MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina to strengthen fisheries patrolling in the South Atlantic
Argentina is going to strengthen control over its EEZ, to protect resources, and quite soon the recently acquired “ARA Bouchard” will be setting sail for its first patrolling, according to Argentine fisheries and navy officials. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell Argentina- WHY is there no agreement measures outside the 200mile EEZ inn the SW Atlantic?
Mar 14th, 2020 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Answer is very simple- its because your side will not agree to work with and talk to our side to co-operate on one!
And don't anyone come back with the crap about FIG being an illegal Govt etc! No it is not - it happens to be the legally elected Govt of these Islands - yes there is a Sov disputes but it is just pathetic and childish to just refuse to accept reality.
There used indeed to be a simple agreed system where talks took place on areas of mutual interest - and that any agreements on a way forward had no bearing on the Sov position of either side.
Your side tore it all up!
Unlawfully INSTALLED government, in defensive confrontation of Argentina's rightful claim to the islands.
Mar 14th, 2020 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -2There won't be any reasonable and sensible talks nor any form of resolution, until London and the U.K. recognize the usurpation of 1833.
Trimonde
Mar 14th, 2020 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Argentina's rightful claim to the islands” Keep saying it as it has zero effect other than on the indoctrinated.
Three times, Argentina has failed to negotiate when asked by the UK. Which means you have acquiesced those issues to the British position. Twice, they have attempted force, and have been deservedly vanquished.
The fact that the British have at all times been in the right, and are simply further exercising that right. ”There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
So there is no other choice for Argentina, but to 'Like it or lump it' because there is nothing they can legally do.
You truly are a master and fooling yourself in those beliefs you mindlessly choose to pursue, aren't you? Simply false. The opposite is the truth.
Mar 14th, 2020 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Trimonde
Mar 14th, 2020 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“You are...fooling yourself in those beliefs” On the contrary it is you who presents your beliefs. While I have presented only ascertainable facts.
The UK after two diplomatic protests, moved to effect the only legal remedy open to it. Which was Argentina's eviction. They can point to at least two Anglo-Spanish treaties that exclude any possibility of an Argentinean legal claim. So the UK has a peace treaty that legally recognises that Argentina has no claim, and additionally a right of conquest that was lawful at that time.
“In the 19c international law allowed states to acquire territory by conquest ...
It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'. Siehr, Conflicts, Indian ”
Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law Seventh Revised Edition, Peter Malanczuk
There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
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.
Islander1, cooperate with who?. There is not such thing as “FIG”. The only thing the UN recognize its a colonial territory, adminitered by the UK, which is under a process of decolonization. Even the USA recognize a de facto british administration without involving in recognizing british sovereignty.
Mar 14th, 2020 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -2So you should first make the United Nations to recognize your colonial regime before even pretending that Argentina recognize you as a new people and then we can talk about cooperation.
Terence Hill, as far as i know, britain changed many times their excuse of occupation on the islands, but never, used conquest as a way to justify their colonization on Malvinas.
Liberato
Mar 14th, 2020 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“... first make the United Nations ...” It's not an political issue that is subject to vox populi.
But a legal issue as the Islands are no longer a 'colonial regime'. Since both the UK and the FIG have complied with all the necessary articles of the UN Charter, and ICJ et al rulings to have effectively decolonized
“But never, used conquest as a way” They may not have, they have wise council which allows no more than is necessary, to maintain their legal sovereignty claim. Their many other legal claims they will hold in abeyance, and bring them down overwhelmingly on Argentinas head, if and when necessary.
Liberato
Mar 15th, 2020 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There is not such thing as “FIG”.”
And Juan Guaido is President of Venezuela?
Obviously the FIG exists and makes decisions about fishing quotas etc. Why does Argentina object to dealing with them? They think it might weaken their claim somehow? Or they'd rather hurt the enemy even if it's hurting them too?
Liberato/ Trimonde
Mar 15th, 2020 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Conquest is not part of Britain’s claim to the islands, correct.
Although we have had to re-capture them a few times.
However part of Argentina’s claim is proximity to Patagonia/TDF.
Which are claimed/occupied by Argentina on the basis of conquest, some 50 years after the British re-capture of the Islands in 1833, some 190 years after the British first planted their flag on the Islands.
The other part is inheritance from Spain, however the treaty of 1771 (81 years after the British first planted their flag on the Islands) proves the British rejected the Spanish claim 45 years before Argentina existed, in any form and some 109 years before Argentina reached the shores of the S. Atlantic.
Argentina only has a claim to the Falklands if you completely ignore the British history of the S. Atlantic, and doesn’t have a claim to anything else in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic whatever you do.
That is the “uncomfortable truth” of history for you.
Pugol-H
Mar 15th, 2020 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Part of Argentina’s claim is proximity” another claim that has no basis in international law.
International law's view of claims based on proximity.
Under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:
Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
”International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea continental shelf cases, in which Denmark and the Netherlands based their claim inter alia on the doctrine of proximity, i.e., that the part of the continental shelf closest to the part of the state in question falls automatically under that state's jurisdiction. In these cases the ICJ rejected any contiguity type of approach. As for continuity, it is argued, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article 1, now contained in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,” p.74
The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine...
By Roberto C. Laver
Islander1 y dt jajajaja muy divertidos
Mar 16th, 2020 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse -2Liberato
Mar 16th, 2020 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Even the USA recognize a de facto british administration without involving in recognizing british sovereignty.”
“As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as ”the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!