MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK Chagos Devolution: Argentina urges bilateral negotiations on Falklands' sovereignty
As was expected the Argentine reaction to Britain's negotiations with the Republic of Mauritius for the return of the Chagos archipelago, including Diego García island, has been immediate with a long release from the Foreign Ministry, once again calling for full negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe UK understands its obligations on the Falkland Islands as the Islanders voted overwhelmingly to remain a British Overseas Territory that is the right that the UK will defend so No negotiation will ever happen unless the Islanders request it!!
Nov 04th, 2022 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse +3Did the ICJ Chagos Opinion give support to Argentina’s Falklands claim?
Nov 04th, 2022 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2Falklands – Chagos Ruling : https://www.academia.edu/38498842/Falklands_-_Chagos_Ruling
We talked already.
Nov 04th, 2022 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4From 1966 to 1982, we talked.
Then Argentina stopped talking, and opted for trial by combat.
Argentina lost.
There is nothing more to be said.
TWIMC...
Nov 04th, 2022 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -6From 1966 to 1982, them Engrish procrastinated, hoodwinked and lied at the Malvinas/Falklands talks...
Then..., our idiotic, Yankee trained & established Military Junta opted for trial by combat....
They lost..., not Argentina...
Capisce....?
16 years is insufficient for 150 years of controversy. Always dilating and avoiding dialogue.
Nov 04th, 2022 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Argentina did not lose, in November 1982 the UN adopted Resolution 37/9 that urges the two governments to resume negotiations.
Roger, nothing is finished.
And yet Tank, thousands of Argentine civilians celebrated in the street as did millions on TV, when the invasion took place,
Nov 04th, 2022 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“They must comply with resolution 2065 on the Malvinas Question”
Nov 04th, 2022 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It is invalidated by this subsequent resolution.
“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
“The General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’.
Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law by Peter Malanczuk
”There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
37/9?
Nov 04th, 2022 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Buried with the rest in 1985.
Replaced by 40/21 of 1985, which was replaced by 41/40 of 1986, which was replaced by 42/19 of 1987, which was replaced by 43/25 of 1988, which was ......... the last
Talks took place in 1989 & 1990, after which Menem withdrew the question from the General Assembly. There are no 'live' UN resolutions and the UK is not in breach of any. As confirmed by the Secretary-General in 2012.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2020/05/2000-to-2015.pdf
The deadbeats are getting excited again … and I love it when they say it wasn’t Argentina that invaded in 1982, it was the junta.
Nov 05th, 2022 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse +2@TerrenceHill Conquest not apply to malvinas issue, there it was not a war declaration to argentina at 1833 when they evicted the native population it is al wrote on sharon korman book page 108 and 156
Nov 06th, 2022 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -4@Argentine citizen There was NO Native population in the Falkland Islands just a few armed merc`s.
Nov 06th, 2022 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@Dirk Dikkler , 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.
Nov 06th, 2022 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The 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.
1833, Zit?
Nov 06th, 2022 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +2https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/03/1830-to-1833.pdf
Merely the eviction of trespassers previously given written warnings in 1829 and 1832.
They should have paid attention to the warnings.
Conquest not apply to malvinas issue, … it is al wrote on sharon korman book “
Nov 07th, 2022 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse +1I’m amazed that her whole claim is based on The Caroline affair (also known as the Caroline case) was a diplomatic crisis beginning in 1837. Which makes Korman’s claim absolute bunkum as it cannot be applied to an act that preceded its application
As the former President of the ICJ wrote:
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law
by Robert Yewdall Jennings
Intertemporal Law
The rule that the effect of an act is to be determined by the law of the time when it was done, not of the law of the time when the claim is made, is elementary and important. It is merely an aspect of the rule against retroactive laws, and to that extent may be regarded as a general principle of law. It is especially important in international law because of the length of the life of states. It is peculiarly apt to questions of title; though by no means confined to questions of title,
“There it was not a war declaration” There doesn’t have to be. Kelsen says clearly you can.
“Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter’s will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself” p.214 GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE
@roger lorton, the warning of 1829 & 1832 will be irrelevant for the icj... 59 years of silence will be enought evidence..
Nov 07th, 2022 - 07:16 am - Link - Report abuse -1When argentina took posession on 1820 both islands were nullis land..
And even if british had posession at 1833 (which is not the case) they signed an exit agreement with spain on 1774 (maserano&rotchford peace agreement)..
And even even with or without agreement, with or without prescription, the british were at port egdmont a diferent island houndred milles away.. and like the plaque they left they were making claim of the single island (sounder island)..
The reality its they evicted an inococent population with the same patron they made at chagos 130 years later... and this is what a court would watch....
1968, 1973 Rodge?
Nov 07th, 2022 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -2https://malvinastimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1868-to-1973.pdf
Merely the eviction of imported black man friday's previously given verbal warnings since 1966...
How do you Tænk that “irrelevant” eviction is going..., huhhhh...?
“Merely the eviction of imported black man”
Nov 07th, 2022 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is widely reported that president of Argentina from 1868 to 1874, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, undertook a ‘covert genocide’ that wiped out the Afro-Argentinean population to the point that by 1875, there were so little Black people left in Argentina that the government didn’t even bother registering African-descendants in the national census.”
https ://afropunk.com/2018/07/argentinas-black-population-has-been-systematically-erased-removed-in-whitewashing-effort/
“By the late 1700s nearly 50 percent of the population in the interior of the country was black, and between 30 and 40 percent of the population of Buenos Aires was black or mulatto,” reported The Root.
https://www.theroot.com/true-or-false-there-are-no-black-people-in-argentina-1790876367
Roger, they already explained to you that the protest was late and in bad faith. Intruders? He has not yet explained why he qualifies the Argentine inhabitants of the islands as intruders.
Nov 07th, 2022 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2He did not explain whether the islands were occupied by Britain. If not, what you said is pure fantasy.
‘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.
’ Vattel goes on to describe settlement as ‘a fixed residence in any place with an intention of always staying there.’
Nov 07th, 2022 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hardly as rape, murder and mayhem don’t constitute a settlement.
Bringing things up to date.
“A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised the powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.''(Theory and Reality in International Law, de Visscher, 1957, p201).
While the USS army considers.
“...But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sovereignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are conclusive in establishing sovereignty. Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to Great Britain's claim results in a different conclusion. Extinctive prescription involves possession, ... However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
https://tjaglcspublic.army.mil/documents/27431/2250255/View+the+PDF/9f574121-93e6-4494-a347-89f4999c3bee
@terrence hill, kelsen wrote on his book its posibble..Not legal..its big the ignorance of british pamphlet quoting kelsen, sharon korman, and vettel or wheaton... they missunderstod the books of those authors (mistaken or intentional)
Nov 07th, 2022 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“kelsen wrote on his book its posibble..Not legal.”
Nov 07th, 2022 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He has never stated it wasn’t legal, what he has stated is:
“Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself”
@terrence hill , You clearly never read Kelsen's book, just like Sharon Korman's.
Nov 08th, 2022 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse -1Kelsen in his book clearly says that it is possible, not legal. and specifies that the only legitimate case of acquisition of sovereignty by conquest would be the one where the victim state did not make protests or claims over the conquered territory and a long time passed.
It has already been explained why the United Kingdom and its diplomats together with their international law legal team never invoked the conquest.
but voila, it seems that some ignorant person like pascoe&peper, roger lorton or steve post knew something that the legal team that defends the position of the united kingdom and earns thousands of pounds in fees did not know or have analyzed.
Today any ignorant peasant without a degree is seen to know more than the diplomats and lawyers with doctorates from his country.
Maybe you didn't realize it, but they try to avoid the eviction issue, and the previous history because they have the losing cards in the legal game :D
Children, and Trunks, Bs As was acting beyond its powers in the 1820s. Got its comeuppance in 1833 with the eviction of its trespassing garrison.
Nov 08th, 2022 - 06:22 am - Link - Report abuse +2There was a dispute between Spain and Britain. Spain capitulated.
Argentina, was never in the game.
But hey, feel free to take your fascinating arguments to the ICJ. They are all old men, but like a laugh same as the rest of us.
Unfortunately, such a claim as yours if true, would indicate where this occurred, which would be a complete refutation of his statement.
Nov 08th, 2022 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself”
The Caroline case has nothing to do with the issue of conquest.
It was a claim to the right of self-defense.
Meanwhile:
“6. Comparison sf the Competing Claims of Argentina and GB
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
https://tjaglcspublic.army.mil/documents/27431/2250255/View+the+PDF/9f574121-93e6-4494-a347-89f4999c3bee
Roger you know a word self determination self determination.
Nov 08th, 2022 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina did not invade anyone.
I do not understand what kind of capitulation is that of Spain when there were resignations in parliament, the English withdrew and the Spaniards stayed with the islands. The arguments may be old but they are solid, Argentina has always maintained its argument throughout history unlike the United Kingdom.
No one answers the question: Was Great Britain in possession of the islands?
“Spaniards stayed with the islands.”
Nov 08th, 2022 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1It is evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed.
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
“I do not understand what kind of capitulation is that of Spain”
They folded otherwise they were in for a war.
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” “The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Britain was in possession of West Falkland island from 1765. Recognised by Spain from 1771.
Nov 08th, 2022 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In possession of East Falkland island from 1833. Spain did not object.
Argentina is not Spain.
If Argentina has solid arguments, they Argentina should go to the ICJ. Nowhere else can give a judgement on just how solid Argentines are.
Go learn - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/04/1767-to-1774.pdf
Utrecht? it ensured the integrity of Spain's possessions in South America and confirmed its exclusivity of navigation in the South Atlantic.
Nov 09th, 2022 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Again Roger, the British settled on Trinidad/Saunders Islet with Spanish permission.
Resignations in the British parliament.
British withdrawal in 1774.
Exclusive possession of Spain without British protests.
Usurpation in 1833
In order for the Court to intervene, the United Kingdom must accept its jurisdiction, begin to talk with Argentina to seek some kind of solution to end the conflict and make the South Atlantic a region of peace.
Still the unanswered question were in possession of the islands?.
Wrong on every count, Malki.
Nov 09th, 2022 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +11) West Falkland was accepted as British by Spain in 1771. All that Spain reserved was a question.
2) There are always resignations in Parliament - one this very day - of no consequence, although you could, perhaps, name those who resigned?
3) Garrison withdrawal in 1774 - not a British withdrawal (remember that plate?). Businessmen moved in that very day. Remember how we colonised India - through business.
4) Spain only ever covertly visited West Falkland after 1774 except in a time of war (and even then they failed to raise a flag). All the Royal Orders after 1774 required covert surveillance.
5) Argentina is not Spain. Nothing of great note occurred in 1833. Some trespassers ordered off. Gamekeepers do it all the time.
In order for the court to intervene...?
a) The UK does accept the ICJ's jurisdiction with a single limitation
b) Argentina has never accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction - at all.
c) Mauritius lobbied the UN for a question to be put to the ICJ. It was. Why doesn't Argentina lobby the UN for a question to be put to the ICJ?
As for recognition of jurisdiction, see - https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations
And I did answer your question. Reading comprehension still a problem for you?
I repeat - “Britain was in possession of West Falkland island from 1765. Recognised by Spain from 1771. In possession of East Falkland island from 1833. Spain did not object.
Argentina is not Spain.”
Go learn some history child, your indoctrination is showing.
Usurpation in 1833”
Nov 09th, 2022 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Roger, the english established themselves on Trinidad/Saunders islet to save their honor with Spanish permission, then withdrew. You are a permanent contradiction, you say that the English did not withdraw in 1774 but then you say that they colonized with businesses, like in India, perhaps whale hunters?
Nov 10th, 2022 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You tell me that a plaque and whale hunters are more valid than a prosperous colony?
Trinidad/Saunders Islet was never accepted as british. The discussions in the british parliament and the letters exchanged during the crisis prove it.
In addition, Port Egmont was a clandestine establishment, it never received the sanction of parliament to consider it national, for other nations it was non-existent because it was a clandestine possession. The British defeat is evident with the speeches of Chatham, William Pitt, Junius, Samuel Johnson.
Resignation? Lord Weymouth.
Confirmation of everything? the English withdrew.
Add all of the above to your timeline.
Many states emerged from the Spanish territories, including Argentina. Spain is the predecessor state. therefore yes, Argentina is Spain. Self determination Roger, self determination.
Malvi England never gave up their claim, stop repeating a clear lie,
Nov 10th, 2022 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Weymouth resigned in December 1770, before the accord of 1771 and not because of it. Do try to get your history correct Malvi.
Nov 11th, 2022 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1Yes, we never left after 1771. Fear not, I have that evidenced clearly in the Timeline - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1775-to-1815.pdf
Prosperous colony? When was that? The Spanish struggled to survive and Vernet's trespassing settlement was permanently broke - as was Vernet himself.
Not that any of this matters. Argentina is not Spain. So take your frankly weird distortions of history to the ICJ. You can ask them whether Britain abandoned in 1774 and lost their rights. The Timeline is as accurate as I can get it, although I do include comments from those who like to present a false version of history. You should read it. For Argentina, the devil is in the detail.
Without the ICJ, Argentina has nowhere else to go. Impotent. Irrelevant
@Judge Jose
Nov 11th, 2022 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Perhaps you have information that I do not know. From the Clayton plaque until 1829 there was no british claim.
@Roger
Indeed Weymouth resigned with knowledge of the agreement that London was going to reach.
They never left? Could you tell me the name of the colony, detachment? Name of any governor? Many states emerged from the Spanish territories including Argentina. Spain is the predecessor state. So yes, Spain is Argentina. Self determination.
I don't think he answers the previous questions, because he still hasn't answered the question, was Great Britain in possession of the islands?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!