MercoPress, en Español
Get our news on your inbox! Suscribe x
Montevideo, October 2nd 2022 - 15:51 UTC
Argentine president Alberto Fernandez after taking the oath of office on Tuesday midday made his first speech to Congress in which he included a strong reference and claim to the Falklands and South Atlantic Islands. Read full article
Why didn't you write the word our in, ”We shall honor the memory of those who fell fighting for (OUR) sovereignty” ?? hmmmmm????
... I seeeee youuuuuu ...
A sovereignty claim without a case can only be described as worthless.
Ah, nothing much changes, not even the Governor so I see. Christmas greetings to all from myself, Bernard and the other regulars at the Royal British Legion in Dover. Think of you often.
I do so love the smell of bullcrap in the morning.
We know that for this task the term of one president will not be enough, or of a government. = Understatement of the year.
What the new Pressy is actually saying is - I have to acknowledge a claim that in reality I can do nothing about. So, we'll form a Committee.
Yup. That pretty much sums up Argentine aspirations.
the legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty claim is an absolute oxymoron since there never has been any colour of right. So except for blah, blah nothing is going to change, as the Islanders hold the unassailable right of self-determination.
peronism is back in Argentina ohhh my God, S.O.S
Argentina will continue with its claim to recover its usurped territory.
How's life treating the best part of our dear cheval pantomime Argie-Ecossais...?
You luuuvely Missus still drivin' the last Labrador and her petite derriere around in that expensive Tata...?
Felíz Navidad..., desde la lejana Patagonia...
its claim to recover Is legally long gone, so they are just pissing into the wind.
”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).
In relation to Malvinas, I believe Alberto Fernandez will perform his presidential duty as most citizens would, that is, continue to assert Argentina's right over its entire territory.
Negotiations yes, but you won't see the cozy relationship that crept during Macri's four years in office.
That may well serve the needs of your indoctrinated citizenry. But, such a pretence holds no water under international law. While the UK holds all the irrefutable tenets in that department. Thus, There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes. Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride
Seems unusually sensible for an Argentine politician: didn't issue threats or make promises he can't keep, and basically told people not to expect too much. Alberto is gonna have his hands full trying to fix the economy anyway.
Speaking of 'its entire territory', the radio news on Tuesday said that a plane had disappeared on the way to a part of Antarctica owned by Chile, which was next to the parts owned by Argentina and the UK. Perhaps they were reporting from the future after the end of the Antarctic Treaty?
DT, as I am sure you know, Argentina's Antarctic claims overlap those of Chile's and both overlap that of Britain. All suspended while the Antarctic Treaty holds.
EM, 'cozy relationship'? What cozy relationship? We were of more use to Macri, than he was to us. Argentina does not have very much that the UK needs. Whatever the relationship that Macri had with the UK, I suspect it suffer little change under the new administration. Politicians spout a lot of crap in elections. Few promises are ever kept. There may be a little more shouting at the C24, but nobody much cares. UK does not even attend.
It's always fun to watch Kamerad/Komrade Rique, the José Goebbels of MercoPress and his Torturer's Tango Duo partner, Gauchito Drink, supporting the Fascist Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. Kinda puts everything in perspective... ;)
I know that, but whoever produces the commercial radio news seems to be extremely confused.
Anyway, if it was really from the future it would have been split between China, USA and Russia. (China produced an ancient map with a 19 dash line around Antarctica and claimed the whole continent, Russia invaded to support the oppressed Russian minority penguins, and the US because they heard rumours of WMDs hidden in the ice.)
DM and Argentina believes that Nazi gold is hidden in the ice
The residence time of the islanders in usurped Argentine territory does not grant them rights.
The prescription principle cannot be used by the United Kingdom because it made no claims during the occupation of France, Spain and then Argentina.
In relation to Antarctica you are on the wrong side of the pole. Worry about the Russians.
You mean the secret Nazi base in Antarctica where Hitler fled after the war? The gold was found years ago by the lizard people and used to fund the Illuminati.
We do worry about the Russians. Several countries in the EU only gained independence from them in my lifetime and people here grew up knowing they could all die in 4 minutes if some politician got trigger happy.
The residence time of the islanders ... does not grant them rights. ... The prescription principle cannot be used by the United Kingdom Unfortunately your unqualified personal opinion carries no weight. Whereas, the jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ pointed out: 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 through Argentinas acquiescence. 1
1. Rosalyn Higgins, Falklands and the Law, Observer, 2 May 1982.
Malvinense 1833 aka MoreCrap - Britain took over West Falkland from 1765.. Yup, we claimed in some style. France was told to leave in December, 1766. Spain was told to leave in 1769. All these years, and you still know nothing. Antarctica? When, as it will, that treaty fails, Argentina will be crushed underfoot in the rush.
Argentina will be crushed underfoot in the rush
And the UK?
I rather suspect that the UK and the Yanks would come to some arrangement.
As always you and your arrogant and aggressive words.
1765? 1766? 1769? Sorry but those who left the islands are the British.
All these years, and you still know nothing.
Still trying to bore Islanders into submission.
Never reinforce failure.
United Kingdom because it made no claims during the occupation of France, Spain and then Argentina Absolutely untrue, they didn't know the French were on the eastern end of the Isles. The Declaration between Spain and GB of 1771 put an end to Spains claim. They had to eat a lot of humble pie to stop GB from declaring war on them. Two diplomatic protest notes were given to Argentina. Her failure to respond under legal conventions was admission that the GB held title to the Islands, and thus she had no claim. Whatever she contrived after is of no legal consequence.
..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law.... SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
you and your arrogant and aggressive words Seems you are the only one making such utterances.
On January 8th, The British Foreign Secretary, Viscount Palmerston, responds to the Manuel Moreno protest.
That the withdrawal …, in 1774, could not invalidate the just rights of Great Britain, because that withdrawal took place only in pursuance of the system of retrenchment adopted at that time by his Majesty’s Government.
That the marks and signals of possession and of property, left upon the islands, the British flag still flying, and all the other formalities observed upon the occasion of the departure of the governor, were calculated not only to assert the rights of ownership, but to indicate the intention of resuming the occupation of the territory at some future period.
So the legal owners came back and evicted some squatters
terence, don't bother . You cannot teach the unteachable, how many posts does it take to teach an Argentine who doesn't want to be taught.
The treaty of 1771 only restored Britain's honor in no way implied the recognition of British sovereignty.
When the British arrived, the French were already on the islands.
Britain did not protest the transfer of the islands of France to Spain.
Withdrawal by a system of reduction or economy are just excuses made by Palmerston to try to justify the British withdrawal.
He did not know that a flag, a plaque, an orchard constitute a sign of sovereignty of greater value than an entire population living for years on the islands, and also without british protests, do not you think it is strange?
In his own words: “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
The Convention of 1771 recognised British sovereignty.
How? In 1770 Madariaga had ordered the erection of Spain's marks & signs at Port Egmont. The Flags and Iron Crosses that marked Spanish territory throughout the Americas. Madariaga also placed its own garrison at Fort George.
When Madrid got that news it promptly ordered Bucareli to have the garrison removed, but the instruction specifically said that the marks & signs were to remain. When Stott arrived in 1771, those marks and signs had gone. Removed by Bucareli on the orders of Madrid. Spain had, of its own volition, abandoned its sovereignty.
As for honour, Carlos III had lost so much face that he ordered that no announcement be made and any records hidden. Neither Spain's historian Navarrete, nor the agents of Argentina's Manuel Moreno could find any trace of the convention in their searches in the 1830s.
Spain never again erected those marks & signs. Only ever watched Port Egmont covertly and Spain's instructions were always to avoid any clash with the British. Hardly the actions of a confident sovereign.
Spain had suffered a defeat. It did so again in 1790.
Morecrap, you are the one that has learned nothing.
Silence? Argentina was silent for 30 years after 1850. They should try it again.
The treaty of 1771 only restored Britain's honor in no way implied the recognition of British sovereignty
Oh yes it did, Spain's arrogance in trying to take all the marbles, changed to fawning abject apologies when the prospect of a severe ass-kicking appeared likely.
He did not know ... When he did, two official diplomatic protests were made to Buenos Aires. When they were ignored, that entitled the GB to legally enforce her claim. BA was barred under the treaty of 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 Treaty of Utrech was beneficial for Britain won territories, but recognized the Spanish territories in southern South America. At that time the islands were occupied by Spain.
Therefore Britain was excluded from any claim of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Again the signs and marks left by the British were destroyed without British protests.
And with a Spanish population in the islands.
Utrecht only recognised Spanish colonies as they had existed prior to 1700, so no, Spain had no claim to the Falklands.
As Britain repeatedly pointed out in 1770, Art.8 of Utrecht did not exclude them from any claims to unoccupied islands in the South Atlantic.
Britains marks and signs were stolen in 1776. Britain remained unaware of this covert action until 1807. Spain did not replace the British marks & signs with any of its own. Nor did it inform Britain of its illegal action. Kept very secret.
The Spanish garrison was restricted to Berkeley Sound. As the Nootka Convention would confirm, such settlements could only claim rights up to 30 leagues away. So again, Spain had no rights to the western islands.
At that time the islands were occupied by Spain. Then it must have been a miracle because all records including Spain's show they didn't turn up until 1766, and the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain was in (1713). While John Strong claimed the Islands for GB on 27 January 1690, after he made the first recorded landing in the Falkland Islands.
Sorry that should be 10 leagues (30 miles). My brain fumbled.
I was wrong on dates sometimes it is difficult to communicate in a language that is not mine.
In any case, the Treaty of Utrech recognized the territories of Spanish America between which the Malvinas Islands were found, so that for a scientific mission to the London Islands, he had to request permission from Spain. As for marks and signs, Spain did not need to replace any illegal signal, was this necessary with a permanent population on the islands?
What other stronger example of sovereignty do you need? As for John Strong, Diego Ribero world map of 1529 denies it.
What are you talking about MoreCrap? Utrecht only agreed to return the West Indies (not the Indies) to the Spanish Crown in the state they had been prior to 1700. The Falklands were not included as was pointed out in 1770 by Britain to Spain. Minister Grimaldi admitted to Chosieul that he doubted that Utrecht did not cover the offshore islands of the South Atlantic.
What 'scientific mission'? Britain never sought Spanish permission for any voyage. One voyage was delayed but it was made plain that the Falklands were considered as british. Hence the 1753 map showing them in red.
Spain DID need to make its sovereignty plain by re-erecting those which it had removed. By not doing so Spain effectively recognized British sovereignty.
Spain's instructions to the Soledad garrison was that they must not challenge British ships and should only take action against the temporary buildings and supplies of American sealers when those sealers were absent. Sneak in. Destroy. Sneak out. See the Royal Order of 1778.
Spain at no time after 1776 (when they actually got the courage to sail into Egmont) announced the sovereignty over the western islands.
Strong? Why the fixation with Strong? He landed but the first sighting was by Davis in 1592, followed by Hawkins in 1594. Ribeiro did not show the Falklands. He did show a group of inshore islands (Sanson) which had been reported by Gomes. Contrary to some contrary opinions, they were not the Falkland islands. Too far north and far to close to the coast.
By the way. Argentina is not Spain. Inheritance is a myth.
Utrech allowed the slave trade of Great Britain with the Spanish colonies and closed the routes of the South Atlantic, Britain was excluded from any claim on the Malvinas, the Queen of Great Britain promised to restore the old limits. What were these old limits? Those set by the Treaty of Tordesillas, except those territories occupied by other powers.
Argentina is not Spain? Of course. Myth?
The Spanish territories were ceded to the Argentine Republic on May 25, 1810.
The British arguments are based on maps that do not exist, stories of discovery that do not exist, on marks, signs and orchards of a brief illegal occupation immediately protested by Spain.
You clearly have little understanding of Utrecht. There was more than one treaty and that which is relevant to the Falklands was limited to returning the West Indies to Spain as they had been prior to 1700. This was all debated in 1770. Spain knew that it could not prevent England going into the South Atlantic and claiming unoccupied territory. I suggest that you read art.8. Britain was not excluded from the Falklands. France agreed with Britain on that.
Tordesillas? A treaty that bound two nations. It was not international law and did not apply to anyone but Portugal and Spain. And before you mention the pope, he did not sign at Tordesillas either.
Nothing was ceded by Spain in 1810. Spain did not recognize the UP/Confederation until 1863. BA did not declare independence until 1816. Nothing of importance happened in 1810.
Your last sentence, MoreCrap, describes Spain, not England.
You need to read more and stop relying on your indoctrination.
The Spanish territories were ceded to the Argentine Republic there in lies the rub. Spain couldn't cede what they didn't have title to. The British were entitled to rely on the terms of Utrecht to stymie any pretence by Argentina. By her failure under international law to respond to British diplomatic protests, is a concession that their clam is untrue, and Argentina has no claim otherwise they would have presented it then.
Utrecht only allowed the slave trade with Spanish America. He closed the southern seas. Do you think only English people are intelligent? Do you think that after losing territories they would allow the English to continue accessing their territories? Do you think that in the treaties the Spaniards obtained no advantage?
Of course, the English are experts in breaking the treaties.
When Spain recognized the Argentine Republic, it ceded its territories to May 25, 1810, article IV.
Clearly, you have not read the Utrecht Treaty. Try page 82 here -
Spain did not recognise the Argentine republic in 1810. There was no republic in 1810. Spain did not recognise the Argentine republic until 1863,
You remain an uneducated fool, MoreCrap
Utrecht only allowed That is blatantly untrue as I have shown, Spain was barred, particularly because it did not have clear title it ceded its territories “...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.” Again if Argentina genuinely believed that, they would have responded to GB protests. By not, was clear indication of their guilt, and presented GB with clear authority under the tenets of international law to a unilateral remedy for their grievance.
Artículo VIII Utrech: ...se ha convenido y establecido especialmente, que por ningún titulo ni con ningún pretesto se pueda directa ni indirectamente conceder jamas licencia ni facultad alguna á los franceses ni otra nación para navegar, comerciar ni introducir negros, bienes, mercaderías ú otras cosas en los dominios de América pertenecientes á la corona de España, sino es aquello que fuere convenido por el tratado ó tratados de comercio sobredichos y por los derechos y privilegios concedidos en el convenio llamado vulgarmente el asiento de negros, de que se hace mención en el artículo 12; y excepto también lo que el dicho rey católico ó sus herederos ó descendientes ofrecieren por el tratado ó tratados de la introducción de negros en las Indias occidentales españolas, después que se hubiere concluido el referido convenio del asiento de negros. Y para que la navegación y comercio á las Indias occidentales queden mas firme y ampliamente asegurados, se ha convenido y ajustado también por el presente , que ni el rey católico , ni alguno de sus herederos y sucesores puedan vender, ceder, empeñar, traspasar á los franceses ni á otra nación tierras, dominios ó territorios algunos de la América española, ni parte alguna de ellos, ni enajenarla en modo alguno de sí, ni de la corona de España. Y al contrario, para que se conserven mas enteros los dominios de la América española, promete la reina de la Gran Bretaña que solicitará y dará ayuda á los españoles para que los limites antiguos de sus dominios de América se restituyan y fijen como estaban en tiempo del referido rey católico Cárlos II, si acaso se hallare que en algún modo ó por algún pretesto hubieren padecido alguna desmembración ó quiebra después de la muerte del dicho rey católico Cárlos II...
Britain with a treaty written by its own hand excluded itself from the southern seas.
Britain with a treaty written by its own hand excluded itself from the southern seas
Spain could not claim what was not part of so that the ancient limits of her domains of America are restored and fixed as they were in time of the aforementioned Catholic King Cárlos II, As Utrech refers to an earlier time than 1713, and Spain were never on Islands prior to 1766, so she is barred under international law from making claims prior too that date to the Islands.
”...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 Jenningsa Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
Tratado de Reconocimiento, Paz y Amistad celebrado entre la Confederación Argentina y España en Madrid el 21/9/1863
Artículo 4 La Confederación Argentina, considerando que así como adquiere los derechos y privilegios correspondientes a la Corona de España, contrae todos sus deberes y obligaciones, reconoce solemnemente como deuda, consolidada de la República, tan privilegiada como la que más, conforme a lo establecido espontáneamente en sus leyes, todas las deudas, de cualquiera clase que sean contraídas por el Gobierno español y sus autoridades en las antiguas Provincias de España, que forman actualmente o constituyan en lo sucesivo el territorio de la República Argentina evacuado por aquéllas en 25 de mayo de 1810. Serán considerados como comprobantes de las deudas, los asientos de los libros de cuenta y razón de las oficinas del antiguo Virreinato de Buenos Aires o de los especiales de las provincias que constituyen o formen en adelante la República Argentina, así como los ajustes y certificaciones originales y copias legítimamente autorizadas, y todos los documentos que, cualesquiera que sean sus fechas, hagan fe con arreglo a los principios de derecho universalmente admitidos, siempre que estén firmados por autoridades españolas residentes en el territorio. La calificación de estos créditos se hará oyendo las partes interesadas; y las cantidades que de esta liquidación resulten admitidas y de legítimo pago devengarán el interés legal correspondiente desde un año después de canjeadas las ratificaciones del presente Tratado, aunque la liquidación se verifique con posterioridad. No formarán parte de esta deuda las cantidades que el Gobierno de Su Majestad Católica invirtiese después de la completa evacuación del territorio argentino por las autoridades españolas.
I'll say again Spain had to back down and pay restitution to GB for impinging on her sovereignty in Islands, or be at war. She chose the former, so Spain never held exclusive title, of which Argentina knew. What treaty arrangements
Argentina had made with Spain has no effect on GB, and the Islands. As Argentina had conceded her claim by her signing the peace treaty of 1850 Convention of Settlement, all territorial claims were finished according to international law.
The islands receive a diplomatic visit by Spanish Vice-Admiral Luiz Hernández de Pinzón in 1863 where the GB flag was saluted. So Spanish intentions were crystal clear.
Terence: The 1850 treaty put an end to hostilities initiated as always by Britain. The Falklands are not mentioned in any article.
The visit of Luis Hernandez de Pinzón is irrelevant in the sovereignty dispute, the Falklands were transferred to the new nation as of May 25, 1810.
If I don't communicate again, I wish everyone who participates here a happy good night and a blessed Christmas. Regards.
West Indies MoreCrap. Not all the Indies. I quote - it is by common consent established as a chief and fundamental rule, that the exercise of navigation and commerce to the Spanish West Indies should remain in the same state it was in the time of the aforesaid King Charles the Second;...
West Indies is just the caribbean.
Glad to see you agree finally that Spain ceded nothing before 1863 and could then only cede what it held. Not the Falklands. Argentina was not a fully recognised independent State until 1863.
The Falklands are not mentioned in any article. Doesn't have to be.
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Supported by the following international legal scholars:
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, LL.D, JAMES MADISON CUTT, T. J. LAWRENCE, M.A., LL.D,
GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D., LL.D, L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D, Hans Kelsen
Additionally supported by Argentine subsequent acquiescence.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“El estado de nuestras relaciones exteriores responde á las aspiraciones del país. Nada nos reclaman las otras Naciónes: nada tenemos que pedir de ellas, sino es la continuación de las manifestaciones de simpatía con que de parte de pueblos y gobiernos ha sido favorecida la República por sus progresos y espíritu de justicia.” (Heraclio Mabragaña 1910, vol. III, p. 286 which can be found in Biblioteca Nacional de la República Argentina, Agüero 2502, Recoleta, Buenos Aires)
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (printed in: British and Foreign State Pape
Commenting for this story is now closed.If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!
Get our news on your inbox!