MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, September 26th 2022 - 21:23 UTC

 

 

Detractor of Falklands people's rights, Argentina's candidate to the International Law Court of The Hague

Wednesday, August 3rd 2022 - 08:55 UTC
Full article 12 comments

Dr. Marcelo Kohen is an Argentine lawyer who for more than three decades has been living in Switzerland where he is a professor of International Law at the University Institute of International High Studies in Geneva, He is also currently secretary of the prestigious International Law Institute created in 1843. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Terence Hill

    Kohen agrees thus: “Time is running against Argentina because the British have possession of the territory,”
    International Hague Court “only alternative” for dispute
    http://en.mercopress.com/2004/06/23/international-hague-court-only-alternative-for-dispute

    Aug 03rd, 2022 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Steve Potts

    Nothing for court = illegitimate claim that is worthless.

    Aug 03rd, 2022 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Roger Lorton

    Seemingly. Kohen does not believe that the Falklands arguments should go to the ICJ.

    Perhaps, he fears winning?

    https://www.clarin.com/politica/gobierno-postulo-abogado-argentino-juez-corte-internacional-justicia_0_Vp6jmckiC.html

    Aug 03rd, 2022 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Steve Potts

    However from his privileged position Dr. Kohen has been a formidable detractor of the Falkland Islands sovereignty, its right to self determination and to decide on its future, supports the Argentine position that Falklanders are an implanted population, and thus non entitled to decide on their political and economic future.

    Opinion - Denying the right of self-determination to 'transplanted' populations would prove unworkable. In principle a group that settles in terra nullius and later colonizes should be entitled to the right to self-determination upon decolonization. Furthermore, if the inhabitants of a colony were a mix of 'transplanted' peoples who had coexisted harmoniously and intermarried over several centuries, would the right to self-determination be denied to this population? Argentina's view erroneously presumes that 'people' are both ethically cohesive and non-migratory. (Third World Attitudes Towards International Law, An Introduction, Snyder F.E. & Sathirathai, S., Martinus Nijhoff 1987, p116 , quoting Frank & Hoffman, supra note 8 at 384).

    The UN believes self-determination applies to ‘implanted populations’ based on the Caribbean territories on the list of non-self-governing territories such as Anguilla where 90% of the population is descended from the Atlantic slave trade. Similarly, the British Virgin Islands, the American Virgin Islands, Turks and Caicos all have large black populations. The UN clearly believes that these territories have the right to self-determination as it did with the numerous Caribbean nations that achieved independence after WW2.

    Aug 03rd, 2022 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Don Alberto

    Anyone who supports the Argentine position that Falklanders are an implanted population, and thus non entitled to decide on their political and economic future without at the same time supporting the position that Argentines population an implanted population, and thus non entitled to decide on their political and economic future, is unfit to judge anything more important than the colour of toilet paper in public toilets.

    Aug 03rd, 2022 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +6
  • Terence Hill

    Kohen is a sophist of the worst kind as he continually makes assertions without the backing of legal judgements, simply his own personal opinion, which legally makes such claims worthless.
    For example, in the publication Página12 dated Tuesday, March 5, 2013 he writes “This is a plebiscite organised by the British government”. Which is a deliberate lie as many independent publications and witnesses have attested, it was organised by the F.I. government. Then he attempts to discredit the referendum by implying that there is a prerequisite for the UN to be involved, where no such requirement in The Charter et al. Then he carries on stating there are categories of people under international law who are entitled to self-determination, citing the UNGA as his source. With very few exceptions the GA resolutions are not international law, merely advisements.
    It would seem that Sr. Kohen's blandishments have more to do with his continued employment by the Argentine government than with the reality of international law.

    UN General Assembly Resolutions: Resolution 2649
    (November 30, 1970)

    4. Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;

    5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it,

    Aug 04th, 2022 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • imoyaro

    He is a Peronist mole, with all that that implies...

    Aug 06th, 2022 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monkeymagic

    From a legal position:

    The islands belong to the islanders

    From a moral position:

    The islands belong to the islanders

    From a historic position:

    The islands belong to the islanders

    From a geographic position:

    The islands belong to the islanders

    Negotiation complete.

    Aug 07th, 2022 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @Steve Potts Opinion. There is a people who achieved the right to self-determination. That people is the Argentine people. The islands were not terra nullius. They were occupied by an Argentine population and were usurped by the British Empire. That's the difference.

    Aug 11th, 2022 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “There is a people who achieved the right to self-determination.”

    Your darn tooting. Isn’t it wonderful that Argentina plies her lies to UN, and every facet of international law kicks her claims in the teeth. Couldn’t happen to a nicer claimant.

    “UN General Assembly Resolutions: Resolution 2649
    (November 30, 1970)

    4. Considers that the acquisition and retention of territory in contravention of the right of the people of that territory to self-determination is inadmissible and a gross violation of the Charter;

    5. Condemns those Governments that deny the right to self-determination of peoples recognized as being entitled to it,”

    “ICJ and Self-Determination
    ...opinion on Kosovo's declaration ...
    ” The right of self-determination, which the ICJ found to be jus cogens in the East Timor case, is a right of all peoples, not only of those in a colonial context. ... “

    An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity

    Aug 11th, 2022 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    All points favor the Argentine people, a people who had achieved the right to self-determination at the time of the British usurpation. The territorial dispute is between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The self-styled british “island people” did not exist at the time of the usurpation. Strictly speaking, the only island people were argentines. Then start respecting the U.N. charter.

    Aug 12th, 2022 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Terence Hill

    “British imperialism is not exactly the Laws!”

    What about “Who is first in point of time is stronger in right” do you have difficulty in understanding, that stems from Roman times.
    It must be satisfying to the British, that if push comes to shove, the right is on their side completely.

    “All points favor the Argentine people, a people who had achieved the right to self-determination”

    Being a trespasser, in spite two ignored diplomatic notes does not confer a colour of right.
    The only thing that is absolute, is Argentine guilt by way of acquiescence through silence.

    “..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
    SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
    A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner

    Aug 12th, 2022 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!