, then name the case(s).
But there is such a doctrine in use: “1 . Consent; The best means to ensure stability in general is to rely upon the consent of the parties themselves, so that once the relevant parties have by whatever means agreed upon a boundary line, that agreement constitutes a binding obligation. It cannot be overturned by reference to earlier materials. It is a proposition of fundamental importance that demonstrates that the key to boundary delimitation lies in the consent of the relevant States. This consent may be manifested in a variety of ways, of which express agreement through a binding treaty is but the most apparent. Recognition may be demonstrated by conduct … in the DubaijSharjah case, where the Court emphasized that:
the principle of the stability of boundaries-boundaries established here by administrative decisions and not arising by Treaty or in consequence of an arbitral award-depends precisely upon their recognition and effective application in subsequent practice.'” The Heritage Of States: The Principle Of Uti Possidetis Juris Today By Malcolm N. Shaw. So that sinks any Argentine spurious claim.
What’s that sucking sound? Oh! It's the Slavish Follower.
TWIMC...
Oct 04th, 2017 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2When argueing with Turnips..., it's wise to understand that you are argueing with turnips and therefore its a waste of time....
Besides..., in a situation that's gonna change..., why waste ones time on turnips...?
;-)
DT,
Oct 04th, 2017 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Juris: The parties keep territory as determined by previous legal decisions such as international treaties or administrative boundary decisions regardless of what each party actually controls.
De facto: the parties keep the territory they control regardless of where legal decisions had placed borders and boundaries.
Some time after independence Brazil occupied large areas of territory which were on the Spanish side of treaties between Spain and Portugal. When it came to determining who the territories belonged to de facto prevailed and Brazil kept the territories. If juris had prevailed Brazil would have handed them over to its Hispanic neighbours.
The doctrine of effective control is much older than the doctrine of borders and boundaries established by legal decisions. It had been used in peace treaties for some centuries before SA countries started declaring independence.
When did it become international law? Probably some time in the 20th century
http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf
see from page 8 of pdf onwards
Uti possidetis juris was a rough and ready agreement between the new Latin American states to establish their respective territorial limits. (It led to many controversies and conflicts between the new nations, some of which persist.) As a principle, it could be applied only to a dispute between Latin American nations. For example, it could be invoked if Uruguay claimed the Falklands on the grounds that, at the 'critical date', the islands were, in fact, administered from Montevideo, and it was the Governor of Montevideo who withdrew the garrison and settlers. Whether it is applicable in a dispute with a non-Spanish American nation is open to doubt. In any case, uti possidetis was not formally adopted until the Congress of Lima in 1848, by which time the Falklands had again been under British control for a number of years.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Voice/DemonTree
Disprove: - And if this has been the situation for the past 150 years (and it has) - '' Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.'' ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Common sense.
...... ........ ....... Common sense..., the less common sense on a turnip...
Oct 04th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@dab14763
Oct 04th, 2017 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -4I get what you were saying now. But is UPJ considered to apply from the time it was created or the time it became generally accepted?
Also do you know of any examples of Brazilian disputes that were solved by arbitration, rather than by a war?
@Brit Bob
As I said before, I don't deny that statement. I disagree with your conclusion that because it has never happened in the past, it cannot happen in the future.
Here's an analogy: no one has gone to jail for murdering the British monarch in the last 150 years. Does that mean that if you assassinate the Queen tomorrow you won't be arrested?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 04th, 2017 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Your engaging in sock-puppetry again, a hand to hand job. So as to ICJ “There is no reason, ..for Britain, which has sovereignty ..to make the … move.” Margaret Thatcher. Claim under UPJ has no application. No agreement, and barred as retroactive. So no change foreseeably.
“The ICJ has never adjudicated whether uti possidetis is a norm of customary
law. In the cases involving these types of border disputes as the Frontier Dispute
Case and the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute Case both parties have
possidetis principle in the absence of a previous compromis.
Customary norm stipulated by compromise or otherwise that their boundary would be determined according to the borders in effect at the time of independence.” The legality of Uti Possidetis in the definition of Kovoso’s legal status; Fernanda Fernandez Jankov Vesna Ćorić. Poor Argentina out in the cold with no where to go, entirely of her own wrongful doing.
DemonTree
Oct 04th, 2017 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“But is UPJ considered to apply from the time it was created or the time it became generally accepted?”
For Argentina...1810
An extract from the ICJ recognising the treaty with Chile and also apparently the UPJ Doctrine and the date of Argentina's Independence from Spain...
20. Since the time when they became independent States, Chile and Argentina sought to determine the boundaries of their respective territories in accordance with the 1810 rule of utipossidetis. For example, article 39 of the Treaty of Friendship, Trade and Navigation concluded between the Argentine Confederation and Chile on 30 August 1855 provides that both ”Contracting Parties recognize as the boundaries of their respective territories the boundaries which they held to be such at the time of their separation from Spanish rule in 1810 and agree to defer issues which have arisen or may arise in this connection, with a view to discussing them at a later stage in a peaceful and friendly manner . . .
http://legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXII/3-149.pdf
The date of 1810 is included within the title of UPJ - ie - Uti Possidetis Juris of 1810, for the sole reason that 1810 was the agreed date for the last year of Spanish control. Argentina did not become independent in 1810. Indeed, Argentina did not declare its independence until 1816. The date of Argentina's attainment of independence remains moot. The fact that Chile and Argentina agreed a date of 1810 in the treaty that took them to arbitration is of no consequence. They could have agreed that the sky was red. All that was important was that they laid out their positions before the issue went to arbitration.
Oct 04th, 2017 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +3What situation is “gonna change” Think?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 04th, 2017 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Does the ICJ really need agreement...? Yes on boundary issues which is what the article is about, it is therefore not germane to Islands. Moreover, Argentina after this length of time has no chance of evoking a hearing on the matter before any international law tribunal. Its a case of use it or lose it.
“As late as 1929, T.J. Lawrence wrote that the principle of uti possidetis “held that the conclusion of peace legalizes the state of possession existing at the moment, unless special stipulations are contained in the treaty.”
Palestine, Uti Possidetis Juris, and the Borders Of Israel Abraham Bell & Eugene Kontorovich
They may have agreed the Sky was red, but I doubt that the ICJ would think that worth mentioning...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2What is clear though is that Spanish rule ended in 1810 and the ICJ don't appear to disagree with that...
I don't see one of the judges claiming that Spain still held sovereignty until it formally recognised Argentine independence...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 05th, 2017 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Chile and Argentina sought to determine the boundaries of their respective territories in accordance with the 1810 rule of uti possidetis.” Apparently the only valid application didn’t occur the until Treaty of Friendship, Trade and Navigation concluded between the Argentine Confederation and Chile on 30 August 1855. Much claimed but little to show.
“Although it is often stated that the uti possidetis principal was proclaimed by the newly independent republics, in fact very few constitutions actually used the expression uti possidetis. Of forty-three constitutions examined from the period 1811 to 1850. only one mentioned the uti possidetis principle. ..Therefore, out of a total of eighty-three constitutions spanning a century, only Costa Rica used the uti possidetis principle and only to define part of its national territory.
With the exception of treaties to which Brazil was a party, no reference to the uti possidetis principle was found in any of the fifty treaties examined between the Spanish republics in the period from 1811 to 1850. …It has also been stated that the uti possidetis of 1810 was proclaimed by the Congress at Lima in 1848,49 but the statement appears not to be altogether accurate.”
Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of Uti Possidetis By Suzanne Lalonde
Nothing ended in 1810. Spain was still fighting in South America until the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824, so the 1810 date is arbitrary at best. It was part of the agreement between the South American nations that attended the Conference of Lima in 1848. Part of the agreement also stated that the rule should be backdated to each country's DECLARATION of independence. Argentina didn't sign up to any of this, and it is unclear quite when they accepted the principle of UPJ.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3If a bunch of countries sit down and decide that black is white, then so it for those countries.
@Voice
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse -2There definitely was an agreement betweeen Argentina and Chile to use UPJ though. And as I understand it they picked 1810 as being the last year when Spain was definitely in control of all its South American colonies, ie before any country became independent, because they wanted to use the colonial boundaries.
But now I am wondering whether the borders could be changed today if someone found some new evidence from colonial times. I would guess if there has been arbitration or a treaty setting a section of border then the answer is no. But what if for example two countries always assumed the border lay alone river A, and never disagreed about it in the past, but then they found good evidence it actually ran along river B in 1810?
Does anyone know?
DemonTree
Oct 05th, 2017 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse -2I don't know, but when I think about it an 1810 UPJ might have worked with Chile...
...but not so good setting the boundaries at that date concerning the Falklands...the Spanish didn't leave till 1811...
Mr. Roger Lorton..., laddie...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse -2You are telling us Argies that...:
“Nothing ended in 1810. Spain was still fighting in South America until the Battle of Ayacucho in 1824, so the 1810 date is arbitrary at best. ”
Would you tell them Yankees that...:
Nothing ended in 1776. The UK was still fighting in North America until the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, so the 1776 date is arbitrary at best...?
I don't Think so...
Quite Think, it's called retrospectivity - a controversial theory in international law whereby the successful secessionist State back-dates its existence to the date of its declaration of independence, regardless of the actual date of attainment.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse +2The USA did not attain independence till the treaty of 1783.
So remind me - did Argentina declare its independence in 1810?
@Voice
Oct 05th, 2017 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse -2Yes, but that's a feature not a bug. They are claiming anything Spain owned in 1810, according to the administrative boundaries Spain used in 1810... which weren't well defined, so it still lead to a lot of disagreements and fights among the new countries.
@Think
I thought Argentina declared independence in 1816? But I wouldn't tell an American they weren't *really* independent in 1776 unless I wanted a big argument. ;)
'' Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.'' ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,)
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Common sense especially with the development of international law particularly self-determination.
Demonstrator the slavish follower”
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1Voice and Think are but two ‘handles’ of a ‘sock-puppeteer’, enjoy your complicity, nice sucking. “But I wouldn't tell an American they weren't *really* independent in 1776” They weren’t as that was still to be achieved, it was important as a Declaration of intent.
Roger Lorton..., lad...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse -4“Retrospectivity”............., huhhhh...?
Some Turnip out there could use such feeble “controversial theory” to..., for example..., argue that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland didn't exist until 1922..., ergo it has no rights whatsoever over any Engrish Colonies stolen or subjugated before its coming into being...
Mr. DemonTree...
You say...:
“I thought Argentina declared independence in 1816?”
I say...:
Have I said otherwise...?
Popped 'American declaration of Independence' into google and got this -
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse +2In fact, independence was formally declared on July 2, 1776, a date that John Adams believed would be “the most memorable epocha in the history of America.” On July 4, 1776, Congress approved the final text of the Declaration. It wasn't signed until August 2, 1776.
Complicated world, aint it? :-)
Roger..., lad...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse -2I presume that..., because of the Engrish delegation refusal to pose on the final picture..., your Engrish mind still considers America an Engrish Colony...;-)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Treaty_of_Paris_by_Benjamin_West_1783.jpg#mw-jump-to-license
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Some Turnip out there could use such feeble “controversial theory”. Sounds remarkably like you, without the wherewith all of where the source of the nonsense is coming from.
Think, old man, you never know, maybe they'll want to come home one day. With Trump in charge I wouldn't blame them.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse +1Seen suggestions this last week that Eire should consider rejoining the UK ...... oh, the irony. Still, it would solve that NI border problem. :-)
@Voice
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse -1I see you were right about Brit Bob and his inane repetition. No attempt to address what anyone has said, he just keeps repeating his meaningless mantra.
@Think
So if Argentina declared independence in 1816, why are you comparing 1810 to the US declaration of independence in 1776?
The US war of independence started before that year, did it not? And the new state did not get all of Britain's possessions in North America by any means.
Your comparison to the UK is nonsensical; the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (damn, we need a shorter name!) didn't gain independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, it's the same country with a new name and less territory.
@RL
They could solve the border problem if Ireland left the EU and, perhaps, joined the EEA instead. But why should Ireland have to pay for our mistakes?
Rodge..., laddie...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2I 'ave some news for ye Brummie eyes...
1) The UK has been the propriety of the USA since January 1942...
2) Seen suggestions this last century that NI should consider rejoining Eire ...... No irony. It would definitively solve that Engrish provoked NI border problem... ;-)
You must be one of those conspiracy theorists that think the Queen is behind all the world's ills and still runs the USA (I've had some strange conversations on Twitter over the last year).
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:41 am - Link - Report abuse +1Owned by the USA? Usual Latin crap as they can't work out why or how the UK still punches above its weight. It's because we haven't spent the last 200 years fighting ourselves - for all the look of it.
How is the NI border “English provoked” ? We recognise that people have rights including that of choosing which country they belong to. I know that notion is strange to you Old Man; Argentina erring towards the fascist view of human rights, but its another reason we still have influence in the world. Whereas Argentina does not have much influence even in the south cone.
Your 'news' is that fake news we keep hearing about. Just Argie jealousy.
@Voice
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse +1“What is clear though is that Spanish rule ended in 1810 ”
This may well have been a date to decide what part of South America future Chileans and future Argentines were occupying, occupying being the vital term here.
However in 1810 Falkland Islands, no members of the Spanish garrisson rebelled against Spain and declared they were staying in the Falkland Islands, as Falkland Islander or Argentines while the Spanish left. There were however settlers in what became Argentina who wanted to become independent of Spain and the same with those in what became Chile that occupied those lands. Independence was eventually asserted by people there and the Spanish ceased ruling there. But there were no people in the Falklands in 1810 when the Spanish left, certainly no people who later became Argentinian. Clearly Argentina was inherited by revolution from Spain, because the settlers were living in what is now Argentina. But no people who became Argentine were living in the Falklands in 1810, which was administered by the Spanish from Montevideo. It took what is now Argentina,( an illegal government which had murdered the previous leader in Buenos Aires), 19 years to claim the Falklands. But in 1829 the British did protest this so they cannot have acquiesced the Islands.
The British did not settle the Islands between 1774 and 1829, but properly, neither did what is now Argentina.
Demonstrator the slavish follower
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0“just keeps repeating his meaningless mantra.” IYHO, could be that he believes that nothing that followed refutes the truth of the present status quo in international law. You fell off the tit on that one, all in all, a pretty poor sucking attempt.
Rog..., dearest...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Juppp...
“Owned by the USA alright”...
Quite easy for a Scandinavian Argie to figure out that the UK lives in a fantasy of “punching above its weight”...., because the Yanks use you Engrish as a forward base to host (and pay for;-) their nuclear Polaris And Trident missil systems...
Game Over and outphasing for the Engrish Empire since 1940...
Courtesy of the Boston Tea Party...
Get used to it...
;-)
@Think
Oct 05th, 2017 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -11) Do please explain whatever crazy theory you hold. I've also heard that the US is now owned by China, and that is bullshit too.
2) It would solve one problem, but it could cause a lot of others. And NI definitely DOES have self-determination.
@ Roger Lorton: @ Roger Lorton: According to Roberto Colomidio the letter of the letter is not of handwriting of San Martin, nevertheless recognizes that the signature is of San Martin.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2As you know, at that time it was customary for a secretary (or several) to write the letters so that a Minister, a President, a General or a King signed them.
And where is San Juan in relation to the Malvinas? Answer: In that they were part of the same territory and of the same government.
If The Great Captain was repeating the orders received from Buenos Aires to the Governor of Cuyo does not change anything the fact that the Argentine Government imparted orders in relation to the Malvinas. A Minister of War, a Minister of the National Executive Power issued orders, which makes the letter more valuable.
Did I mention that Britain while all this was happening, did not occupy the islands? ;-))
Mr. DemonTree...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say...:
”Do please explain whatever crazy theory you hold.
I say...:
Why do you want me to explain the self-evident...?
By the way... It ain't my theory... It's the life experience of a good Engrish aquaintance of mine...
(An intelligent person..., an exceptional Uisge blender..., a repented Tory OBE...)
@Malvinense 1833
Oct 05th, 2017 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Did I mention that Britain while all this was happening, did not occupy the islands?”
You haven't mentioned that the United Provinces were occupying the Islands at this time either.
And neither was Spain.
”On the contrary, at the moment of Spain´s withdrawal, there was no foreign settlement in the islands, and Spain envisaged the necessary measures to ensure there would not be any in future.”
They weren't around when Weddell was in town (1820). Also they weren't around in 1829 when Vernet came to town (with British permission), nor 1831 when the USA showed up. nor 1833 to challenge HMS Clio and Tyne.
And there was no Spanish settlement or garrison on West Falkland.
“Argentina officially takes the islands in 1820.”
Officially?
The United Provinces first learned that Jewitt had claimed the Islands for them by reading the London newspaper.
Isn't the usual approach to announce it in your own press first?
And was Jewitt a United Provinces citizen?
If he was, perhaps you can explain why he later fought for Brazil against the United Provinces?
Was he shot for treason?
Jewitt spent less time than Weddell in the Islands, so Strong's claim on the Falkland Islands 130 years previously without occupation, is more valid than Jewitt's announcement,as to the best of my knowledge, Strong did not later fight against the Royal Navy, i.e. against the country for which the claim was made.
Malvinense 1833 - tell me, where is San Juan in relation to Buenos Aires in the compass? South? East? ... Somewhere else? In fact, so far away from the Falklands archipelago as to be pure fantasy that its Governor would have responsibility for same islands? And tell me something else - how many places in argentina carry the name 'Malvinas'? That letter is of no consequence, something of a joke. All it appears to confirm is that San Martin didn't know his San Juan from his elbow.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Think - self evident? Like the inheritance from Spain is self-evident? Imprescriptable? Undeniable? Incontestable? Argentina uses a lot of words to actually avoid having to provide proof. It is why you are regarded as a 3rd class nation.
Yes..., Rodge...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Absolutely Self-evident...
You Engrish swalow it with delight when the Yanks call it...:
“Our WW II deeply rooted Special Relatonship”
or...
“Our Trans-Atlantic Alliance..., key of stability around the world...”
or...
“Our Alliance..., cornerstone of the modern, democratic world order...”
Whilst they chuckle...
Nothing will change as regards the FALKLANDS for 25 years.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think
Oct 05th, 2017 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sounds no different to people calling Blair Bush's poodle. Our government certainly likes to suck up to the US, but by no means do they always do what America wants.
Why January 1942?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=29s&v=f_AhEMu4j8w
Oct 05th, 2017 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That made even less sense than I expected.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Do you also believe the conspiracy theory that Mount Pleasant is a Nato base in the South Atlantic?
Ain't Engeland in NATO...?
Oct 05th, 2017 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Uti Possidetis Juris -Falklands
Oct 05th, 2017 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As a principle, it could be applied only to a dispute between Latin American nations. For example, it could be invoked if Uruguay claimed the Falklands on the grounds that, at the 'critical date', the islands were, in fact, administered from Montevideo, and it was the Governor of Montevideo who withdrew the garrison and settlers. Whether it is applicable in a dispute with a non-Spanish American nation is open to doubt. In any case, uti possidetis was not formally adopted until the Congress of Lima in 1848, by which time the Falklands had again been under British control for a number of years. (FALKLANDS OR MALVINAS? THE BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE J. C. J. Metford P473)
The fact remains that uti possidetis juris fails to square properly with the legal establishment of non-Hispanic states in the New World, as well as the more recently evolved principles of decolonization” (Anglo-Argentine Rivalry After the Falklands/Malvinas War: Laws, Geopolitical and the Antarctic Connection, Joyner, C.C. University of Miami Inter-American Law Review, 1.1.1984 p477-478).
It must be taken into consideration that Argentina was not recognised by Spain until 1859,
twenty-six years after the Falklands had come under British rule (1833). (The Falkland Islands/Malvinas Case, Breaking theDeadlock. Laver. 19 Nov 2012, p2, para 6). Therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue that Spain could not transfer sovereignty to a state that it did not recognise.
In the South American context uti possidetis juris was considered a principle applying to only among the former Spanish possessions on the one hand and Brazil and the other European possessors on the other, was consistently denied by the latter parties. In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principles.133 ((Determining Boundaries in a Conflicting World: the Role of Uti Possidetis, LaLonde, S. 2003, p57,)
@Think
Oct 05th, 2017 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope. Only countries can join.
Do you think it's used by any other Nato country, or for Nato exercises, or anything like that? Or that it's there so the US can invade Argentina from it or whatever the CT's believe?
I “Think” the Engrish base in the Malvinas Islands can be used by other NATO countries in precisely the same manner as other Engrish bases around the World have..., are..., and will be used by “other NATO countries”...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -1But don't take me word for it...
Google what Akrotiri and Dhekelia Engrish bases have been used for by “another NATO country...”
Or Google how “anoter NATO country” is curently pressing to intensify their presence in the Engrish base of Gibraltar...
Or just read how them Engrish gave away their Chagos base to “another NATO Country”...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/22/un-vote-backing-chagos-islands-a-blow-for-uk
What makes you “Think” that the Malvinas Island are any different...?
Malvinense1833
Oct 05th, 2017 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Illegality of the British Intervention -
The Argentinians claim that the British intervention in 1833 was illegal under international law thereby rendering any future attempts by Britain to acquire title insufficient by virtue of their origins being an illegal act. But this does not follow, as it overlooks the doctrine of intertemporal law that was outlined in the Island of Palmas case; this doctrine – analogous to the doctrine of originalis followed by US Justices such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in reference to the US Constitution – that the act purported to justify the acquisition of title over territory must be examined according to the conditions at the time it was done. In short, because the British ‘invasion’ was carried out before the introduction of the prohibition of force, it is legally valid. (THE FALKLAND ISLANDS DISPUTE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW).
Jeez..Bob...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“As a principle, it could be applied only to a dispute between Latin American nations. ”
Wrong...
We all know as a principle it has been applied and considered by the ICJ around the world..
“Therefore, it would not be reasonable to argue that Spain could not transfer sovereignty to a state that it did not recognise.”
Wrong...
Argentina did not need recognition to take possession of former Spanish territory otherwise Argentina would not have existed...
“In such boundary/territorial disputes, effective possession and acquiescence were the governing principles.”
What does the ICJ say about that…?
“The court also seized the opportunity to explain the scope of uti possidetis juris, stating that where the colonial administrative lines, and the exercise of colonial authority within those lines, were clear, the lines would serve as the boundaries of the new state even where the new state DID NOT ACTUALLY POSSESS THE TERRITORY.47 Therefore, a state that acquired territorial sovereignty over territory through uti possidetis juris would not lose sovereignty simply because another state possessed and administered part of that territory. “
How is it that you list everything, but that which I asked you to...
We know why Bob don't we...?
Hasn't still doesn't mean cannot...;-))
Mr. DemonTree...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You say...:
“Nope. Only countries can join.” (NATO)
I say...:
AFAIK..., the United Kingdom is composed of three Countries and one Principality ruled by a Queen who doesn't actually rule..., leaving the running of the country(ies) to PM Theresa May..., who appears to delegate this responsibility to Presdent Donald Trump...
In short..., four Countries that make up a State... (the 51st)...
Could be worse Mr. Think...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The UK could be under the direct rule of Germany like the rest of the EU...
I couldn't find anything about Gibraltar, but I guess you're saying it's not really about Nato at all, but just that Britain would probably let the US use it if they ever had a reason to want to? Which is very likely true, although it seems unlikely they will want to unless something major changes.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The thing I read was a lot more conspiracy theoryish, they were saying the UK only wanted to keep the Falklands because it was a Nato base and that Nato troops (presumably meaning Americans) helped fight in the war.
As for the UK; yes we call the top level divisions countries, but that's for historical reasons. They're not sovereign states, any more than the states of the US are. It's not even a federal system, AFAIK the provinces in Argentina have more autonomy.
Why that sudden antigermanism..., lad...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1American President Donald Trump comes from Bobenheim am Berg in Rheinland Pfalz...
Have you checked your sweet American Missus for any German genes...?
You cojld be in for a surprise...;-)
Trump comes from New York and he's half Scottish too (last I heard they want to ban him from returning). What does it matter? I'm pretty sure it's the 'direct rule of' part that people object to, not that it's Germany...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Just to confirm our Falklands based nuclear penguins have their missiles permanently trained on the dinosaur region of Chubut. And they can be remote controlled from Arlington as the wrinkled lemon suspects. Horsemeat dealers should be afraid.
Oct 05th, 2017 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure he's trembling in his navy blue cotton Björn Borgs...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DemonTree is right Mr. Think...I have nothing against Germans, I have close family that are German (Munich)...staying with me for a month a few months ago...
Oct 05th, 2017 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also it wasn't a difficult guess on your part concerning the missus...after all the Pennsylvania Dutch are not actually Dutch..it came as no surprise that she had German/English heritage...;-)
NATO?
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What's the N for then?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“base in the Malvinas Islands can be used by other NATO countries in ..the same manner as other…bases around the World..But don't take me word for it...” I don’t. Wrong, thats just your anglophobic unprovable BS. As the facts show in Article 5. Its remit doesn’t include the South Atlantic or the Indian Ocean. As to there, its part of a bilateral defence treaty nothing to do with NATO.
The centrepiece of the NATO treaty is Article 5, promising collective security:
“an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all; and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Think's paranoia creeping out again
Oct 05th, 2017 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +2https://www.ft.com/content/0a10803c-997e-11e7-a652-cde3f882dd7b
Mr. Voice...
Oct 06th, 2017 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1Many a German would strongly contest your asseveration of having “close family that are German”... when actually being Baryrisch...
“Pennsilvanya Deutschen”..., dass geht schon... ;-)
By the way...
Would any of the “Germandirectruleofobs” present in here... be so kind to give me just a couple of tangible examples of how those bloody Germans exercise their “Direct Rule” over the rest of Europeans...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 06th, 2017 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is all this sock-puppetry about Germans? Seems rather pointless arguing with your own toe-nails unless you enjoy displaying yourself as a complete loon.
@TH & RL
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:05 am - Link - Report abuse -1It's certainly not a NATO base, but it is a base belonging to a NATO member. Afghanistan was not in the North Atlantic region last time I checked, yet it was invaded by a NATO coalition. In the highly unlikely event that Argentina attacked a NATO member in the area covered by the treaty, the same thing could happen, no?
Your article requires a subscription to read, Roger. Could you give us a quick summary?
@Think
Not quite sure what a “Germandirectruleofobs” is, but I don't believe I am one. Voice will have to answer your question.
Mr. DemonTree...
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse -11) When did Afghanistan attack a NATO member in the area covered by the treaty...?
2) You were..., a short while ago..: “ Pretty sure it was the 'direct rule of' part that people object to, not that it's Germany...”
You are now..., unable to give me just one single example of that percieved “Direct German rule that people objects...”
A bit inconsistent... don't ya Think...?
3) You “Couldn't find anything about Gibraltar, but I guess.......” you said further above...
Stop guessing and start informing yourself..., lad...:
http://gibraltarpanorama.gi/14775/169020/a/nato-urged-britain-to-install-missile-system-in-gibraltar
Voice
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0You forgot to read, ''In the South American context '' Britain, the other European possessors have never 'opted-in' to use UPJ.
You forget - '' Not a single arbitration tribunal has ever proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative)in the silence of the compromis, (formal agreement) taken a decision to apply the uti possidetis.'' ( El Quali, Abdelhamid,Territorial Integrity in a Globalizing World, International Law and States Quest for Survival, 2012, p134,) - Chances of going against this - practically zero.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Therefore, a state that acquired territorial sovereignty over territory through uti possidetis juris would not lose sovereignty simply because another state possessed and administered part of that territory. “
Well one that’s an impossibility for Argentina to claim.'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.” P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Argentina will never be able to test that BS as she will find it impossible to find any international tribunal to even indulge her nonsense.
@Think
Oct 06th, 2017 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 01) They didn't, but they prove that NATO can be called upon to fight outside of the area covered by the treaty. Al Qaeda attacked a NATO member, and the Taliban were sheltering them, or at least that was the reason for invading as far as I recall.
2) Not inconsistent at all. I'm pretty sure that *for people who believe such things*, it's the direct rule part they object to. Those people don't include me, but I do think Germany has too much power in the EU now, which Britain's departure may make even worse. Have you heard the saying “he who pays the piper calls the tune”? Since the financial crisis the bailouts have created an unhealthy relationship where Germans resent handing money to the poorer countries and the people in those countries resent Germany for the enforced austerity attached to the bailouts.
Greece is the extreme example, as they have basically had to give up control of their own economic and employment/pensions policy in order to stay in the EU/Euro. That's a big hit on independence.
3) Thank you, it's hard to google Gibraltar stuff because I just find idiotic tabloid articles.
Your article doesn't say another NATO country is currently pressing to intensify their presence in Gib though. it says NATO urged Britain to install a missile system and Britain didn't do it because of cost cutting. It also says “Gibraltar is not a NATO base as such, but a British base which, according to the latest UK Strategy paper available, provides ”a continuing need“.” Gib is in the NATO area though, so I guess it could become a NATO base if needed.
@Brit Bob
“You forget - ”
I'm sure none of us will ever forget this with the amount of times you have repeated it! Judging by the written opinions of the judges, the chances of them going against this in some circumstances are nearly 100%. But I'm sure you'd rather keep repeating your mantra than engage with the evidence.
DT - quick summary = Too many paranoid Argies.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also NATO only goes as far south as the Tropic of Cancer. Everything north of that appears to be in play. And the word “attack” would appear to be widely interpreted.
Really, Roger? I'm sure even the headline would be more informative than that.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0NATO Article 6:
For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:
o) on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France*, on the territory of or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
o) on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
It limits the area that is defended by the treaty, it doesn't mean NATO can't invade a country outside that area if they consider that country attacked them under whatever extra-wide interpretation of 'attack' they choose.
You wanted a quick summary :-)
Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse -1So, the Falklands - north of the Tropic of Cancer?
@ Brit Bob:Thanks for admitting the point in question and being the only reason the UK owns the islands: Invasion.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse -1Your quote is wrong. According to the international law of the time territory could be acquired through a declaration of war. This did not happen between Argentina and Great Britain. On the contrary, a few years earlier they had signed a treaty of peace and friendship.
The United Kingdom could invoke acquisition of territory by conquest to finish once with the controversy, but it does not do it because it was not at war with Argentina.
Everyone knows it except for the Falklandist: The Malvinas are Argentines.
Mr. Demontree...
Oct 06th, 2017 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Al-Qaeda attacked a NATO member alright..., and the Afghan Taliban sheltering them was indeed the *** E-X-C-U-S-E*** for invading Afghanistan...
Tell me...:
Who did foster that dog called Al-Qaeda...? (Cue...: Operation Cyclone)
Who financed the Al-Qaeda organization at the time of the 9/11 attacks...?
How many Afghani Al-Qaeda Mujahideen participated on the 9/11 attacks...?
In which Country did the Al-Qaeda dear leader finally reach his deserved martyrdom...?
2) I clearly asked above for anybody to give me ”just a couple of ***T-A-N-G-I-B-L-E *** examples of how those bloody Germans exercise their “Direct Rule” over the rest of Europeans...
- You give me a typical Brexiter nonsense as..: “He who pays the piper calls the tune”
3) To finish..., and considering the previous record of uses and misuses of all the British Military Bases on Earth..., I'll pose a question that one of me dear Engrish opponents in here (a resident on Siam)..., uses to ask...:
- Is one being paranoid..., when one has all empirical reason to be it
Malvinense 1833
Oct 06th, 2017 - 12:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The modern definition of war has been defined as: ‘a state of forcible contention; an armed contest between nations; a state of hostility between two or more nations or states.’ In the Law of Nations, and more relevant to the era, Vattel provides the following definition – ‘War is the state in which we prosecute our right by force.’
The Argentine government describe the British activities of 3 January 1833 as, 'on 3 January 1833 a British Royal Navy corvette with the support of another warship in the vicinity, threatened to use greater force and demanded the surrender and handover of the settlement.' And 'The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic...' The Argentine Foreign Minister described the events of 1833 as, ‘the UK had occupied the Malvinas Islands since 1833, when its fleet had driven away the population and Argentine authorities, a shameful, imperialist act consolidated with the expansionist intent of the British crown.’
Britain’s 1833 “invasion.” Indeed, it seems that Britain has in fact met all the other requirements of a successful acquisition of title by conquest which were suggested by the Court during the Nuremberg War Crime Trials: further action of an international nature such as either a treaty of cession or - pertinent to the Falklands, as discussed above - international recognition as to the change of title; and effective control over the relevant territory by the state (Britain) purporting to conquer thereby ensuring there can be no reasonable chance of the former sovereign (Argentina) regaining the land.
@RL
Oct 06th, 2017 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Nope. So the UK could not invoke Article 5 in 1982.
Do you agree that Afghanistan is not in Europe or North America, or in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer? Yet NATO had bases there.
And is Malvinense right that Britain does not claim conquest because there was no declaration of war?
@Think
1) If you think Al Qaeda were the excuse for invading Afghanistan, what do you think was the real reason? And do you believe they would have invaded if not for 9/11?
My opinion is that they may have bent the rules by calling it an attack, but 9/11 and Al
Qaeda were the real reason for the invasion.
2) Yes, that's why I told you Voice would have to answer your question. Because *I* don't believe it, and I always supposed that people saying this were merely using hyperbole to describe the sorts of things I mentioned. And since you haven't told me more, I assume your English friend was doing the same in respect of America.
You're starting to give me deja vu of my argument with Terry upthread.
3) There is a US military base located ON Cuba, and it doesn't seem to have stopped them defying US wishes.
What situation do you envisage where Mount Pleasant would be useful to the US? I can't see one happening in the short-to-medium term, and in the long term anything can happen.
“You're starting to give me Déjà Vu of my argument with Terry upthread.”..., you say...
Oct 06th, 2017 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- That's the worst insult I have recieved in here..., since some years ago..., when somebody accused me of being British..., I say...
Malvinense 1833
Oct 06th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“According to the international law of the time territory could be acquired through a declaration of war” Typical bullshit from you people. here’s the truth. Not according to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupation bellica or not.”
@Think
Oct 06th, 2017 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lol, I remember Briton accusing you of being from Yorkshire. I'm sure you'll get over it, there's nothing wrong with Yorkshiremen.
Further to point 3; quite frankly I don't think the US would need a base to conquer Argentina right now. It's what happens *after* the war that they haven't figured out. And I don't know why they'd want to anyway, the US 'empire' has never been about conquering territory, they're all about the economic imperialism.
DT - Afghanistan is definitely north of the Tropic of Cancer. It goes all the way around.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833 - can you name the “international law of the time”? Where was it writ? Or are you just whistling in the wind, as usual?
Please stop playing the fool. Is or is not Afghanistan in the North Atlantic area?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Can you claim a territory by conquest without declaring war?
It has already been mentioned that the United Provinces carried out administrative acts. The Gran Capitan or if you prefer the Argentine Government requested the men of the Malvinas prison. Was it uninhabited?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Weddell and other nations' ships were on the islands when the inauguration was reported. (1820).
The news was published in The Times of London. https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=circular+Jewett&rlz=1C1EODB_enAR549AR560&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB1ojjqtzWAhWKH5AKHfCNAaUQ_AUICigB&biw=964&bih=477#imgrc=YPs-yNmzsYI3AM:
There was no British
reaction or protest. Why? Because the islands were not considered British.
Officially? The answer is a blunt yes.
It is ridiculous to think that the United Provinces learned of the claim by reading the London newspaper.
If the order was given by the Government !!!
https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=circular+Jewett&rlz=1C1EODB_enAR549AR560&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB1ojjqtzWAhWKH5AKHfCNAaUQ_AUICigB&biw=964&bih=477#imgrc=YPs-yNmzsYI3AM:
The news was also published by the Argos of Buenos Aires, which the rest of the population has taken notice of this fact later is irrelevant.
Jewett?
“The fact of having been a privateer does not diminish the official nature of his actions. The British pamphlet completely contradicts the claims over Antarctica put forward by the United Kingdom against Argentina and Chile before the International Court of Justice concerning taking possession of a territory. In making those claims, the British state that on December 7th, 1821, the captain of the British whale-hunting ship “Dove”, George Powell, allegedly took possession of Coronation Island, one of the South Orkneys, on behalf of King George IV. If the United Kingdom considers that a seal-hunting ship had the capacity to take possession of a territory, it is difficult to justify the denial of the same capacity to Jewett´s actions in the Falklands/Malvinas: Jewett was vested with official authority and in command of an official ship.”
Marcelo Kohen- Facundo Rodríguez
Malvinense 1833
Oct 06th, 2017 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1On the subject of conquest as providing title to the Falklands, Shaw writes, ‘it would appear that conquest formed the original title, irrespective of the British employment of other principles. This, coupled with the widespread recognition by the international community, including the United Nations, of the status of the territory as a British Colony would appear to resolve the legal issues, although the matter is not uncontroversial’ (International Law, Sixth Edition, Shaw M.S. 2008, p533).
The reality - no such thing as stealing territory in the 19th century.
”The decisive point is that annexation, that is, TAKING POSSESSION OF ANOTHER STATE'S TERRITORY WITH the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupation bellica or not.”
Oct 06th, 2017 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1That is so funny...for Britain to claim that they would have to admit that the Territory belonged to Argentina...
Soooo...another reference to inapplicable nonsense...
“for Britain to claim that they would have to admit that the Territory belonged to Argentina”
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Not necessarily. Roger claims West Falkland still belonged to Spain, and Spain is another state.
Also it turns out you can sometimes legally claim contradictory things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_pleading
Crazy huh?
TWIMC...
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Anglo Turnip Brit Bob writes above...:
“No such thing as stealing territory in the 19th century.”
I say...:
I presume he means the 19th century after Christ...
What was it..., Christ said about stealing in the 0th century...?
Soooo...another reference to inapplicable nonsense from AngloTurnip Brit Bob...
Malvinense 1833
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There was no British reaction or protest. Why? Because the islands were not considered British.Officially? The answer is a blunt yes. ..If the order was given by the Government !!!” Since you provide no evidence , it is only YHO which carries no weight.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“Britain to claim that they would have to admit that the Territory belonged to Argentina…” It is just one of at least six claims of right that the UK can make. How many can Argentina make?
“The claim of Great Britain to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands having been unequivocally asserted and maintained, during those discussions with Spain, in 1770 and 1771, which nearly led to a war between the two countries, and Spain having deemed it proper to put an end to those discussions, by restoring to his Majesty the places from which British subjects had been expelled,..the government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right, as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain herself; and this consideration alone would fully justify his Majesty’s Government in declining to enter into any further explanation upon a question which, upwards of half a century ago, was so notoriously and decisively adjusted with another government more immediately concerned.” Palmerston to Don Manuel Moren, jan. 8, 1834.
In addition, As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as ”the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case.
'A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, b
“Not necessarily. Roger claims West Falkland still belonged to Spain, and Spain is another state.”
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sooo...did Britain conquer Spain...? My point was for Britain to claim conquest it was Argentina that possessed the Falklands...
Hey Bob...keen on quoting Shaw huh...wonder what he says about conquest...
“Conquest, the act of defeating an opponent and occupying all or part of its territory, does not of itself constitute a basis of title to the land.It does give the victor certain rights under international law as regards the territory, the rights of belligerent occupation, but the territory remains the legal possession of the ousted sovereign. Sovereignty as such does not merely pass by conquest to the occupying forces, although complex situations may arise where the legal status of the territory occupied is, in fact, in dispute prior to the conquest.”
Why does it matter whether it was Spain or Argentina? I know countries have gained territories after wars, like Alsace-Lorraine that got swapped between France and Germany a few times. So what's the difference?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why...?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -3because...
Conquest is firmly established by taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will...
Which State was the Conquest against and which territory was taken...
That would have to be Argentina...
Otherwise who was the conquered...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 06th, 2017 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised the powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.''(Theory and Reality in International Law, de Visscher, 1957, p201).
Do you mean like nearly 60 years that the British ceased to exercise any authority over the Falklands leaving it to the Spanish to exercise authority over it...?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Yeah I thought that was what you meant...
:-)))
Oct 06th, 2017 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@Voice
Oct 06th, 2017 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you mean because the garrison there at the time was Argentine? What happens if two countries are disputing a territory and a third country goes to war with one of them and captures it?
Officially? The answer is a blunt yes.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It is ridiculous to think that the United Provinces learned of the claim by reading the London newspaper.
If the order was given by the Government !!!
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Prefectura/REVISTA-GUARDACOSTAS/Imagenes/DavidJewett.jpg
The news was published in The Times of London.
http://www.histarmar.com.ar/Prefectura/REVISTA-GUARDACOSTAS/Imagenes/DavidJewett.jpg
The islands were empty, no one occupied them say the British but curiously they did not claim them, they did not occupy them. Simply because the islands were not British.
The evidence in favor of Argentina is blunt, but a brief occupation and a plaque on the ground are more valuable than the actual occupation of Spain and then Argentina and its innumerable administrative acts.
The British now hold the islands for an illegal act committed in 1833.
@ Voice : Do you mean like nearly 60 years that the British ceased to exercise any authority over the Falklands leaving it to the Spanish to exercise authority over it...?
Yeah I thought that was what you meant...
:-)))) :-)))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Oct 06th, 2017 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Do you mean like nearly 60 years that the British ceased to exercise any authority over the Falklands”
“A State ..cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another” Means acts speak louder than words like Argentina. Which was total flop as the UK showed them how it should be done.
@ Terence Hill: That would be to say that the only method of solution of controversy is the war? Is that what you're trying to say?
Oct 06th, 2017 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -2DemonTree
Oct 06th, 2017 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Yeah what I'm basically saying is based on the definition of Conquest and the acquisition of territory in International Law...
“Conquest, the act of defeating an opponent and occupying all or part of its territory”
Conquest...who was conquered...? Argentina and which part of its territory was occupied...?... The Falklands...
Hence my comment...
”That is so funny...for Britain to claim that (conquest), they would have to admit that the Territory belonged to Argentina...”
Probably why Britain has never...proprio motu, (on one’s own initiative) in 150 years taken a decision to apply conquest as a means of acquisition...;-)
Malvinense 1833
Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Is that what you're trying to say?” What I’m saying is you can’t complain when the party you act out against reciprocates likewise, as it makes you the ultimate hypocrite. My previous post meant to say, “It wasn’t and we all know why, which is why you can’t show.”
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
“For Britain to claim that (conquest), they would have to admit that the Territory belonged to Argentina...”
What it means is ultimately, what ever Argentina claims she bested by the UK under international law. As she can’t put together a winning hand. Ironic, she has discovered that dishonesty is not the best policy.
Same old nonsense from malvinense 1833. Relying on the British Government reading every part of the old Times is amusing, but of no consequence. And who would Britain have complained to? Argentine did not exist in 1821.
Oct 06th, 2017 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Britain DID claim the western Islands but there was no need to repeat it, just for the sake of it. Spain's claim to the eastern islands was as unassailable in 1821 as it had been a decade before. The islands ere not terra nullius.
Britain had confirmed its claim in 1802, and with Spain's claim to only ONE island in 1811, there was no challenge to that sovereignty until Argentina's in 1829 when Spain's claim to East Falkland Island was still better than anyone else's.
There was no 60 year gap - utter nonsense and easily disproven as all the papers for the Amiens Treaty were published by France that same year. A clear act of sovereignty by the British Government, and a clear act of recognition by the French Government.
Nothing of importance happened in 1820 or 1821. Just Argentines grasping at straws.
Voice/Think
Oct 07th, 2017 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3When Britain took the Falklands from Argentina in 1833, it could be argued that it acquired a title by conquest. The issue here is whether conquest can still apply given the prohibitions on the use of force under the UN Charter and the 1928 Briand-Kellogg Pact. Indeed, stated in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law is that ‘every State has the duty to refrain from recognising any territorial acquisition by another State acting contrary to Art 2(4) of the UN Charter,’ which explains why the UN Security Council’s Resolution 662 declared that the 1990 Iraqi annexation of Kuwait ‘has no legal validity and is considered null and void.’ It follows that the law of conquest has declined to the point where it provides, under the doctrine of intertemporal law, justification only for the exceptional case: namely, titles acquired before the force used to obtain them.
However, this exception does in fact apply to Britain’s 1833 “invasion.” Indeed, it seems that
Britain has in fact met all the other requirements of a successful acquisition of title by conquest which were suggested by the Court during the Nuremberg War Crime Trials: further action of an international nature such as either a treaty of cession or - pertinent to the Falklands, as discussed above - international recognition as to the change of title; and effective control over the relevant territory by the state (Britain) purporting to conquer thereby ensuring there can be no reasonable chance of the former sovereign (Argentina) regaining the land.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!