MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/South Georgia governments relation mutually beneficial, but MOU “has not been made public”
The relationship between the Falkland Islands Government and South Georgia Government “brings both direct and indirect benefit to the Falklands” assured Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands (GSGSSI ) Chief Executive Helen Havercroft. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesTWIMC...
Jan 17th, 2020 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2How “reassuring” to see that them Engrish ginger superhead Crown administrators of one Colony can reach mutually convenient MOU's with them other Engrish ginger superhead Crown administrators of adjacent Colonies away from those pesky “common little peoples”...
One day...................
Oh dear Think,
Jan 18th, 2020 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No matter what your views on the topic in question, is there any need to comment on the lady's hair colour?
No other than my life long allurement towards ging lasses..., dahling...
Jan 18th, 2020 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1How many governments do the British have !!
Jan 21st, 2020 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Each island, a government.
Who do they govern? To the penguins?
These islands are not overseas territory, they are usurped Argentine territory.
On the north pole they have much larger islands.
Mal.... I think you will find that the British Overseas Territory's have a thing called “self-government”. Would I be being cynical if I were to suggest that Argentina might find such a concept an anathema?
Jan 21st, 2020 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You are rambling MoreCrap.
Jan 21st, 2020 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Every Overseas Territory has a government so that it can self-govern. This was, and is, a demand from the United Nations Us Brits do so like to keep the UN happy, as you know.
Who do they govern? The hint is in the term 'self-government'. You may have to ask someone.
Nothing was usurped from Argentina. Trespassers cannot be usurped.
North Pole? Are you drinking?
Malvinense 1833
Jan 22nd, 2020 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“These islands are not overseas territory, they are usurped Argentine territory.”
You are revealed as just another another Argentinian liar
First in time, first in right. Qui Prior Est Tempore, Potior Est Jure
“Captain Cook claimed South Georgia for Britain on 17 January 1775. His journal states: ”I landed at three different places, displayed our colours, and took possession of the country in his majesty's name, under a discharge of small arms“
”The South Shetlands were claimed for Britain by Edward Bransfield in 1820, and George Powell claimed the South Orkneys for Britain in 1821.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas, by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Who is the liar Terence?
Jan 22nd, 2020 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:
in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left.
Credits: Professor Marcelo Kohen
Malvinense 1833
Jan 22nd, 2020 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Great Britain waived the right of...Marcelo Kohen” Kohen as I've shown before is a liar.
”Nootka Convention
The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. 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. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes. However, 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.”
http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nootka_Convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apcbg/Nootka_Sound_Convention
Malvinese
Jan 22nd, 2020 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Government of South Georgia & the South Sandwich Islands looks after scientific research, conservation etc. Doesn't Argentina pretend to govern part of Antarctica which in reality is just research stations?
The point of having separate governments is so Britain isn't forced to hand the other islands over to the Falklanders if they become independent in future. This happened in the past when administrations of various colonies were combined for bureaucratic reasons...
The Falklands are not 'adjacent', MoreCrap. Adjacent is less than 100 miles.
Jan 22nd, 2020 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely 'adjacent to', it is evident that by no stretch of the imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast be regarded as 'adjacent' to it.” - North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands Judgment of 20 February 1969 para.41 p.30
“The count of Floridablanca deliberately left a certain vagueness in the wording of the convention, the effectiveness of which might depend on the interpretation of the moment. For the British, what was important was to put an end to Spain's claim to retain an exclusive right of navigation in the Pacific Ocean. In addition, by granting the right to fish on the East and West coasts of America, Spain renounced the “closed sea” (policy) that it had maintained in those regions. … (France) also got the freedom of the seas. That is a very important fact.” [Martin-Allanic J. Bougainville navigateur et les decouvertes de son temps 1964]
“The British victory in the Nootka Sound Convention was greater than is usually acknowledged.” [Peña M. P. & Peña J. A. Falklands or Malvinas: Myths & Facts 2018]
” Contrary to what is usually asserted, article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention,.. did not apply to the Falkland Islands.” [Fisch J. The Falkland Islands in the European Treaty System 1493-1833 1983]
1. Nootka’s applicability to the Falklands only became debateable in the latter half of the 20th century, when Argentina used it to assert its own sovereignty claims over the islands. Before then, it was widely held on both sides of the Atlantic that Nootka applied to the Falklands.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://issuecounsel.com/argument/nootka-sound-convention-does-not-apply-to-uk-in-falklands/
What it's stating is revisionist history. Until some major legal heavyweights lend some credibility I'm not so persuaded, so I'll stay with the traditionalist view.
“It was restricted to territories lying farther south....between 1790 and 1811.” Jörg Fisch German Yearbook of International Law 1983. Fisch doesn't provide any evidence, but regardless Nootka was reinacted in 1814.
Widely held on both sides? Your evidence for this widely held belief is?
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have found nothing in the archives in the period following the Convention to suggest that Britain felt it applied to the Falklands. Indeed, the Parliamentary debate would suggest that was not perceived as applicable. MPs then were not so different from today. If the Commons or Lords had thought that Nootka applied to the Falklands, some MPs would have had a field day. In fact, the Falklands were only mentioned in the debate as a comparison from 1771.
The whole negotiation needs to be viewed in context. Pages 60 to 82.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/1775-to-1815.pdf
Fisch is not a 'heavyweight'?
How about a couple of Argentine lawyers? (no, not those)
“By leaving the Falklands/Malvinas archipelago deliberately out of the Treaty, it may be said that Great Britain ratified its right to return to islands which, not being adjacent to the shores of Spanish South America, were under the reservation of dominion left by Lieutenant Clayton on May 20, 1774.” [Peña M. P. & Peña J. A. Falklands or Malvinas: Myths & Facts 2018]
Something early, perhaps?
“... article (6) is contract for the Coast of Patagonia and all the extent from our last presidio in Chiloe to Cape Horn, so that the harbours between Cape Horn and the last population of ours south of Buenos Aires and those that they are between Chiloe and said Cape, they must remain perpetually deserted...” [ ES.45168.AHNOB//BAENA, C.31, D.42-43 in Portal de Archivos Españoles (PARES). This document is recorded as having been written by the Duke of Baena at the Royal Palace of San Lorenzo on November 30, 1792 and appears to
have been a consideration of the effect of the 1790 convention. Why, or for who, it was written is not clear. His description seems to confirm the view that the convention only referred to the coasts of South America and not to the Falkland Islands.]
IMHO the Nootka Convention did not apply to the FI
Roger Lorton
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Your evidence for this widely held belief is?”
I have used two citations, also Pascoe and Pepper support Nootka's application. If you can't be bothered to consider them, then don't waste our time.
Only 2 citations? I have many. I did consider yours. P&P? They used to. Not sure they do now. We have had the same conversation. Your link is a little strange. Not certain it carries any weight. As for Fisch, he says that Art 6 did not apply. No other article could apply.
Jan 23rd, 2020 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you believe that I am wasting your time, why are you wasting mine?
RL
Jan 24th, 2020 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Jörg Fisch Emeritus Professor of General Modern History” The question of the effect Nootka in the present context is primary a legal one, as it is a peace treaty. The practise of such is, if something is excluded it has to indicated. There is nothing in Nootka that pertains to the exclusion of the Falklands. So if this so, then what does Fisch base his claim on?
I assume that Fisch bases his interpretation upon the original document, in French. It's what historians do. Notably, his opinion was sufficient to get him into a legal journal rather than one dealing with history.
Jan 24th, 2020 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for treaties needing to express all exclusions, that is clearly nonsense. Treaties need to identify the terms they use, not the ones that they don't. In that respect Nootka was, deliberately, a complete fudge. As Floridablanca announced to Spain's Council of ministers after Nootka was signed.
I gave you my 22 pages of quotes, citation and reasoning. Too long for here. I suggest you either read it, or leave it. Floridablanca is on page 80.
You are perfectly entitled to your opinion as am I but it is worthy of note that the application of Nootka to the Falklands is widely disputed. Clearly, I am on the side of those who believe Nootka was not applicable. I find myself in good company. However, the German lawyer Dolzer may have been right when he avoided the question entirely.
“The political situation as it developed after the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in Latin America was entirely different from the one that existed in 1790. Therefore, it will have to be concluded that the Nootka Sound Convention influenced neither the legal situation in the year 1790 nor subsequent development of the territorial status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”
[The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present Rudolf Dolzer 1993 p.58]
I'll leave it at that.
;-)
RL
Jan 24th, 2020 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanking you for your insights
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!