MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The people of Falklands celebrate Liberation Day
On Friday the 14th June 2019, the people of the Falkland Islands and British Forces South Atlantic Islands, celebrated in Stanley the 37th anniversary of Liberation Day, that is when the Argentine occupying forces surrender to the British Task Force sent to the recover the Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCongratulations to the free people of the Falkland Islanders on their liberation from unlawful fascist tyranny! And thanks to the British veterans of the Falklands War for their sacrifices in righting a historic injustice done to the Falklands by Argentina.
Jun 15th, 2019 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The Malvinas / Falklands territorial dispute really shows us what our problem in the world is. Once we have guns weapons and a powerful army, our nature's arrogant pride and avarice for competition disguises itself with dignified honor and purpose, pushes justice fairness and truth aside and starts lying about our true intentions and motivations.
Jun 16th, 2019 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -5~
Everything about the Falkland Islands has to do with making War, British Fascist Nationalism and the Territorial Dispute that caused them here, in order to validate and give worth to the Islander's presence and occupation of the islands.
.
The Islanders never had any form of country-hood celebration before they invented “Liberation Day” after 1983. Basically the Islanders were brought by G.Britain to the islands to try and shut up the Argentine protest after first taking the islands from that country in 1833, 11 years before the islander's arrival. Then after 150 years of deceitful manipulative filibustering, Britain immediately sought war in 1982 rather than negotiations over the Argentine military occupation's passive repossession of the islands; in order to promote propaganda and the resentment necessary to install an artificial patriotism based on antagonism against instead the Argentine people.
.
Since they had never had any sovereign sense of self before, the Argentine territorial dispute against G.Britain (not against them) became that for them 140 years after never having cared to recognized it. That's really what “Liberation Day” is, although that is not how the Islanders were groomed to understand it. They rather insult the Argentine people who had never sought nor wanted war against Britain nor had any animosity towards the islanders, just so that they can feel like they belong on this British overseas disputed territory.
.
Insultingly to the notion of world harmony and peace, the Islanders and Britain need to maintain these confrontational and territorial dispute war sentiments alive to give their occup
Who is this dickhead?
Jun 16th, 2019 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Think has had his pump shut off, should shut him up for a bit. What sort of idiot would want to be associated with Argieland, a total basket case.
Is that a photograph of Alexander Betts?
Jun 16th, 2019 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Alexander Betts was a Falkland Islander who was cheating on his wife with an Argentine woman.
This was at the time that the guns and weapons of the powerful Argentine military, pushed justice, fairness, and truth aside, and engaged in a “passive” military occupation and “repossession” of the Falkland Islands.
After this conflict was settled, Alexander Betts forsook his wife, his children, his own brothers, his people, and the Falklands, to be with that woman in Argentina. What kind of a man leaves his own children?
He received a military pension for that occupation and oppression of his own people.
Any words from a disgrace like Alexander Betts are very likely flawed.
He was politically advantaged in Argentina in the past and might be expecting further political advantage after the upcoming elections there.
There is nothing “passive” about an uninvited foreign military showing up with their guns and weapons in one's home. That is fork-tongued deception.
That uninvited military was told by the UN to leave, it refused.
Accusing the UK force in opposition to that armed occupation of being unfair for fighting back is incredibly cowardly and something a little child would do. Not even the Argentine military would be so cowardly and make such an argument.
“I have a gun and will shoot you if you do not cooperate”. “If you shoot me that would be very unfair!” Only a weak coward would use this thinking.
There was nothing but justice and fairness in the powerful UK military freeing the Falkland Islanders from the powerful Argentine occupiers.
It is the Argentine people who are being groomed with very deceptive propaganda. The above post by Alexander Betts is a good example.
The Falkland Islanders are human beings with a right to determine their future. They are not contradicting world harmony and peace by protecting and exercising that right to self-determination.
May they always be free.
“the Argentine military occupation's passive repossession of the islands”
Jun 16th, 2019 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NP8901 might disagree.
Passive indeed Mr. Pipino...
Jun 16th, 2019 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Not even a single NP8901 twisted ankle...
Think- Correct- but remember, luckily they were out of their beds and barracks and on the beach and guarding Govt House etc- and were not in their rooms when the BuzoTacticos assaulted Moody Brook in the night with phosphorous grenades into the sleeping quarters - nice people!
Jun 16th, 2019 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet again Timlander1...
Jun 16th, 2019 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -4The only thing rival sides can't lie about is the result...
And the result was, as ordered...:Not a single NP8901 twisted ankle.
Nice try rewriting history above.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse +1@Think
Not affected by the power cut yesterday?
Think_ if what you say was “the plan”- somebody very senior forgot to explain that to the troops who actually attacked the islands first! Moody Brook camp was assaulted in the early hours before the main beach landings- and that attack was clearly(and logically) meant to kill members of 8901 if still in their beds.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. DemonTree...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse -11) Which “interpretation” of Malvinas Colonial History are you talking about...?
Mr. Timlander1's or Mr. Trimonde's... both... more than probably..., protagonists of it...
Or maybe yours...? A young Engrish one that is on record in here declaring that he hasn't got any...(Colonial History at school..., that is...)
2) Nope..., my humble Patagonian shed has been 100% photovoltaic the last many years...
A dignified remembrance of those who died returning our freedom from invasion and oppression. With grateful thanks to all those who died, were injured and still suffer the trauma of war.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse +4Mr. Timlander1... What I say was “the plan”... Argie Lieutenant Comm. Sabarots orders were crystal clear...: ENEMY CASUALITIES WERE TO BE AVOIDED... Moody Brook camp was assaulted with stun and teargas grenades..., that attack was clearly (and logically) meant to capture any 8901 present...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- No 8901 was present...
- No 8901was hurt...
- Orders were followed...
- Enemy casualities were avoided...
https://books.google.it/books?id=HkGuCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=sanchez+sabarots+moody+brook&source=bl&ots=t6qH90bKSg&sig=ACfU3U0-8qd93GTbvCfQHvAHxHsrxe5wXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjCq4vlv_DiAhWFGuwKHVhtA98Q6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=sanchez%20sabarots%20moody%20brook&f=false
Now..., would you please tell me how..., if not a single Engrish soul was in the viciniy of Moody Brook to witness that attack that morning..., what evidence do you have to claim that...: ***”that attack was clearly (and logically) meant to kill members of 8901”***...???
@Think
Jun 17th, 2019 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The very self-serving one of 'Trimonde'. But I believe you that the Argie army were trying to avoid causing casualties during the invasion, and succeeded, though they suffered some of their own.
Not suffering power cuts is a nice advantage of being off grid. But doesn't your internet connection depend on the rest of the country having power?
Mr. DemonTree...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -3A) Which parts of Mr. Trimonde's comment are the “Self-Serving” ones for you...?
From my perspective... what he writes about the almost 200 years of Engrish imperial Colonial Rule in Malvinas..., in a very inequivocal..., blunt..., no-horse manure..., Kelper way..., is as close to reality as one can get...
B) Evidently..., my internet connection didn't depend on the rest of the country having power..., this time...
Would that be 'cut & paste' Trimonde? Sure I just read that same nonsense elsewhere.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Almost 200 years Think? Thought 1765 was further back than that...... ?
Would that be 'cut & paste' copper? Sure I just read that same nonsense elsewhere...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think
Jun 17th, 2019 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Are you sure you know the meaning of the word blunt? Or are you just unable to recognise blatant propaganda then you happen to agree with it?
What I mostly object to is the same as everyone else: the part where nothing is ever Argentina's fault, most especially not the war they started. I've never heard you say the junta held no blame, but it strikes me as cowardly to try to blame others for one's own mistakes, and pathetic to resort to force and then complain when it's used in return. Is that blunt enough for you?
Mr. DemonTree...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -3It seems you like to read Mr. Trimonde's texts with the same Engrish imperial Haze spectacles you use to read mine...
Please show me to the...:***“part where nothing is ever Argentina's fault, most especially not the war we started”***
Besides.., boy..., you Engrish started the whole misery in 1833 by sailing 12.000 km south and attacking a newborn nation..., NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND...
Capisce...?
Buenos Aires started the 'whole misery' with its edict of 1829 compounded by sending an armed force to support its trespass in 1832.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +2So yes Think, entirely THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
Treaspassing on what..., copper?
Jun 17th, 2019 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2On some Engrish Letters Patent..., written in Engeland... by some Engrish Secretary..., of an illiterate Engrish King..., who thereby claimed for Engeland whatever the Engrish got the munchies for..., wherever in the world...?
Trespassing on islands argued over from 1767 old man.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Ownership lay in dispute between Spain & the UK. Argentina could not involve itself. This was made plain to BA in 1829 and 1832 but BA was as disinclined to listen then as it is now.
More, BA declined to discuss the question in 1829 or 1832 only claiming it to be 'pending' in 1833 after its trespassing garrison had been peacefully ejected. BA cannot complain that the UK declines to discuss it now.
We are an island nation Think, which is why we can be found in islands all over the globe. Even today.
@Think
Jun 17th, 2019 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Britain immediately sought war in 1982 rather than negotiations over the Argentine military occupation's passive repossession of the islands; in order to promote propaganda and the resentment necessary to install an artificial patriotism based on antagonism against instead the Argentine people.”
“the Argentine people who had never sought nor wanted war against Britain”
Equivocation, propaganda, plus some untruths, all designed to give the false impression that Britain started the war.
Sorry. I guess this little part got chopped off:
Jun 17th, 2019 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -4...
Insultingly to the notion of world harmony and peace, the Islanders and Britain need to maintain these confrontational and territorial dispute war sentiments alive to give their occupation a sense of political and sovereign worth, something Britain had never given the Islanders before, as well as to promote the settlement of their culture. Britain did not give the Islanders citizenship until after the war for this 188 year old quarrel. Before that Britain hoped they would seek to affirm themselves independently. But that's not what these remote inhospitable Islands so close to Argentina are conducive to without their British expansionist sponsorship.
No, the Falklanders had British citizenship before 1982. Changes to the nature of that citizenship were proposed but subsequently cancelled.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As with most Malvinistas, you have little idea of what you are talking about Trimonde.
Go learn - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/1982-to-1999.pdf
@RL
Jun 17th, 2019 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's true, isn't it, that in the 70s the British government took away the right to reside in the UK from citizens of all the remaining colonies, including the Falklands? Mostly because (as ever) they wanted to reduce immigration.
From last back.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -11981 is even more interesting actually Lorton, because one has to ask what prompted that decision, when so much buzz was going on in the South Atlantic?
-
Demon Tree. Britain technically DID start the war and made a war occur on the Islands. (like I said for a reason) It chose to push to back and make no reference to the then 150 year old dispute and treated it like a typical hostile invasion deliberately to the world press and all written medias jumping on the advantage of world communications dominated by the English language. This has been since its first year of settlement to this day disputed territory. It's first pronounced political allocation was to the King and Queen of Spain. When Britain ran off the Argentine and took possession of the Islands in 1833, Argentina did not start a war did it? When Argentine did the same Britain did, for obvious reasons if well not morally justified. You can have your opinions about what I say, but I'm definitely not the only who understands and agrees with what I'm saying.
-
Actually Roger, there is no ownership or entitlement right on islands disputed by two Empires. As far as any other nation is concerned the islands were still not consolidated under any legitimately recognized power. Argentina stood on its own right to settle the Islands, moreover it was already involved before 1810 through Buenos Aires. The Islands were part of The Vice-royalty, and thus when the Vice-royalty broke off and became the United Provinces it brought with it all territories, hence why they were so many conflictual situations between Paraguay Bolivia Argentina Uruguay and Chile. If California were to become its own country, the Channel Islands would be spoken off as part of that new country since the late formation of the United States. I would expect more from you Roger.
-
Mr. DemonTree...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You seem to be particulary offended with Mr.Trimonde's following...:
- ***“Britain immediately sought war in 1982 rather than negotiations over the Argentine military occupation's passive repossession of the islands; in order to promote propaganda and the resentment necessary to install an artificial patriotism based on antagonism against the Argentine people.”***
Well...
- M. T.'s Britain did indeed immediately sought war in 1982... sending her nuclear submarines and her nuclear armed fleet immediately down south...
- M. T.'s Britain did indeed immediately sought war in 1982... by starting the carnage in a disproporionate manner through their poltical decision on the 02 May 1982 of setting the score...: *“ Argentina 0 -Engeland 323”* through the ARA General Belgrano..., ending thereby any posibility of any kind of settlement...
GOTCHUS
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/The_Sun_%28Gotcha%29.png
No DT. As ever the devil was in the detail. The legislation was aimed at restricting later generations from having full British citizenship. It was cancelled for the islanders, and much later for the other BoT's also.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Actually Trimone, there was ownership. Britain claimed West Falkland and Spain East Falkland and those claims were recognised by other nations. France, in 1801 for example, as part of the Amiens treaty negotiations demanded a base in the Falklands from the British. A demand that was very publicly rejected, as published in 1802.
Nothing of great importance happened in 1810, other than BA declaring for Ferdinand - hardly an act of independence. And no, the islands were not part of the Viceroyalty. East Falklands perhaps, but Spain never raised its flag over the western islands despite suggestions from the Viceroy that it do so.
And again no, there was no inheritance. Spain still claimed East Falkland in 1833 as confirmed by Quesada in 1889.
What you expect is none of my concern. What I give you are facts. Argentina's claim can be distilled down to a mythical inheritance that it has never had the courage to try out in a court of arbitration.
Go learn.
Mr. Lorton...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -4No devil in no detail about them Kelpers Engrish Legal Status before 1982...
They were the pathetic remains of the British Empire's white trash..., and treated as such.
They know it..., Mr. Demontree knows it..., I know it..., you know it, but chose to lie through your teeht ...
I do not 'know' it old man and I've spoken to people who were there before 1982. Argies just like to believe it, regardless of the truth. But then, myths are all you have. All you will ever have.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Learn to live with it.
@Trimonde, Think
Jun 17th, 2019 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Not trying to imply any similarity otherwise, but Hitler would also (truthfully, IMO) say he never sought or wanted war with Britain. He hoped that Britain would stand idle when he invaded Poland, but he was wrong. Similarly your Junta started the war by invading the Falklands, hoping that Britain would not respond to force with force. Argentina in 1833 was not in a position to declare war on Britain and defend its claim, but I'll be generous and assume they would have if they could.
Thatcher sent the task force straight away, knowing it would be weeks before it arrived. She was prepared to fight, but they also started negotiations right away. From what I have read it was mostly the Junta who refused to agree to terms... they were basking in the support of the population and afraid of the consequences if they lost it.
Also, Think, they supposedly unloaded the nukes on the way. D'you think your air force believed them, or just didn't care that the ships they were blowing up and sending to the bottom might possibly have contained nuclear depth charges?
PS. It's the Sun. This is how they responded to a disaster in England with 96 dead: https://images.theconversation.com/files/120351/original/image-20160427-30950-10ckm6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip
@RL
Those 6th, 8th, whatever generation Falklanders *were* 'later generations'. I doubt the government had anything against them in particular, especially when there were so few of them, but it's easier to pass a blanket law, and making an exception for them would've led to (very justified) accusations of racism.
And it was, what? 5 years after the handover of Hong Kong that the government restored full citizenship for the remaining BOTs. Not enough people left to worry about...
Mr.DemonTree...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All your above (including your pitiable “not trying to imply” Reductio ad Hitlerum)... takes us back to the wise words of Mr. Trimonde at the beginning of this thread...:
***“ The Malvinas / Falklands territorial dispute really shows us what our problem in the world is. Once we have guns weapons and a powerful army, our nature's arrogant pride and avarice for competition disguises itself with dignified honor and purpose, pushes justice fairness and truth aside and starts lying about our true intentions and motivations. ”***
@Think
Jun 17th, 2019 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It applies quite nicely to the Junta, among many others.
As for Hitler, I know, Godwin etc etc, but that one aspect is really rather similar. I hoped you might be mature enough to take it for what it was, but I should have known better after what happened with Kanye...
@DemonTree
Jun 17th, 2019 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say...:
***“It applies quite nicely to the Junta, among many others...”***
I say...:
- Do you ever read what other people writes before contesting them..., lad...?
- OF COURSE...,it applies quite nicely to the Junta, among many others...!
That's exactly why Mr.Trimonde wrote...:
***“ Once ”“” WE “”“ have guns............ ”“” OUR “”“ nature's arrogant pride.............. starts lying about ”“” OUR “”“ true intentions...... ”***
CAPISCE...???
(But..., of course..., we shall never forget that you..., haughty Engrishmen..., are sooooo much better than the rest of “”“US”“” on soooooo many things...)
Chuckle..., chuckle...
So I would have thought, if his writing wasn't so extremely similar to a certain other poster's...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We're a lot better than you at starting ill-advised wars; maybe your military is too busy oppressing their own citizens?
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jun 17th, 2019 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Thanks a lot for your complementing information...:
“Trespassing on islands argued over from 1767”..., on the basis of some Engrish Letters Patent..., written in Engeland... by some Engrish Secretary..., for an illiterate Engrish King..., who thereby claimed for Engeland whatever the Engrish Monach got the munchies for..., wherever in the world..., it is then...
George III was literate. He even spoke English - often to himself, sometimes to trees.
Jun 17th, 2019 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seems you have something in common. ;)
So it was Think....... anywhere
Jun 18th, 2019 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Doesn't mean that they aint ours.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse -2Yet again..., we concord...
***“SO IT WAS........ ANYWHERE”***..., indeed...
That's why..., you Engrish were lately forced to reverse..., retreat and restore some 99.90% of them many real estate square meters through the world you..., document & flag luuuving pirates..., amassed in that manner...
In the specific case of Malvinas (part of the, not yet returned, 0.1%)..., you Engrish even broke your very own golden rule...
We Argies had a flag...!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
The Spanish kings were so different......? Err?
Jun 18th, 2019 - 05:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps it is time for Argentina to 'reverse' and hand back Patagonia?
Trespassers with a flag? Why would ejecting those break any rule? Trespassers have no rights.
We are progressing..., laddie...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse -1From “Reductio ad Hitlerum” to “Whataboutery”...
The British trespassed in many parts of the world and were eventually, and rightly, ejected by one means or another.
Jun 18th, 2019 - 06:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0There were exceptions however of which the Falklands are one. Pitcairn, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, Antarctic territories are other exceptions. Ascension? St. Helena? Tristan da Cunha arguably also. We were not trespassers there but owners.
In 1833 and 1982 Buenos Aires was a trespasser. Rightly - and legally - ejected.
Oldie.
Mr. Lorton...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse -2Here we go again...
***“Exceptions”*** you say.............., twice...
“Exceptions on the base of what...? ...I ask you again...
-On the basis of some Engrish Letters Patent..., written in Engeland... by some Engrish Secretary..., for an illiterate Engrish King..., who thereby claimed for Engeland whatever the Engrish Monach got the munchies for..., wherever in the world...?
Fact is that some of those Engrish ”exceptions” of yours (Islas Malvinas..., Georgias del Sur..., Sandwich del Sur..., Sector Antártico Argentino..., Akrotiri and Dhekelia...,Gibraltar..., Chagos Archipelago..., etc..., etc..., etc...) are very much in dispute to this day...
Pitcairn, Ascension and St. Helena are..., afaik..., free of dispute..., so you may..., for the time being..., keep them...
On the basis of discovery and occupation of vacant territory.
Jun 18th, 2019 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Cyprus territories, Gibraltar & Chagos - which you mention but I did not - have different histories.
Argentina's disputes over the Falklands, Sth Georgia, Sth Sandwich & Antarctic territories have no foundation and therefore no relevance. And as you appear quite incapable of taking anything away, we will keep all with the only proviso that the people of any territory have the final say.
You live in a world of myth and indoctrination old man. Enjoy your fantasies. That is all they will ever be.
@Think
Jun 18th, 2019 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually there's some other similarities between Hitler and the Argentine Junta. For example, the Nazis treated captured British, French, American soldiers according to the Geneva conventions, but murdered segments of their own population, mostly Jews but also communists and trade unionists. Did people describe the Junta as fascist at the time?
Copper...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse -3In your usual Black & Tan manner..., you do not admit that a great wrong has been done to the Argentineans or the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia... You do not admit that a wrong has been done to us..., lesser people..., by the fact that your stronger race, your higher-grade race, you more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken our place.”
- How very you...
Mr.DemonTree...
- If you..., a la prince Harry..., want to play the Nazi card..., I suggest you visit one o the many dungeons in London that specialize in such...
Have fun...
“a great wrong has been done to the Argentineans or the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia”
Jun 18th, 2019 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0You really think losing control of some remote and unproductive islands that Argentina had a settlement on for all of a couple of years, is equivalent to losing a whole continent, your homes, the majority of your population, and living as a despised minority in a country controlled by a different culture to this day?
How very you.
Who are you calling unproductive ?
Jun 18th, 2019 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Kelper GALlamosa just above...
Jun 18th, 2019 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -1:-))))))))))))))))))))
Heh. The land, not the people.
Jun 18th, 2019 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No wrong has been done to Argentina Think ....... You are so very good at shooting yourselves in the foot, why would you need us?
Jun 18th, 2019 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Someone punched Thinks lights out again. Still, he sounds exactly like the Prince of Darkness, fantasy suits him...
Jun 20th, 2019 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Trimonde
Jun 21st, 2019 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Territorial dispute really shows us what our problem in the world is.”
There isn't one facet of international law that supports an Argentine claim. Every judgement that has been made concerning such claims supports the UK and every opinion from judges of the ICJ likewise.
“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
”There is a general principle, in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits…. Undue delay in presenting a claim, which may lead to it being barred, is to distinguished from effects of the passage of time on the merits of the claim in cases where the claimant state has, by failing to protest or otherwise, given evidence of acquiescence’”: I Oppenheim 526 and 527. See Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), Chap. 18; King, Prescription of Claims in International Law, (1934) 15 B.Y.I.L. 82. Cf. prescription, acquisitive.
So the UK can prove jurisdiction as to title, and the last time I looked they have tossed a claim that exceeded thirty years (The Gentini case PCA 1903).
Moreover, you cannot apply modern law. With so much precedent in their corner, they look like their claim is in pretty good shape.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!