MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
A decommissioned C 130 Hercules to honor Argentine combatants fallen in the Falklands' war
A decommissioned Hercules C 130 from the Argentine Air Force and which was involved in combat, transport, surveillance, and supply operations during the Falkland Islands war has arrived at Pilar, a city in the province of Buenos Aires, where there is a monument to the fallen during the 1982 conflict. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesStill glorifying the illegal war.
Jul 20th, 2022 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0The same type of plane they used to dump drugged naked nuns out the back over the La Plata Estuary. That's what it should be memorializing...
Jul 21st, 2022 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0mr potts,
Jul 21st, 2022 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse -7The war is legal, because Argentina had been claiming for many decades, and the United Kingdom did not comply with the resolution 2065 of the United Nations. It is the consequence of letting time pass, and it will happen again, again and again and again .
As long as there is an open sovereignty dispute, the Argentine soldiers can go to the islands and kill all the English who live there and in the same way the English soldiers can kill the Argentine soldiers and civilians.
All is fair in war
Argentine citizen. you are brainwashed, the invasion was illegal, the UN called for Argentinian troops to leave immediately, you quote 2065, the UN have never said the islands are yours, they are not were not and will never be yours, as for more invasions, the fact that there is now a sufficient force based on the islands that will stop any more future attempts to grab them, in time the islands will cease being BOT and become independent ,
Jul 21st, 2022 - 06:37 am - Link - Report abuse +3Argentine citizen, I know you are not very bright as the education system in Argentina is very poor, but there is a difference between a sovereignty dispute and open war.
Jul 21st, 2022 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +2If you would like to declare open war with the UK, whereby we can follow your rules of each side being allowed to kill each others citizens at will, Argentina would last a matter of hours and be an unfortunate stain on history.
You mistook mercy in 1982 as weakness, once the UK had recovered the islanders home we went home, as opposed to punishing Argentina for its actions so that any mention of “Malvinas” would reign terror in an Argentine heart.
We are ok with that, we are ok that the Argentine peso is 300 to the dollar, we are ok that Peronist after Peronist rapes your country...go for it.
Come near the islands again however, and I doubt we would be as merciful
we will simply sit and wait on the riverbank, at the slightest geopolitical change or weakness
Jul 21st, 2022 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -5it happen before, and we will happen again, just as your country invaded without declaration on 1806, 1807, 1833 and 1845.
For the moment we are content to make their representatives pilgrimage every year thousands of miles away from their homes, having to go before the C24 and the unga.
We simply seek to raise their children under the shadow of a nation that maintains a territorial dispute, leaving the door of Pandora's box open for their descendants.
What a load of gibbering nonsense AC . the C24 is a pointless toothless waste of money set up years ago in different times, nothing will simmer, no pandoras box and no shadow, just a people who have every rite to choose their own self determination, a UN polich that trumps all your false dubious claims, take your head out of the sand,
Jul 21st, 2022 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JudgeJose
Jul 21st, 2022 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Britain’s manipulation of the principle of self-determination is clear for a number of reasons: 1) because the General Assembly of the United Nations, and not the colonial power, is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation, and the highest organ of the United Nations has never applied such a principle to the current inhabitants of the islands; 2) because this is a special case of colonialism in which the victim of the colonial action was a recently established State; 3) because after the dispossession of Argentina, the British government established their own settlers; 4) because since then, it has controlled the migration policies of this isolated and scarcely populated territory; 5) because the current residents do not constitute a separate “people” who is a victim of colonial actions; 6) because the United Kingdom, after evicting Argentina and introducing its own settlers, rejected all proposals to negotiate and arbitration put forward by Argentina, while consolidating its presence in the islands.
Accepting that the British subjects living in the islands may themselves decide the Anglo- Argentine dispute would mean a flagrant and arbitrary example of imposing a fait accompli. If there is a people who is a victim of colonialism to whom the principle of self- determination can be applied here, that people is the Argentine people.
There was no determination by the United Nations that the right of self-determination apply to you, in fact quite the opposite, the UN has established resolution 2065, the c24 proposes year after year the decolonization of the territory.
And the most recent and the icing on the cake are the definitions of recent years regarding the limitations of the right to self-determination.
In Crimea, 1.5 million inhabitants Voted freely and democratically for a massive support of 98% to join the Russian Federation and the UN has declared the referendum invalid.
The s
More nonsense AC, all you have is Argentine propaganda, not real facts and the real truth about the history of the Falklands which were claimed long before Argentina or the United Provinces existed, the claim was never given up, end of story, the Islanders are no less a people than Spanish.Italian Argentinians or the Portuguese Brazilians, the UN have very little interest in your crazy claim, the c24 is a joke, the islanders could be independent tomorrow if they wanted, they choose not to and that includes over 200 people of Chilean descent, self determination is a human rite, no amount of attempted bullying by your nut job Peronists who indoctrinate you with lies will change that, comparing the Falklands with the Ukraine/.Crimea is bonkers, Russia signed up to the international borders of Ukraine, the so called Russian nationalists are Putins plants which he used as an excuse to invade, he cant stand the fact that Ukraine wants democracy and not to be ruled by an despotic evil dictator who has said on camera that he does not recognise Ukraine as a country, and wants to recreate the Russian area of influence and recreate the empire which he said was the biggest disaster for Russia, now all the eastern European countries have tasted democracy they have no wish to be controlled by a dictator, the war is down to 1 person and one person only, PUTIN, the referendum was not valid because most Ukrainians boycotted it as it was not genuine free or fair, your reasoning is crazy, but keep believing all the propaganda you are fed, you need to wake up and do some real research about world issues as clearly you are clueless.
Jul 21st, 2022 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think you are quite brainwashed by English propaganda, and the weak and failed attempt to Rewrite historical facts by a Ramdom like Roger Lorton.
Jul 21st, 2022 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The reality is that the foundations of Argentina's sovereignty are solid. In fact, your own country, in the middle of the 20th century, was trying to negotiate a solution to the territorial dispute. First offering a lease, then shared sovereignty and in the last moments of the 70's they directly wanted to cede sovereignty and push the islanders to agree to present their interests.
All of this is documented, including with the letters and memos are of your own diplomats.
On October 16th, 1936, the Foreign Office's
Troutbeck said: “The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in
1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is
therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international
bandits.”
In this regard a note dated November 3rd, 1928 from Sir Malcolm Robertson to Sir Ronald
Lindsay was mentioned; the note reads: “As regards the Falkland Islands, I have always
considered, ever since reading Bernhardt's Foreign Office memorandum of December,
1910, that our claim to the islands was very weak indeed. In point of fact it is based upon
force and very little else. This view appears to have been held by successive British
governments since Lord Palmerston's days, for they have been at pains to avoid the
question's being raised. I realized that the islands are of vital strategic value to us, and that
we cannot give them up, however just or unjust our position may be.”
The preliminary
Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office´s Investigation Department on September 17th,
1946 concludes: “the British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable
aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription”
AC, again more nonsense, nobody in the UK is taught about the Falklands history, you have to do genuine research unlike your children that are indoctrinated from an early age, and by the way French and Spanish history concurs with the British view, any negotiations that may have taken place may have possibly allowed you to have joint control if the islanders agreed to it, regarding your illegal occupation in 1833, your people in Buenos Aires were told not to send troops to the islands twice but warnings were ignored, they were warned again to leave and when they ignored it again, they were then ejected from their illegal occupation,24 evil soldiers that raped and killed people, Vernet was not even Argentinian and asked London via the embassy for permission to go to the islands, something your politicians fail to tell you, no civilians were expelled, they were allowed to stay providing they followed British law, something else your government fails to tell you.
Jul 21st, 2022 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0most Argentinians have accepted that you will not get the Falklands apart from some war veterans who did not even like being on the islands and your crazy politicians who use it to try and unite your people to hide the facts that they have run your country in to the ground, life is too short to waste your life on a myth and fantasy, wasted enough time on this, i bid you good night,
“the foundation to the Argentine sovereignty case are solid”
Jul 22nd, 2022 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0hahahahahahahahah!!!!! oh ffs.....they sent the SS Sarandi in October 1832 to claim the islands...it mutineed, they killed the “governor” Mestevier, raped his wife in front of their children, and they we evicted 10 weeks later by the HMS Clio under Captain Onslow.
Thats it...thats the solid claim....please dont waffle on about Vernet and inheriting from Spain....you no more inherited the Falklands than inherited Cuba.
The sovereignty of the islands belongs to the islanders, the UN general assembly over-ruled the C24 in 2008
“in the process of decolonisation, and where there is no dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination” proposed by Argentina and its C24 chums became “in the process of decolonisation, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination” in the GA resolution....you see the difference?
is that the cheap story that a nobody like roger lorton wrote you guys on the napkin?
Jul 22nd, 2022 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse -4Argentina came to have a prosperous town of 300 inhabitants, the only true human development that existed in the islands before 1833 was that of Puerto Soledad. even the first person to be born in the islands was Argentine.
The people you expelled in 1833 were the remnants of an established population that had been attacked by the USS Lexington.
the only presence you had previously was an illegal settlement in port egmont that was abandoned in 1774 through a dignified exit agreement with spain.
The only thing they left behind was a worthless plaque.
Except it is not true is it?
Jul 22nd, 2022 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse +1The people “expelled” in 1833 were the crew of the SS Sarandi who had committed mutiny and murdered Mestevier, raped his wife in front of their children. The remnants of Luis Vernets business (led at the time by the Scottish Matthew Brisbane) were encouraged to stay, most did.
Sorry, you have been lied to.
If there was a prosperous Argentine community on the islands why did Argentine send the Sarandi to“claim” the islands? Because they knew the Vernet business was nothing to do with Argentinas claim.
No, fake intent to rewrite history.. nice try roger lorton,
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse -2we had the real lists.. and your diplomats memos aknowledging the atrocius thing they did
Argentine citizen
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse +1Your story cannot possibly be true if you took your head out of your a7se long enough to think of it.
You are suggesting that the Vernet business (your numbers 300 people) were evicted by the crew of the HMS Clio in January 1833, and this community was de facto an Argentine civilian community on the islands.
Firstly, Vernet and most of the community had arrived in 1828, most had left including Vernet, and they had left Matthew Brisbane in charge, Brisbane was British and was murdered on the islands in 1834.
Vernet had requested permission from the British to be on the islands in 1828 fully aware of the conflicting claims of Britain and Spain.
So, the official first attempt by Argentina to seize the islands was October 1832 where they sent Esteban Mestevier to islands as the governor, knowing Vernet had left. Mestevier was murdered by his own crew.
I wonder how do you think the 300 folks you've made up fitted on the small SS Sarandi to be evicted? Did the HMS Clio bring extra ships with it to send these folks back to Argentina?
Or did only the 30 or so people who could actually fit on the Sarandi leave?
Or do Argentina have ships that can magically grow like in fairy tales?
So you don't have real lists....you have fairy tale bed time stories.....which you have to believe, was Aslan evicted too...with elves and hobbits? Did a big beanstalk get cut down and the magic unicorn forced onto the Sarandi?
“The General Assembly of the United Nations, … is the body in charge of determining the procedures to be followed in order to put an end to a colonial situation.”
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1NO IT IS NOT, it is codified in the UN Charter.
“According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 entitled “Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter”, a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.”
In addition, by the “Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, as approved by the General Assembly by its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States, including the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. In that principle, it is stated that the “establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people”.
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about
Further to what is written above, in 2008 Argentina tried, and failed, by the C24 to add a qualification to the UN Charter....adding the words “where there is no dispute over sovereignty”
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“in the process of decolonisation, and where there is no dispute over sovereignty, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination”
This was rejected by the sane countries of the world and remains:
“in the process of decolonisation, there is no alternative to the principle of self-determination”
So even if the fantasy fairy stories of Argentine citizen were true (the are not) and somehow hundreds of Argentine citizens were forcible evicted (they were not) and the SS Sarandi miraculous grew 10x the size (it did not).....the current island inhabitants would still have sole rights to the islands.
No, at the time of the atack of the USS lexington on 1831
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Puerto Luis had about 124 inhabitants: 30 blacks, 34 porteños, 28 English-speaking River Plate residents and 7 Germans.
a different matter was the population that you expelled in 1833, which was the remnant that remained after the attack of the uss lexington.
AC, are you Liberato in disguise,?
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So not 300 you lied about earlier but now but a peak of 124, the majority of which (including Vernet) had already left before 1833. Matthew Brisbane (British) was left in charge.
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How many of them left on the HMS Sarandi? You now claim a “remnant”....
Once you take the crew who remained, Captain Pinedo there was room for fewer than 20, none of them were forced to go(expelled) ...most of those who wanted off the island as the Vernet business has failed. Most stayed and their descendants are still on the islands.
Brisbane himself chose to leave to tie up some business in Buenos Aires before returning a few months later....odd for someone “forced to leave at gunpoint due to some atrocity” LOL.
So, we return to the first point of fact. The Vernet business failed (nothing to do with the British), most left before 1833, Argentina tried to seize the islands in October 1832 with Mestevier....failed...noone from the Vernet business was forced to leave.
So thats it....any more magic unicorns? When did the pixies and and talking horses arrive?
The Spanish population and later the Argentine population in Port Louis always varied between 100 and 300...because it increased to 300 at times of slaughter of seals and whales the uk never had a population on the island before, only an illegal settlement on the western island, in fact the plaque they left in 1774 mentioned falkland island in the singular referring to saunders island. your own diplomats in their memos acknowledged in writing that the barbarity they committed in 1833 “was a humanitarian atrocity”. I am not saying this, they are the memorandums of your own foregging office and diplomats of your country..
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -2your own diplomats acknowledged in writing what they had done and were willing to solve it diplomatically, first proposing a 50 or 100-year lease, then offering shared sovereignty... and ultimately they wanted to directly transfer sovereignty...
AC, you are talking a load of garbage, quite frankly you are making yourself look foolish,
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“They wanted to cede sovereignty and push the islanders to agree to present their interests.
Jul 23rd, 2022 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All of this is documented, including with the letters and memos are of your own diplomats.
On October 16th, 1936, the Foreign Office's Troutbeck said: “The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in
1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day.“
That’s why he was an abysmally ignorant bureaucrat. As historically and legally the correct viewpoint is from the time of the incident.
Whatever an unqualified bureaucrat has to say on the subject of international law.
Is well refuted by the following judges of the International Court of Justice.
”...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 Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
Moreover, Argentina is barred from using “territorial integrity” as an argument. As it is a post UN law and cannot be applied retroactively.
The jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she 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 Argentina’s acquiescence.” 1
1. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
acquisitive prescription you meant? there never was
Jul 24th, 2022 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse -2It is irrelevant what an English judge may say, since she cannot be a party and a judge at the same time.
the memorandums of the foregging office were not simple opinions...they were based on historical facts and not only a diplomat like troubeck said that, others thought the same.
Your own ministry of foreign affairs in one of the memorandums wrote in the conclusions that what had happened in 1833 was an atrocious fact. acknowledging what Argentina raised.
in fact there were very fluid diplomatic relations to share, lease or cede sovereignty by the united kingdom.
If the story and failed attempt to re-invent the story of Lorton were true, your country would never have had those negotiations, because no one negotiates renting, sharing or giving up sovereignty of something of their own for no reason.
No Argentine negotiates renting, sharing or giving up something they own.
Jul 24th, 2022 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1Britain did it with an enormous part of its Empire willingly, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, hundreds of islands.....the reason being it was expensive and unnecessary.
Only Argentina wants land where the entire population don't want them!
So, sorry, all your fairy tales are just that...Spain left willingly, Vernet had a business that failed, Argentinas failed theft of the islands ended in mutiny and murder....190 years later the only successful community thrives. The islands are theirs.
“It is irrelevant what an English judge may say”
Jul 24th, 2022 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0It’s two former Presidents of the ICJ, there is no other judge from the ICJ that disagrees with them
“Your own diplomats acknowledged in writing what they had done and were willing to solve it diplomatically”
Unfortunately for you, their ignorance had trampled all over the Islanders UN Charter International right to self -determination.
So, it doesn’t matter what a bunch of stuffed shirts want they are compelled to support the Islanders period.
No Argentine negotiates renting, sharing or transferring something that belongs to him. (yes it belongs to us, but we consider the interests of the islanders)
Jul 24th, 2022 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Great Britain did it with much of its Empire voluntarily, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, hundreds of islands... because it was expensive and unnecessary. (This was not the case, according to you the islands are self-sufficient, those negotiations took place in a context of recognition of the atrocity they had committed in 1833.
According to the foregging office, in their conclusions, they themselves say that what they did was something atrocious, and there they began to negotiate how to solve it.)
Lets try once more:
Jul 24th, 2022 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +21) The is no inheritance from Spain, Spain vacated the islands voluntarily and left them uninhabited.
2) Luis Vernet knew full well that both Argentina and Britain would like to claim the islands but did not fulfill the requirement of having a population on the islands which was (at the time) needed for a valid sovereignty claim. His business venture failed, he left the islands voluntarily, leaving the British Matthew Brisbane in charge of the remaining business assets.
3) Argentina knowing that the Vernet community (as you rightly say the remnants thereof) did not constitute an “Argentine settlement”, sent Esteban Mestevier to claim the islands in 1832. There was actually a ceremony on the islands to do just that. Unfortunately, the crem mutineed and murdered him, and raped his wife.
4) Captain Onslow arrived on HMS Clio in Jan 1833 and instructed ONLY the crew of the Sarandi to leave, agreeing that the Vernet business did not constitute an Argentine settlement. A handful of the community chose the free ride back to Buenos Aires.
No “atrocity” took place
5) Irrespective of the above, the islands now belong to the islanders as spelled out in the UN Charter, where they have the right to self determination.
6) Britain would love to get rid of all its overseas territories, the only ones remaining are too small to be independent, or have belligerent, lying, corrupt neighbours who would look to invade as soon as British defences were dropped.
The reason Argentina doesn't have the Falklands is not Britain, its Argentina...youve had 190 years to convince 3000 people you are a better option.
On the last count you'd convinced 3!!!
“Recognition of the atrocity they had committed in 1833.”
Jul 24th, 2022 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was served with two diplomatic notices warning of her intrusion on British sovereign territory. Which she chose to ignore, thus reaping the legal consequences that ensued.
“In law, the silence of a party implies his consent ... he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
Argentina left the UK with two choices, to abandon, or assert her claim. She chose the only legal door open to her.
“Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory
“If a dispute over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title— cession conquest, occupation, … That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, “…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.”
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
additional comments are by Dr. Korman
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN
@Terrence Hill
Jul 24th, 2022 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally we agree on something, at least partially.. In your previous comment you finally defend and recognize in your argument the conquest as a means of acquisition, your words finally coincide with those of the writings of the foregging office.. but unfortunately you are wrong.
At the moment of the usurpation, not only were the parties not at war, but they had concluded a treaty of peace and friendship. As we will explain below, mutual respect for territorial integrity had to be observed. Besides, a simple act of force did not in itself imply belligerency between the parties. It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war. There was no state of belligerence between Argentina and Great Britain when commander Onslow expelled Argentine agents from the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833. Nor did this fact imply the outbreak of a war between the two countries. The concept of conquest does not therefore apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas. As Sharon Korman explains in her book on conquest as a means of acquiring territorial sovereignty:
”It is reasonable to suppose that if the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest, Britain would have appealed to that title as a means of putting an end, once and for all, to the disputed status of the territory (...). But Britain – contrary to what would have been the advice of some present-day international lawyers – did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.”
“You finally defend and recognize in your argument the conquest as a means of acquisition”
Jul 25th, 2022 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0'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
First, I have shown UK’s sovereignty, as recognized internationally in the nineteenth century.
Second, by Argentine `silence’ in the face of UK diplomatic protests.
Argentina has legally acquiesced to the UK’s sovereignty.
Everything that the UK did in 1833 was in complete compliance with international law at that date.
“It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war”
Not according to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself
Finally, ”..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem 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'..” Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
U unconsciously mentioning korman, and contradicted yourself
Jul 25th, 2022 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0and you self-destructed your conquest argument. you wanted to mention him as an example and unconsciously you did not realize that on page 156 of his book he mentions the case of the falklands and why the conquest does not apply. Its cleary u had never read korman book.
2nd) u talk of an argentine silence, please be more specific which moment u say?
“you did not realize that on page 156 of his book he mentions the case of the falklands and why the conquest does not apply.”
Jul 25th, 2022 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1Bullshit, if that where true it you would be able to show the citation.
Truth can always be proved, lies like yours never can.
Like I proved UK’s claim was recognized by others two centuries ago.
Argentia had acquiesced to the UK’s sovereignty by her silence.
“It was necessary for the States involved to consider themselves at war”,
Is a proven lie by Hans Kelsen.
The UNGA resolution bars Argentina from pursuing a claim that predates the UN Charter.
Based on 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.”
Not lies, real facts i quoted u the page 156 of his book, i quoted the sharom korman book.
Jul 25th, 2022 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0U cited “The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International law” for defend your position not knowing you was autodestroying your argument because at page 156 of the book he explain why not appy at falkland case.
“Argentia had acquiesced to the UK’s sovereignty by her silence.”
According to the British authors, the Argentine Republic did not make any type of claim or carry out any act in relation to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands between 1850 and 1884. They consider this to be the result of the 1849 Convention, and come to the conclusion that it implies acquiescence by Argentina or could even amount to an acquisitive prescription in favour of the United Kingdom. Neither the facts nor the law allow either conclusion.
We already saw that the Southern-Arana Treaty of 1849 did not imply Argentina’s renunciation to sovereignty, and that over the complicated years of its history from 1850 to 1884, Argentina never gave up its sovereignty, nor behaved in such a way as to renounce its claims or recognise British sovereignty.
Argentina’s attitude cannot be assimilated to a lack of reaction which could be interpreted as consent to British sovereignty for a variety of reasons. In the first place, Argentina immediately protested against its dispossession, and maintained its position thereafter. Secondly, it was the British Government itself who considered the issue closed and did not wish to have any further communication in this respect. Thirdly, Argentina clearly expressed that in spite of the attitude of the British government, it maintained its position and that its silence could not be considered acquiescence. Fourthly, once the parties’ legal positions are known, it is not necessary to reiterate them for each and every one of the facts that are a consequence of the protest itself.
“We already saw that the Southern-Arana Treaty of 1849 did not imply Argentina’s renunciation to sovereignty”
Jul 25th, 2022 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse +1Your little unqualified and unsupported opinion, or the following 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 who all state.
“A treaty of peace leaves everything 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”
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“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 Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
You are shown again as a proven little old liar. Truth can always be proved, lies like yours never can never be.
Argy Citizen
Jul 26th, 2022 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Resolution 2065 says:
They should negotiate …’with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).’
Where the stated objective of those documents is full self-governance for ALL the NSGTs and the provision for that is self-determination free from outside interference.
So long as Argentina denies the Falklanders right to self-determination, it is Argentina that is in breach of the resolution, not the UK.
The rights conferred by the UN charter/UNGA resolution 1514, apply to the inhabitants of all the 17 NSGTs equally. There are no exceptions.
Argentina/you continue to argue for various and ever more fanciful reasons why this should not apply to the Falklanders, but this is just Argentina’s opinion, not the position of the UN or what is stated in the UN resolutions.
As to the disputed history, you should know that disputed historical documents, where Argentina says a treaty say one thing and British history says it says something completely different, are now available on line.
The evidence does not support the Argentinian version of events
As for the South Aran Treaty:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/720583?ln=en
‘In May 1850, the Republic of Argentina and the United Kingdom ratified the
Convention for settlement of existing differences and the re-establishment of
friendship. In the 90 years following ratification of the 1850 Convention, the
Republic of Argentina only submitted one official diplomatic protest, in 1888.’
For 90 years after the signing of the treaty Argentina dropped it claim to the Islands.
Economy must have been doing well back then.
The International Court of Justice described acquisitive prescription as a “doctrine”61, in clear contrast to other legal rules applicable in the international sphere. One example of such rules is uti possidetis iuris, which the Court described as a “principle” and was used by the principal legal organ of the United Nations to resolve several territorial disputes62. The reason why the United Kingdom hesitates in invoking prescription is simple: it would involve admitting that in 1833 it did not have the sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas. There are also various reasons why it couldn’t invoke acquisitive prescription as a subsidiary argument. Its possession has not been peaceful, and suffers the initial vice of possession obtained by use of force; nor is it undisputed, as Argentina has never acquiesced to the situation.
Jul 26th, 2022 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if it were true that Argentina remained silent for 34 years, this period would not be sufficiently long for prescription. This is so for a variety of reasons. As we have seen, the British Government itself considered that 54 years of silence did not deprive it of its purported claim of sovereignty. In an arbitration agreement between Britain and Venezuela in which the parties explicitly admitted the application of adverse possession as a source of sovereignty, a period of fifty years was considered necessary.
The Southern-Arana Treaty of 1849 did not imply Argentina’s renunciation to sovereignty, and that over the complicated years of its history from 1850 to 1884, Argentina never gave up its sovereignty, nor behaved in such a way as to renounce its claims or recognise British sovereignty.
The United Kingdom considers, and has made Argentina aware of its position, that its complete silence for 55 years over Spanish and Argentine acts of public power in the Falklands/Malvinas did not imply the loss of its purported sovereignty from the abandonment in 1774 until its first protest in 1829.
The Right of Conquest
Jul 26th, 2022 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice
Sharon Korman
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-right-of-conquest-9780198280071?cc=us&lang=en&
The title itself makes a liar of you.
“There are also various reasons why it couldn’t invoke acquisitive prescription as a subsidiary argument. Its possession has not been peaceful,
”There is a general principle, in international law jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. “
The period from 1833 to 1982 is well over the required thirty-year-old threshold
“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.
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).
There is no acquisitive prescription, Argentina has always maintained its claim on the Malvinas.
Jul 26th, 2022 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In fact, the only supposed argument presented by the United Kingdom since 1982 is the supposed “right to self-determination”.
They have the cards to lose if the historical context is touched or they invoke the acquisitive prescription. The mere fact of touching the acquisitive prescription annuls any minimal possibility (which does not exist) that they had sovereignty in 1833, since between 1774 and 1829 there are more than 50 years of silence.
“The Right of Conquest
The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice
Sharon Korman” Its obviusly u had never read the book
The concept of conquest does not therefore apply to the case of the Falklands/Malvinas. As Sharon Korman explains in her book on conquest as a means of acquiring territorial sovereignty:
”It is reasonable to suppose that if the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest, Britain would have appealed to that title as a means of putting an end, once and for all, to the disputed status of the territory (...). But Britain – contrary to what would have been the advice of some present-day international lawyers – did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force. ” page 109
“There is no acquisitive prescription, Argentina has always maintained its claim on the Malvinas”
Jul 26th, 2022 - 09:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0History shows clearly has nor always maintained a claim as
“The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869” clearly showed.
“If the mere use or threat of force in the absence of war had been recognized in the nineteenth century as a lawful means of acquiring territory or of establishing a title by conquest. Britain would have appealed to that title as a means of putting an end, once and for all, to the disputed status of the territory ”
There was no compulsion or necessity, “possession being nineteenths of the law”
Moreover, they never going to reveal all their cards, they’re going to hold them close to their chest.
“Did not put forward the claim of conquest precisely because it had not been at war with Argentina, and war, in the traditional international system, was the only lawful means of acquiring rights to territory by force.”
Thats a lie that has been refuted many times by me.
Jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself … annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is ”firmly established.“ It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
No and irrelevant, this is a try of use of general statements of presidents and one vice- president in relation to the friendly relations of Argentina with the world in general or with the British government in particular, when we have seen that Argentina has made a permanent effort to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain, even when faced with serious incidents such as the occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas or the naval blockade of the Rio de la Plata. In spite of these facts, Argentina never withdrew its representative in London, nor did it ask the British Government to do likewise with its representative in Buenos Aires. The desire to maintain the best possible relations with what was at the time the greatest economic and naval power in the world, within the framework of Argentina’s economic dependence on Great Britain, cannot be used to undermine the Argentine position; especially when the British attitude was that of a refusal to enter into discussions over the islands.
Jul 26th, 2022 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1854 Constitution of the State of Buenos Aires defines in its Article 2 the extension of its territory included the malvinas islands
Domingo F. Sarmiento wrote the same year, in which he was offered the role of legislator for the State of Buenos Aires. In examining the issue of citizenship of the State of Buenos Aires, Sarmiento wrote:
“... so those born in the Malvinas, occupied by England, are born on the territory of Buenos Aires, as are those who were born under British rule, if they claim their birthright, while the State of Buenos Aires does not desist from its claims to sovereignty over the islands”
Clearly, in the 1850s there was no renunciation to sovereignty over the Malvinas.
“No and irrelevant”
Jul 26th, 2022 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Everything you have claimed, I have shown legal authorities that absolutely
refute you.
The UN Charter refutes you
The UNGA resolution bars Argentina from pursuing a claim that predates the UN Charter.
You are barred from the ICJ on the basis of extinctive prescription, and contrary claims, as a peace treaty, and your own past President confirm you have no claim.
Such a self-serving unilateral Constitution of the State of Buenos Aires has absolutely no legal weight, as it doesn´t even have national authority.
No, u didint show any legal authoritiers..
Jul 27th, 2022 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse +1just a mischievously misunderstood failed attempt at the books..just like i stripped it down when you tried to misrepresent sharon korman
For Hans Kelsen, normativist, neopostivist, the legal system of norms
finds its validity outside the will of the States (PPSS, objective standard, not subject to
to the subjective right of States). The norm of international law is analyzed in itself
itself, outside of any meta-legal consideration (political, moral, social) and within
a “pure theory” of law. Conceived in a hierarchical legal system, the rules of
international law (“international legal order”) take precedence.
you also especially make gross mistakes in interpreting the writings of HENRY WHEATON
“No and irrelevant”
Jul 27th, 2022 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everything you have claimed, I have shown legal authorities that absolutely
refute you.
The UN Charter refutes you
The UNGA resolution bars Argentina from pursuing a claim that predates the UN Charter.
You are barred from the ICJ on the basis of extinctive prescription, and contrary claims, as a peace treaty, and your own past President confirm you have no claim.
Such a self-serving unilateral Constitution of the State of Buenos Aires has absolutely no legal weight. You quote the discredited racist Sarmiento
”Sarmiento was one of the most influential .. was to prove the racial theories of the genetic inferiority of the indigenous and Africans that he posited in Facundo, one of the most read Argentine books. Much of Sarmiento’s writing includes overt racism in the form of justifying colonial violence and supporting ethnic cleansing. …convinced him of the existence of two types of people, civilized and barbaric. .. Anything else, criollo, indigenous, and Afrodescendant was by default archaic and barbaric (Katra 1994). …it is also important to note the underlying exclusion of non-Euro-descended peoples. For example in De la educación popular, … indigenous groups were excluded for their “ineducability.” Afro- Argentines, still slaves at the time the work was written, had even less of a place in Sarmiento’s ...vision for progress and modernization (Katra 1996). .... It is clear that as the mediator and founder of modern Argentina Sarmiento did not envision gauchos and Afro- Argentines as part of the new society. Thus, it is not surprising that the Generation of 1880 sought systematic ways to eliminate Afro-Argentines who were seen as less than the gauchos and caudillos that, “at least could be educated.”
http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5978&context=etd
abaut the ignorance to understand books
Jul 27th, 2022 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vattel wrote: “The effect of the peace treaty is to end the war and to abolish the object of it. (...) the effect (...) cannot be extended to things that have no relation to the war that is ended by the treaty.” He goes on to say that
“The peace treaty, naturally and by itself, refers only to the war it ends. It is, therefore, in such relation only, that its vague clauses must be understood. Thus the simple stipulation to restore things to their former state does not refer to changes that have not been brought about by the war itself.
Henry Wheaton says: “The effect of a peace treaty is to put an end to war and to abolish the object of it. It is an agreement to renounce all discussion of the respective rights and claims of the parties and to bury in oblivion the causes war originals. And continues:
“If it is an abstract right between the parties, on which the peace treaty is silent, it follows that all previous complaints and damages arising from such claim are forgotten, by the necessarily implicit amnesty, if it does not express ; but the claim itself is not resolved one way or the other. In the absence of an express waiver or acknowledgment, it remains open for future discussion.”
Finally, it establishes that ”The peace treaty does not extinguish claims based on debts contracted or damages caused prior to the war, and unrelated to its causes, unless there is an express stipulation to that effect.”
As we can see, both jurists agree: the purpose of peace treaties is to put an end to the war and its cause; these treaties do not extinguish the claims existing prior to the war and unrelated to its cause, unless expressly stipulated and, finally, the effects of the treaty cannot be extended to events that are not related to the war that caused it. It does not favor the British cause to consider the Arana-Sur Treaty as a peace treaty. It is not possible to infer in this way, nor from interpreting the content and scope of the t
“These treaties do not extinguish the claims existing prior to the war and unrelated to its cause, unless expressly stipulated”
Jul 27th, 2022 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hans Kelsen says you’re a loser.
“If the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible”
Every leading authority state’s:
“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”
There isn’t one authority that supports your claim.
No proof, no truth.
”Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession,”
no, this is the interpretation u make abaut kelsen, any way there it was not a conquest. not war declaration, mostly of the jurists agree on that.
Jul 27th, 2022 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the conquest argument or the acquisitive prescription argument were viable, your diplomats or the foregging office had already used it decades ago.
They did not do it because it does not apply, or as the case of the prescription harms them.
they have nothing legal to hold on to, the only thing they have is the supposed “principle of determination”
“No, this is the interpretation u make abaut kelsen”
Jul 27th, 2022 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse +1Kelsen speaks clearly on the international issue; I simply show his words.
Conquest, besides all the other components of international law don’t even give Argentina a hope in hell.
“Argument were viable, your diplomats … ”
They haven´t used any of the myriad arguments they could make, and have stuck to the single of self-determination. As that’s all they need.
Ironic, that lying Argentina fashioned her own noose and hung herself..
Argy Citizen
Jul 27th, 2022 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There is no ‘supposed’ about the Islanders right to self-determination, it is clearly set out in the UN charter and UNGA resolution 1514 (XV), with no exceptions.
Here:
https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf
Read it and weep.
Argentina’s claim is based on a version of history that the evidence completely contradicts and on completely ignoring some UN resolutions, like 1514 and completely misrepresenting others like 2065.
And hoping nobody will notice, a quite remarkable feat of self-deception in of itself.
30 years ago when they used to hide information like that in books, you could get away with (on the day at least) saying this treaty says this, or that resolution says that, but today in the information age when you have phones, tablets, computers with internet access and teenagers to work it all for you, it is very, very easy to check.
Argentina and Spain have twice proposed a resolution to the UNGA limiting the right of self-determination where there is an existing sovereignty dispute, it was rejected both times by a large majority.
Followed by the passing of a resolution, by a large majority, stating there is no alternative to self-determination.
Did Argentina not get the memo? Or was it just ignored?
“There is no ‘supposed’ about the Islanders right to self-determination …it is clearly set out in the UN charter”
Jul 27th, 2022 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It certainly is Ollie.
“UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...” October 16th,1975 The ICJ presents its advisory opinion on two questions concerning Western Sahara; “The validity of the principle of self-determination, defined as the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples, ...” The Court also states; “The Charter of the United Nations, in Article 1, paragraph 2, indicates, as one of the purposes of the United Nations: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on ...the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples . .” This purpose is further developed in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter. ...the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”
Judge Dillard, .. adds; “ .. it is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people.”
The right to self-determination depends on who decides the future of which territory, and since the dispute is about whether the islands are part of Argentina or not, it is also about who should exercise that right.
Jul 27th, 2022 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination requires a recognized and viably independent people, which is why the UN has rejected its application to the islands
there were no votes of self-determination for the people of Hong Kong or the Chagos Islands, pushed out by Britain four decades ago to make way for a US air base at Diego Garcia.
You can read the book written by the german jurist rudolf dolzer
“The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”: Past and Present”
He explained that if the case is dealt with in an international court, it must be taken into account that it is extremely complex because there are no antecedents in its globality, although they may exist in some aspects of the matter.
Dolzer said that in order to answer the question about whether it is possible for an international court to address the islanders' demand for self-determination, one must ask what the status of the Malvinas was in December 1832, and “my answer is that the islands were Argentine.”
“Self-determination requires a recognized and viably independent people, which is why the UN has rejected its application to the islands”
Jul 27th, 2022 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They haven’t, so you’re revealed liar again.
Mercopress, Thursday, October 23rd 2008 - 20:00 UTC
Self Determination enshrined over Territorial Integrity
The United Nations Fourth Committee has rejected by a vote of 61 - 40 the attempt, made through a draft resolution at the last decolonization Committee of 24 seminar, to include a specific exclusion of territories affected by a sovereignty dispute, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, from the omnibus resolution that reaffirms inalienable right of self-determination of 11 territories.
https://en.mercopress.com/2008/10/23/self-determination-enshrined-over-territorial-integrity
“One must ask what the status of the Malvinas was in December 1832”
It’s irrelevant one can’t.
Finally, “..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem 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'..”
Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
The right to self-determination is that, as practice shows, UNGA and its organs has a right
Jul 27th, 2022 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to designate which NSGT has the right to self-determination. In the case of seventeen
remaining NSGT, UNGA made such a recommendation for all of them except two:
the Falkland Islands/Malvinas and Gibraltar.
“UNGA and its organs has a right to designate which NSGT has the right to self-determination”
Jul 28th, 2022 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The “right to self-determination” is codified quite clearly in the UN Charter who has the right.
There are no oversight provisions, thus any parties attempting to intercede are acting ultra vires, and committing a Charter violation.
the General Assembly nor of the Special Committee accepts, expresses or supposes that such a principle can be applied by virtue of the specificity of the case. Moreover, in 1985, the Assembly expressly rejected two British attempts to incorporate the principle of self-determination into the draft resolution on the question of the Malvinas Islands.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://apnews.com/article/bdfd1890447d78dd8c77967f01a8be30
There are no oversight provisions, thus any parties attempting to intercede are acting ultra vires, and committing a Charter violation.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thus, a UNGA resolution November 28, 1985 has no legal weight or is invested under the Charter with oversight post 2013. Otherwise, you’d be able to show the UN Charter Article giving such authority.
As the Referendum in 2013 took place under a right of UN article 73.
Their silence is a legal endorsement. With the completion of the Referendum ...the Islands are now “decolonized”. ”UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
in 1833 not only the territorial integrity of Argentina was violated, but also the principle of self-determination. The question is not in determining whether or not self-determination applies to decolonization of the islands, but in what people is it legitimated, in light of the historical background and taking into account account the beginning of the contested colonization, to invoke that right. Attributing it to the islands' largely British population has already been dismissed at least twice by the General Assembly (Malvinas and Gibraltar), and the reasons are quite evident, since giving self-determination to a town that supplanted the one that was previously there it would perpetuate colonization, it would invert the principle of self-determination and it would betray the vindictive aims per pursued by resolution 1514. At this time there are about 7,500 descendants of the inhabitants expelled in 1833 and who are deprived of their right to self-determination. the falklanders are a population (a population with other fundamental rights and interests), not a people.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine citizen, there was no territorial integrity in the Falklands, just an illegal military occupation, your constant waffling and twisting of facts just shows how indoctrinated you have been, lie after lie after lie, no civilians were expelled. just 24 soldiers who raped and murdered, 7500 descendants, dont make me ,
Jul 28th, 2022 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is codified in the UN Charter, and resolutions are merely advisements are not international law, Charter rights are.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0“According to General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV) of 1960 entitled “Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter”, a Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
• Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
• Free association with an independent State;
• Integration with an independent State.”
In addition, by the “Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”, as approved by the General Assembly by its resolution 2625 (XXV) of 1970, the General Assembly solemnly proclaimed the principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among States, including the principle of “equal rights and self-determination of peoples”. In that principle, it is stated that the “establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people”.
https: //www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about
The ruling from the Fourth Committee in 2008 has out ranks a C24 decision from 1985.
Argy Citizen
Jul 28th, 2022 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking complete rubbish now.
The Falklands have never legitimately been part of Argentina and therefore cannot disrupt the ‘territorial integrity’ of Argentina.
And no civilian population was ever deported.
I told you, the evidence does not support the Argentinian version of history as has been clearly shown in recent years. Yet you continue to argue as if it’s true, unable to process the reality.
The UN charter and UNGA resolution 1514 (XV) give the right of self-determination to the INHABITANTS of ALL 17 NSGTs, with no caveats, exceptions or qualification.
Where inhabitant is defined as ‘a person that lives in or occupies a place’.
You just have to read them, I posted the link, but you continue to argue as if they don’t exist.
And never do you ever offer any evidence to support your increasingly ridiculous and indeed bizarre claims as to who has self-determination, who doesn’t and why.
Remembering, that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You had better hope that your definition of self-determination is never accepted, or you will lose the right to vote in Argentina.
“In 1833 not only the territorial integrity of Argentina was violated, but also the principle of self-determination.”
Jul 28th, 2022 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet again, that’s an impossibility since both concepts are a creation of the UN Charter and cannot be applied retroactively to 1833 issue.
Is well refuted by the following judge of the International Court of Justice.
”...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 Jennings in 1966; a later judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/10.36633/ulr.604/
the way I see it, the historical facts are not as you put them. and in the same way, conversely, you clearly do not coincide with our way of seeing it.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reasonable thing is that Argentina and the United Kingdom submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Agreeing to accept the judgment made by the court regardless of the outcome of the court.
According to you, the court will rule in favor of the right of sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the archipelago.
The question I ask you is if in case of an adverse ruling, and if the court ruled in favor of Argentina, would you respect the ICJ ruling?
AC, your so called facts are so far away from the truth they are laughable, you have been indoctrinated for years with lies from successive corrupt governments, Argentina was never in the game regarding the Falklands, the UN have little to no interest in your very very dubious claim, what is so hard for you to understand, that Britain was the first to record the islands, not Spain, long before United Provinces ever existed, the claim was NEVER given up, end of story, No Argentine civilians were evicted just your 24 soldiers, that were there illegally.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think it's good that you think you have the truth in history and facts, I suppose then that they will have no problem proving it by accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since the historical facts are as you mention, there is no chance of losing in court... an ICJ ruling will end the Argentine Claim.
“I suppose then that they will have no problem proving it by accepting the jurisdiction of the ICJ.”
Jul 28th, 2022 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“ Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctic Territory, some of my right hon. and hon. friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events, it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
AC, i have no problem whatsoever in going to the ICJ, why do you think your lying governments have avoided it all these years, they lost the Beagle claim to Chile and that still sticks in their craw to this day, Galtieri didnt accept it and would have attacked Chile if they had succeeded in the Falklands, the islanders are no less a people than any other South American, the 200 plus Chileans living there dont call themselves British but Falklanders, for once take of your blinkers and see the whole picture,
Jul 28th, 2022 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The government that does not accept the ruling of the ICJ was the undemocratic dictatorship of Galtieri. Curiously, your government did negotiate sovereignty with the military dictatorship, but not with democratic Argentina.
Jul 28th, 2022 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The de facto government of Galtieri was imposed by the United States and the School of the Americas, like the other dictatorial governments that were imposed in Latin America by the US and NATO.
When Argentina regained Democracy, it automatically signed the peace and friendship treaty with Chile, ending the territorial dispute over the Lenox, Nueva and Picton Islands and recognizing Chilean sovereignty over the islands.
“We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court”
Jul 28th, 2022 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would you even bother with such people, who merit so little respect?
“There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim.”
Argy Citizen
Jul 28th, 2022 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The negotiations with Argentina proved to be a serious mistake.
Firstly, the Argentinian delegation was only there to negotiate a hand over, with no intention of even trying to negotiate any kind of compromise. Secondly, it encouraged the Junta to think the British were not serious about defending the Islands. Added to by the withdrawal of the patrol ship.
For there to be any kind of ‘negotiation’, more than one outcome must be possible, whereas Argentina’s constitution says only one outcome is possible.
Argentina cannot call for ‘negotiations’ while this remains the case.
NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, its only operational area is N. America and Europe. It does not generally operate outside the NATO area, in fact the only time I can remember is Afghanistan.
Argentina and Chile have a new territorial dispute:
https://en.mercopress.com/2021/08/30/new-limits-dispute-arises-between-chile-and-argentina
Although to be fair, difficult with Argentina I know, but the CLCS has signed off on Argentina’s claim there. One of only two areas where they did, the rest of the claim conflicted with already established British claims.
Which must have hurt.
“Argentina cannot call for ‘negotiations’ while this remains the case.”
Jul 29th, 2022 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British are barred under the Charter, article 73 from any negotiations
It’s not their call.
PugolH “NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, its only operational area is N. America and Europe. It does not generally operate outside the NATO area, in fact the only time I can remember is Afghanistan”
Jul 29th, 2022 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is absolutely false, NATO had full interference in Latin American democracy.
It is not a coincidence that all the coups took place at the same time in all the Latin American countries, nor that the coup plotters were trained mainly in the School of the Americas in Washington and in the United Kingdom.
In their supposed fight against “communism”, not only that, but they were taught interrogation and torture techniques... but also, with the approval of NATO, weapons were supplied to these de facto governments, such as Belgian FAL rifles, bombs, etc.
NATO even had military training agreements with the Galtieri government.
Many of the tactical divers of the navy were trained by the British SAS, all those shipments of weapons to de facto governments were approved by NATO
between 1978 and 1981 yourselves sold weapons to the dictatorship that later used it in 1982
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAqLeypSwqI
“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Jul 29th, 2022 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
The only country that has been involved in SA coups is the USA.
NATO does not tell the UK government who they can sell weapons too.
I’m sure they’re able to figure out who and who not to sell to on their own.
That's not how you comment, between 1974 and 1979 both the Labor and Conservative governments sold weapons to the military dictatorship (de facto government).
Jul 29th, 2022 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1978 Emilio Masera (number 2 of the military junta) had fluid agreements with the English arms company G E C and with consensus and through David Owen (Secretary of Foreign Affairs).
Curiously, in the United Kingdom, more than three hundred folders of Foreign Office documents related to Great Britain's relations with Argentina have been shredded in the six years prior to the Falklands War. They include a folder titled “Military visits to and from Argentina, 1978″.
In Argentina, records were found relating to British and Argentine military visits in 1979, 1980 and 1981, and more than twenty folders relating to British arms sales to Argentina.
Arms sales are agreed upon in NATO, a member state cannot put the bloc's interests at risk over its own.
The same thing would happen if a country like France today wanted to unilaterally sell weapons to Iran, North Korea or Russia, prioritizing its own interests over the bloc.
“NATO had full interference in Latin American democracy”
Jul 29th, 2022 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0That’s absolutely untrue, as NATO doesn’t operate south of the Line of Capricorn. Which is why NATO wasn´t involved in the Falklands War.
Argy Citizen
Jul 29th, 2022 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Complete propaganda and as usual completely unsupported by any evidence.
Arms deals, military training, covert intelligence/military operations in places like S. America, now and then, have a life all of their own and no NATO involvement whatsoever.
https://www.nato.int/
NATO simply do not do any of that kind of shit, MI6 or the CIA do. NATO is a purely defensive military alliance only operating in the North Atlantic area.
You will recall that France did sell weapons to Argentina that were used against the British.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!