MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK ambassador in Peru: “Falklands/Malvinas is a closed case for us”
UK ambassador in Peru, Gavin Cook, interviewed by the Lima media said that the Falklands/Malvinas issue is a “closed case” for London, ratifying UK sovereignty over the Islands but also admitted having discussed the issue at length with officials from the host country. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWho holds the legal possession under international law.
Oct 20th, 2022 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“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,”
An international law issue that Argentina conceded in 1850, with the signing of the Convention of Settlement.
“Legal Definition of uti possidetis
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/uti%20possidetis
Britain does not hold legal possession . It holds military possession . It bullied Argentina off the islands in 1833, and thus the islands are under occupation, regardless of whether the islanders (who arrived after said military expulsion) have been sweeping its sidewalks for all these years. They've been doing it for London, not for a country they can call their own.
Oct 20th, 2022 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1In fact Britain does not have any evidence to sustain it's exclusive and legitimate sovereignty right to the Malvinas before 1833 and no legitimately established right to the islands afterwards either.
You country is essentially a coward that uses others to make gains upon third countries. It's doing it with Ukrainians now, and its doing it with the islanders still.
“Britain does not hold legal possession”
Oct 20th, 2022 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes it does, Trumpism doesn’t hold any rights.
“The confidential draft of CONVENTION OF PEACE, arranged with H. E. the Honourable Henry Southern Esquire, and referred by him to the Government of H. B. M. and which is the same that same that has been accepted without any alteration by the Government of H.M., and signed by the Argentine and British Plenipotentiaries, after the exchange of their respective powers,”
Juan M. De Rosa.
Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849. Chamber of Representatives
An international law issue that Argentina conceded in 1850, with the signing of the Convention of Settlement.
“Legal Definition of uti possidetis
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/uti%20possidetis
Can you please quote verbatim what that “international law Argentina conceded to in 1850” supposedly worded ? I'm talking about the document the countries signed.
Oct 20th, 2022 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's look at it. Shall we??
“All national differences are terminated by solemn and public Conventions of Peace…”
Oct 21st, 2022 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“... on 11 December, the day after the conversation, he handed a 5-page written memorandum to Rosas’s daughter “Manuelita” (who acted as his secretary) summarising the previous night’s conversation. It included Southern’s statement that: ‘All national differences are terminated by solemn and public Conventions of Peace…’...” [Pascoe 2020 p.19]
“... the Republic of Argentina mentions the treaty on friendship and navigation between the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom, concluded in 1825, but does not also refer to the Convention of Settlement, ratified in 1850 by the British Government and the Republic of Argentina which comprehensively settled all existing differences and established a “perfect friendship” between the two States. Subsequent to this ratification, the
Republic of Argentina submitted only one official diplomatic protest regarding the Falkland Islands during the following 90 years. This shows that the matter had been settled to the satisfaction of the Argentine Government at that time.” [British Government response dated May 28, 2013 to an Argentine letter of April 9, 2013 in UN Document A/67/880]
“What WAS Article 73 created for?”
Oct 21st, 2022 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0It’s abundantly clear.
“Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ...peoples have not yet attained ...of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ...b. to develop self-government, ...”
It’s abundantly clear that under the tenets of international law. That the signing of a peace treaty, had put to an end any further territorial disputes.
All the following legal luminaries all support the following view.
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, H. W. HALLECK, JAMES MADISON CUTT, John Westlake, T. J. LAWRENCE, GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, L. OPPENHEIM,
John McHugo, Adam Boleslaw, Robert Yewdall Jennings, SHARON KORMAN,
Hans Kelsen, Rosalyn Higgins, James Francis Gravelle, Daniel K, Gibran
“Legal Definition of uti possidetis
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/uti%20possidetis
An argument so fallacious and in such bad faith that it was presented as evidence in 2013, 163 years after the signing of the treaty!!!!
Oct 21st, 2022 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“An argument so fallacious and in such bad faith”
Oct 21st, 2022 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If what you claim is true, you would have provided the proof.
No proof, no truth.
Philosophers connect sentences with various items, such as thoughts, facts and states of affairs. Thoughts are either true or false in an absolute sense, never both or neither.”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/states-of-affairs/
Since your claim is unproven, it must therefore of necessity, be false.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Malvi
Oct 21st, 2022 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presented as evidence 16 days after the Treaty was signed.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/1834-1852.pdf
Nope, Roger Lorton, poor argument..
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0In their attempt to find an Argentine renunciation in the Arana-Southern Treaty, the authors of the pamphlet insist on its nature as a “peace treaty” and claim that it is because of this nature that the renunciation existed. Pascoe and Pepper use a quote by the North American jurist Henry Wheaton to justify their mistaken interpretation. The British writers refer to the consequences emerging from the signing of a peace treaty in relation to conquered territories. But here they seriously contradict themselves: if the islands were British, as they claim, then there was nothing for the United Kingdom to conquer. As we saw in the previous chapter, none of the prerequisites in the international law of the time are met for an acquisition of British sovereignty by conquest in 1833. The 1849 treaty also does not relate to conquest. The fact that commentaries have referred to it as a “peace treaty” does not change this fact. There was no declaration of war made by Great Britain against Argentina (and Uruguay) or vice versa. Military actions were unrelated to the Falklands/Malvinas. The treaty of November 23rd, 1849 makes no mention of an Argentine renunciation, as is done in peace treaties where the parties dispose of sovereignty over their territories. It was simply not a treaty of a territorial nature. Furthermore, the treaty was a triumph for Argentina and Uruguay: Great Britain recognised the Argentine-Uruguayan thesis of the internal character of their rivers, and its own obligation to request authorisation to sail them, a formal end to the blockade, the return of its ships, British retreat from Martin Garcia Island in the Rio de la Plata (which at the time was the object of claims both by Argentina and Uruguay, and occupied by the British during the blockade) and a salute to the flag as satisfaction. The same pamphlet says Rosas was able to impose his will “on two humiliated opponents, Britain and France”, then immediately goes on
The same pamphlet says Rosas was able to impose his will “on two humiliated opponents, Britain and France”, then immediately goes on to say that he “was prepared to pay a price – the Falklands”. It would be extremely curious for a victor capable of humiliating its defeated opponents to have to pay a price to one of them which, furthermore, no one had asked for. There is not a shred of evidence that this was the condition for French and British acceptance of the Argentine-Uruguayan thesis. Quite simply, the Anglo-French naval blockade did not bear fruit, but actually damaged British and French traders in the Rio de la Plata region.
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0In spite of it being unnecessary due to what we have just said, let us continue to address with the statement of the British pamphlet, developed further by some bloggers of the same nationality, according to whom the 1849 Convention is a “Peace Treaty”. We will cite the work of writers both preceding and contemporary with the facts, which can reflect the state of international law at the time, and which categorically contradict the interpretation made by the British leaflet. Vattel wrote: “The effect of the treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject of it. (...) the effect (...) cannot be extended to things which have no relation to the war that is terminated by the treaty.” He then goes on to say that
“The treaty of peace naturally and of itself relates only to the war which it terminates. It is, therefore, in such relation only, that its vague clauses are to be understood. Thus, the simple stipulation of restoring things to their former condition does not relate to changes which have not been occasioned by the war itself”.
Henry Wheaton says: ”The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war and to abolish the subject of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.”
Henry Wheaton says: ”The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war and to abolish the subject of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.” And he continues:
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If an abstract right be in question between the parties, on which the treaty of peace is silent, it follows, that all previous complaints and injury, arising under such claim are thrown into oblivion, by the amnesty necessarily implied, if not expressed; but the claim itself is not thereby settled either one way or the other. In the absence of express renunciation or recognition it remains open for future discussion.”
Finally, he establishes that “The treaty of peace does not extinguish claims founded upon debts contracted or injuries inflicted previously to the war, and unconnected with its causes, unless there be an express stipulation to that effect.”
As we can see, both jurists agree: the object of peace treaties is to put an end to war and its cause; these treaties do not extinguish claims existing prior to the war and unconnected with its cause, unless this is expressly stipulated and, finally, the effects of the treaty cannot extend to facts that have no connection with the war that motivated it. It does not further the British cause to consider the Arana-Southern Treaty as a peace treaty. An implicit renunciation by Argentina to its sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas cannot be inferred in this way, not by interpreting the content and scope of the treaty.
Precisely. Which is why I always simply ask, “tell me where it mentions the islands by name”. There's a reason these “treaties” don't. And there's a reason why Argentina has accepted them in the past.
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse -1.
Cough 'm back out cheating thieves!
And NO, the islanders have no right or say over a territorial sovereignty matter that concerns Argentina and Britain. So you can stop lying to the United Nations and to the world in general, any day now.
Mr. Roger Lorton...
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1The whole problem with you..., me dear former Engrish copper is that you have transferred your good auld & approved police training of misleading suspects under investigation to your current hobby as an Amateur Historian...
Naughty boy...!
On your favour though is the fact than..., when confronted to an educated opponent (as Sr. Argentine Citizen above)..., you..., very (street)wisely..., chose silence...
Capisce...?
“The authors of the pamphlet insist on its nature as a “peace treaty”
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The confidential draft of CONVENTION OF PEACE, arranged with H. E. the Honourable Henry Southern Esquire, and referred by him to the Government of H. B. M. and which is the same that same that has been accepted without any alteration by the Government of H.M., and signed by the Argentine and British Plenipotentiaries, after the exchange of their respective powers,
Juan M. De Rosa.
Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849. Chamber of Representatives”
“The 1849 treaty also does not relate to conquest”
The importance is that it is a peace treaty period
“The treaty cannot extend to facts that have no connection with the war”
Yes, it can and does specifically on the issue of territory claims.
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. 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. ... ...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.”
like Halleck wrote at chapter XXXIV ”unless there be an express Stipulations to the contrary (which is not) “
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -1and there is Big contradiction , british authors of the phamplet ”If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor”
they make a seriously contradict themselves: if the islands were British, as they claim, then there was nothing for the United Kingdom to conquer.
Vattel and wheaton are very specific and they wrote: “The effect of the treaty of peace is to put an end to the war, and to abolish the subject of it. (...) the effect (...) cannot be extended to things which have no relation to the war that is terminated by the treaty.” He then goes on to say that
“The treaty of peace naturally and of itself relates only to the war which it terminates. It is, therefore, in such relation only, that its vague clauses are to be understood. Thus, the simple stipulation of restoring things to their former condition does not relate to changes which have not been occasioned by the war itself”.
“Cannot be extended to things which have no relation to the war that is terminated by the treaty.”
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not all, you have shown nowhere in international law, this is true. So, you have proved nothing with your sophistry. Just as Argentina has never proved her a claim at law.
What you both satisfy is the following opinion.
The historical view of Argentina has been observed. As the US chargé d'affaires Francis Baylies wrote about Argentina in 1832
“...The revolutions of these people are seditious; their knowledge. chicanery and trickery; their patriotism, their liberty, a farce... ”
(Baylies held that the US should sign no treaty) ... for we would abide by it, and they would consider the violation no greater offense than a lie told by a schoolboy...”
http ://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/rosas.pdf
If Argentina had any argument - legal, historical, or geographical - it would go to the ICJ.
Oct 22nd, 2022 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why doesn't Argentina go to the ICJ?
Little Mauritius had the cojones to take on the UK. Perhaps Argentina knows that it will lose?
“... from the fall of Rosas until the end of the century, the subject disappeared even from the routine.” [.Las declarationes de Madrid O la diplomacia como la continuacion de la guerra por otros medios Guillermo Martin Caviasca 2018]
@Terence Hill, this quote u made, its an irrelevant personal opinion of a person without probative or legal weight in the matter we are talking abaut. Personally, taking it from whom it comes from, (an US chargé d'affaires) is a compliment.
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0But unlike your opinions of external people that have no relevance and no probatory in international law. there are testimonies that do have relevance.
In 1936, John Troutbeck, head of the british Foreign Office’s US department, wrote an official memo “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.”
Annual Report No 21 of the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires, dated
January 31 1929, which maintains: “A careful study of previous correspondence leads me
to the conclusion that various British Governments, beginning with that of Lord
Palmerston, were not satisfied that our claim was such that it would bear argumentative
reiteration. We took refuge in silence. Argentines safeguard their claim by reasserting it at
intervals. I suggest that our wisest course would be to allow this state of affairs to continue.
(...) Should we take undue notice of periodical pinpricks (...) as seems to be desired by the
Government of the islands, we may force the Argentine Government to take definite and
unpleasant action, such as insisting that the whole question be referred to arbitration. (...)
My strong recommendation is that we should remain silent”.
@Roger Lorton The British pamphlet is also silent over two key elements of the claim presented by the United Kingdom against Argentina before the International Court of Justice in 1955 in the Antarctica case. For the avoidance of doubt and of any potential Argentine action in that
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0respect, the British application states very clearly that the United Kingdom accepts the
jurisdiction of the Court only over the so-called “Falkland Islands Dependencies” and not
the Falklands/Malvinas themselves. These two notes are part of the application: “It results
from the present Application that the United Kingdom Government accepts the jurisdiction
of the Court in respect of the questions hereby submitted to it, and in particular that of the
title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. The
present Application does not constitute a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court in any
other respect, or as regards the title to sovereignty over any territory outside the
Dependencies.”
The British pamphlet also ignores the main reason invoked by Argentina for refusing the
British offer to submit those territories to the decision of the Hague Court: the absence of
any reference to the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. In the Note that the Argentine
Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to the British Embassy in Buenos Aires on May 4, 1955 in
response to the British proposal, it is highlighted that: “(...) Her Majesty’s Government
excises the bottom issue, as if all could be reduced to a single aspect, mentioning as the
sole problem that needs solution the one referring to the Antarctic territories it demands
and those that qualifies as dependencies of the Malvinas Islands (...) The Argentine
Government cannot conceive nor accept as friendly nor juridical a proposal that has as its
heart to sustain that usurpation (...)
“Terence Hill, this quote u made, it’s an irrelevant personal opinion of a person without probative or legal weight “
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only person quoted here that is fits your description is the British Ambassador in Buenos Aires.
Aren’t you revealed as the liar you really are, as all the following legal luminaries support the following view.
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, H. W. HALLECK, JAMES MADISON CUTT, John Westlake, T. J. LAWRENCE, GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, L. OPPENHEIM,
John McHugo, Adam Boleslaw, Robert Yewdall Jennings, SHARON KORMAN,
Hans Kelsen, Rosalyn Higgins, James Francis Gravelle, Daniel K, Gibran
“Legal Definition of uti possidetis
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/uti%20possidetis
@Terrence Hill
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0maybe you didn't realize it, but i was sweeping the floor with roger lorton, who was already called to silence after he destroyed his false interpretations about vettel and wheaton.
The poor relevance of scientific factual analysis of English authors such as Pascope... led them to make a misunderstanding (perhaps intentionally or through ignorance) of Wheaton, Vettel and Sharon Korman.
It is curious that Pascope, Lorton and now you mention Korman, maybe abaut the case of the Palmas Islands and the acquisition by conquest without realizing that they bury themselves.
They obviously never read Sharon Korman's book.
On the pg 156, Korman Wrote ” ”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.”
unconsciously, in peasant ignorance the authors of the pamphlet when mentioning korman buried themselves
Korman wrote the following:
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Gentlemen, if you contest the right of conquest, you cannot have read the history of your own country. It is thus that states are formed... The Poles themselves committed the crime of conquest a hundredfold ...(Otto von Bismarck, speech in the Landtag, 1869, responding to a Polish deputy who had quoted Macaulay on the crime of the Partitions and was demanding recognition of 'Polish rights')
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
Incidentally, if you wish to involve yourself in the political minutia, at least quote someone with the prerequisite knowledge and authority.
”In December 1927, British Foreign Secretary, Sir Austin Chamberlain has a meeting with Argentina’s Foreign Minister, Dr. Angel Gallardo, in which the Minister says that, “... he had been looking into the question of the Falkland Islands, and had come to the conclusion that (the British) position and claim were exceedingly strong.”
falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1900-1965/
“Sir Anthony Eden’s … August 28, 1936. P.R.O. / F.O. 371/10763 (A 6461/889/2). “In the first place, 100 years’ possession, whether disputed or not, should found a perfectly sound title to sovereignty over the islands in international law, and there should be very little danger of such a title failing … Meanwhile, each year that passes … strengthen His Majesty’s Government’s case. At the same time, there is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim to the islands at all. “
http://parlamentario.com/bank/uploads/The%20Question%20of%20Malvinas%20and%20the%20Bicentennial.pdf
Every year that passes of illegal occupation, is one more year that passes without any acquisition of rights. The same is currently happening in Ukraine, where Russia has invaded Ukraine and held referendums with its citizens who perceive themselves to be Russians... the right of sovereignty over the conquered territories will never be worth it, as all the UN countries said, including the countries of nato.
Oct 23rd, 2022 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Korman is very specific on page 156 of his book about why the conquest does not apply to the Malvinas.
Besides, there is a great contradiction in the poor arguments of Pascope's pamphlet.
According to the United Kingdom, they had rights over the islands before 1833, making the conquest incompatible, since there was nothing to conquer.
Either the Territory was yours or you conquered it, or it's white or it's black.
Korman wrote the following:
Oct 24th, 2022 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Gentlemen, if you contest the right of conquest, you cannot have read the history of your own country. It is thus that states are formed......Otto von Bismarck
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST …
Incidentally, if you wish to involve yourself in the political minutia, at least quote someone with the prerequisite knowledge and authority.
” In December 1927, British FS, Chamberlain has a meeting with Argentina’s FM, Gallardo, in which the Minister says that, “... he had been looking into the question of the Falkland Islands, and had come to the conclusion that (the British) position and claim were exceedingly strong.”
falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1900-1965/
“Sir Anthony Eden’s … August 28, 1936. P.R.O. / F.O. 371/10763 (A 6461/889/2). “100 years’ possession, should found a sound title to sovereignty, and there should be little danger of such a title failing … each year … strengthen HM’s case. There is reason to doubt whether, in fact, Argentina ever had any grounds of claim. “
“War, was the only lawful means of acquiring territory by force.”
Korman did not write that, as she would have been aware of Kelsen’s view.
Jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“If the conquest is established. Taking possession through military force against the latter's will is possible. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed is not war in itself … annexation is possible, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, 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, those are the fancibul interpretations that pascope and pepper make, making a failed attempt to twist the phrases of authors like Wheaton, Vettel or Korman.
Oct 24th, 2022 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Korman is very clear and specific about why the conquest does not apply to the Malvinas case and why the United Kingdom never invoked that argument... it is all written in his book.
In addition to Invoking conquest, it would self-contradict and destroy the English position that they had sovereign rights over the islands in 1833. Since if it belonged to them, there would be nothing to conquer.
The words that Pascope takes from the answer about Gallardo... he obtains from a speech in which Gallardo says that the position of power by which he maintains the islands is strong.
He did not refer to the position of factual historical arguments
Mi nunca bien ponderado Sr. Argentine Citizen...
Oct 24th, 2022 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse -1Nice way you handled Mr. Roger Lorton...
A debater..., than more than twisting and exagerating proven facts and existing documents to favour his chosen position ..., ommits and ignores any facts and documents that contradict his personal predilection...
I also like the way you handle that Terence Hill Turnip...
As a tennis wall to bounce some good points...
E.g. the one about polymath Gallardo...
(Saved me some reading...)
Saludos...
“Korman is very clear and specific about why the conquest does not apply to the Malvinas case and why the United Kingdom never invoked that argument... it is all written in his book”
Oct 24th, 2022 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The good doctor never said any such thing. You’re a liar, as her writings say the opposite of what you claim, as I have shown. You no so little about Korman, that you don’t even know her gender.
Plus, Kelsen shows your claim of conquest was only legal in the cases of a declared war is absolute nonsense.
“Invoking conquest, it would self-contradict”
No, it would not, it would be further evidence if their sole right
Btw..., Sr.Argentine Citizen...
Oct 24th, 2022 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse -1- Recuerde que..., si bien un frontón es útil para practicar el revés..., es inútil para mantener un dialogo... ;-)
An argument so fallacious, so poor and in such bad faith that Argentina's resignation from the Malvinas necessitated the consent of the Oribe president of Uruguay. Strange right?
Oct 24th, 2022 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Korman is very clear and specific about why the conquest does not apply”
Oct 24th, 2022 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A check online doesn’t show that anywhere. The only thing she states is the exact opposite. Hence the title, The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN. By failing to provide proof, you’re revealed as just another wretched lying troll.
@TerrenceHill Quote1: “ A check online doesn’t show that anywhere. The only thing she states is the exact opposite. Hence the title, The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice by SHARON KORMAN. By failing to provide proof, you’re revealed as just another wretched lying troll.”
Oct 24th, 2022 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally, to finish humiliating the argumentative weakness of Pascope & Pepper, Lorton and Terrence Hill in which they misrepresent authors such as Korman, Vettel and Wheaton, I make available to the readers of this thread the page of Korman's book where she specifies about the Malvinas case and the verbatim quote written in the handwriting of korman that terrence hill says does not exist.
https://books.google.com.ar/books?id=ueDO1dJyjrUC&pg=PA108&lpg=PA108&dq=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&source=bl&ots=0VPxhT1DMZ&sig=ACfU3U0JYgZVEYG8otGRZSRatePubr6GTA&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjq0bHMy_n6AhVBppUCHaG3BAQQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20reasonable%20to%20suppose%20that%20if%20the%20mere%20use%20or%20threat%20of%20force%20in%20the%20absence%20of%20war%20had%20been%20recognized%20in%20the%20nineteenth%20century%20as%20a%20lawful%20means%20of%20acquiring%20territory%20or%20of%20establishing%20a%20title%20by%20conquest%2C%20Britain%20would%20have%20appealed%20to%20that%20title%20as%20a%20means%20of%20putting%20an%20end%2C%20once%20and%20for%20all%2C%20to%20the%20disputed%20status%20of%20the%20territory&f=false
“Finally, to finish humiliating the argumentative weakness of … Terrence Hill”
Oct 24th, 2022 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite as all you have done is fail to prove what you claim. As
” It is reasonable to suppose …” Is not at that URL.
Nor is your claim that Korman said “War, was the only lawful means of acquiring territory by force.”
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Nice try but no cigar.
Interesting debate where the Argentine citizen contributed very interesting points of the British misrepresentation.In any case, the conclusive proof is the treaty itself, which is very clear, just read it.The usurpation of the islands never interrupted political and commercial relations with Great Britain. “End the differences that have interrupted political and commercial relations.”
Oct 25th, 2022 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These differences were caused by the Anglo-French intervention in the Río de la Plata.
In the preamble His Britannic Majesty declares that he has no separate or interested objects in view, this means that the British Government had no other separate or interested matter in view other than the Franco-British blockade of the Río de la Plata and, for this reason, the The British government did not address the Malvinas case in the Treaty.
And the final article that collapses all the British fantasy is the indispensable condition for the Argentine government of the conformity of the Uruguayan President Oribe in any settlement of the existing differences.
Not to mention that the UK never used this treaty to end Argentine claims. Interesting authors Vattel, Wilson, Kelsen, Korman etc, etc,
but so much discussion is not necessary when the treaty is so crystalline.
Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view....
Art. I. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty, animated by the desire of putting an end to the differences which have interrupted the political and commercial relations between the 2 countries...
So, the reality is that your attributions to Korman, don’t exist.
Oct 25th, 2022 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, you are revealed as just another lying troll.
Thanks for providing the evidence against yourself, and to all a sundry.
“The British government did not address the Malvinas case in the Treaty.”
They didn’t need, to as they were completely satisfied with the status quo.
If the Islands were an issue to Argentina, then they should have raised it. Since the legal luminaries of the day have stated the legal effect of not doing it.
Esteemed Sr. Argentine Citizen...
Oct 25th, 2022 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just to inform you that your book-link works perfectly and that the text by you quoted is all there..., on page 108...
Denying the evident is one of that Brainwashed Anglo Turnip “Terence Hill” many disabilities...
Don't waste your time dialoguing with him..., but please continue to use him as a tennis wall...
It's fun an educative... ;-)
Amazing utter silence, except for piffle from the cheap seats. Who doesn’t have any counter- argument, and is reduced to ad hominems.
Oct 25th, 2022 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conclusion: The British have never stopped continuing to try to take the islands from Argentina.
Oct 26th, 2022 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0... And all articles to do with decolonization at the UN, if referred to their original intent and source conceptualizing context, are about creating mechanisms through which countries occupied or taken over by more powerful ones, as such invaded or even conquered still unabsorbed as in the cases of European Empires holding various peoples of the world under their guns and authority, could regain their freedom and independence. THAT'S THE REASON THEY; “Article 73”, the decolonization committee, the list of non self governing territories was intended as, and the whole Shebang were created and accepted by the world for the UN Mr Terence Hill. ... However, the wording of this UN sector is always most interesting, using words such as “administrator” instead of “invader”, isn't it? generously leaving reasons loop holes and opportunities for the people living on these occupied territories to easily not have to push, or to find it exceedingly easy to not proceed in its purpose, as well as their “administrative” overloads. Which is quite interesting when one considers the people taken to live on the Malvinas Islands were indeed never invaded or colonized. Yet that never stopped the English (their supposed colonizers or “administrative country”) to insert them themselves in said list of Non Self Governing Territories, oddly.
.
Peachy how that seemed to work out so well for Britain. Somehow they manage to hold on to territory through the use of force against Argentina, who has since then denounced that event as an assault against an integral part of its nation since its inception, yet through a mechanism created to undo such abuses.
... And then Mr Lorto, declares Argentina not being confident and eager enough to seek the arbitration of another “Anglo” international political institution invention. LOL
Sorry sir Terence, I forgot to include the other important article. The consent of a foreign president for the resignation of the islands.
Oct 26th, 2022 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0VI. In virtue of the Argentine Government having declared that it would celebrate this Convention on condition that its ally, his Excellency the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Brigadier Don Manuel Oribe, should previously agree to it,— this being for the Argentine Government an indispensable condition in any arrangement of the existing differences...
As I told you before, there is no need to mention so many renowned jurists, when reading the treaty it is so easy to dismantle the misrepresentation, not from the British government because it was never presented as evidence, but from some trolls.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!