MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina to release a “Malvinas 40th Anniversary Yearbook” on January 3 when Britain 'usurped' the Islands
The Argentine foreign ministry is planning to release a Yearbook, on the 40th anniversary of the Falklands/Malvinas war, reporting on all the activities displayed both domestically and internationally, with the purpose of honoring all combatants and Veterans, plus emphasizing the “inalienable sovereignty rights of Argentina over the Islands, usurped by Britain in 1833”. The launching date will take place on 3rd January 2023. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesHow exciting! Will Bill be promoting his tome in the Falklands?
Dec 13th, 2022 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse +3Nothing but shiny toilet paper,
Dec 13th, 2022 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse +2''usurped by Britain in 1833''
Dec 13th, 2022 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1But they forget - Legal and Illegal Acts of Force:
Falklands - Two Acts of Force (1833 & 1982) One Illegal (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/82967126/Falklands_Two_Acts_of_Force_1833_and_1982_One_Illegal
“after expulsing the population and officials from the Argentine government”
Dec 13th, 2022 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Which of course is not true.
There was no “population” expelled, and the Argentine official had been murdered by his own crew.
If the case is so strong, why the need to lie?
Should be a good choice for a revived series of 'Jackanory' on BBC.
Dec 13th, 2022 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Talk about delusional thinking, oh I know he is talking to the faithful and all, so it has to sound as if they are somehow important in the region, but still.
Dec 13th, 2022 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2‘the Malvinas Question is permanently associated with the Antarctic Question and issues linked to the South Atlantic Ocean, Argentina's sphere of influence’.
Except it isn’t, is it.
It is an area where Argentina and its influence, is in fact excluded.
And they wonder why there is a military base there.
@Monkeymagic because ur the lier and got idoctrinated by british pamphlet : )
Dec 14th, 2022 - 05:15 am - Link - Report abuse -2Colonialism: people decide for themselves what country they're in
Dec 14th, 2022 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +3Not colonialism: colonial settler state claims colonial inheritance from colonial parent during the colonial age means it can impose its rule on some islands hundred of miles away, and the people who live there don't count.
Welcome to the Malvinaverse
HansNiesund
Dec 14th, 2022 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Well put, spot on.
@Argentine citizen
Dec 14th, 2022 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Please provide details of those expelled in January 1833. What ship did they leave on? When did they arrive on the Falklands? What happened to the people expelled?
1) Now discount those whose arrived in November 1832 and had committed a murderous mutiny and were tried and in some cases hanged for mutiny by Argentine authorities in Buenos Aires.
2) Now discount the Pinedo and his crew who arrived in Nov 1832 and were neither an “Argentine population nor Argentine authorities”
3) Now discount those people who wanted to leave the harsh conditions of the islands who in were not “evicted”.
Oh, there is nobody left.
There was no eviction of Argentine authorities not population.
Unless you want to give me their name, arrival date on the islands and documents which contradict Pinedos own account of events
@MonkeyMagic
Dec 15th, 2022 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse -4Pascoe and Pepper are at great pains to demonstrate that Onslow did not expel the civilians living in the Argentine settlement, but that only the garrison was evicted, which cannot be considered the “genuine population”. They also claim that only eleven civilians left the island, most of which were not “genuine residents”. According to the British authors, only those present since the time Vernet had established a human presence in the islands, not those who had arrived in 1832, were “genuine residents”. The authors conclude that only four “genuine residents” left the islands as a result of Onslow´s actions.
The aim of the British pamphlet is quite clear: attempting to prove that the Argentine population was not evicted, thereby circumventing the argument which denies the application of the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination to the present British inhabitants of the islands. It would be hard to justify the application of this principle to a situation in which the colonial power replaced a population with its own and then claimed that the latter should decide the fate of the territory, same as russian invadin Ukranie today 2022 and making referendums.
There is an evident manipulation of data, particularly through the arbitrary differentiation between “genuine” residents and others who are not part of that category. Why should the residents settled there by virtue of the Argentina´s actions be distinguished on this basis? The presence of the newcomers, many of them with their families, was a logical continuation of Argentina´s existing presence, and their arrival aimed at re-establishing a normality violently shattered by the actions of the American frigate “Lexington”.
There is also 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.
Continue thread.......
@MonkeyMagic
Dec 15th, 2022 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 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; Sargeant 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 Rodríguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; 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.
Continue thread..
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; Sargeant 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 Rodríguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; Tránsita González and daughter.
Dec 15th, 2022 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse -4The 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. The Argentine settlement would have continued to develop, a task Luis Vernet was devoted to in Buenos Aires. It is of little use to claim that Captain Onslow tried to persuade the inhabitants to stay: to place a population taken to the islands by the actions of Argentina under the authority of a British subject acting to maintain British control over the islands is a typically colonial action (same as they doit later with chagos).
Dec 15th, 2022 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The key point here is that: 1) there was a permanent human settlement in the islands, which had no military objectives but only the aim of the economic development of the territory promoted by the Argentine government; 2) in 1831 the Lexington´s brutal actions disbanded the population; 3) in 1832, Argentina was making the necessary efforts to re- establish the situation and 4) in 1833 the British dispossession put an end to the first true human development of the Falklands/Malvinas.
A year book?
Dec 15th, 2022 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse +1Perfect.
1833 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed
1834 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed
1835 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed
1836 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed
1837 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed .......
........ 1982 - attempt to steal the British Falkland Islands = failed
.....
Going to be a best seller.
@roger lorton, is the key roger, to persist indefinitely with the claim for what they did two hundred years ago and patiently wait for the slightest slip of carelessness or weakness to recover our territory. Keep Pandora's box open, and in the meantime grow its citizens under the shadow of a nation that maintains an open territorial claim. They already neglected once, and it will happen again.. Either we will wait for future windows of opportunity like the ones that the United Kingdom went through in the 2WW or future opportunities like Brexit or an independence of Scotland and Northern Ireland dividing the states that make up the kingdom. Anyway, we have unlimited time and opportunities... and most importantly, millions of willing people
Dec 15th, 2022 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Argie cit, reclaim our territory,? it was never your territory, that is why you sent soldiers there to take it by force, when the United Provinces new full well that Britain already had that claim but they didnt think that the UK would enforce that claim, and now you are resorting to threats again waiting for a so called opportunity, shame on you, Britain will not ever neglect the islanders again, they will in time become an independent nation and their is sod all now or in the future Buenos Aires can do about it, i thought from your previous posts that you had some fairly descent views, i was wrong, also You know very well there was an international buisness venture on the islands led by a German and a Brit, no UP settlement as you claim. Brexit has no impact, Scottish indy will have no impact, stop living in la la land,the only way Argentina would ever get even part ownership of the islands is if the islanders agree to it, and the way your government and now yourself behave has made that even more of a pipe dream,
Dec 15th, 2022 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Judge Jose
Dec 15th, 2022 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -4the soldiers were sent to Retake a territory occupied by an invading force that has occupied it since 1833.
Firstly, the claim made by the United Kingdom in 1829 was late and did not correspond.
The United Kingdom abandoned the islands in 1774 through an exit agreement with Spain ( MASSERANO ROCHTFORD AGREEMENT) . They never had a civil development position on the islands and by 1820 when the United Provinces took possession of the islands they were Terra Nullis for international law. They had passed 60 years since the abandonment of the illegal settlement of port egdmont..
The United Kingdom did not have any valid position... not was it in possession of the islands...
We will never forget the atrocity they did to our civilian people, and we will be waiting and waiting.. Good Luck, may the last one standing win
@Judge Jose abaut “Britain will not ever neglect the islanders again”
Dec 15th, 2022 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That can depend on yourselves, that is, the citizens and political power of the kingdom... or not depend on you, for example new priority external threats such as China and Russia.
Our job will always be to sit and watch from our comfortable geographical position slowly exerting passive defensive military pressure.
to keep the defense budget of the islands high, and if possible make it skyrocket
Always peacefully of course and on a wait and see game.
That is the biggest load of Tosh you have ever posted AC, One last time, Britain NEVER gave up their claim, the islands were claimed long before Spain, long before France and a long long long way before the UP ever existed,how many times do you have to be told before it sinks in, is every argentine island populated ?. no so if Chile invaded one of them and claimed it because no argentine lived there that would be legal,/ and for the last time NO Argentine civillians were expelled, just your murdering raping soldiers and their families, and you can wait a 1000 years and the Falklands will still belong to the islanders, you and i will be long gone from this world, oh and by the way have you seen Britains next generation fighter planes, warships and missiles etc, enough conventional war equipment to wipe your corrupt fascist country off the face of the earth, just let that sink, not wasting any more time on your crazy posts, You have gone from being a reasonable poster to a right wing rabid nationalist, get a life and move on,
Dec 15th, 2022 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What about the usurpation of territories by Argentina from Chile and Uruguay, should those be part of negotiations to be handed back? :) Also the theft of land from indigenous people in Argentina by colonists from Spain , that needs to be given back.
Dec 15th, 2022 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentine Citizen
Dec 15th, 2022 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1So, 53 Set sail (left the islands). For the sae of argument lets say we agree.
Again you lie about who was “living on the islands” as a good chunk of the 53 were living on the SS Sarandi under Pinedo as his crew, never had any intention of living on the islands, , and more than half had arrived on the SS Sarandi only 3 months earlier and had as you identified, mutinied and murdered Mestevier.
Of the 20 or so you civilians who left on the Sarandi, how many asked to leave, and wanted to leave, not because of the “British usurpation” but because the Vernet business had failed, this included British citizens such as Matthew Brisbane.
So, I repeat, no Argentine authorities were evicted, nor an Argentine civilian population.
Just a rag-tag crew of mutineers who had arrived 3 months earlier, and 20 or so folk who wanted to leave.
You know this is not an eviction of Argentine civilians, less still a “population”yet you continue to lie.
Why is that?
@King Penguin, and here we go, “we are thieves and pirates, we evicted an innocent civilian population, but oh there were native indians at argentina ”
Dec 16th, 2022 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0@monkeymagic , all you are proposing is a string of meaningless irrelevancies.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse -1Between 1820 and 1830 the town of port louis reached its peak of 250 inhabitants and the citizens expelled in 1833 were only part of the rout that led to the attack by the american frigate lexington.
The HMS Beagle had been navigating the area as a spy ship a short time before and seeing that the town was defenseless gave notice for the attack of 1833.....
The United Kingdom abandoned the islands in 1774, more than 50 years had passed, both islands were terra nullis. In addition, they had never had a presence on the eastern island where Port Louis was, nor was it in their previous prescribed claims.
The destruction and partial depopulation caused by the “Lexington” at Puerto Soledad did not turn the islands into a terra nullius. In his reply to the question asked by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons “Does the disbandment by force of the Argentine settlement by Captain Duncan of USS Lexington in December establish terra nullius status?” the Foreign and Commonwealth Office answered that “In and of itself, this action would not have been sufficient to establish terra nullius status”
Argie Zit - if you actually believe your nonsense, take it to the ICJ.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0The United Kingdom refuses to treat the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in the ICJ, they only agree to take the Antarctic dependencies to court.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case, most of the Argentine citizens and our politicians have no interest in going to the ICJ, even Argentina winning the ICJ should recognize other fundamental rights to the current population and negotiate interests of the United Kingdom.
Situation to which at least 80% of citizens refuse.
They mostly want full sovereignty, and go and blow themselves up for full control.
that's why they added it to the constitution
@Roger Lorton no sense? more historical facts that pascope&pepper ommit.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1letter on july 16, 1829 sent by Robert Peel to Lord Aberdeen, the future Prime Minister of Great Britain.
You cannot help knowing that many years ago England established a colony in the Falkland Islands; but this establishment annoyed Spain, and England consequently abandoned that place.
You cannot be unaware that in a short period of time various republics were formed in what were once Spanish territories, bordering the Pacific, etc., with whose states this country maintains considerable trade. Therefore what interest has Spain in objecting to it, or what power have the young republics to oppose or what rights have the United States of North America to complain (they have established a similar base in Lampedoca almost within range of Malta's cannons) if England again erects a new depot or maritime settlement at the entrance to or near the South Sea.
Now I will suggest that in the fullness of power and peace, the government, as soon as it was convenient, take possession of some port with the modest title of deposit of the Southern Whale fishery and whose entrance -if possible- was defended against the intrusion of a moderately strong force and which could gradually become a small Gibraltar of the South: either in the Malvinas, or in the southern part of the Continent or in Tierra del Fuego itself. A port in this situation could perhaps be garrisoned in part, by a detachment from some punished regiment; and, in the summer season in time of war, to be the meeting place of a few warships capable of preventing the access or departure of merchant and privateering ships of the United States of North America or others in the South seas, It would really be like keeping the South Sea and even the circumnavigation of the world under lock and key, and the day would not be distant when these republics would fear it.
I am, sir, your obedient servant
beckington
Arge Zit .... what can I say... oh yes, TAKE IT TO THE ICJ
Dec 16th, 2022 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse +1How can you lose, with this ....... non sense.
@Argentine citizen
Dec 16th, 2022 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse +3“by 1820 when the United Provinces took possession of the islands”
Is this once again the idea that a report on page 8 of a foreign newspaper claiming a sailor claimed a pirate claimed to have claimed the islands on behalf of the United Provinces can somehow confer sovereignity 2 centuries later?
What's bizarre here is not just that the argument is comically, absurdly flimsy, it's utterly, totally irrelevant. There is absolutely nothing that took place in the 1820s that can overturn the principles of effective occupation, extinctive prescription and self-determination in the 21st century.
Argentine governments understand this perfectly well, which is why they've never dared go to court. The “dispute” serves another purpose entirely.
Argentine citizen
Dec 16th, 2022 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The United Provinces did not take possession of the islands in 1820. They had no more claim in absentia than Britain or Spain or anyone else.
So, the Vernet settlement failed, nothing to do with HMS Clio or the British in 1833. The Lexington issue is nothing to do with Britain. It is also far from clear that Vernets failed business constitutes an Argentine community and it is very clear Britain did not evict it.
Which leads us to the point. Britain did not evict the Vernet business, all but the remnants had already left. This we agree there were about 70 people on the islands in January 1833.
Half of those arrived on the Sarandi in Nov 1832 with the express view of “claiming the islands for Argentina”, an extraordinary act given you claim Argentina already claimed them in 1820.
The remainder who left CHOSE to leave.
The point remains, Vernet community failed due to Lexington not Britain, Sarandi was evicted after 3 months....an handful of people chose to leave.
Britain did not expel an Argentine community nor Argentine authorities.
STOP LYING
Argy Planter
Dec 16th, 2022 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is an argument of two parts, first who owns the Islands historically and second do the Islanders have the right to self-determination in today.
Firstly, the British claimed the Islands in 1690 before the Spanish or French even knew they existed and long before Argentina existed in any form and have never relinquished the claim, as Argentina did in 1850.
Secondly, the Islander’s rights to self-determination, as are the rights of all the non-self-governing peoples, are enshrined in the UN Charter and the de-colonisation declaration UNGA resolution 1514.
https://www.sfu.ca/~palys/UN-Resolution%201514.pdf
As referred to in UNGA resolution 2065:
‘Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1. Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee ... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);..’
You don’t have a valid argument on either point.
I like to try and start on where there is historic fact and where all can agree.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +11) The islands were empty in 1820, and there were three “claims” Britain, Spain and United provinces, all relatively vague and with no “population” on the islands to defend the claim.
2) At various times between 1820 and 1832 the United Provinces/Argentina tried to claim the islands.
3) The only working “population” achieved on the islands was the business of Luis Vernet from 1828
The Vernet business is what is mis portrayed by Argentina Citizen, and the Argentine government.
Vernet was aware of the conflicting claims, and when first going to the islands requested permission of both Brian and the United Provinces.
The business failed due to the Lexington raid and the majority of inhabitants including Vernet left the islands, leaving the British Matthew Brisbane in charge of the remaining 40 or so.
In November 1832, Argentina sent the SS Sarandi to “claim the islands” .
Britain evicted the mutinous crew in January 1833 and some of the 40 or so (including Brisbane) chose to leave. Proof there was no eviction was that Brisbane returned a few months later, only to be murdered by Riviero.
So, no eviction of an Argentine population by Britain ever took place.
@monkeymagic
Dec 16th, 2022 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -11) the islands were not empty between 1790 to 1820.. there were spanish living there at port louis.
2)there were terra nullis when argentina took posesion in 1820.. with over 50 years of british silence
3) all population settlements are or were related to economic activities. vernet had a concession, and there were citizens who had freely chosen to live there, mostly from the a plata river.
A no less important detail is that after 1833 the citizens who fled after the Lexington attack were not allowed to return to the islands. Around 250 people were exiled without allowing them to return to their homes.
4) There is no historical basis to show that the United Kingdom was in possession of the islands in 1833 when they expelled the inhabitants who lived there.
And it doesn't take much intelligence to know that 70% of the population leaving the islands was a consequence of the English occupation.
Same pattern as in Chagos, Jamaica and other territories colonized by the United Kingdom
@Pugol-H “Secondly, the Islander’s rights to self-determination, as are the rights of all the non-self-governing peoples, are enshrined in the UN Charter and the de-colonisation declaration UNGA resolution 1514.”
Dec 16th, 2022 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islanders are not included on the definition of people, they are a population with other fundamental righs .
According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination”.
In other words, according to the distinguished British jurist, the Anglo-Argentine territorial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory. This clearly means that the alleged “self-determination” of the British inhabitants cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.
The British argument of self-determination in the case of the Falklands/Malvinas is also seriously undermined by the United Kingdom’s indisputably inconsistent policy. There was no “self-determination” when they expelled two thousand native inhabitants from the Chagos archipelago. In 1966, the British government leased Diego García Island in the Chagos archipelago to the United States, for it to build a military base on the island.
In 1967, the British government bought most of the plantations on the island, closing them down soon after and depriving the population of basic means of survival such as food and medicine, forcing them to leave the island. EVIL
1. The Spanish left Puerto Soledad in 1811. British sealers could be found around the western islands continuously from 1774 to 1853. Vessels were transhipping oil at port Egmont for up to two years at a time. Spain did not interfere.
Dec 16th, 2022 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +12. The islands were not res nullius in 1820. Spain's claim to Soledad Island was still extant, as was Britain's claim to the western islands. 50 years of British silence is an Argie myth. Britain had very publicly denied France an opportunity to return to their Malouines in 1802.
3. Vernet was granted a concession by a country that had no right to grant it. As Britain made clear in their protest of 1829. Argentina's own Senate questioned the Confederations rights in 1882. The only people who 'fled' USS Lexington, remained, as they had 'fled' into Camp. Lexington removed the majority of people resident at Port Louis and no not 250. The population at Port Louis never exceeded 128 at any one time. Some of those that left with Lexington did return with the Sarandi.
4. Britain's title to the western Islands was still in force in 1833. Spain's title to Soledad Island was still good in 1833. The people that had no title at all were those from Buenos Aires.
You can play with the figures all you like. Be it 10% or 70%, trespassers have no rights. Bs As should have listened to the warnings of 1829 & 1832. Too damned arrogant even then.
BUT PLEASE ..... take it to the ICJ
“There is no historical basis to show that the United Kingdom was in possession of the islands in 1833 when they expelled the inhabitants who lived there.”
Dec 16th, 2022 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0]'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
“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).
“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
@TH
Dec 17th, 2022 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Great Britain in 1833 took place under an inprocedent and not legal claim (legal for uk of course).
2)“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).
worong interpretation of authors like wheaton, vetter, korman and visscher..
The ceassed of excercise cant be consequence of act of force.
Its irrelevant if russia conquest ukranian land, evict theyr population celebrate referendums at donesk, crimea, lughansk.. and the 200 years pass....
3)“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
UN 2065 resolution, acknowledged the existence of a sovereignty dispute between the United Kingdom and Argentina over the Malvinas Islands. Likewise, it recognized that the Malvinas case falls within a colonial situation, which must be resolved taking into account what is expressed in resolution 1514 (XV). On other words, UN not recognize like valid the arguments pscope&pepper and call both parts to solve the dispute.
But of course im agree abaut there is not obligations in international law to solve disputes.. while a dispute keep open, British soldiers can defend the position and kill argentines, and argentines can go there at any moment to re took posesion and kill british soldiers... all is fair in war
“(To) say that force cannot give a good legal title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods in history.” [ Conquest: A Legal and Historical Analysis of the Root of United Kingdom Title in the Falkland Islands 1983]
Dec 17th, 2022 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In the nineteenth century, it was inevitable that international law should allow states to acquire territory by conquest, because at that time customary international law imposed no limit on the right of states to go to war.” [Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law Prof. Peter Malanczuk 1997]
RIP 2065
Stabbed in the back by your best friend and buried at the UN in 1985.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/2065.pdf
@RogerLorton , if the uk as u say, they were on posession of the soverany on 1833 there were nathing to conquest, the argument of conquest self destruct british posision.. the islands were of the uk on your argumentative line.. or were of argentina and british make a conquest of an inocent population..
Dec 17th, 2022 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As the jurist 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.”
Abaut the inaplicance of conquest to the malvinas issue..
Dec 17th, 2022 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://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
Argie Zit - it is Argentina that alleges force.
Dec 17th, 2022 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think you have an argument? Take it to the ICJ.
In the meantime, read and learn.
Updated December 2022 - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/1830-to-1833.pdf
@RogerLorton, by uk lawyers and sharon korman ... they used force, and was unlawful.. thats by your lawyers and jutists opinion..
Dec 17th, 2022 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0By your foreggin office representatives was an an atrocius act of force.. using they words.., UN2065 say the same.
Argentine citizen
Dec 17th, 2022 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You will need to do much better than that. Please provide evidence that the 250 people (apparently) who fled the islands were not allowed to return.
Firstly you need to discount anyone who arrived on the Sarandi in November 1832, civilians only not the mutinous militia.
Secondly, you need to discount Vernet himself, who never wanted to return, and thirdly you need to discount Brisbane (who was the leader of the Vernet community in 1833) and absolutely returned in 1834.
You myth moves and changes with each post.
Now we have established Captain Onslow did not evict a single civilian, nor anyone who was on the islands before Nov 1832. (Your first lie)
At least one (Matthew Brisbane) of the civilians who eft on the Sarandi came back and was free to return (your second lie)
There is zero evidence that the 250 or so civilians that you claim were part of the Vernet business, ever wanted to return or ever requested to (your third lie)
Please stop lying, you shouldn't need to if your case is so strong.
HINT: It isn't.
The fact is the Vernet business was highly dubious to be considered an “Argentine community”, the majority had left by 1832, and Matthew Brisbane (British was left in charge). Argent in a knew this and sent Mestevier to claim the islands, he was murdered by his own crew and Pinedo was sent home after 3 months.
The Argentine claim is a tissue of lies, what is worse is that you know it.
“the argument of conquest self destruct british posision...”
Dec 17th, 2022 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It emphatically does not.
”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
@monkeymagic.
Dec 17th, 2022 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At this moment come to my mind 2 cases , matilda vernet (born on february 1830), and the son of gregorio sanchez and victoria enriquez.. just for mention an example.
Matilde always claimed before world journalism, her birth in the archipelago the eviction by british forces and the banishment to come back her birth home.
Her husband also supported her in her defense of Argentine rights on the islands. Cilley, before the United States consulate in Buenos Aires, formalized in his own handwriting his personal reparation for the Lexington incident.
Matilda is another proof of the claim to Argentine sovereignty, because ”if the British invasion and the expulsion of the Argentine inhabitants of the islands had not occurred , the hundreds of descendants would have continued their lives as residents of the community that grew there.
For these reasons (population and Ius sanguinis), Argentina can add this other right to all the other geohistorical ones that accredit its total sovereign empire over the usurped archipelago, since it is about population and property rights. of the first Malvinense settlers. Therefore, the British, who have expressed their support for the Kelpers' right to self-determination, can also consult the opinion and rights of the first Malvinenses (Argentines) and their actualy descendants.
Of course all of these is secondary, like many jurists say included rosaly higgens, there shuld be analized first the soverany issue and analyse evry single evidence for determinate whom the right of self determination apply
@Monkeymagic we were making a well done working since 2019 recopilating more info of the 14 more civilians evicted: 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 Rodríguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; Tránsita González and daughter.
Dec 17th, 2022 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -2We raised many info like birth and defuntion certificate till theyr actual descendents whom strongly autodeterminate argentine descendenants of theyr evicted family
Argie Zit -
Dec 17th, 2022 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The gauchos, Joaquin Acuña (Brazilian) and his wife Juana, Mateo González (Uruguay) and his wife Marica left of their own accord with Pinedo. As did José Viel, Juan Quedy, and Francisco Ferreyra, all of whom were foreign seamen. The women and children were the 'wives' (cough) of garrison members. They were all very happy to leave.
Warnes had been the prisoner taken as a labourer by Sarandi in 1832. He went against his will, so he left rather happier than he had been taken.
Go learn some real history
Argentine citizen
Dec 17th, 2022 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your own arguments are failing you. Now we have gone down from“250” to just 14.
And those 14, the majority had only arrived on the islands 3 months earlier, and the remainder who themselves had only been there a couple of years chose to leave and were never forbidden to return.
So there are the facts, nobody who hadn't arrived on the Sarandi arriving in November 1832 was forced to leave by the British, (and nobody was forbidden to return).
The eviction was of an Argentine militia who arrived 3 months earlier, murdered and raped, and were warned they would be evicted before they set sail.
No Argentine authorities, no civilian evictions
We got there in the end!
@Monkeymagic the british occupation banished a gross number of those 250 people disbanded for the attack of the uss lexingtonm to return the islands...
Dec 18th, 2022 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2People like Matilda Vernet, born in Port Louis in 1832, were never able to return to their place of origin... and neither were the gauchos who lived there and their children.
there are many letters of protest from these citizens exiled by the forceful occupation of the united kingdom..
The poor attempt by pascope&pepper, lorton, and united kingdom to try to break up or separate the inhabitants of 1833 according to their origin has no place or precedents, they were all living there under Argentine sovereignty without distinction.
Like many of the current islanders who have a multicultural origin and according to them they perceive themselves as originating from the Malvinas, when in reality they are an implanted or migratory population, how many of them are 6th generation? I would dare to count them on the fingers of one hand.
It is legally irrelevant whether they expelled only 1 inhabitant or 250....
There are currently hundreds of descendants (ius sanguini) of the people who were exiled who have the right to self-determination violated.
According to Rosalyn Higgins, former British judge and former President of the International Court of Justice: “Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the inhabitants have the right of self-determination”.
In other words, according to the distinguished British jurist, the Anglo-Argentine territ
orial dispute must first be solved, in order to know whether the British inhabitants can decide what they want for their territory. This clearly means that the alleged “self-determination” of the British inhabitant cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.
Here's this other bizarre idea that the Falkland islanders are somehow ”implanted' in a way that the Spanish-speaking colonial settler population of Argentina isn't. And with it the profoundly colonialist corollary that islanders thereby aren't entitled to the same rights that the Argentine settlers claim for themselves.
Dec 18th, 2022 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse +2It's logic, Jim, but not as we know it.
Oh dear Argentine citizen
Dec 18th, 2022 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse +2We agree it doesnt matter if it was 1 inhabitant or 250, thats good it was zero inhabitants.
Vernet left the islands of his own free will, and chose never to return with his family, he was not barred from returning, indeed Matthew Brisbane, his British deputy chose to leave the islands on the Sarandi and chose to return a year later. You argument has failed.
You now claim that it was in fact the lexington rais that destroyed Vernets business (it was) and the Lexington raid that encouraged them to leave. It was.
Vernets business was not an “argentine community”, and by 1833 it was being tun by Brisbane a British citizen,
The Falkland islanders are no more an implanted population than Argentina is.
“According to Rosalyn Higgins … This clearly means that the alleged “self-determination” of the British inhabitant cannot be imposed to Argentina, nor can it constitute an excuse to leave the dispute over sovereignty unresolved.”
Dec 18th, 2022 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The jurist Rosalyn Higgins President of ICJ arrived at a similar conclusion when she pointed out:
“No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it but what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentina’s acquiescence.” 1
1. Rosalyn Higgins, “Falklands and the Law,” Observer, 2 May 1982.
@Terrence Hill
Dec 18th, 2022 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2According to the British authors, the Argentine Republic did not make any type of claim or carry out any act in relation to the Falkland/Malvinas Islands between 1850 and 1884. They consider this to be the result of the 1849 Convention, and come to the conclusion that it implies acquiescence by Argentina or could even amount to an acquisitive prescription in favour of the United Kingdom. Neither the facts nor the law allow either conclusion.
The Southern-Arana Treaty of 1849 did not imply Argentina’s renunciation to sovereignty, and that over the complicated years of its history from 1850 to 1884, Argentina never gave up its sovereignty, nor behaved in such a way as to renounce its claims or recognise British sovereignty. On the contrary, we have pointed to some facts which confirm its traditional position.
The British pamphlet claims to make use of general statements of presidents and one vice- president in relation to the friendly relations of Argentina with the world in general or with the British government in particular, when we have seen that Argentina has made a permanent effort to maintain friendly relations with Great Britain, even when faced with serious incidents such as the occupation of the Falklands/Malvinas or the naval blockade of the Rio de la Plata. In spite of these facts, Argentina never withdrew its representative in London, nor did it ask the British Government to do likewise with its representative in Buenos Aires. The desire to maintain the best possible relations with what was at the time the greatest economic and naval power in the world, within the framework of Argentina’s economic dependence on Great Britain, cannot be used to undermine the Argentine position; especially when the British attitude was that of a refusal to enter into discussions over the islands.
It is important to understand what acquiescence is from the legal point of view. If any of the parties acquiesced in this dispute, that party was Great Britain, first in relation to Spain and then in relation to Argentina. The International Court of Justice defines the situation as follows:
Dec 18th, 2022 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Under certain circumstances, sovereignty over territory might pass as a result of the failure of the State which has sovereignty to respond to conduct à titre de souverain of the other State or, as Judge Huber put it in the Island of Palmas case, to concrete manifestations of the display of territorial sovereignty by the other State (Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands/United States of America), Award of 4 April 1928, RIAA, Vol. II, (1949) p. 839). Such manifestations of the display of sovereignty may call for a response if they are not to be opposable to the State in question. The absence of reaction may well amount to acquiescence. The concept of acquiescence “is equivalent to tacit recognition manifested by unilateral conduct which the other party may interpret as consent . . .” (Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 305, para. 130). That is to say, silence may also speak, but only if the conduct of the other State calls for a response.”
Argentina’s attitude cannot be assimilated to a lack of reaction which could be interpreted as consent to British sovereignty for a variety of reasons. In the first place, Argentina immediately protested against its dispossession, and maintained its position thereafter. Secondly, it was the British Government itself who considered the issue closed and did not wish to have any further communication in this respect. Thirdly, Argentina clearly expressed that in spite of the attitude of the British government, it maintained its position and that its silence could not be considered acquiescence.
The United Kingdom considers, and has made Argentina aware of its position, that its complete silence for 55 years over Spanish and Argentine acts of public power in the Falklands/Malvinas did not imply the loss of its purported sovereignty from the abandonment in 1774 until its first protest in 1829. It can hardly claim then that a period of 34 years can be considered acquiescence, particularly when preceded by a clear rejection of any possibility of acquiescence, and containing other expressions of the persistence of Argentina’s claim. This is a textbook case of the technical concept of estoppel. The United Kingdom led Argentina to believe that 55 years of complete and total inactivity cannot be considered abandonment. Argentina trusted this British interpretation to its detriment, and the British Government is therefore precluded from invoking acquiescence. A minimum of good faith justifies the rule of estoppel.
Dec 18th, 2022 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Jurisprudence defines the conditions for the existence of acquiescence. These include a “clear and constant” conduct from which arises an “unequivocal acceptance” of the position of the other party56. The statement of the British pamphlet in no way allows such a clear, permanent and unequivocal conduct to be inferred from the purported Argentine acquiescence. On the contrary, Britain’s lack of reaction when faced with uninterrupted Spanish presence on the territory in question, Spanish destruction of the British constructions in Port Egmont and the withdrawal of its sovereign insignia, the fact of having found the insignia in Buenos Aires during the British invasions of 1806 and 1807, the awareness of Argentina’s taking of possession and acts of sovereignty between 1823 and 1828, are all evidence of acquiescence, because there was an obligation to react if Britain considered itself sovereign over the islands.
55 years, Argie Zit?
Dec 19th, 2022 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse +1Still forgetting 1801/02?
“... Napoleon ... dared to claim the Falklands in preliminary negotiations of the Peace of Amiens, ...”
[ La Primera Unión del Sur, Orígenes de la Frontera Austral Argentino-Chilena Patagonia, Islas Malvinas y Antártida. Diego Molinari 1961]
“It seems that the articles proposed by Mr. Otto and rejected by Lord Hawkesbury had intended to state: 1. the exchange of islands of Saint Pierre and Miquelon against part of the island of Newfoundland; 2. the cession of a fishing establishment in the Falkland Islands; 3. Fishermen neutrality in wartime.” [Histoire abrégée des Traités de Paix, entre les puissances de l’Europe, depuis la paix de Westphalie Christophe Koch 1817 p.132]
“As to what related to 1. The exchange of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon for a part of the island of Newfoundland, 2. The cession of an establishment for the fishery in the Malouines Isles, 3. The neutrality of fishers in time of war, Lord Cornwallis said, that these articles having been presented and rejected before the signing of the preliminaries, could not be reproduced with greater success.” [ Official Papers Relative to the Preliminaries of London and the Treaty of Amiens... 1803 Part II p.8.]
A very public act of sovereignty which did not generate any comment from Spain; not even when the documents were published by France in 1803
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1775-to-1815.pdf
“Neither the facts nor the law allow either conclusion.”
Dec 19th, 2022 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse +1Aren’t you the proven liar.
There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day, and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty, to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Supported by the following international legal scholars:
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, LL.D, JAMES MADISON CUTT, T. J. LAWRENCE, M.A., LL.D,
GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D., LL. D, L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D, Hans Kelsen
Additionally supported by Argentine subsequent acquiescence.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
“The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
@TH
Dec 19th, 2022 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse -2Again with the miss interpretations of authors like vettel, wheaton, sharon korman..
Argentine Citizen
Dec 19th, 2022 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You have now had plenty of time to explain which Argentine Authorities and Argentine population was evicted in January 1833.
You have wholly failed to do so.
1) We agree that the crew of the SS Sarandi that arrived in November 1832, their wives and the militia they brought with them to claim the islands for Argentina were removed. Britain warned you that they would be, before they set sail.
2) You claim members of the Vernet business were forced to leave. There is zero evidence that this is true, indeed all the evidence points to them being encouraged to stay, most did.
3) You claim the Vernet business was an “Argentine community”, again the evidence suggests otherwise, Matthew Brisbane (British) was in charge, and Vernet had requested both Argentine and British permission to be on the islands fully aware of the sovereignty dispute.
4) You claim Vernet and others associated with his business were barred from returning, yet again the evidence points to the contrary, Brisbane did return just two months later, Vernet chose never to return despite being encouraged by the British to do so.
5) You deliberately confuse the Lexington raid with the British actions in 1833, and its impact on the Vernet business.
So, sadly the business only arrived in 1828, it had mostly failed by 1831, none of the people associated with it were evicted nor their return barred, those evicted had only been on the islands 3 months.
Sorry your argument failed. Shall we now talk about the inheritance from Spain myth, or the geographical proximity myth, you may have better luck with those.
@MonkeyMagic, We do not agree with the interpretation that you make of the historical facts and we have another version of which we are sure, like you do with yours. For this reason we currently have an open territorial dispute.
Dec 19th, 2022 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1It is that we propose to solve and close the territorial dispute through peaceful negotiations according to how civilized countries arrange things. One option would be for both parties to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ.
Or we can also continue with the open territorial dispute as before.
“Close the territorial dispute through peaceful negotiations. One option would be for both parties to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ.”
Dec 19th, 2022 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Principles of Public International Law, third edition, 1979 by Ian Brownlie
“ Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, S G, SS or BAT, some of my have suggested that we refer the matter to the ICJ. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
“There is no obligation in general international law to settle disputes”.
Dec 19th, 2022 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -2yeha of course, thats why i say there is no obligation for Argentina, all latin american countrys and 80% of the worldc to recognize any type of English sovereignty over the islands. Argentina can and will retake them as soon as it considers it and had oportunitis
AC, you put on a good comedy act, take it up for a living,
Dec 19th, 2022 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +180% support Argentina .............false
All Latin America supports Argentina...........garbage.
Argentina will retake the islands at the first opportunity,.......... not ever,
you have made an utter and complete fool of yourself, and shown yourself to be nothing but a rabid Nationalist and no different to the clowns you have in government,
you will never get the Falklands unless the people of the island choose that option, your politicians know that but use it for other purposes, so grow up and live in the real world,
@JudgeJose, UK is only supported by Commonwealth, france, turkey.
Dec 19th, 2022 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Argentina claim is supported by more than 134 countrys.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:International_position_on_the_Malvinas-Falklands_dispute_to_2014.png
Anyone can Key info on to the website, its meaningless, just like when Buenos Aires tried to stop the Falklands table tennis team from competing, no one other than Argies give a stuff about your claim.
Dec 19th, 2022 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The last vote in the UN General Assembly put forward by Argentina was to limit the rights to self determination where a sovereignty dispute exists. Argentina lost heavily, which is odd if 80% of the world supports them.
Dec 19th, 2022 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Argentina claim is supported by more than”
Dec 19th, 2022 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Unfortunately, even if what you claim were true, vox populi still would have no effect as to the established right of the UK under international law.
What is legally binding is the views of nations of 1833 then, not one nation supported Argentina's claim, their “silence” is indicative of support for the UK. Any change of opinion post 1945 is merely a none-binding political vox populi decision.
“Customary international law; Silence as consent;
Generally, sovereign nations must consent in order to be bound by a particular treaty or legal norm. However, international customary laws are norms that have become pervasive enough internationally that countries need not consent in order to be bound. In these cases, all that is needed is that the state has not objected to the law....”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_intern...
All that supposed support, Argie Zit, but not a single member of the UN has called for a General Assembly debate on the subject of the Falklands since 1989.
Dec 20th, 2022 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse +1Not even Argentina
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/1982-to-1999.pdf
Because nathing new happen till 1989.. its not necesary make new assemblys abaut the issue
Dec 20th, 2022 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse -1Something very new happened in 1989, Argie Zit.
Dec 20th, 2022 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1Don't you know?
Well in 2008 Argentina tried to get a sneaky rewording to a GA declaration by adding the words “where no sovereignty dispute exists” to the applicability of the right to self determination of NSGTs. This is the most recent vote in the GA where a measure can be taken of true support:
Dec 20th, 2022 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In favour: Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Belize, Botswana, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saint Lucia, Samoa, San Marino, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, United States, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
Against: Argentina, Belarus, Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nicaragua, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Russian Federation, Senegal, Spain, Suriname, Syria, Tunisia, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam.
So the UK wins 61 to 40 (maybe in Argentine schools 40 is 80% of 101 votes??).
But then look who is voting with Argentina, Half the votes are Latam plus old favourites like Iran, Russia, North Korea, Belarus...lovely
I'll stick with our list.
and who support your list? all your nato friends?.
Dec 20th, 2022 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -1the list of argentina countrys its the 70% of world population if u didint realize.
So why is there no call for a UN GA debate?
Dec 20th, 2022 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Surely, with all that support, you could get a new UN GA resolution? Something that has not happened since 1989.
Argentina's support is purely political - as substantial as mist
There has already been a debate, and there is nothing new to discuss, the UN has already issued resolutions recognizing the existence of a territorial dispute and calling on the parties to solve it.
Dec 20th, 2022 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0there is no need to issue new resolutions, the previous ones already make the situation clear.
It only carries out an annual review by the C24 decolonization committee and now... there is no need for new resolutions or nathing else
“The UN has already issued resolutions recognizing the existence of a territorial dispute and calling on the parties to solve it.”
Dec 21st, 2022 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“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.”
It has also furnished the following resolution.
”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
The Falkland Islands has repeatedly asked for the case to be brought before the International Court to have a final ruling , but Argentina has refused, because they know their legal case for a claim is weak. Venezuela has recently asked the ICJ to make a ruling on disputed territory, Argentina refuses to do the same.
Dec 21st, 2022 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0@TH here there was no conquest TH, there was no declaration of war in 1833.
Dec 21st, 2022 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK Legal team (who I believe theyr make several million dollars for their advice, and dare to say they know more than you) have advised against invoking conquest.
International Judge Sharon Korman on her book the “Right of conquest” is very clear abaut the reasons why the conquest does not apply to the Falkland Islands
@KP
That is not true, the United Kingdom only agrees to take the Antarctic dependencies to court, not including the Falkland Islands, which is mainly why Argentina refused in 1955.
I make available to the readers of this thread the page of Korman's book where she specifies about the Malvinas case and why conquest is not apply
Dec 21st, 2022 - 03:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://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
“There was no conquest , there was no declaration of war in 1833.”
Dec 21st, 2022 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hans 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.”
The act of military force was in 1832 by Argentina, attempting to seize the islands in full knowledge of the British sovereignty claim. The militia were evicted.
Dec 21st, 2022 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0This thread has destroyed the usurpation argument and shown Argentina has no support outside Latin America or other countries who wish to steal territories (China/Taiwan), India Kashmir, Russia....or failed states Iran and North Korea.
The last UN GA resolution was in 1989.
Dec 21st, 2022 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Its terms were met.
In 2012, the UN Secretary-General confirmed that the UK was not in breach of any UN resolutions.
That would be because there aren't any.
The matter is settled.
I’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
Dec 21st, 2022 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As 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. “
carolina case it was the intemporal law at that time,
Dec 21st, 2022 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the international judge (who is also of your nationality) + the entire UK legal team never invoked “conquest”, for the simple fact that there was no state of war which was the requirement at the time for acquisition by conquest .
In addition to the fact that it would be very beneficial for Argentina if the United Kingdom invoked it, automatically after refuting it, the Argentine claim would be clear that if there was an illegal conquest of an innocent civilian population which was evicted, it would be recognized by the United Kingdom itself.
The thesis of the UK legal team is that you already had possession and sovereign rights over the Malvinas since before the 19th century, therefore you cannot conquer something that is supposedly yours.
The supposed right of “conquest” is not mentioned by the United Kingdom or by its legal team. It is only argued by authors without a scientific reputation who have never set foot in a university (such as Lorton, Pascope&Pepper, etc). The reality is that this poor peasant story has no ears in international courts or academic forums.
A whole string of weak attempts to twist the interpretations of books of respectable lawyers like Korman, Vettel, Wheaton or Hans Kelsen.
the jurist Hans Kelsen, also mention the falklands issue in his book General theory of law, pages 330 to 355 and the inaplicance of british thesis.
carolina case it was the intemporal law at that time,
Dec 21st, 2022 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the international judge (who is also of your nationality) + the entire UK legal team never invoked “conquest”, for the simple fact that there was no state of war which was the requirement at the time for acquisition by conquest .
In addition to the fact that it would be very beneficial for Argentina if the United Kingdom invoked it, automatically after refuting it, the Argentine claim would be clear that if there was an illegal conquest of an innocent civilian population which was evicted, it would be recognized by the United Kingdom itself.
The thesis of the UK legal team is that you already had possession and sovereign rights over the Malvinas since before the 19th century, therefore you cannot conquer something that is supposedly yours.
The supposed right of “conquest” is not mentioned by the United Kingdom or by its legal team. It is only argued by authors without a scientific reputation who have never set foot in a university (such as Lorton, Pascope&Pepper, etc). The reality is that this poor peasant story has no ears in international courts or academic forums.
A whole string of weak attempts to twist the interpretations of books of respectable lawyers like Korman, Vettel, Wheaton or Hans Kelsen.
the jurist Hans Kelsen, also mention the falklands issue in his book General theory of law, pages 330 to 355 and the inaplicance of british thesis.
“There was no state of war which was the requirement at the time for acquisition by conquest”
Dec 22nd, 2022 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, aren’t you revealed as a consummate liar, as I have already proved two posts prior to your post.
https://en.mercopress.com/2022/12/13/argentina-to-release-a-malvinas-40th-anniversary-yearbook-on-january-3-when-britain-usurped-the-islands/comments#comment523996
“The supposed right of “conquest” is not mentioned by the United Kingdom”
They don’t have to as they are operating under the ‘colour of right’. It is Argentina that calls it conquest constantly. As Hans Kelsen says states, there does not have to be a declared war. As Robert Yewdall Jennings states intertemporal law correctly. You cannot apply The Caroline affair, as it from 1837 and cannot be applied to preceding events.
@TH evidently never read the book of sharon korman, or hans kelsen, they are very specific abaut the inaplicance of right of conquest at falklands issue.
Dec 22nd, 2022 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have shown that Korman’s interpretation is absolutely refuted by
Dec 22nd, 2022 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 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”
Thus, any such retroactive claim to apply an acceptance from an 1837 to event to an 1833 is null and void. That is the unrefuted view of a former ICJ president.
“Hans Kelsen, also mention the Falklands”
Then you would be able to show it, where it is?
https://ia904708.us.archive.org/16/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.275060/2015.275060.General-Theory_text.pdf
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!