MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
The Falkland Islands continue to support Ukraine
Today, one year ago, Russia made an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. To mark this sad anniversary the Falkland Islands Government and the community continue to express their support for Ukraine in their fight for peace against a hostile nation. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI'm frankly surprised that the argies don't call their 1982 invasion of the British territories an “operación militar especial.”
Feb 24th, 2023 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Throughout the Ukrainian Donbass region (Kherson-Donetsk-Lughansk-Crimea-Saporihia)
Feb 24th, 2023 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -4There are 1.5 million Russian-speaking Ukrainian inhabitants, who were being persecuted and violated by the Nazi selensky government.
This million and a half people held a referendum in the 90s, which was ignored by Ukraine and only guaranteed Russian as the official language.
Russia's aggression against the territorial integrity of Ukraine is an unjustifiable act of force.
But there a Referendum has been held where 98% of the population of Donbass perceives itself to be strongly Russian. . .
It seems that there is a double moral standard between the kelpers and the United Kingdom. On the one hand they say that they supposedly have the right of self-determination for some 3000 islanders of the population.
But the right of self-determination would not apply in its twisted logic to the 1.5 million Russian inhabitants in the Donbass or to the Chagossians of mauritius.
AC, were do you get your info from. the referendum was a farce. people were held at gun point and forced to vote, 100s of thousands of Ukrainians were driven from their land, Russia signed up to their borders and guaranteed them, in return Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, all this madness is down to one man and one man only. a paranoid ambitious egotistic cruel man who wants to recreate a Russian empire, please get some perspective, there was no trouble along the borders till Putin stirred it up,
Feb 24th, 2023 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +3by NATO opinion?
Feb 24th, 2023 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -6All those territories of Donbass have been Russian-speaking for thousands of years... since before the existence of Ukraine as a state and since before the time of the tsars.
In the 90s, when Ukraine separated from the Soviet Union, the population of those regions voted overwhelmingly against it.
In 2014, that is to say many years before this Russian invasion Donetsk Lughansk and Crimea had Democratic Referendums in which 92% of the population desperately asked to join Russia because Zelensky's Nazi Gestapos were massacring their citizens.
There was not even a Russian presence in 2014 when they held their referendums... and they have similar results to the current ones that were held in 2022
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Donbas_status_referendums
This is real self determination...
Oh my god ,,AC you need help, Zelensky a Nazi,??????? Russians have been causing trouble long before the joke referendum and long before 2014,
Feb 24th, 2023 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Argentyne_Cityzen - have you actually read the Wikipedia link you gave? It clearly states what a total sham the 2014 referendums were, not meeting any normally accepted standards of conduct, and with numerous documented fraudulent activities and repressions.
Feb 24th, 2023 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@ A_C sez: “...Russian-speaking for thousands of years...”
Feb 24th, 2023 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +3That's really funny now. Evidence of being off his rocker. A true boludo.
Let's help him/it: “Russian” didn't become anything like the Russian language until the 1700s.
That's not going to work for your “thousands of years.”
Absolute argie idiocy.
@JC absulutly a Nazi,
Feb 24th, 2023 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Please explain why a large proportion of Ukrainian troops use Nazi symbols and swastikas.
Explain why Zelensky's secret police used SS symbols when they were persecuting the citizens of Donetsk and Lughanks in the streets and their homes since before the referendum..
Explain why zelensky repealed a law that prohibited the use of Nazi symbols in Ukraine
Explain this kind of images:
https://www.wsws.org/asset/4dda9b76-f63a-479c-854f-a6f353aa17bb?rendition=image1280
https://www.wsws.org/asset/4dda9b76-f63a-479c-854f-a6f353aa17bb?rendition=image1280
Russia was not causing any problems, when the Soviet Union dissolved, Ukraine was allowed to become independent on the express condition of not joining NATO or any blocs that threatened Russia's survival.
It is you who were expanding towards the gates of Russia..
You, NATO, threaten world peace... you tried to plant missiles at the gates of Russia
AC. NATO threatens nobody it is a defensive force, countries apply to join because they are scared of Putin and Russia, Chechnya wanted independence and was crushed, Georgia wanted to look west and was crushed, Kazahkstan now pulling away from Russia, but Moscow not happy , there was no agreement that Ukraine would not join Nato, just Putins wish, he didnt want democracy on his doorstep, Belarus is his puppet, there is no need to put any missiles on Russian borders, they can be obliterated from any where, Putin has done exactly what Hitler with the Sudetanland of Czechoslovakia, Zelensky is Jewish and hates Nazis, good grief man, you sound more like Putin every day,
Feb 24th, 2023 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This not concerning the Falklands or Argentina, but I have to comment it. This “nazi” argument used by Russian authorities when they invaded Ukraine is absolutely absurd. Perhaps there are some “neo-nazis” in Ukraine, but not more than in any other country in the world. And absolutely no one in the present government. President Zelenskyy has Jewish roots and his mother tongue is Russian. When he took office in 2019 Ukraine was the only country in the world, except Israel, where both the President and the Prime minister were Jewish. Typical Nazis?!?!?
Feb 24th, 2023 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +2And: Ukraine was not “allowed” (by whom?) to get independence when the Soviet Union collapsed. All the 15 soviet republics got independence because the USSR simple did not exist anymore.
Ukraine is since one year today fighting for its very existence as a sovereign state.
Argies, complaining of Nazis? Funny.
Feb 24th, 2023 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +3https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/blue-book-on-argentina.pdf
Good God there are some brainwashed comments on here or is it just cognitive dissonance
Feb 24th, 2023 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Its got nothing to do with Zelenski being a Nazi or Jewish
He's just a puppet, who was elected by the Ukrainians to end the war with the separatists in the Dombass.that was his running theme when he ran for president
When elected he went to the borders of the Dombass to tell his troops to stop fighting
The far right told him to “eff off ” and he scuttled back to Kiev
His first language is Russian and he had to employ a voice coach to cover his accent when speaking Ukrainian.
Nato a defensive force ? tell that to Serbia, Libya etc.
The crap that is spouted on here is unbelieveable
The Rules Based Order, more crap, you have to follow them because we make the rules
Nato invokes The right to protect but it seems that if Russia does it to protect Russian speakers then that breaks our rules.
Total cognitive dissonance
There have been many absurd comments on this forum over the years, but today they have gone bananas. “Argentine_Cityzen” must be on the Kremlin's payroll, but most of it is utterly nonsense, of course. He (or it, it is perhaps a bot) talks about “Zelensky's Nazi Gestapos” in 2014. At that time Zelenskyy was an actor, not involved in politics at all, and Ukraine was in turmoil after the Majdan Protests, and had just got rid if the the extremely corrupt President Yanukovych.
Feb 24th, 2023 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Cognitive dissonance mentioned twice?
Feb 24th, 2023 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Shortgun owns a dictionary ....
Haha they not nazi? lets watch, selenzky. hitler also had jewish roots .. what sweede raises is stupid cognitive thinking. ..
Feb 25th, 2023 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse -3Zelenzky personally repealed a law that prohibited the use of Nazi symbols in Ukraine.
Before the 2014 Donetsk and Lughansk referendum. He imprisoned protesters and people who supported the independence referendum with his secret police (same as the gestapo). There is a speech running on YouTube in which he himself said that he would persecute those who wanted to become independent or personally urging them to leave Ukraine if they did not want to be part of it.
Just watch those pictures:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMVqsJ8WQAQKE5h.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FMVqsJ8WQAQKE5h.jpg
Argentine_cityzen - what are you talking about “Before the 2014 Donetsk and Lughansk referendum he imprisoned protesters and people who supported the independence referendum with his secret police”.
Feb 25th, 2023 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0HE DID NOT BECOME PRESIDENT UNTIL 2019
@mollymauk,
Feb 25th, 2023 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse -1his party and parallel police were persecuting pro-independence citizens in the streets
You sound even worse than the official Russian propagandists. President Zelenskyy is fighting not only for his country and his people, but for the whole of Europe and the free world. The Ukrainian people has never been so united as now. Over 90 % of Ukranians support Zelenskyy (compared with som 40 % before the full-scale invasion). The Russian imperialism and expansionism must be stopped now. I am very glad and proud that my country, Sweden, will send tanks to Ukraine. Perhaps soon even fighter jets. There has to be a tribunal, Nuremberg style, to try the present leadership in Moscow.
Feb 25th, 2023 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1Shogun and ACs views show them to be nothing but right wing extremists and apologists for one of the most evil men on the planet today,
Feb 25th, 2023 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse -1Not really “Argentine-Cityzen” but rather... “Ivan.”
Feb 25th, 2023 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -2For the purposes of clarity, I will try to explain the very complex differences and trade-offs between self-determination and territorial integrity.
Feb 25th, 2023 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Firstly, we must always start with the status quo, what is the situation today. Otherwise the entire world will be drawn into historic tit-for-tat arguments. Then assess each element on its practical arguments.
1) The Falklands, not part of Argentinas territorial integrity, not attached to Argentina, over 1000miles from Argentina in 1833 when the mythical usurpation took place, the people wo live there don't want to be Argentine. Simple case.
2) The Chagos : The Chagos islanders did in theory have the right to self-determination, on that basis Britain should not have evicted them, without freshwater or the means to buy it, they'd have been dead in a few weeks....but there you go.
3) Scotland: A country in a Union, can choose to leave that Union. Out of respect should only have a referendum once in a generation.
4) Catalan, Donbas, Patagonia, Kent, A random village in Kansas, all part of an existing country, no geographic delineation.....up to the country they are part of to give a choice and to assess the practical implications. Crimea should be part of Russia give the geographic delineation and the will of the people, until the moment Russia unilaterally stole it.
“The Chagos islanders did in theory have the right to self-determination, on that basis Britain should not have evicted them”
Feb 25th, 2023 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Last year, a UN court ruled that the UK should end its control of the Indian Ocean archipelago, which includes a US military base”.
“Chagos Islanders v The United Kingdom, Application No. 35622/04, 20 December 2012
The Court specified that the system of exhaustion of use of local remedies would be useless if individuals could “dispens[e] with the available and effective domestic mechanism of redress” (para. 81) and petition the ECtHR. Moreover, it is not the role of the Court to ascertain the facts (para. 81). The Court also accepted the High Court ruling dismissing the claim that individuals who had refused to sign the waiver forms in the settlement were unable to claim compensation as they had failed to bring their claims before the relevant domestic courts (para. 81). This part of the ruling is subject to criticism. Whilst there is no doubt that the UK publicly offered compensation in 1978 and a “final” settlement was made in 1982, this does not mean that all Chagossians were aware of it.”
@Monkey Magic
Feb 25th, 2023 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -21) The Falklands, not part of Argentinas territorial integrity, not attached to Argentina, over 1000miles [372 Miles at really ] from Argentina in 1833 when the mythical usurpation took place, the people ( POPULATION) who live there don't want to be Argentine . Simple case.
There is not any ICJ judge, tribunal or UN convention that make mention to the right of self determination apply here..
quite the contrary, there are opinions of various jurists who contradict that it applies.
Not even the UK ICJ Judges dare to affirm such treachery..
According to Dame 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’. (International Law and the Avoidance, Containment and Resolution of Disputes. General Course on Public International Law’, Hague Academy of International Law Collected Courses, 1991, vol. 230, p. 174). It doesn't even mention the word “People” it expressly says inhabitants.
To find out if the right of self-determination applies to the inhabitants, you have to go directly to 1833 and see if the United Kingdom was in possession of sovereign rights over the islands.
Argentina had a settlement between 1820 and 1833. It was around 200 inhabitants, and which was attacked in 1833, at which time there were approximately 35 people between civilian and military personnel, a consequence of the previous attack by the USS Lexington.
The United Kingdom argues its rights of sovereignty based on a military settlement that they abandoned in 1774, 55 years before.. Which had no civilian population and a lower number than the Argentine settlement at the time of the expulsion..
There is a self-contradiction, because if in theory according to the argumentative line of (Pascope & Pepper) the settlement of port egdmont (according to them) was legitimate... Much more so was
Much more so was the settlement of port louis.
Feb 25th, 2023 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse -2With the difference that you were on a different island, that had nothing to do with the one that was attacked, they abandoned it and there was an acquisitive prescription of 55 years.
2) ( The Chagos : The Chagos islanders did in theory have the right to self-determination, on that basis Britain should not have evicted them, without freshwater or the means to buy it, they'd have been dead in a few weeks....but there you go. )
The Chagos Islanders lived for hundreds of years without problems on those islands.
I understand your point, you invaded them with the argument that they would be better off being colonized... and since according to your theory “they had no water”, you made a food blockade to supplement and starve them... and later you gassed them with poison gas pets and all living animals
“There is not any ICJ judge, tribunal or UN convention that make mention to the right of self determination apply here..
Feb 25th, 2023 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Not even the UK ICJ Judges dare to affirm such treachery..”
Still dishonestly peddling the same defeated assertions.
As the former President’s of the ICJ wrote:
“...The rule of the inter-temporal law still insists that an act must be characterised in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law by Robert Yewdall Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law
by Robert Yewdall Jennings.
“The 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.
@TH oh dear, but there was never acquiesced of the british title. Argentina kept the claim open continuously over time.
Feb 25th, 2023 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -4and the United Kingdom made it very clear that 55 years of silence and abandonment did not represent the acquisition of title.
So yes, we are agree with Rosalyn Higgins abaut solve peacefully the controversy, and the UK will had the right to prove if they had the soverany in 1833 or British title was built up by Argentina´s Acquiescence.
If they prove that the title of sovereignty was built by Acquiescence, the current inhabitants will have the right of self-determination as Rosalyn Higgens mentions. . .
But for the moment, until that happens and we solve it, she was very clear: “ 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 English jurist, the possession of sovereignty of the United Kingdom is not clear
“Argentina kept the claim open continuously over time.”
Feb 26th, 2023 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse +3No, they did not, there was silence on the issue for eighty years.
But regardless.
“UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained .. self-government recognize the principle ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
“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 US 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.
“Great Britain has acquired title to the Islands by extinctive prescription Argentina did not take advantage of the available international bodies for peaceful adjudication of the disputed title.
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 B
quote1)“No, they did not, there was silence on the issue for eighty years.
Feb 26th, 2023 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse -2But regardless.”
International law establishes that after having already made the protest repeatedly, it is not necessary to continue revalidating it.
In addition, the United Kingdom made it clear that 55 years of silence and abandonment did not represent acquisitive prescription.
Quote2) “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).
Those are some of the biased and manipulated interpretations that pascope makes in his poor pamphlet... just like they tried to manipulate the words of vettel, wheaton and sharon korman and failed.
Visscher in his book, if you had read it, makes references to states that ceased to exercise sovereignty of their own free will, which is not the case, because here there was an act of force, in his book, on page 262, he refers to the non-application in the Malvinas question.
Quote3)
“While the US army considers....”
It is irrelevant, what an armed force may think is not worth an answer... The Chinese state, theyr army and the people's liberation army consider that the Falklands belong to Argentina. However, I would not consider that stupid invoque that silly argument .
“Those are some of the biased and manipulated interpretations”
Feb 26th, 2023 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse +1Your unqualified view or that of qualified international law experts?.
That’s a no brainer.
Continued:
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-a347-89f4999c3beedescription.
Self-Determination?
Feb 26th, 2023 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse +1Worth the read
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/shrinking-self-determination-the-chagos-opinion-of-the-international-court-of-justice-by-jan-klabbers-2019.pdf
A rather empty and pompous gesture, no?
Feb 26th, 2023 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Terrence Hill Quote: “Your unqualified view or that of qualified international law experts?.
Feb 26th, 2023 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -3That’s a no brainer.”
They are not points of view, they are factual facts. Graham Pascoe in his pamphlet, quotes out of context from Jurists such as Wheaton, Vettel, Rosalyn Higens or Sharon Korman..
He makes unsuccessful attempts to take what serves his thesis, and OMITS, explicit fragments of said jurists where he mentions the inapplicability to the Malvinas case, or said jurists Explicitly deny that the right to self-determination exists for the current population..
Some examples are when he Omitts the ICJ jurist Rosalyn Higgens ‘Until it is determined where territorial sovereignty lies, it is impossible to see if the INHABITANTS have the right of self-determination’.
makes a malicious and treacherously lying attempt to try to quote Sharon Korman about her book “the right of conquest”, when she expressly mentions the non-application in the Malvinas issue.
He, Try to do the same with jurists who in their books deny the application to the falklands expresly.
Kormans whole claim is based on The Caroline affair (also known as the Caroline case) was a diplomatic crisis beginning in 1837. Which makes her claim absolute bunkum as it cannot be applied to an act that preceded its creation.
Feb 26th, 2023 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As 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,”
“Graham Pascoe in his pamphlet, quotes out of context.” In, your humble unqualified opinion. But since you fail to to prove any of your claims.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Moreover, I don’t see any mention of Korman in P & P’s publication.
While you deliberately omit.
“The 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
the carolina case, was the intemporal law of that time, you quoted korman in your pamphlet.. not me. They neglected and did not realize that Korman in his own book mentions the non-application of the right of conquest in the Falklands... just like Kelsen in his book..
Feb 27th, 2023 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse -2you deliberately tried to omit the opinion of the jurist rosaly higgens abaut the right of self-determination, The British jurist clearly specifies that the right of self-determination does not apply because it is not determined who had the titles of sovereignty.
Separately from this, she expands in her thesis that the UK has fundaments to probe they built rights through argentine acquiesced and that they would have arguments to demonstrate that sovereignty rests with the UK.
Graham Pascoe, Select only the paragraph in which Higgins mentions that there would be grounds for the acquisition, pascoe intentionally omittied the previous part in which the British jurist mentions that there is a sovereignty dispute, and it is not yet established which country has it and that there is no right of self-determination until it is not determined.
Something more up-to-date?
Feb 27th, 2023 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse +3”...The Court, .., connected the right to self-determination to the status of non-self-governing territory, so much so that following the Chagos opinion, a persuasive argument can be made that self-determination and the right to decolonization come close to being
one and the same thing,
Identifying the right to self-determination with colonization has the further advantage that all the traditional and difficult questions relating to self-determination no longer pose insurmountable obstacles.
If self-determination is essentially limited to non-self-governing territories (i.e. colonies), there is no need to figure out what on earth the notion of ‘peoples’ means, as in the phrase ‘all peoples have a right to self-determination’.
There is no longer a need to balance historical continuity against linguistic community, or secession against territorial integrity, or romanticism against Realpolitik.
The two perennial problems associated with the right to self-determination have therewith been clarified.
Firstly, the identity of the right-holder is now clear: the right-holder is the non-self-governing territory.
Secondly, the consequence of self-determination has become clear as well: the self-determination of non-self-governing territories will ideally materialize in their independence, unless they themselves opt freely for association or integration with another state, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV). ...
In the end, it is clear that according to the Court, whichever way one turns the opinion, colonialism was on trial, and colonialism can only be met by a response based on self-determination. Doing so connects self-determination to non-self-governing territories, and does so almost by exclusion.”
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/shrinking-self-deter
I'm struggling to see what Argentine Citizen's bitter, miserableness has to do with the Falklands supporting the Ukraine in their fight against Russian aggression.
Feb 27th, 2023 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Korman in his own book mentions the non-application of the right of conquest in the Falklands... just like Kelsen in his book..”
Feb 27th, 2023 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Korman’s whole claim is based on The Caroline affair (also known as the Caroline case) was a diplomatic crisis beginning in 1837. Which is a barred retroactive application of international law.
That’s an impossibility as she is a female.” the non-application of the right of conquest in the “Falklands... just like Kelsen in his book.”
If that were true you would provide the evidence. No proof no truth.
“The British jurist clearly specifies that the right of self-determination does not apply”
But later clarifies that Argentina has absolutely no claim. While the British hold the only legitimate claim.
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE WESTERN SAHAR ADVISORY OPINION 1975 I.C.J. 12 (Oct. 16)
http://www.worldcourts.com/icj/eng/decisions/1975.10.16_western_sahara.htm
So, there you are revealed in all your lying Argentine troll-ism.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!