MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 25th 2024 - 22:25 UTC

 

 

Milei: “Hong Kong solution for Falklands? Remember Islanders live in a developed country and not a miserable one as Argentina”

Wednesday, October 26th 2022 - 19:55 UTC
Full article 47 comments

A rising far-right wing star in Argentine politics, promising orthodox economic policies, and with ascending presidential chances among a population fed up with rampant corruption, inflation and government handouts instead of jobs, Javier Milei, has pledged a Hong Kong similar solution for the disputed Falkland Islands, if he makes it to the Pink House in Buenos Aires, next year. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • Steve Potts

    'Hong Kong solution for the disputed Falkland Islands'

    Disputed? When did the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina?

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Judge Jose

    The man is clearly deluded, is he related to Donald Trump ?, the UN have never said the Falklands belong to Argentina.

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • darragh

    All you can do is shake your head and wonder which planet Milei lives on!

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Mike Summers

    He got one thing right. We live in a developed country, not a miserable one like Argentina. The rest of his analysis is seriously awry. The danger of a guy like this is that he could split the centre/right vote and let the corrupt Peronists in again by default.

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +4
  • Roger Lorton

    Someone remind me, how's it going in Hong Kong?

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse +3
  • Steve Potts

    The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina. Here’s why…

    Vernet’s Alleged Piracy Leading to the Lexington Raid: https://www.academia.edu/88270859/Vernets_Alleged_Piracy_Leading_to_the_Lexington_Raid

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Shogun

    The UN General assembly have never said the Falklands belong to Arg.or the UK

    But they do recognise a dispute, the reason its still on the agenda of the Decolonisation Commitee.
    The UN general assembly is just a talking shop, quoting assembly resolutions is a waste of time.
    The USA ignores the UN General Assembly and talks now of the Rules Based Order

    The really serious decisions are taken by the UN Security Council but due to its nature can be vetoed.
    Milei is the joker in the political pack, he quotes Hong Kong, but that was a lease agreement between the UK and China and legally had to be given back.

    He talks of moving the embassy to Jerusalem, its him pandering to the Jewish Lobby in the USA, and the Palestinians and their rights ?

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    @StevePotts From 1820 to 1833 when british forces expeled the argentine citzens.

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Judge Jose

    Argie cit, no Argentine citizens were expelled, that is an utter and complete lie, 24 murdering raping soldiers that illegally occupied the Falklands were evicted, they were warned not to go twice and warned to leave again, the people from the buisness venture on the islands were invited to stay and the majority did stay, and their descendants are still living there, and by the way the leader of the venture was German and 2nd in command was British, lie after lie after lie, Argentina has NEVER owned the islands,

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Argentina did not exist in 1820. Not recognised.
    First trespassing settlement in that period was 1826.
    First public Bs As claim was 1829.
    USS Lexington kick the 'piratical settlement' off in 1832.
    Britain kicked the trespassing garrison off in January 1833 (after 2 written warnings).

    Hardly effective possession Arg Zit.

    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1816-to-1829.pdf

    Oct 26th, 2022 - 10:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Argentine citizen

    @Judge Jose
    There is a gross manipulation of numbers. The truth is that as a consequence of the British invasion, 53 people who were living on the islands returned to Buenos Aires from Puerto Soledad. The British schooner “Rapid” escorted the “Sarandí” for the British and carried in shackles the nine insurgents who had killed Argentine commander Francisco Mestivier. These were: 2nd Sergeant José María Díaz; 1st Corporal Francisco Ramírez and privates Manuel Sáenz Valiente, Antonio Moncada, Bernardino Cáceres, Manuel Delgado, Mariano Gadea, Manuel Suares and José Antonio Díaz. The schooner “Sarandí” took 17 military men with 10 members of their families (wives and children) to Buenos Aires and 17 inhabitants of the islands that worked there. The military men and their families were the following: Captain J. Antonio Gomila; Sergeant Santiago Almandos; 1st Corporal Miguel Hernández and his wife María Romero; Corporal Daniel Molina; and privates José Barrera, José Gómez, Manuel Francisco Fernández, Toribio Montesuna, Juan J. Rivas and his wife María I. Beldaño, Dionisio Godoy, Hipólito Villareal and his wife Lucía Correa and two children, Gregorio Durán and his wife Carmen Manzanares with two children, Benito Vidal and his wife María Saisa, José Soto and José Rodríguez, Juan Castro and his wife Manuela Navarro and Antonio García. Finally, the group of civilians was composed of the following workers: Joaquin Acuña and his wife Juana, Mateo González and his wife Marica, and the foreigners José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra and Máximo Warnes and a female group with their children: María Rodriguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnacion Alvarez; Carmen Benitez; Tránsita González and daughter.
    The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands.

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse -1
  • bushpilot

    The British could not “invade” their own land. And the military people and murderers were definitely going to be forced to leave (evicted).

    You are lumping together:
    1) murderers
    2) military people
    3) military family &
    4) civilians

    to arrive at the dramatic figure of 70% being “unjustly” forced to leave.

    53/75 = 71% that left

    9/75 = 12% murderers
    17/75 = 23% military
    10/75 = 13% family of military
    17/75 = 23% civilians, who left voluntarily, but were invited to stay, (not forced to leave)

    The numbers speak for themselves you say? No, you are manipulating the numbers to speak bollocks.

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 05:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Judge Jose

    Argie cit,, for the last time, no Argentine civilians were evicted, stop lying,

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Argentine citizen

    The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands. The British pamphlet claims that “only the garrison was expelled” and that the civilians who left made that decision freely. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to understand that the “choice” was motivated by the British occupation and the subsequent expulsion of Argentina. If we take into account the multinational nature of the Argentine population settled in the islands, it becomes clear that essentially individuals from the Río de la Plata left. If the British eviction had not occurred, the population would have remained on the islands, and the reestablishment of order would have permitted the return of the population sent scattering by the “Lexington” in 1831.
    They evicted the authorities and part of the population – men, women and children. The key point is that by this act of force Argentina was prevented from re-establishing the settlement that had been founded in the 1820s with so much effort. The leaflet does not mention that, as a consequence of the 1833 use of force, the residents of the Argentine settlement in the Falklands/Malvinas who had been removed in 1831 were never able to return. The residents living in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833 were only part of the population. The attempt of the British pamphlet to justify the use of force by saying that the inhabitants it considered “genuine” were not expelled does not stand up to the slightest analysis. Furthermore, if the inhabitants taken to the islands by Vernet were “genuine” and they recognized Argentina´s authority over the islands, why should they be made to live under British authority?

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse -5
  • Argentine_Cityzen

    The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands. The British pamphlet claims that “only the garrison was expelled” and that the civilians who left made that decision freely. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to understand that the “choice” was motivated by the British occupation and the subsequent expulsion of Argentina. If we take into account the multinational nature of the Argentine population settled in the islands, it becomes clear that essentially individuals from the Río de la Plata left. If the British eviction had not occurred, the population would have remained on the islands, and the reestablishment of order would have permitted the return of the population sent scattering by the “Lexington” in 1831.
    They evicted the authorities and part of the population – men, women and children. The key point is that by this act of force Argentina was prevented from re-establishing the settlement that had been founded in the 1820s with so much effort. The leaflet does not mention that, as a consequence of the 1833 use of force, the residents of the Argentine settlement in the Falklands/Malvinas who had been removed in 1831 were never able to return. The residents living in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833 were only part of the population. The attempt of the British pamphlet to justify the use of force by saying that the inhabitants it considered “genuine” were not expelled does not stand up to the slightest analysis. Furthermore, if the inhabitants taken to the islands by Vernet were “genuine” and they recognized Argentina´s authority over the islands, why should they be made to live under British authority?

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands. The British pamphlet claims that “only the garrison was expelled” and that the civilians who left made that decision freely. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to understand that the “choice” was motivated by the British occupation and the subsequent expulsion of Argentina. If we take into account the multinational nature of the Argentine population settled in the islands, it becomes clear that essentially individuals from the Río de la Plata left. If the British eviction had not occurred, the population would have remained on the islands, and the reestablishment of order would have permitted the return of the population sent scattering by the “Lexington” in 1831.
    They evicted the authorities and part of the population – men, women and children. The key point is that by this act of force Argentina was prevented from re-establishing the settlement that had been founded in the 1820s with so much effort. The leaflet does not mention that, as a consequence of the 1833 use of force, the residents of the Argentine settlement in the Falklands/Malvinas who had been removed in 1831 were never able to return. The residents living in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833 were only part of the population. The attempt of the British pamphlet to justify the use of force by saying that the inhabitants it considered “genuine” were not expelled does not stand up to the slightest analysis. Furthermore, if the inhabitants taken to the islands by Vernet were “genuine” and they recognized Argentina´s authority over the islands, why should they be made to live under British authority?

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Argentine_Cityzen

    The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands. The British pamphlet claims that “only the garrison was expelled” and that the civilians who left made that decision freely. It does not require a great deal of intelligence to understand that the “choice” was motivated by the British occupation and the subsequent expulsion of Argentina. If we take into account the multinational nature of the Argentine population settled in the islands, it becomes clear that essentially individuals from the Río de la Plata left. If the British eviction had not occurred, the population would have remained on the islands, and the reestablishment of order would have permitted the return of the population sent scattering by the “Lexington” in 1831.
    They evicted the authorities and part of the population – men, women and children. The key point is that by this act of force Argentina was prevented from re-establishing the settlement that had been founded in the 1820s with so much effort. The leaflet does not mention that, as a consequence of the 1833 use of force, the residents of the Argentine settlement in the Falklands/Malvinas who had been removed in 1831 were never able to return. The residents living in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833 were only part of the population. The attempt of the British pamphlet to justify the use of force by saying that the inhabitants it considered “genuine” were not expelled does not stand up to the slightest analysis. Furthermore, if the inhabitants taken to the islands by Vernet were “genuine” and they recognized Argentina´s authority over the islands, why should they be made to live under British authority?

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine citizen

    'Vernet's Colony.'

    And when did Argentina have 'uncontested settlement of some years?'
    They didn't.

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 09:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The trespassing garrison was sent back to Buenos Aires Arg Zit.
    Bs As should have listened to the warnings in 1829 & 1832.
    Go learn

    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/falkland-wars-1700-1850-second-edition.pdf

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine_Cityzen

    The only garrison that existed on the islands was the illegal garrison that the English had in Port Egdmont, which they left abandoned in 1774 through the Maranzano-Rotchield exit agreement. The truth is that with or without an exit agreement, both the eastern and western islands were terra nullis in 1820 when Argentina took possession of Port Luis... and 60 years had passed since the English abandonment of the archipelago. Going deeper, the United Kingdom attacked a completely different island and settlement that had nothing to do with the settlement they were in in Port Egdmont. until the second decade of 1800 there had never been a human settlement of civil development on the islands... but there had only been temporary military settlements tango French and English.
    They attacked a village hundreds of kilometers away, on a totally different island that they had never set foot on before.
    According to the official memorandums of the English foregging office, it was an atrocity and an act of unjustifiable aggression.

    Oct 27th, 2022 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    The only garrison that existed on the islands was the illegal garrison that the English had in Port Egdmont, which they left abandoned in 1774 through the Maranzano-Rotchield exit agreement. The truth is that with or without an exit agreement, both the eastern and western islands were terra nullis in 1820 when Argentina took possession of Port Luis... and 60 years had passed since the English abandonment of the archipelago. Going deeper, the United Kingdom attacked a completely different island and settlement that had nothing to do with the settlement they were in in Port Egdmont. until the second decade of 1800 there had never been a human settlement of civil development on the islands... but there had only been temporary military settlements tango French and English.
    They attacked a village hundreds of kilometers away, on a totally different island that they had never set foot on before.
    According to the official memorandums of the English foregging office, it was an atrocity and an act of unjustifiable aggression.

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse -4
  • Steve Potts

    Argentina Citizen



    1820 - Jewett. From the evidence available Argentina’s claims that Jewett was ordered to take possession of the Falklands for the Buenos Aires regime is simply preposterous ’Weddell was in no doubt that Jewett’s principle business in putting into the Falklands was to refresh his crew and taking possession was subsidiary….The United Provinces were in a state of unrest . There was no supreme government in Argentina’s early history. There were in the year 1820, at least twenty-four governments. It is highly unlikely that one of those governments would have had time to think about the islands let alone ask Jewett to take possession.’’ (Falklands or Malvinas, Myths and Facts, Peña J.A & Peña M.P. Pentagon Press 2018, p249 quoting Cawkell M. The Falkland Islands, 1960).
    Jewett had crossed the line from privateer to pirate. His actions on the Falklands are of no legal consequence.

    ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’(The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Cpt XVIII, p215 & Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Book 1, p220.) The Buenos Aires government even issued a decree on 10 June 1829 which admitted that, ‘circumstances have hitherto prevented this Republic from paying attention to that part of the Territory which, from its importance, it demands,’ acknowledging that they had neglected the Islands and making no mention of Jewett’s earlier claim. (Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis, Australian Year Book of Int. Law, Greig D.W. 1983, P31)

    'The Falkland Islands have never belonged to Argentina.'

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    Could you tell me if the United Kingdom was in possession of the islands to understand their unjustifiable aggression?
    Didn't you read the author quoted by you?

    ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’(The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Cpt XVIII, p215 & Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Book 1, p220.

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Steve Potts

    Malvinense 1833

    Argentina never had 'uncontested settlement of some years'

    Vernet's settlement was 'his business venture' and the British protested twice in 1829 & 1832.after Buenos Aires infringed British sovereignty.

    No laws were broken by Britain in 1833.

    'The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina.'

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Argentine citizen

    @stevepotts ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’


    Obviously, you have blown a neuron, it does not make a connection or you have a poor interpretation of texts , If you knew how to read, you would understand that it clearly specifies where has formed a settlemen OOOORRRRR “makes actual use”.

    The United Kingdom was not in possession of the islands in 1833... and had not carried out any sovereign act and more than 59 years had passed since its abandonment...
    and they had never set foot on or taken possession of or claimed the eastern island where Port Soledad was located.

    The British protest of 1829 may be said to be belated, limited and made in bad faith. Belated, because the British government knew of the previous acts of public power over the islands carried out by Buenos Aires between 1820 and 1829. Limited, because it is circumscribed to the decree of June 10th, 1829, without protesting against any previous acts. In fact, the reference to the acts having been made or being made against His Britannic Majesty´s rights is related to those carried out in the framework of the decree which was the object of the protest, and not in relation to acts occurring before the decree, to which Great Britain was not oblivious. And finally the protest was made in bad faith, because among the grounds for British sovereignty, Spain´s continuous presence in the islands until 1811 and Argentina´s subsequent acts are not mentioned, even though the British government could not have ignored both facts.

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine_Cityzen

    In relation to this British protest after a fifty-year silence, we could paraphrase what was said by the Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the case of El Salvador/Honduras in relation to Honduras´ protest against El Salvador´s exercise of sovereignty over Isla Meanguera: “this protest [from the United Kingdom], coming after a long history of acts of sovereignty [by Spain and Argentina], was made too late to affect the presumption of acquiescence on the part [of the United Kingdom]”

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine Citizen


    1. The possession by Argentina was not sufficient to bar Great Britain’s subsequent claim to possession. There was no need for Great Britain to protest the settlement. Neither acquisitive nor extinctive prescription give Argentina a basis for its sovereignty claim. (Military Law Review, Vol 107, The Falklands (Malvinas) Dispute between Argentina and Great Britain, Gravelle J.F. 1985, p26).

    2. Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable. The islands were not res nullius, but they were not yet clearly recognised by the international community as being under any nation’s sovereignty. (The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland Islands, Gustafson L.S. 1988, P26).

    3. Vernet’s 1828 Concession Declared Invalid by Argentina

    Vernet’s 1828 concession was also declared invalid by the Argentinian government of 1882. In 1882 the Argentinian government declared in congress that the decree of 5 January 1828 was invalid since it had been issued only by the provincial government of Buenos Aires not by the whole congress which alone had power to cede national territories. (Falklands Facts and Fallacies, Pascoe p95, quoting Argentinian Congress, Buenos Aires, records 29 July 1882, p311).

    4. 'An unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337)

    Vattel continues –
    It is only in cases of long, continued, undisputed and uninterrupted possession that prescription is established. But the case is different with a possession of only a few years continuance – (Chapter XI, Pg 337, )

    As I have said, The Falkland Islands Have Never Belonged to Argentina

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Argentine citizen

    Acquisitive prescription by the United Kingdom did exist, and Argentina had a prosperous town in Puerto Soledad before the attack of the USS Lexington and the atrocious eviction of the United Kingdom in 1833.
    All the fantasy that you invent that Argentina did not have a stable population in the second decade of 1800 is highly contradicted by historical evidence.
    Even the spy ship HMS Beagle visited the islands in 1830 under the government of Vernet.
    The Pascope&Pepper pamphlet casually omits to mention that Captain Fitz Roy had already been visiting under the Vernet government in 1830, and in his travel log he had described with astonishment the prosperous Argentine town. Giving luxury of details about the population that there he even lived mentioning with amazement that there was a very complete library with contemporary European books.

    It now turns out that Mr. Potts says in his words that “it is questionable whether any were stable enough to give it a clear title.”
    and that “some years are not enough to establish a title of sovereignty”, all this according to his interpretation.

    But what he mentions is a contradiction with his argumentative line, because the temporary settlement that the English had in Puerto Egdmont (which was a military garrison without civilians) was not only much less “stable” than the Argentine settlement of Puerto Soledad, in addition to being from 1768 to 1774.
    Potts argument self-contradicts and self-destructs british position.

    Oct 28th, 2022 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine Citizen

    1. The possession by Argentina was not sufficient to bar Great Britain’s subsequent claim to possession. There was no need for Great Britain to protest the settlement. Neither acquisitive nor extinctive prescription give Argentina a basis for its sovereignty claim. (Military Law Review, Vol 107, The Falklands (Malvinas) Dispute between Argentina and Great Britain, Gravelle J.F. 1985, p26).

    2. Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable. The islands were not res nullius, but they were not yet clearly recognised by the international community as being under any nation’s sovereignty. (The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland Islands, Gustafson L.S. 1988, P26).

    3. Vernet’s 1828 Concession Declared Invalid by Argentina

    Vernet’s 1828 concession was also declared invalid by the Argentinian government of 1882. In 1882 the Argentinian government declared in congress that the decree of 5 January 1828 was invalid since it had been issued only by the provincial government of Buenos Aires not by the whole congress which alone had power to cede national territories. (Falklands Facts and Fallacies, Pascoe p95, quoting Argentinian Congress, Buenos Aires, records 29 July 1882, p311).

    4. 'An unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337)

    Vattel continues –

    It is only in cases of long, continued, undisputed and uninterrupted possession that prescription is established. But the case is different with a possession of only a few years continuance – (Chapter XI, Pg 337, )

    As I have said, The Falkland Islands Have Never Belonged to Argentina

    Disprove: Nothing for court means that Argentina's case is illegitimate and worthless.

    Oct 29th, 2022 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    1- yes according to international law... Argentine had made a continuous possession of the territory for more than 13 years... and previously there was a continuous presence of Spaniards for 20 years between 1800 and 1820. Vattel is very clearly specifies “where has formed a settlemen” OOOORRRRR “makes actual use”. Argentina not only covered one of the requirements, it covered both.
    On the other hand, the United Kingdom had left the islands in 1774 60 years ago with the Maserano-Rotchield exit agreement.
    And it did not have any settlement or current use of the territory.
    There is no basis in international law to justify the atrocity they did in 1833, which their own diplomats and the foregging office recognized.

    3.fail interpretation of pascope, like the interpretation failures of Wheaton, vattel & sharon korman
    4. 60 years of English abandonment, without Claims or protests towards Spain... and 13 years of possession of Argentina, with English silence... Ultra approved the time of acquisitive prescription as can be seen in extensive cases of the ICJ.

    2. “Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable.”

    questionable by who? a british author with a weak reputation?.
    It is even Funny, which it says is “questionable”, it does not have the value of Refute or
    because he knows that the story falls apart.
    The United Kingdom never had a civil or stable settlement on the islands, their interpretation destroys the argument that they had possession in 1833 when they arrived, or that they had it before in 1774.

    British settlement in port egdmont, lasted from 1764 to 1774 (infinite less years than argentine real settlemen at port soledad), having periods of abandonment, in addition to being hidden and with the purpose of disturbing the Spanish ships.

    Oct 29th, 2022 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine Citizen

    1. The possession by Argentina was not sufficient to bar Great Britain’s subsequent claim to possession. There was no need for Great Britain to protest the settlement. Neither acquisitive nor extinctive prescription give Argentina a basis for its sovereignty claim. (Military Law Review, Vol 107, The Falklands (Malvinas) Dispute between Argentina and Great Britain, Gravelle J.F. 1985, p26).

    2. Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable. The islands were not res nullius, but they were not yet clearly recognised by the international community as being under any nation’s sovereignty. (The Sovereignty Dispute Over the Falkland Islands, Gustafson L.S. 1988, P26).

    3. Vernet’s 1828 Concession Declared Invalid by Argentina

    Vernet’s 1828 concession was also declared invalid by the Argentinian government of 1882. In 1882 the Argentinian government declared in congress that the decree of 5 January 1828 was invalid since it had been issued only by the provincial government of Buenos Aires not by the whole congress which alone had power to cede national territories. (Falklands Facts and Fallacies, Pascoe p95, quoting Argentinian Congress, Buenos Aires, records 29 July 1882, p311).

    4. 'An unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337)

    Argentina never had 'unopposed settlement' of some years. Vernet had settlement but this was opposed by Britain as soon as it was established that he was working on behalf of Argentina (UP).

    The fact remains that 'the Falkland Islands have never belonged to Argentina'.

    Oct 30th, 2022 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    1- yes according to international law... Argentine had made a continuous possession of the territory for more than 13 years... and previously there was a continuous presence of Spaniards for 20 years between 1800 and 1820. Vattel is very clearly specifies “where has formed a settlemen” OOOORRRRR “makes actual use”. Argentina not only covered one of the requirements, it covered both.
    On the other hand, the United Kingdom had left the islands in 1774 60 years ago with the Maserano-Rotchield exit agreement.
    And it did not have any settlement or current use of the territory.
    There is no basis in international law to justify the atrocity they did in 1833, which their own diplomats and the foregging office recognized.

    3.fail interpretation of pascope, like the interpretation failures of Wheaton, vattel & sharon korman
    4. 60 years of English abandonment, without Claims or protests towards Spain... and 13 years of possession of Argentina, with English silence... Ultra approved the time of acquisitive prescription as can be seen in extensive cases of the ICJ.

    2. “Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable.”

    questionable by who? a british author with a weak reputation?.
    It is even Funny, which it says is “questionable”, it does not have the value of Refute or
    because he knows that the story falls apart.
    The United Kingdom never had a civil or stable settlement on the islands, their interpretation destroys the argument that they had possession in 1833 when they arrived, or that they had it before in 1774.

    British settlement in port egdmont, lasted from 1764 to 1774 ( only few years like vettel say)
    On diference spain and argentina had a settlemen for over 60 years

    Oct 30th, 2022 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse -1
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine Citizen

    1. The possession by Argentina was not sufficient to bar Great Britain’s subsequent claim to possession.There was no need for Great Britain to protest the settlement. Neither acquisitive nor extinctive prescription give Argentina a basis for its sovereignty claim. (Military Law Review, Vol 107, The Falklands (Malvinas) Gravelle J.F. 1985, p26).

    2. Argentina made several attempts to assert sovereignty over the islands but whether any were stable enough to give her clear title is questionable. The islands were not res nullius, but they were not yet clearly recognised by the international community as being under any nation’s sovereignty. (Gustafson L.S. 1988, P26).

    3. British Protest

    The British had protested against Argentina’s infringement of British sovereignty on 19th November 1829 after Vernet was given the official rank of commander by the Buenos Aires government. The British Consul Parish delivered the official British diplomatic protest to Buenos Aires Foreign Minister Tomás Guido – ‘in issuing this Decree an Authority has been assumed incompatible with His Britannick Majesty’s rights of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands…’ (Pascoe G, p 108 quoting Pro FO6 499, 19 Nov 1829).

    Second British Protest

    On 28th September 1832, Henry Fox, British Consul protested to Manuel Maza, Chief Minister, against the decree appointing Mestivier. In protesting against the decree issued by the Buenos Aires government in 1829 and 1832 the British preserved their right to the Falklands. Maza acknowledged receipt and stated that the government would reply in due course. But as in 1829, there was no reply. (, Pascoe p140, 6.17).

    4 . 'An unopposed settlement of some years was necessary” before sovereignty was accepted. (The Law of Nations, Vattel, Cpt XI, p337)

    As evidenced above, 'An unopposed settlement of some years.' was not achieved by Argentina.

    Therefore the Falkland Islands have never belonged to Argentina. Fact.

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Malvinense 1833

    He obviously has no text comprehension.
    Didn't you understand what the Argentine citizen told you?
    60 years of Spanish possession.
    13 years of Argentine possession.
    He also mentioned that the British protest was late.
    You do not respond on what you base your assertion that Argentina violated British sovereignty.
    I ask again, were the British in possession of the islands? did not read Vattel author cited by you?

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse -3
  • Argentine citizen

    that's too ignorant, he does not realize that his quote from vettel totally destroys the english story because by vettel they had no possession in 1833 and their settlement in port egdmont (another different island hundreds of kilometers away) had been a temporary military garrison that lasted much less years that the Spanish and later Argentine presence on Soledad Island.

    Didn't potts realize that the uk legal team and their negotiators have never cited vettel or sharon korman's right of conquest because they know it harms their position? but it is clear that this grandfather, who has never been to a university, thinks he knows more about international law and history than the experienced legal & diplomatic team of the UK Foregging office, who have never cited the stupidity that potts argues.

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2
  • Steve Potts

    Argentine Citizen

    Correct, Britain had no possession in 1833.

    The fact remains that Argentina did not have 'uncontested settlement of some years' as is already explained above.

    Your arguments have been defeated. The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina.

    Discussion closed. I suggest you do some independent research.

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +2
  • Argentine citizen

    @Steve Potts Naughty boy, Vettel does not clarify how many years he refers to with “some years” is a very subjective term..
    however doubtfully more than a decade would be considered a few years by a court.
    Specifically, on Isla Soledad where Argentina had its settlement, the United Kingdom never had a presence there, on the other hand, Spain was always present. And Argentina took possession in 1820, a possession that if it had not been for the illegal English attack, it would have continued normally.
    The only thing left for the UK is the supposed application of the right to self-determination (the English negotiators try not to touch the issue of the expulsion of inhabitants in 1833).
    However, the limitations of the right to self-determination little by little begin to unravel in international forums, proof of this is what is happening in Ukraine with the Russian invasion and the illegal referendums... or the rulings of the ICJ in Chagos vs. United Kingdom, where the United Kingdom argued that the current British inhabitants of Chagos perceived themselves as English and the court ruled in favor of returning the islands to Mauritius.

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +1
  • Argentine_Cityzen

    @Steve Potts “The fact remains that Argentina did not have 'uncontested settlement of some years' as is already explained above.”

    The facts remain That spain was here for 50 years, and Argentina had 13 years (not some years) on an international Context of 55 Years of Abandonment&British Silence and a civilian population was evicted, by a power nation that had never before had a civilian settlement on Soledad Island..

    Oct 31st, 2022 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Perhaps, Arg Zit, you can show me an official public Argentine document claiming possession of the archipelago that is dated before 1829?

    Jewett did nothing that was acknowledged by Bs As.

    Bs As only claimed the Islands in 1829. Promptly ejected by the USA in January 1832. And ejected again by the British in January, 1833 following two written warnings in 1829 & 1832.

    Effective possession? Hardly effective or possession.

    If Argentine believes that it has an argument - historical, legal or geographical - then it should go to the ICJ. Until such time as Argentina takes that course, it will remain defeated.

    Nov 01st, 2022 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Correct, Britain had no possession in 1833.

    ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’(The Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Cpt XVIII, p215 & Law of Nations, Vattel, 1797, Book 1, p220.
    End.

    I would like to see the official public document of the incorporation of the islands to the British Crown before 1833.
    They did not have possession at the time of the usurpation.
    Neither for a few years nor for many years, they just didn't have it.
    Argentina continued the possession of Spain after achieving self-determination, that is, the British arguments are a house of cards.
    With all these facts they still cannot answer the question: on what is the claim that Argentina violated British sovereignty based?

    Nov 01st, 2022 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Argentine citizen

    @Steve Potts say: “ Correct, Britain had no possession in 1833.”


    ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’

    Nov 01st, 2022 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Effective possession was established in 1771 with Spain's recognition of Britain's possession of the Western Islands. Confirmed in 1811, when Spain only claimed one island.

    Document = https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf

    After 1771, the British never left.

    Nov 02nd, 2022 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Again with the same Roger?
    Not even British diplomacy was encouraged to do so.
    In 1771 there was no effective possession, they were temporarily established with Spanish permission on the Trinidad/Saunders islet.
    You provide a link where the documents read Islas Malvinas, Malvinas establishment, Soledad de Malvinas.
    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
    The documents cited by you demonstrate Spanish sovereignty, and no, there was no effective British possession.

    And yes, the British withdrew in 1774.
    ‘the law of nations will therefore not acknowledge the property and sovereignty of a nation over any uninhabited countries, except those of which it has really taken actual possession, in which it has formed settlements, or of which it makes actual use.’

    Nov 03rd, 2022 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    The same?
    History does not change.

    Spain recognised British possession of the Western Islands in 1771, confirmed by their only claiming Soledad Island in 1811. The documents are clear enough - only Soledad Island was claimed. Or can't you read?

    Britain did not leave in 1774, it merely withdrew a garrison. Read all about the British in the Falklands between 1774 and 1811 - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/1775-to-1815.pdf

    Uninhabited? The Islands were incredibly busy, with British businesses.

    Nov 03rd, 2022 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Again Roger, in 1771 there was no effective possession, they were temporarily established with Spanish permission on the Trinidad/Saunders islet, the British withdrew in 1774.

    The Islands were incredibly busy, with British businesses.
    It is well known that the prohibitions on foreign trade are, in those countries (South Sea), at least rigorous, and that no man not authorized by the King of Spain can trade except by the use of force or stealth. Any profit to be made must be by the violence of rapine, or fraud.
    Samuel Johnson.

    Uninhabited? Effectively. There was no military garrison, no British civilian population.
    As for the documents and the Spanish claim to a single island, it is absurd.
    It reads island in the singular, islands in the plural, Port Soledad, establishment of Malvinas. His documents prove Spanish sovereignty over the islands.
    Capisce...?

    Nov 03rd, 2022 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Roger Lorton

    Spanish permission?
    Spain lost the argument in 1771.
    Britain returned and never again left.

    If you believe you have an historical argument, take it to the ICJ.
    Although I should remind you, that Argentina is not Spain.

    Go learn about 1771
    https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1767-to-1774.pdf

    The 1811 documents prove that Spain only claimed ONE island. Perhaps you have a problem with reading comprehension?

    We're done

    Nov 03rd, 2022 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Hello Roger, yes, with Spanish permission. And he didn't lose the argument. It is demonstrated by the resignations in the British Parliament and the British withdrawal.
    I am sorry to tell you that yes, Spain is Argentina because Spain is the predecessor state of the states that later emerged from Spanish territory, including Argentina.
    The right of self-determination applies first to Argentina.
    And the documents from 1811 prove Spanish sovereignty and claiming a single island is absurd after so many years of continuous and uninterrupted possession.
    Obviously the one with reading comprehension problems is you.

    Nov 04th, 2022 - 11:14 am - 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!