MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina recalls when Malvinas Islands were “illegally” occupied by British forces
In advance of January 3rd, when Argentina recalls the date in 1833 in which allegedly British forces “illegally” occupied the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands, the foreign ministry, Palacio San Martín, released a statement reaffirming its imprescriptible and inalienable sovereignty rights over the South Atlantic archipelago. This is the 185th anniversary of the event. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesStupid people...stupid stupid people......
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse +13Erewego, erewego, erewego, another pointless discussion... Perhaps we could discuss something more interesting like the price of cat litter?
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1How would a map of the world look today if all of the territory lost and gained over the past 180 years reverted to its 19th century status? Quite a ridiculous notion.
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse +13Falklands – Acquisitive Prescription(1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/35552595/Falklands_-Acquisitive_Prescription
'tis a wonderful little painting, capturing that exiting and dramatic moment of permanency. The unveiling of a bust of Onslow in 2033, would be appropriate - a reflection of pride and permanency.
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse +8A more significant (and more recent) date than 3 January 1833 was 26 June 1945 when the Republic of Argentina signed the United Nations Charter. Under the UN Charter the people who live on the Falkland Islands have the “universal and inalienable” right to self-determination.
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse +13TV
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +8The price here in Ireland of cat litter has increased considerably over the last year or so not to mention that cat litter trays, made of plastic are also more expensive than they were. Have you also noticed that the quality of the fuller's earth used in some is not as good at absorbtion as earlier varieties. I've had to have words with our house cats over this matter and to be honest they don't really seem to care all that much, a bit like me about Argentina's nonsense
Does Argentina commemorate the date on which Argentina was “illegally” occupied by Spain, or when Patagonia was “illegally” occupied by Argentina?
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +12Talking of cat litter.............
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +6LMAO.....You really cant make this shit up....
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +2When our last cat died we were left with a quantity of cat litter. I put it to good use under my Triumph Stag. Old vehicles always seem to leak oil but the litter is a good way of soaking it up.
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Argentina recalls the date in 1833 in which allegedly British forces “illegally” occupied the Malvinas (Falkland) Islands”
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3''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).
Argentina can make all the untruthful claims she wants but under international law the UK is the only nation to hold sovereignty
To MP readers who were Macri hopefuls:
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Told you that no Argentine government--not even Macri--will commit political suicide by dropping the Malvinas' claim. Not only that: the more an Argentine government loses political steam, the more forceful those claims will become. Which is exactly what happened in 1982.
Which is exactly what happened in 1982 - and in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015.
Jan 03rd, 2018 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2In Chamizal (1911) the US claimed title to the disputed tract on the border with Mexico on the basis of prescription, which it defined as the ‘undisturbed, uninterrupted, and unchallenged’ possession since 1848. ‘Without thinking it necessary to discuss the very controversial question as to whether the right of prescription . . . is an accepted principle of the law of nations’, the arbitrators nevertheless rejected the claim because the possession did not live up to the conditions forwarded by the US. According to them, the possession of the territory had to be peaceable. More was meant under this term than the absence of violence; DIPLOMATIC PROTEST SUFFICED TO PREVENT PRESCRIPTION. The possession had to involve the display of sovereignty by the possessor; the other party could not have opposed this. ‘Peaceable’ thus meant acquiescence by the opposing party. In several other municipal and international cases, acquiescence by the opposing party also turned out to be an important element in the evaluation of a claim based on prescription.
Jan 04th, 2018 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse +2Apparently all it takes is diplomatic protest...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 04th, 2018 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3“all it takes is diplomatic protest…” Apparently not according to Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ when she stated: “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways than through Argentinas acquiescence.”
“However intensely Argentina may disagree, Britain has clearly built up good title to the Falkland Islands under International Law over the last 150 years.”1
1. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
I recall being young and handsome ................ time moves on.
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse +6Mind you, my memory may play the same tricks as Argentina's memory. Did I dream it?
In the 1911 Chamizal Arbitration between Mexico and the USA, it was held that upon the evidence produced it is impossible to hold that the possession of El Chamizal by the United States was undisturbed, uninterrupted and unchallenged once there was a competent tribunal created to determine such cases. International Boundary Commission stated, ‘In private law, the interruption of prescription is effected by a suit, but in dealings between nations this is of course impossible, unless and until an international tribunal is established for such purpose.’ They continued, ‘In the present case, the Mexican claim was asserted before the International Boundary Commission within a reasonable time after it had commenced to exercise its functions…’ (The International Boundary Commission had been set up in 1889). ( International Boundary Commission, Chamizal Case, Mexico/USA, 15 June 1911, p328, 329).
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse +2Hey Terry...
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse -4Do you ever understand what you write...?
In your first post you are supporting an opinion that advocates prescription and in the second an opinion that dismisses prescription...
You haven't got a scoobies...have you...;-)
Held title for almost two centuries and fought a war to reclaim it from an illegal invader who had been told to leave by a binding resolution from the UN Security Council which clinched it.
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Voice of Reason...
Now, which brand of cat litter do folks recommend?
The people of the Falkland Islands to not accept (or acquiesce to) the Argentine colonial aspirations. Simply repeating them time and again serves no useful purpose. Go away.
Jan 04th, 2018 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +4TV
Jan 04th, 2018 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +4We use SupaValu 'Thomas' cat litter for kittens until they are old enough to use the cat flap. We also have one very elderly cat who now lives indoors who also uses it.
The feral cats that live around the outbuildings seem to like the gravel on the track.
@Brit Bob
Jan 04th, 2018 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -3REF: “How would a map of the world look....................”:
Those who prefer to live by those century-standards, should not even be using the internet! :o))
@Frank:
REF: “Stupid people...stupid stupid people......”:
Thanx for being frank but [by the way] the French Missiles [Exocet] - which were used for “damaging” [to put it mildly] the British Navy - were built using “Made in UK” - Rolls-Royce - Technology! But that's ANOTHER story! :o))
I hate cats...
Jan 04th, 2018 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Bob you can keep repeating yourself until you are blue in the face, but the rejection had nothing to do with a reasonable time and everything to do with...
It was not peaceable... because Mexico opposed it with a diplomatic protest..
Prescription has to be peaceable and unopposed...
So strike it off your little list of a means of acquiring territory...
Along with... Discovery (no proof)
Settlement (Not until after 1833)
Treaty (Did not apply to Falklands)
Conquest (There was no Conquest)
Am I leaving you with precious little to Spam with...? I think I am...
Voice
Jan 04th, 2018 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +5''The majority rule is that mere protests do not suffice indefinitely; they become useless without further efforts to arbitrate the dispute. (Johnson, supra 342; Chamizal Arbitration (US V Mexico), in 5 Am. J Int'L 782, 806-807 (1911). Argentina's diplomatic protests over around 150 years - until 1982 when Argentina's military invaded the Falklands - is likely insufficient to disrupt British possession. ...acquisitive prescription provides the United Kingdom with a robust claim over the islands'' (The American Bar Association 2012).
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 04th, 2018 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Do you ever understand what you write…” I certainly do Ollie as I’m showing the breadth of learned discourse that flatly contradicts your assertion.
I wonder what the Falklanders do about cat litter? Surely its not a priority import? Plenty of places to crap minding the thoughtfully placed land mines courtesy of Argentina. Have anyones pets of livestock been blown up, and what about the Cara Caras?
Jan 04th, 2018 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Recommended Dal recipe, you can get black gram lentils in Morrisons (except if you live in the nether regions). http://chefinyou.com/2012/09/24/dal-bukhara/
Darragh
Jan 04th, 2018 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Your bit about Fuller's Earth rang a bell. About 30 years ago vast quantities were brought into Ireland..both N.and S. This seemed to indicate a huge increase in the cat population.
However, it also coincided with large scale filtering of red gas oil to enable it to be used as diesel in road vehicles. Maybe the producers were told by H.M Govt. to make the product less effective as a filter.
Hey Bob...look Bob look...
Jan 04th, 2018 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -5“The basis of prescription in International Law is nothing else than general recognition of a fact, however unlawful in its origin, on the part of the members of the Family of Nations. And prescription in International Law may therefore be defined as the acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of sovereignty over it during such a period as is necessary to create under the influence of historical development the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
From the conception of prescription, as above defined, it becomes apparent that no general rule can be laid down as regards the length of time and other circumstances which are necessary to create a title by prescription. Everything depends upon the merits of the individual case. As long as other Powers keep up protests and claims, the actual exercise of sovereignty is not undisturbed, nor is there the required general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.”
International Law. A Treatise. Volume I (of
2), by Lassa Francis Oppenheim
>Enrique Massot
Jan 04th, 2018 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“Told you that no Argentine government--not even Macri--will commit political suicide by dropping the Malvinas' claim.”
This must prove that the British are somehow more intelligent, sophisticated and realistic than the Argentines. After all, no matter how bad things get in Britain, the British don't revive their claims to India or Massachusetts.
”... Between 1841 and 1849 there were spasmodic protests by the Argentine Government to Britain; protests were renewed from 1884 to 1888. From 1908 onwards there have been a series of protests. Since 1833, however, there has not been any manifestation at all of physical control by the Argentine over the Islands. The protests made by the Argentine can be described as paper protests in that they were never followed up by further positive action. Furthermore, they were punctuated by long periods of silence so far as Great Britain is concerned, during which the Argentine showed no animus either way. There was, for example, such a period of silence between 1849 and 1884 (35 years), and between 1884 and 1908 (24 years). … no positive attempt was made by the Argentine to have the matter referred to any process on international arbitration (although it is true that Dr. Ortiz suggested arbitration in 1884), even after the establishment of the League of Nations the Argentine did not bring the matter before this body. …” [ Opinion of the Law Officers 1947 in LCO 2/490]
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Paper protests
Clyde15
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Oh right, I didn't know you could use Fuller's Earth to take the red out.
FTSE and Dow at record highs today.
Jan 04th, 2018 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 05th, 2018 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse -1“no general rule can be laid down as regards the length of time and other circumstances which are necessary to create a title by prescription” Thank you for the confirmation
that it exists and has been applied. As in the decision in Williams v. Venezuela (1885)indicate such a reliance “we disallow claim No. 36. It was withheld too long. e claimants’ verification of the old urgent account of 1841, twenty-six years a er its date, without cause for the delay, supposing it to be competent testimony, is not sufficient under the circumstances of the case to overcome the presumption of settlement.”
“…is supported by quotations from Vattel and Wheaton, who both admit prescription founded on length of time as a valid and incontestable title…that the continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title…It is evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed. …peaceful display of Netherlands sovereignty in the period from 1700 to 1906, and which—as has been stated above—may be regarded as sufficiently proving the existence of Netherlands sovereignty.”
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
“The tribunal could not say definitively whether the international statute of limitations was ten years, thirty years, or fifty years. The abstract principle of prescription was thus recognized” p.31 THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW David J. Bederman
“the constant and approved practice of nations shows that by whatever name it is called the uninterrupted possession of territory or other property for a certain length of time by one state excludes the claim of every other” Wheaton
Oh good one Roger...
Jan 05th, 2018 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0”no positive attempt was made by the Argentine to have the matter referred to any process on international arbitration (although it is true that Dr. Ortiz suggested arbitration in 1884), “
Slipped in almost like a footnote...Dr. Ortiz suggested arbitration...
It was a little more than that...
1884 The Argentine Foreign Minister officially proposed that the issue be resolved through amicable and legal methods adopted by civilized nations for the resolution of disputes of this kind. However, Britain did not give a response to this proposal and in February, 1886 the Argentine representative in London, Manuel Garcia, raised the proposal again with the British Foreign Secretary Lord Rosebery. On November 3, 1887 the Argentine minister in London, Luis L. Dominguez, acting on instructions, again requested a response to the above proposal in a letter addressed to the Marquis of Salisbury, who then held the position of British Foreign Secretary.The belated response was eventually delivered on behalf of the Foreign Secretary by a Sir Thomas Villiers Lister on November 14, 1887 and it stated that from the point of view of the British government the discussion was closed and could not be reopened.
Yet another overture was made by the Argentine Foreign Minister Quirno Costa in a letter addressed to the British minister in Buenos Aires, Mr. F. Pakenham but it evoked a similar response. On June 12, 1888 the British Charge d'Affairs was told by the Argentine Foreign Minister, in a formal letter, that the Argentine claim would not be withdrawn neither as a result of the British position nor by ”the silence maintained by the British Government with respect to the Argentine proposals for arbitration.”
So...a positive attempt was made by the Argentines to have the matter referred to international arbitration...
You are not writing biasedly are you...?
I was quoting the Law Officers from 1947 - precisely.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse +8Positive attempt? Hardly. No Compromise or its equivalent (formal invitation) was ever offered to the UK. Indeed, in 1920, with the creation of the League of Nations it became obligatory for members to raise disputes for consideration. Argentina not only failed to do so, it left the League after only a few months.
I'm not even quoting biasedly :-)
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse -10Voice
Jan 05th, 2018 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse +6The position now is that if the matter is a proper one for the determination by the Security Council or the International Courts of Justice, failure to bring the matter before the Council or attempt to bring the matter before the Court must be presumed to amount to acquiescence, even if, for propaganda purposes or for other reasons, ''paper protests'' are still made from time to time. (Johnson, op cit, pp341). The majority rule is that mere protests do not suffice indefinitely; they become useless without further efforts to arbitrate the dispute. (Johnson, supra note 342).
Comprende?
Voice - better if you quote your sources. In the case above Hope 1983.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse +6http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1518&context=iclr
Sadly Hope deals with the period 1884 to 1888 in one paragraph. It's the details that count. I take 24 pages :-)
The United Kingdom can not invoke the prescription against Argentina because it first runs against the United Kingdom from 1774 to 1829. 55 years of silence.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -12The United Kingdom did not discover the islands.
The United Kingdom did not establish the first population.
Even assuming the rights he alleges, he left the diplomatic channel, and took the islands by force, moreover, he took Puerto Luis and Soledad Island, places that were never in dispute.
It is understandable given the illegality of the facts, the refusal of the United Kingdom to resolve the dispute.
The only route available for the Republic of Argentina to gain sovereignty over the Falkland Islands would be to convince a majority of the fifteen judges sitting at the United Nations International Court of Justice (UNICJ) in den Haag, Nederlands.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +7I wonder why they refuse to take their claim before the UNICJ?*
*Don't worry........I know why ;-D
Malvinonsense, your snatch squad failed in 82. You are pissing in the wind...
Jan 05th, 2018 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvinense1833
Jan 05th, 2018 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As Johnson, Sorensen and Verykios persuasively argue, mere diplomatic protests which lead to merely serve to postpone the date of final acquisition by prescription:
''There can be no doubt that the establishment, first of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice, has considerably modified the old practice whereby the somewhat crude and ineffective method of the diplomatic protest was the only method, short of war, of interrupting peaceful possession...The position now is that, if the matter is a proper one for determination by the Security Council or the International Court of Justice, failure to bring the matter before the Council or to attempt to bring it before the Court must be presumed to amount to acquiescence, even if, for propaganda purposes or other reasons, 'paper protests' are still being made from time to time.'' (Johnson, op cit, pp341).
The crux of the matter is that Argentina has ''nothing'' to take to court. The whole Malvinas myth is a pretence.
Argentina's Inheritance Problem.: -https://www.academia.edu/35194694/Falklands_Argentinas_Inheritance_Problem
Tamya, Tamya, twat...
Jan 05th, 2018 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The Falkands will continue to thrive and prosper for the next 250 years.
M1833
Jan 05th, 2018 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The United Kingdom did not discover the islands. Who did?
The United Kingdom did not establish the first population. Who did ?
I feel we are starting the magic roundabout again for the nth time. At least it will keep you busy trotting out the same old worn out message
Go on Darragh, rush out and buy some , you know you want to.The Irish Government do regular checks for green diesel, Get some Fullers Earth and see if it filters out green diesel also.You could make a fortune if it works. Keep us up to date.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The rule of law concerning prescription has not changed...It has to be peaceable, undisturbed, uninterrupted, and unchallenged...which leads to the general conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2In the last 180 years since the 1833 eviction, by no stretch of the imagination can the British occupation be described as be peaceable, undisturbed, uninterrupted, and unchallenged.
There is no support or general conviction on the part of the international community that Britain's continuing occupation of the Islands is in conformity with the international order...
Otherwise the UN would not be expressing their wish to have the matter settled...
Voice, you talk bollocks, why did the UN expressly tell Argentina to withdraw?
Jan 05th, 2018 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +5United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the Council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The Council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Simple... the UN is obviously not keen on hostilities...
@Voice
Jan 05th, 2018 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -6If you believe all that, then what do you think Britain should do, or what should the Falklanders do?
@ Demon Tree: The United Kingdom should enter into discussions with Argentina to find the best way to resolve the dispute:
Jan 05th, 2018 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Solution agreed between Argentina and the United Kingdom, if an agreement is not reached, an agreement is reached between the parties to take the case to arbitration or to the International Court of Justice.
It is simple and you avoid problems for future generations.
That's what I think, Voice will have your opinion.
Excuse me, but the children speaking nonsense go back to their mother's basement and play with their Xboxes...
Jan 05th, 2018 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Baroness Thatcher solved PERMANENTLY the status of the Falklands Islands.
The Argentines PERMANENTLY destroyed their chances for any future claims.
Periods of peaceful occupation sufficient for prescription are generally considered to be between 30 and 50 years. In the last 180 years there have been quite sufficient of those to afford a claim of usucaption by Britain, particularly in the years since the 1850 treaty with BA.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Voice - despite the legal advice and internal discussions within the FCO, no British Government has ever formally put a case of prescription forward.
It is all moot. The only way to find out if for the question to be judged. It is for the plaintiff to commence such an action. So far, Argentina appears to run scared of that option.
Malvinense 1833 - that 55 year period of yours is a myth. Broken by the restrictions placed upon Spain in 1790 and the British act(s) of sovereignty in 1801.
There is nothing to discuss. The matter is now settled.
In saying that I find myself in good (?) well, at least, interesting company as it has been said by -
Foreign Secretary Hurd in 1994, Deputy PM Clegg in 2012 and Defence Secretary Fallon in 2016. Ministerial statements,
DemonTree
Jan 05th, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm a realist...the UK will never submit to the ICJ the only option that would settle all prior claims is Independence...
Though I'm sure Argentina are not particularly bothered about gaining the territory and are more interested in removing British control so perhaps an option could be free association with Chile...being independent of both Argentina and Britain...
It is a Latin American country that already has strong ties to the Falklands...
Roger the matter may be settled to the satisfaction of the UK, but not to anyone else...it is still a problem for future generations...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 05th, 2018 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“There is no support or general conviction on the part of the international community that Britain's continuing occupation of the Islands is in conformity with the international order…”
Doesn’t matter a jot as UNGA advisements carry no legal persuasion whats so ever. As there is no legal conformity or review required. While the UK has scrupulously conformed to all the requirements of international law since Argentina’s first attempted usurpation.
What problem? Future generations will just adopt the same position as exists currently. The only real change may come if, probably when, the Antarctic Treaty breaks. With the world's population doubling every 40 years or less, those fish will be worth fighting over. The Falklands would again be a very strategic resource. I have no doubts that our friends in Washington are quite aware of that.
Jan 05th, 2018 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The future is not bright .................. but it may be Orange
Nothing remains constant except change itself...
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0How mighty was Britain 300 years ago...
How mighty was Britain 200 years ago...
How mighty was Britain 100 years ago...
How mighty is Britain today...
..and what of tomorrow...?
What friends in Washington...gullible much...?
@Voice
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse -10Independence seems like the best solution, it's a pity the population is really too small to make that feasible in the immediate future.
I don't know about free association with Chile, they seem to have a somewhat strained relationship with Argentina, and the Falklands war is a particular sore point. I wonder if Argentina would object more to that or to free association with NZ or Canada? Either way we would probably need their agreement.
Supposing Mercosur developed further along the lines of the EU, would it be feasible for the Falklands to become independent and join that? That way they would have a closer relationship with Argentina but not be controlled by it.
@RL
You think Britain keeps the Falklands in order to claim Antarctica then? Would you object to them becoming independent?
Oh, and I agree with Voice about the value of our 'friends' in Washington. Countries don't have friends, they have interests.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire and mythology major
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse -3“Nothing remains constant except change itself…”
So you’re suggesting is that in some way international law be set aside and the wrong doer will benefit from his own culpability. In your dreams, thats just another Argentine fantasy.
I was being sarcastic when I used 'friends' - not easy to convey in the written word. I'll try harder next time.
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse +5Voice - the UK has been overtaken some, but we are still in the top ten of 'mighty' stakes, whatever that may actually mean. Tomorrow? We may even be on the rebound. Somehow, I doubt I'll be around long enough for it to bother me.
DT - I would not object to the Falklands becoming independent but I've always harboured a doubt about the British Government's view.
'We' would not need Argentina's agreement for any future option, but we would have to be prepared to defend the Islanders in whatever choice they made.
I've always been amused that no less a worthy than Andrew Jackson, President of the United States, declared Vernet to be nothing less than a pirate after he seized 3 American ships, one whose captains escaped. (Unfortunately for the real pirates.) He sent an American warship which destroyed the “Argentine” settlements and packed the lot off to Montevideo in 1832. The United States did not have a problem with the United Kingdom reasserting its preexisting claims in 1833, (vis a vis the Monroe Doctrine,) as American fishing rights were adequately protected under UK law. See where lawlessness will get you? ;)
Jan 06th, 2018 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse +3Voice/M1833
Jan 06th, 2018 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse +3''There can be no doubt that the establishment, first of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice, has considerably modified the old practice whereby the somewhat crude and ineffective method of the diplomatic protest was the only method, short of war, of interrupting peaceful possession...The position now is that, if the matter is a proper one for determination by the Security Council or the International Court of Justice, failure to bring the matter before the Council or to attempt to bring it before the Court must be presumed to amount to acquiescence, even if, for propaganda purposes or other reasons, 'paper protests' are still being made from time to time.'' (Johnson, op cit, pp341).
Argentina has nothing to take to court....
If the Falkland Islands were associated with or part of Chile, Argentina would still be in maximum bellyaching mode, Britain would be blamed for allowing it and Chile would become the target of Argentinian ire. The Falklands are the Islanders home, its not an attractive proposition to would be immigrants, the present situation looks like continuing ad infinitum. Pity the brainwashed masses insist on persisting with this divisive fake claim.
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Eventually the islands will become independent. If I were the Falklanders I would do it on 3 January 2033 but, since they have better manners than I, they will probably chose a date which will not antagonise their neighbours. The UK will sign a treaty with them to guarantee their security. MPA will probably become a sovereign UK base similar to Akrotiri and Dhekelia on Cyprus. Maybe then we can all move on and the Argie whinging and whining will cease. I am not holding my breath though ;-D
Jan 06th, 2018 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@RL
Jan 06th, 2018 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -10You think the British government would not allow them to become independent? Why is that?
“'We' would not need Argentina's agreement for any future option, but we would have to be prepared to defend the Islanders in whatever choice they made.”
Depends on the option. I doubt any other country would agree to free association with them if it was going to cause them issues with Argentina, it wouldn't be worth the trouble.
As for independence, in theory Argentina's agreement would not be needed, but in practice it would, firstly because of how many countries might recognise them or not, and secondly because of the defence issue. I don't think we should agree to defend another country indefinitely, and Stoker's suggestion of a sovereign base would mean Argentina continuing to be annoyed by a British presence, which is exactly the issue independence ought to solve.
Once an independent Falkland Islands have been recognised by the UN that should be the end of the matter. A treaty with the UK and a continued UK sovereign base at MPA would be required for as long as the Constitution of the Republic of Argentina contains the claim on the Falklanders homeland.
Jan 06th, 2018 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3DT
Jan 06th, 2018 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I think.............. that geopolitics is a shitty business and that the UK Gov may yet turn out to have its own agenda. Not that it makes much difference, as the people of the Falklands are very resolutely British.
And you should not forget, that the Falklands are not the only territory we have to defend in the South Atlantic, sub-Antarctic and Antarctica. A defence agreement would help us preserve those other territories as British. Or did you think we'd be giving those away?
@RL
Jan 06th, 2018 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -9It seems you agree with the Malvinistas about some things.
And no, I wasn't thinking we'd be giving away the other territories, though I hope the Antarctic treaty continues to be renewed, or that it can be agreed it belongs to everyone or no one.
“Somehow, I doubt I'll be around long enough for it to bother me.”
That's not very patriotic...
Not patriotic? Realistic. Patriotism dies with one.
Jan 06th, 2018 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are not subject to the Antarctic Treaty. Nor are they Dependencies of the Falklands these days.British territories that need to be protected.
So your research into the Falklands is just an intellectual exercise, is it? You don't actually care what happens to them?
Jan 07th, 2018 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse -8And I know about those islands. As I said, I wasn't thinking we'd give away the other territories.
I do care what happens to them. Quite how you determine otherwise from my statements is unclear.
Jan 07th, 2018 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1We know the Falklanders depend on Britain fighting for them, figuratively and possibly literally. And you just said you don't care if the UK remains strong once you are 'no longer around'.
Jan 07th, 2018 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse -8Besides which, if you don't care what happens to the UK in future, why would you care about the Falklands?
Does that explain it? Was that not what you meant? (I'm hoping so.)
Do you mean this? - “Voice - the UK has been overtaken some, but we are still in the top ten of 'mighty' stakes, whatever that may actually mean. Tomorrow? We may even be on the rebound. Somehow, I doubt I'll be around long enough for it to bother me.”
Jan 07th, 2018 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1I won't care ............... I'll be dead. Caring is an emotional response. I won't have any.
Unless you know something that I don't?
Of course you won't care about anything when you're dead. The only question is whether you care now about what happens in the future, so do you?
Jan 07th, 2018 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -8If so, then it would be wise not to assume Britain will always be in the ”top 10 mighty states', and plan accordingly, no?
A simple example why Argentina will never again try taking the Falklands by force:
Jan 07th, 2018 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse +3http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5243355/SAS-soldier-decapitates-ISIS-thug-spade.html
It was the Ghurkas that the Argies were petrified of. The Scots Guards werent far behind in the petrification stakes, the skirl of the pipes put the wind up them.
Jan 07th, 2018 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1DT - of course I care now, but no, let's not assume the worst. I'm an optimist. You must be one of the others?
Jan 07th, 2018 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Roger, glad to hear it. I like to consider all eventualities. Hope for the best but plan for the worst, and make sure you come out ahead whatever happens. I find optimists rather reckless.
Jan 07th, 2018 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -7How long must a thief possess something they stole before they can claim it's theirs? When an invading country occupies a foreign land for any amount of time they are still illegally occupying it, irregardless of time.
Jan 07th, 2018 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Man's laws that do not respect the inalienable rights of all individuals, are nothing more then words with twisted meanings.
Yeah, all those South American countries now occupied by squatters. Those Latin squatters should give back the land to the indiginous Amerindians and go back to Europe. Whats right for one is right for all!
Jan 08th, 2018 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse +1No, no. Return Europe to the Neanderthals! Everyone should go back to Africa.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse -6I am afraid that the FIs were not Spain's to give away. The Argentine government sought permission from the United Kingdom to set up a trading post on the FIs but British later discovered that the trading post had been converted covertly to assume ownership and quite rightly the British sent them packing. The Argentine have no rights to the FIs at all, and they never had . The present European extract citizens also have no rights to the Argentine itself, they stole the country from the Amerindians
Jan 08th, 2018 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +4@ The Voice @ Demon Tree @ Vernya: The comparison is very poor and very forced, when at the time of the British usurpation bilateral relations existed between the two countries.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -2My reply was a joke, and the comment obviously absurd. But if you want to take it seriously, then I'd say laws that allow you to steal land from countries (or tribes) you don't have bilateral relations with do not respect the inalienable rights of all individuals either, and are equally nothing more than words with twisted meanings.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -7“ British usurpation”
Jan 08th, 2018 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Your opinion...not a fact.
@ Demon Tree: What I want to say is that the human being, in some sense has been evolving and there are laws and agreements between countries so that there is no theft of land to other countries, or to companies, or to people, etc.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -5At the time of the British usurpation it is assumed that there were civilized methods to resolve any controversy.
@Clyde15 In a way, it has logic. But if we look at the painting on a stamp of British people raising their flag in Puerto Soledad, a place where they had never been, nor claimed, it ceases to be an opinion and becomes a fact. Regards.
It's like Pavlov and his dogs. The Argentines make the usual statement and comment comes spewing forth. There is nothing new here - just the same old stuff. Neither side will be persuaded by the other. Fact is, Brits control right now, and for the forseeable future. But that is not to guarantee that some lunatic like Corbyn in a desperate quest for international popularity won't pull the rug from under the Falkland Islanders. No guarantee at all. If and when that happens all you learned in the law can throw your law books at him. See where that gets you.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Nonsense is your creed. Lies claimed as facts. Hyperbole claimed as logic. A nation of Pinocchios wasting time energy and effort on a lost cause...
Jan 08th, 2018 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The bad news for you is that the Malvinas cause is not considered lost, on the contrary, and although they continue under british control it is also true that they remain a few miles from our coasts.
Jan 08th, 2018 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Are you implying you fancy another drubbing. Or is it just that you believe that the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands can be invaded and stolen by illegal colonialist bullies on the basis that they are near Argentina regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants? Didnt work out too well last time did it?
Jan 08th, 2018 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2M1833
Jan 08th, 2018 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +6The bad news for you is that we don't give a toss.
“they remain a few miles from our coasts.”
A bit of hyperbole. About 250 miles at the closest and to Stanley 380 miles.
From BA in about 1830, 1300 miles by sea.
Also, your claim for S.Georgia and the sub-Antarctic Islands. 1100 and 1500 miles respectively from the nearest point on mainland Argentina.
It has been established that proximity does not give title. Otherwise we could claim the Faeroe islands and Iceland.
Malvinense 1833.
Jan 09th, 2018 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3Making assumptions is Argentina's biggest problem. Assuming an inheritance being by far the greatest.
As for distance, only a Malvinista could see 300+ miles as being “a few”. You live in a fantasy world.
Our country is huge, possibly for this reason we have different perceptions of distances. Apart from that, it is an insignificant distance when another country evicts the inhabitants of a country that is on the other side of the planet's pole.
Jan 09th, 2018 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse -1Regards to all.
@Malvinense 1833. If you're going to be silly, it might be worth you spending a few weeks reading the Archives of this site on the subject of the Falkland Islands. An incredible amount of time, research, thought, bandwidth and verbiage has been expended. Every single argie “argument” has been presented, considered and refuted. And what are you doing? Trying to drag it all out again. So do everyone, and yourself, a favour. Before you make any other “point”, do some research. Here are the basic “facts”. The Islands were discovered by Britain in 1690. The only other country with the least interest at the time was France. It established a settlement but there is no record that it ever claimed the Islands. Spain bought the French settlement. And that's all it bought. It then used force to evict legitimate British settlers. Didn't last long as the Spanish king decided he didn't want a war. So the legitimate British settlers returned. A few years later, Britain had to evacuate settlers from many places as a result of the war it was fighting against rebellious colonists, France and Spain. It left a declaration of its sovereignty. This was such an accepted practice that the Spanish did the same a few years later. There has never been a principle in international law of acquiring territory by “inheritance”. In any event, the United Provinces could not “inherit” from Spain in the 1820s or 30s because Spain did not recognise its “independence” until 1860. Britain was, however, prepared to recognise it for trade purposes. The United Provinces was so grateful that it decided to proceed by fraud. It continued to proceed by fraud, or attempted fraud, from 1833 to 1982. In 1982, argieland finally got up its courage. Based on the mistaken assumption that Britain would do nothing. It took 74 days and 649 argie deaths to learn what a mistake that was. The international legal principle of uti possidetis now applies.Because Britain retook everything that argieland tried to steal.
Jan 09th, 2018 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Distance is irrelevant Malvinense. It wouldn't matter if the Falklands were just 10 miles from your shores, they'd still be British.
Jan 09th, 2018 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +3They wouldn't. If they were only 10 miles from Argentina, there is every chance we'd have lost the war. Distance does make a difference sometimes. ;)
Jan 09th, 2018 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -10“Argentina recalls the date in 1833 in which allegedly British forces “illegally” occupied the Malvinas”
Jan 09th, 2018 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Though they were happy to include British sailors as a major part of their forces, and include British people as part of Vernet's settlement, and that most of Vernet's settlers including Rivero , were happy to stay on as Brits in 1833.
If Argentine 'recall' involves forgetting that the British had a claim on the Falklands at that time, and all the British maritime involvement in and around the islands since 1592 has been airbrushed from Argentina's history shouldn't Argentina be treated for memory loss?
@Malvinense
“United Kingdom from 1774 to 1829. 55 years of silence.”
West Falkland was surveyed by a British ship in the 1790s and no British ship sailing in Falkland Island waters (and there were many after 1774) were ejected by Argentine ships, or for that matter, Spanish ships.
As there were no satellites then, surveying had to be done from ships sailing close to the object of the survey.
“The United Kingdom did not discover the islands”.
There you are correct, there was no United Kingdom in 1592 when Davis made the first recorded sighting.
Argentina did not discover the islands before 1592.
“The United Kingdom did not establish the first population”.
Argentina did not put any population on the Islands prior to 1765, so Argentina wasn't first either.
DT - moot. Fact is that they aren't, and we didn't.
Jan 10th, 2018 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse +2@RL
Jan 10th, 2018 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:)
Also, if they were only 10 miles from Argentina, they would definitely be 'adjacent', and that treaty would apply.
In fact, I reckon neither France nor Britain would have bothered settling there, and we wouldn't be having this discussion now.
@ Roger Lorton @ Demon Tree: The fourth article stated: that English maritime activities should not serve as a pretext for an illicit trade with Spanish establishments and with this regard it has also been expressly stipulated that British subjects will not sail or fish in the said seas at a distance of ten sea leagues of any part of the coasts already occupied by the Spaniards.
Jan 10th, 2018 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -1All said.
Malvinense 1833
Jan 10th, 2018 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“It has also been expressly stipulated that British subjects will not sail ..in the said seas at a distance of ten sea leagues of any part of the coasts already occupied by the Spaniards.”
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
The Nootka Convention: ”...Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain....... there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.......The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
h ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
I made a comment on this article, and I got 7 dislikes. No comments. The intellectual retards have more to say about cat litter then the content of my comment which reiterated the U.S. Declaration of Independence, as the foundation of my opinion. So much for meaningful dialog? This will be my last comment on any articles in the future. I won't waste my time here.
Jan 10th, 2018 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Malvinense
Jan 10th, 2018 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“and with this regard it has also been expressly stipulated that British subjects will not sail or fish in the said seas at a distance of ten sea leagues of any part of the coasts already occupied by the Spaniards”
San Julian was occupied by the Spanish in 1780 (scurvy causing it's demise four years later).
The British landed at Port Egmont in 1765, well before then.
Even so, a Spanish league (from 1718-1830) was 3.4 Nautical Miles.
San Julian is far more than 34 miles from Port Egmont.
As an aside, apart from the Amerindians who were in the area first, the first permanent settlement there later, was by settlers from the Falkland Islands.
@TH
“Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain”
The operative words being 'then occupied by Spain'.
There was a Spanish settlement on Tierra Del Fuego, which failed before the Treaty of Utrecht was signed.
It was not there in 1765, and was in any case, more than 34 miles away from Port Egmont.
As RL has pointed out, even Port Egmont is more than 34 miles from Port Louis (Puerto Soledad, 1767-1811), although of course, Port Soledad was not on the South American coast but east of Port Egmont.
You're going to have a hard job proving that the Falkland Islands are adjacent to the River Plate or 10 leagues away.
Mason F
Jan 10th, 2018 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As one of the 'intellectual retards have more to say about cat litter' you probably got 7 dislikes because what you stated implied that the UK stole the Falkland Islands from the Argentines which is patently untrue and if you had bothered to do a minimum of investigation on the subject that would have been obvious.
It is plainly specious to refer to the US D of I as what is today the USA was stolen from the indigenous peoples or purchased from other countries that had already stolen them from the indigenous peoples mostly after the D of I. So the USA can also be accused of handling stolen property.
However, thank you for your contribution all 57 words of it.
Can I ask when the thieves in all the colonised countries of the Americas will be returning the lands to those people that they stole them from?.
References to 'cat litter' were an attempt to lighten the tone of this subject which has been done to death on Mercopress over the last umpteen years.
@Pete Bog @Conqueror: If everything you say is true, it would be excellent if you could express it in a debate with Professor Kohen that way we would all learn a little more. The invitation exists, but on the other side nobody picked up the glove.
Jan 11th, 2018 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse -1@ Malvinense
Jan 11th, 2018 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When's Kohen in the UK?
Malvinense 1833
Jan 11th, 2018 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“In a debate with Professor Kohen that way we would all learn a little more” On the contrary, Kohen is a sophist of the worst kind as he continually makes assertions without the backing of legal judgements, simply his own personal opinion, which legally makes such claims worthless.
For example in the publication Página12 dated Tuesday, March 5, 2013 he writes “This is a plebiscite organised by the British government”. Which is a deliberate lie as many independent publications and witnesses have attested, it was organised by the F.I.G. Then he attempts to discredit the referendum by implying that there is a prerequisite for the UN to be involved, where no such requirement is in The Charter et al. Then he further states there are categories of people under international law who are entitled to self-determination, citing the UNGA as his source. With very few exceptions the GA resolutions are not international law, merely advisements.
It would seem that Sr. Kohen's blandishments have more too do with his continued employment by the Argentine government than with the reality of international law.
@ Terence Hill @ Pete Bog:There is no hard job to prove anything, because at the time of the treaty the islands were occupied by Spain.
Jan 11th, 2018 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is proven that Spain was not only responsible for the surveillance of the Malvinas Islands, but also for the entire Strait of Magellan. Therefore it is absurd to try to separate Port Soledad and Port Egmont.
If what Lorton mentioned were true, there would have been no impediment to establish an establishment in Port Egmont immediately.
If it were true what Lorton mentioned, there would not have been a protest against Vernet since his establishment occupied a place in Port Soledad on Soledad Island (East Falkland)
If what Lorton mentioned is true, why then does the United Kingdom occupy the entire archipelago?
The answer is simple, the islands are Argentine.
When's Kohen in the UK?The proposal is better, Kohen in the Malvinas Islands.
“The answer is simple, the islands are Argentine.”
Jan 11th, 2018 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh really!! Then why not take your claim to the ICJ - then Sr Kohen could debate with them.
Taking Argentina's claim to the ICJ has been suggested on this site literally hundreds of times but Argentina doesn't, I wonder why??
I am prepared to debate with Mr Kohen in the Falkland Islands or the UK or Turkmenistan or wherever just so long as he pays all my expenses
@ Malvinense
Jan 11th, 2018 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The proposal is better, Kohen in the Malvinas Islands”
He'll have to debate with someone in the Falkland Islands then as I'm not giving up my work to fly from England.
But that's an excellent idea as the Falkland Islanders will be better at debunking his myths than I would be. But even as a strawsucker drawing on the work by RL and using quotes from TH, I reckon I could quash the 'professors' myths quite easily.
“There is no hard job to prove anything, because at the time of the treaty the islands were occupied by Spain.”
The Treaty of Utrecht?
Signed in 1713?
There was no Spanish occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1713, they turned up in 1767.
I'll requote what you quoted.
“and with this regard it has also been expressly stipulated that British subjects will not sail or fish in the said seas at a distance of ten sea leagues of any part of the coasts already occupied by the Spaniards”
And I repeat:
A Spanish league in the period 1718-1830 was 3.4 nautical Miles, 10 leagues, 34 miles.Was the length different in 1713?
Port Egmont was over 34 miles (ten leagues) from Puerto Solidad.
There was no Spanish occupation of the South American coast adjacent to Port Egmont in 1765.
Nor was Port Egmont within ten leagues distance (34 nautical miles)of the nearest Spanish settlement (Buenos Aires?) in 1765.
@darragh
I don't mind the continous repetition. It is part of a farmer's work/ history interest balance, but can't blame you for the satire-it's equally entertaining.
For what it's worth,old hay bales,mucking out from the horse etc etc is made into very fine compost which along with newspapers (especially the free Metro) and dried sawdust from cutting firewood are used for the cat litter trays, costing virtually nowt.
Malvinense 1833
Jan 11th, 2018 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“At the time of the treaty the islands were occupied by Spain.” Too the best of my knowledge the Spanish were only on East Falkland.
Regardless, there was an Anglo-Spanish Declaration of 1771 that recognized both countries claims. While Spain restored British properties that had been disturbed. Nootka, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated. The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
Lord Palmerston on 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, said:
“… a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.”
As I have said before the indigenous population of the Argentine apparently did not visit or live on the Falklands, this made it unoccupied territory. The 1833 debacle was a result of the Argentine asking Britain if they could set up a trading post on the Falklands, the British agreed, but then found that it was a clandestine land grab, because the Argentine had appointed a military governor of the Falklands. The facts are the Falklands have never belonged to Argentina, nor have they ever occupied it without first asking permission(with exception of the
Jan 11th, 2018 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0silly military escapade in 1982) Obtaining permission indicates in law that you recognise that somebody else owns it. In fact the Falklands has meant little to the Argentinians themselves but is trotted out occasionally when the political going gets tough and they start to spread a fake history to their people to regain popularity. In effect the Falklands Islands could, by extension, lead to a claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, thus giving the Argentine most of the South Atlantic and making Argentina a world player , However, with the rise of China and its rapidly expanding fleet, the Falklands now serves as a forward base against incursion around South America and is increasingly and militarily becoming more important to the UK and NATO, and undoubtedly the USA. In fact the Argentine has reinforced this recently by its dalliance with China. Therefore, NATO, the UK and America and Canada , cannot even think about letting a nation potentially in the pocket of China have control over such a vital area
@ darragh: Taking the case and taking it to the ICJ is a good possibility and eventually I agree with you. But it is complicated when the United Kingdom always has a judge in court. In addition, the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the “democratic” UN Security Council.
Jan 12th, 2018 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And finally, the United Kingdom does not accept the jurisdiction of the court for cases before 1975. Do you understand now?
@ Terence and Pete:
All your calculations in miles and sea leagues are distorted with a simple statement from someone more important than foristas of a website:
“On October 28th, 1790 a Covenant was signed between this country and Spain, the section 6 of such covenant provided that in the future, any of the parties should establish any settlement in the east of west coasts of South America and adjacent islands, to the south of such portions of those same coasts and islands at the time occupied by Spain [...]According to this section becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands. This Treaty was abrogated in October, 1795, when Spain declared war to Great Britain. Nevertheless, it was reinforced by section 1 of the additional sections comprised in the Treaty of Amity and Alliance between Great Britain and Spain of July 5th, 1814, signed in Madrid on August 18th, 1814.”
John W. Field, Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office, February 29th, 1928.
Lorton mentioned something from 1801?
Malvinense 1833
Jan 12th, 2018 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Taking it to the ICJ is a good possibility” There is no chance of Argentina doing any such thing at her own behest as her delay has caused her to forfeit any such right.
“(It)becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands. There was no bar to Anglo sovereignty exercises previously conceded by Spain unless she was prepared to go to war. The secret article was exercised by the UK as soon as Argentina attempted to involve herself. Regardless, you cannot make a claim for Argentina and then rely on Anglo-Spanish treaties as they are none-transferable and as such you are legally estopped.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!