MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands responds to Argentina’s decision to end the “Foradori-Duncan Pact”
Members of the Legislative Assembly are disappointed to hear of Argentina’s decision to put an end to the “Foradori-Duncan Pact” of 2016. This pact looked at improving relations on trade and security between the UK and Argentina but it also ensured the agreement to identify the remains of the unknown Argentine soldiers buried near Darwin. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesArgentina's Ambassador summoned to the Foreign Office, I hear. For a rollicking.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +8Cannot see the UK letting up on the arms embargo anytime soon.
Just pointless posturing, nothing more,
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +6It is time to require a visa for Argentine citizens entering the F.I. That could be a good answer. Why can Argentines travel visa-free when Bolivians, Colombians, Peruvians &c need a visa? It should be the other way round. Even people from many Commonwealth countries need a visa, but not Argentines. It sounds very strange to me.
Mar 03rd, 2023 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +7@swede
Mar 04th, 2023 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse -8The reason is that deep down your rulers in the United Kingdom know that what they are doing is an illegal occupation, and that is why they do not ask us for a visa, and they do ask the rest of the countries in the world(except comonwealth)
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).
Mar 04th, 2023 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse -7The only body to determine the application of the right to self-determination is the UN assembly, or the ICJ court. Not the occupying power.
and remember the words of the British jurist who presided over the ICJ, and she is from your own country.. she say “Inhabitants” , ur not people for international law
Lets see. The Foradori Duncan consisted in letting the colonial regime to continue with their illegal fishing, the exploitation of oil and the incorporation of flights throuth the Argentine continental air space between the colony and South American nations. While nothing derives in the solution of the sovereignty dispute. This was acomplished by getting drunk a naive and not proffesional argentine diplomatic.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse -6You think the islands are british, that, they are not a colony and that there is no doubt about its sovereignty?. Fine, but for us its quite the opposite. You love the status quo and you would love more, if the colonial regime be legitimated. For sure, you will need more than some drinks and the MI6 covert operations.
If you want something from us, first, you have to be willing to concede. You dont want to concede? go to the UN.
“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’.”
Mar 04th, 2023 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse +4She definitively defined the Islands sovereignty as British, as I have exposed your sophistry on this issue many times.
“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 colonial regime be legitimated”
It already has conformed with the UN Charter requirement for decolonisation, by holding a Referendum.
“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, ...”
There is no illegal occupation, unless of course all of the Americas is an illegal occupation.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse +7We have already established Argentina NEVER had sovereignty of the islands, the Vernet business wasn't an “Argentine settlement”, it failed in 1831 leaving a Briton in charge, and the two times Argentina have tried to seize the islands by force in Nov 1832 and Apr 1982 they have been kicked off.
We let Argentines on the islands with no Visa out of pity, pity that they are still so stupid as to elect Peronist corrupt governments, and pity that they can come and see where the poorly trained children they sent to die are buried based on the same lie you repeat.
It is pity for Argentina that we have, a failed corrupt state whose people are so brainwashed they still believe fairy stories.
Liberato, Falklanders dont need to go to the UN, they dont need anything from Argentina. but when the Argentine visits are stopped you will lose out and go running to the UN, simple really,
Mar 04th, 2023 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse +4The United Nations is a diplomatic talking shop. Nothing more. It has no power to resolve sovereignty disputes.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse +4The UN speaks through its General Assembly resolutions. The last GA resolution concerning the Falklands was in 1988 (43/25). That called for talks to “resolve peacefully and definitively the problems pending between both countries...” Talks - peaceful and definitive - were held in 1989 and 1990. The UN GA has said nothing since.
It can only be assumed that the matter was settled to the UN's satisfaction. If Argentina believes otherwise, then its only recourse it to the ICJ. The ball, as they say, is in Argentina's court (no pun intended).
Now that the '99 Agreement and the Foradori-Duncan Agreements are both dead in the water, we are hoping that the Falkland Islands Government will re-introduce a visa system for all visitors from Argentina. They have consistently ignored, whenever it suited them, any agreement, be it economic, scientific or otherwise. They have carried out acts of piracy in the last twenty years, blockaded ships, tried to stop tourist ships visiting, done anything to stymie the economy and well-being of the Falklands. Once it was apparent their invasion wasn't going to work they have tried everything else. Our economy continues to grow and our standing in the wider, global community grows with it.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse +6Argentine Citizen and Liberato, show me where the “colony” is. There is no colony. We have our own government. Show me how Argentina will benefit from trying to destroy when the best option would be to re-build. You now, no longer have access to further DNA testing of the war dead. And once visas are implemented, it will be all the harder for Argentine passport holders to visit.
Liberato (and other Argies)- the ball is in your court. If you choose to cancel or give up previous agreements, that will hurt Argentina more than the Falkland Islanders.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +3You say ''if you want something from us....'', but the Islanders and the UK want nothing from Argentina except civility and maturity. We already have the Islands and full control over our own affairs. If Argentina wants something from the UK and the Islanders then they should show some respect, instead of childish foot stamping.
The UK have followed all the UN Charter rules and statements to the letter - if Argentina wants to pursue its baseless claim then it should take its fully documented case to the ICJ. The fact that this step has not been taken suggests that there is no case to answer.
Put up and shut up.
Nothing is going to get better until the Falklanders mature and understand that the Argentine People and their nation must be integrally respected in all its entire history, which means all aspects of that country as it would be any other country which many times as in the case of Argentina starts even before their official independence.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Unfortunately this is a very sensible and solid concept that however the islanders through flaw of contagion from their ruling culture and Empire have never learned to understand.
The same cannot be said about Argentina, as Argentina respectfully does address the UK or England in its own argument, it does not deny nor try to erase parts of Britain's history with the islands, nor does it try to “redefine it”. This said and as we know however, the Islanders are a people contained within the authority of Britain and are a sub-group of their people.
@Trimonde: “the Islanders are a people contained within the authority of Britain and are a sub-group of their people”. But they will never accept to come “within the authority of Argentina and a sub-group of their people”. As little as Ukrainians will accept to be “contained within the authority of Russia and a sub-group of their people”.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Trimonde
Mar 04th, 2023 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Argentina does not have an “entire” history, it (like almost all of the Americas) is a result of European colonialism. Spain, Britain, Portugal and France carved up the New world, and every country on the continent is a result of that carve up between 1492 and today.
Argentina is a result of Spanish colonialist declaring independence from Spain.
The Falklands are almost unique in that there was no non-European population to colonise.
Britain does not seek to erase Argentinas history from the islands at all, we just seem more aware of it, and less prepared to lie about it than Argentina.
We know that there was a Spanish settlement that voluntarily left.
We know that Vernet had a business on the islands as he asked our permission to go there.
We know that business failed and Vernet left, leaving the British Matthew Brisbane in charge.
We know that Argentina sought to seize the islands in November 1832, and we immediately warned that we would expel the garrison.
We expelled the garrison in January 1833, no civilians were expelled.
We know Argentina invaded the islands in 1982, and again we expelled them.
Unfortunately, we know all too well Argentinas history with the islands.
Yes, the Falkland islanders are a sub-group of the British people, just as in 1810 Argentines were a sub-group of the Spanish people, or Australians used to be a sub-group of the British people.
However, should the islands ever wish not to be a sub-group of the British people, like Argentina or Australia they can choose that too.
They could even choose to be in a sub-human group like you Trimonde, should they wish.
Well, For what i read, im so glad none of you British need anything at all from Argentina, so the status quo remains the way it is.
Mar 04th, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For once Liberato you are correct, the Falklands do not need a thing from Argentina and the status quo remains that a self governing territory will continue to grow and prosper and one day will be an independent nation,
Mar 04th, 2023 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Geeeeeeeee....
Mar 04th, 2023 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -3How Turnipy can the above self-proclaimed Swede poster be...?
He even boast of being a Swede from Sweden and he seems proud of it...
But it's more than evident that he KNOWS NOTHIN' 'bout Swedish history...!
He writes the following about the Malvinas isles issue...:
- “The Islanders are a people contained within the authority of Britain and are a sub-group of their people”.
- But they will never accept to come within the authority of Argentina and a sub-group of their people”.
As a Swede he should know that, up in the Gulf of Bothnia there are some Islands where...:
- A group of Jävla Swedish Islanders..., once contained within the authority of Sweden are a sub-group of the Swedish people...
- Same group of Jävla Swedish Islanders came in 1800'ish within the authority of the Jävla Russian Empire for some 100 years....
-Things changed again and around 1900'ish..., the same group of Jävla Swedish Islander people came now under the authority of the Jävla Finnish Republic...
Last time I was in Mariehamn..., every jävla Swede i them Islands was enjoying the jävla Finnish way of life...
Inform and educate yaself..., ya Swede Turnip...
Capisce...?
But they will never accept to come “within the authority of Argentina and a sub-group of their people”.
Ever wondered how 'Argentina' Gained the Islands to the South? (and patagonia)
Mar 05th, 2023 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selk%27nam_genocide
Evil government
Liberato
Mar 05th, 2023 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Well, For what i read, im so glad none of you British need anything at all from Argentina, so the status quo remains the way it is”.
That has to be the first sensible thing I have read on these boards from a Malvinista in years.
If the price for “anything” is to sell out the Falkland Islanders, then the price for “anything” is too high, we wouldnt do it during negotiations in the 1970s, we didnt do it when Argentina invaded in the 1980s, and we wont do it now.
The islands are thier home, for some families for nearly 200 years, there is no sensible Argentine claim that hasn't been debunked a dozen times.....no “inheritance from Spain, who left willingly”, no “ursurpation”, no regional proximity....you've been fed lies.
The only way for Argentine to gain sovereignty is to offer the islanders something they want....and you fail to do it, again and again.
Little bird tells me that HMS Forth just visited Brazil. Crew played football with a local side.
Mar 06th, 2023 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3Wasn't Lula expected to ban this sort of thing?
Me dear ex-copper...
Mar 06th, 2023 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse -3- Good to see that you are feeling as satisfied as a young rascal who just threw some dog poop at the local flatfoot and got away with it... ,-)
But don't you worry..., our young ones are on that P222 visit to Recife between the 14 to the17/02/23...
In defence of our dear President Lula..., I would Tænk that he must be somewhat occupied cutting all that ugly curly hair on that corrupt military Medusa head Mr. Bolsonaro left behind...
The Pernambuco Navy Chief will quietly but surely be answering some questions...
Capisce...?
Oh, like the Airforce Chief and the British Military flights that continue land in Brazil with monotonous regularity.
Mar 06th, 2023 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When they actually don’t have to, for any logistical reason anyway.
Wheels within wheels, methinks.
TWIMC... (and the Brainwashed Anglo Turnip just above...)
Mar 06th, 2023 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- The Brutish Armed Farces always have some “Logistical Reason” for their actions...
- Mayhaps..., they had to rescue some British citizens stranded in Brazil after the failed January Coup attempt...?
- Mayhaps..., British citizens of Brazilian stock, recruited by MI5 and send out by MI6 to overthrow a criminal like LULA...?
- Mayhaps..., exactly as they did with that sweet, young British Patriotic lad that went to the Manchester Arena and was blown away by Ariana Grande...?
Capisce...?
Or just may Senor Taenk aka Melon head , Brazil. Uruguay, Chile etc really dont give a stuff about your very very dubious claim and are more grown up than you, and can see through all you indoctrinated propaganda,
Mar 06th, 2023 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Juan Cervantes, i have no idea what is the contradictory term to your “very very dubious claim”. The Malvinas are worldwide recognized as a colony of Britain. Its sovereignty is worldwide recognized to be in dispute. You biggest ally recognize the sovereignty is under dispute after all the trouble the UK took to take Diego Garcia so they can have a military base.
Mar 06th, 2023 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -1How is the colonial regime?. Good?. Are the penguins still more numerous than the inhabitants?.
Diego Garcia is irrelevant to the subject and nothing to do with the Falklands, the UN have NO interest in your crazy claim, when was the last resolution ?, the C24 committee is also a toothless irrelevant talking shop, the world has no interest in the Islands what so ever, your obsession with the word colony must really hurt you, also totally irrelevant, You lost a war, end of, cry whinge moan complain all you want, the Falklands are here to stay whether you like it or not , no pandoras box no nothing, start showing some decency and respect to the islanders for the next 50 years, show that you can be trusted and are a decent grown up country, and may be just may be a possible joint ownership of the islands could happen if the people choose that option, the crazy useless government of yours will achieve nothing, get rid of them at the next election and get grown ups elected,
Mar 06th, 2023 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Juan Cervantes, Diego Garcia is relevant becouse its a territory that Britain is negotiating to devolve to its rightfully owners. which means you are there illegally.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse -1When you says that the UN or the world has no interests in Malvinas, You mean basically that they define the islands as a colony just becouse. for burocracy purposes or whatever.
But they still list the islands as a territory under a decolonization process, which sovereignty is in dispute between Argentina and the UK.
The word colony, is not irrelevant. The Malvinas Islands are a territory under british colonialism as well as the other nine territories also under british colonialism. Perhaps you prefer the term Non Self-Governing Territory.
List of Territories under the UN process of decolonization:
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt
We lost a war, but you didnt won the right to own the islands.
Our governments are none of your business, but if i were you, i shoulnt spit to the sky.
Our government is none of my business you say, The Falklands Government is none of your business, the Falklands are none of your business South Georgia is none of your business, i couldnt care less whether you call the Falklands a colony or not, its just the same spiel you have been spouting over and over again for months, Let me make it simple for you, the Falklanders choose their own path not you not Argentina, it will be like that in 5 years, 10 years, 50 years,100 years, stop wasting your life on something that is NEVER going to happen, colony, colony, colony ,colony, whinge moan cry complain, winning a war means every right especially when you have never owned the land in the first place, deal with it and stop crying and stop lying , go to the ICJ, just like the UK offered twice before, not wasting one more minute on the same spiel you have had debunked over and over again,
Mar 07th, 2023 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Diego Garcia is relevant it’s a territory that Britain is to devolve to its rightfully owners. which means you are there illegally.”
Mar 07th, 2023 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse +1“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 “dispense with the available and effective domestic mechanism of redress” (para. 81) and petition the ECHR. 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).”
The final ruling made against the Chagos is the preceding, which made any further claims Res Judicata. While the ICJ ruling is null and void as the UK declined to accept her jurisdiction.
In simple terms the Mauritians and the Chagas don’t get to sign off on agreements, accept compensation, and then renege later.
Juan Cervantes, By your words, i assume you are a kid that goes easily irritated when proved wrong. I tell you what, forget the word colony i used to describe the Malvinas situation. Tell me what legal status is given by the international community to define the islands?. Do you think it is enough that the UK says that Malvinas are not a colony?. And thats it?. So the Russian can claim Ukraine is Russian territory and we will all buy it?. Just like that?.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse -1If you know about laws, winning a war does not grant any right over a disputed territory. Unless the nation that losed the war cede the territory in exchange of a peace treaty.
The UK has never, ever, offered to take the Malvinas dispute to the ICJ or any other arbitration. In fact, it was Argentina that offered the UK arbitration, but was refused by the UK with the argument that they had no doubt about british rights, etc, etc.
Terence Hill. quote:“While the ICJ ruling is null and void as the UK declined to accept her jurisdiction.”
Same happens to Malvinas case. But here we are, and the UK is negotiating the transfer of sovereignty to the Mauritians as we speak. And you are confusing those who lived in Diego Garcia and the Mauritius.
“You are confusing those who lived in Diego Garcia and the Mauritius”.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1Saying something doesn’t make it true.
“Significant demographic shifts in the island population began in 1962 when the French-financed Mauritian company Societé Huilière de Diego et Peros, which had consolidated ownership of all the plantations in the Chagos in 1883,[17] sold the plantations to the Seychelles company Chagos-Agalega Company, which then owned the entire Chagos Archipelago, except for six acres at the mouth of the Diego Garcia lagoon.[13]: par 95 Thus, at no time did anyone living on the islands actually own a piece of real property there.[1: par 221, 385, 386 Even the resident managers of the plantations were simply employees of absentee landlords.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Chagossians
Liberato, what nonsense you talk, you have proved nothing. every post you write has been disproved and debunked, many posters on here have given you the facts, stop lying about the ICJ, yes lying, in the 60s and 80s Argentina was offered the chance to go to court, you said NO, why,? it is you who behave like a child , repeating the same stuff over and over again which i have stated all has been disproven and debunked, straight out of Trumps hand book. repeat a lie over and over again and the uneducated and gullible believe it, comparing the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the Falklands is like chalk and cheese, not remotely the same, you need to move on with your life, there are so many things to see and do in this world instead of wasting it on a myth a fantasy and a pipe dream.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Winning a war does not grant any right over a disputed territory. Unless the nation that losed the war cede the territory in exchange of a peace treaty.”
Mar 07th, 2023 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that:
“If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title—cession conquest, occupation, etc.—superior to that which the other State might possibly bring forward against it.”
”The General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created ‘prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law’.
Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law by Peter Malanczuk
“Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter’s will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself” p.214 GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE, Hans Kelsen
Liberato
Mar 07th, 2023 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You are not very bright.
If the Falkland Islands are a colony of the UK then it utterly destroys the Argentine position. As the UN would recognise decolonisation is ONLY possible when the people of a colony achieve self-determination.
Self-determination allows the people in the colony to chose whether they wish to become full citizens of the colonising country, independent or full citizens of another country. It never allows another country to force citizenship on them.
Argentina has been going to the wrong place, the whole point of decolonisation is to give the power to the islanders.
Argentina is claiming land it never had from under the feet of and against the will of the people who live there, the very definition of colonisation.
Juan Cervantes, Instead of being a stubborn fool, you should inform yourself first. In 1947,1948 the United Kingdom offered to Chile and Argentina to submit to the ICJ the malvinas dependencies and the antartic territory. And in 1955 they submited the matter to the Icj , having Argentina and Chile denied any jurisdiction of the court. It is not necesary to clarify that it did not included Malvinas in itself.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The case is publicly in the ICJ official webpage.
In the next link you will find a correspondence of the case with a map demarked the area the UK submitted:
https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/26/9069.pdf
Terence Hill, I was talking of the 1982 conflict where there is no more right of conquest. No new territories to expand, and the UN Charter makes it impossible and unrealistic to even claim a right of conquest to justify an agressive war. And in your case, the british can not even claim a right of conquest for the invasion of 1833 for many many reasons. Among them is that they did not claimed the islands by right of conquest, there was no state of war, and even in that time, it was not a valid reason.
Monkeymagic, quote:“If the Falkland Islands are a colony of the UK then it utterly destroys the Argentine position”.
Not at all. You think that, becouse in your poor mind, there is only one form of colonialism, where a population is subjugated by another power.
Imagine you invade a nation, expell its inhabitants and put your own instead. And then, you create for them have the most democratic and liberal territory in the world but STILL, its gonna by over someone elses territory.
“They did not claimed the islands by right of conquest, there was no state of war, and even in that time, it was not a valid reason.”
Mar 07th, 2023 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They don’t have to as a pivotal ruling by the highest tribunal of international law on the issue, says so.
“The Island of Palmas tribunal of the PCA” 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.”
“There was no state of war”. There doesn’t have to be.
“Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter’s will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself” p.214 GENERAL THEORY OF LAW AND STATE, Hans Kelsen
While the UNGA echo’s well-established international practices
”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
Liberato, Stop all the lies, the BS and the twisting of facts. no one takes you seriously, all you do is continue to embarrass yourself, and you call me a stubborn fool, you are the one that has been presented time and time again with facts and history, but you choose not to accept them because it goes against everything you were indoctrinated with, this argument is getting boring beyond belief, The Falklands were never legally Argentinian and you know that, and they never will be unless the islanders choose that option, Go and watch some football or rugby and let off some steam, then find a hobby that is enjoyable and go live life to the full,
Mar 07th, 2023 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Juan Cervantes, there was no twisting of facts. You said :“ in the 60s and 80s Argentina was offered the chance to go to court, you said NO,”. When was that offer made? who offered?, under what government? year?.
Mar 07th, 2023 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You also said: “winning a war means every right”. Under what law you gain territory by winning a war?.
You also said: “..the Falklands do not need a thing from Argentina and the status quo remains that a self governing territory will continue to grow and prosper and one day will be an independent nation,”
According to the United Nations the current status of the Malvinas islands is quite the opposite to one of “self-determination”.
List of Non Self-Governing Territories under the UN decolonization process:
https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt
Just One Juan, One fact that you can prove. I gave you direct links to the UN and to the ICJ and they are lies?.
Terence Hill, You are like Lorton trying to “incorporate” new evidence to the british cause while none in your own government believe in that crap.
You copy and pasted Hans Kelsen book tireslly without continue reading it. Which is, the most stupid thing to do. What Hans Kelsen said is that Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter’s will is possible without any military resistance on the part of the victim but it IMPLIES a violation of international law. Same page.
Thats why Palmerston evoked discovery and ocupation.
“Trying to “incorporate” new evidence to the british cause while none in your own government believe in that crap.”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse +1I’m simply showing the readily available historical evidence. What the UK believes or doesn’t, they’re not going to reveal their hand. But I sure get great satisfaction in revealing falsity of liars claims., like you and your government.
“But it IMPLIES a violation of international law.”
No, it doesn’t otherwise you would be able to prove it.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
Terence Hill. My evidence is written in the same page, of the same book, of the same author you made that quote. You just needed to continue reading and not quote the part you liked most.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse -2“What the UK believes or doesn’t, they’re not going to reveal their hand”. Hahaha, so you are confesing to me something i shouldnt know?. Wow
I believe an offer to take the dispute to the ICJ was made during the 1968/69 round of negotiations.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/10/1969-offer-to-go-to-icj.jpg
@Lorton
Mar 08th, 2023 - 06:11 am - Link - Report abuse -3It was a false negotiation call to go to the icj, with the simple objective of “showing a false negotiating willingness”.
Firstly, they put safeguards, such as not accepting the jurisdiction of the icj for the Malvinas, but yes for the adjacent islands and Antarctic territory.
Second, the United Kingdom intended to go to court if Argentina accepted and took into account the “wishes” of the islanders.
When clearly that was not and is not possible, because they are British citizens. And in any case, it is the Court that must decide if the Right of self-determination applies to them and their wishes have to be taken into account... that is not decided by the occupying power.
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’.
In other words, the question of sovereignty must first be resolved to see if the right of self-determination applies to them and their wishes must be taken into account.
Argie Zit - no, this was 1968, not the 1950s. No safeguards. Do try to keep up.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse +1The offer was made. The offer was rejected. The document appears to be quite plain.
“You just needed to continue reading and not quote the part you liked most”.
Mar 08th, 2023 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” Christopher Hitchens
“The question of sovereignty must first be resolved to see if the right of self-determination applies ”
“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
Applicable only to the time and place. !975, in Western Sahara versus 1982 The Falkland Islands.
Thus, relevance, and later, is definitively greater
Liberato, seriously chill out, when Germany lost WW2 they lost large chunks of land, Kaliningrad is just one example, there are many more examples throughout the years, You are in denial about the ICJ and Britain offering to go it, Roger Lorton has pointed that out to you, the Falklands dont need anything from Argentina, fact , your constant attempts to try and isolate them from the rest of South America will continue to fail, you deny that the UK was the first country to record and claim the islands, you deny that Britain never gave up the claim, You constantly claim an Argentine settlement was forcibly evicted, when you know full well it was a PRIVATE multi national business settlement were only the evil military were evicted after Buenos Aires was warned in advance not to send them. you constantly claim the islanders are implanted stock, what on earth are you ?, every white man on the American continent fits that description, Having Argentina as a friendly neighbour would be nice for the islanders but not a necessity, as its proven they continue to grow and prosper, your Colony word obsession is quite funny, the BOTs can all have independence tomorrow if they wish, the UK is not stopping them, quite the opposite, I say to you again, stop wasting your life on a lie a myth and a pipe dream, its the islanders home and it will stay that way for as long as they wish, find a nice hobby or past time and go and enjoy life,
Mar 08th, 2023 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In spite of statements to the contrary 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:
Mar 08th, 2023 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LAWS 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.
Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849
To the Honourable Chamber of Representatives
Mess’ Representatives
The Government, in discharge of its duty, has the honour of presenting to your enlightened examination the following state documents …
It was issued, after Her Majesty had informed herself of the literal terms of the draft of the Convention of Peace. Besides the adjustment and conclusion of treaties of peace, without the previous consultation of Parliament, is the direct and inherent prerogative of the British Crown. …
The Government feels complacency in observing, in its opinion, in the documents it submits to you, a very important series of steps in advance, towards a happy and reciprocally honourable re-establishment of the relations of cordial friendship, between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, according to the mutual desires of both countries.
God Preserve Your HON. Corporation
JUAN M. DE ROSA FELIPE ARANA.
Liberato
Mar 08th, 2023 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“Imagine you invade a nation, expel its inhabitants and put your own instead. And then, you create for them have the most democratic and liberal territory in the world but STILL, its gonna by over someone elses territory”....
So what did Argentina do in Patagonia in 1850s....or in fact what is every nation in the Americas?
“ So what did Argentina do in Patagonia in 1850s....or in fact what is every nation in the Americas? ”
Mar 08th, 2023 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Argentina did not invade anyone in 1850..
In the second half of the 19th century, there was an Araucanization of Patagonia through which Mapuche (Araucanian) groups from Chile massacred native aborigines such as the Tehuelches, Onas and Yamanes who inhabited Patagonia.
These groups of Terrorists from Chile lashed the province of Buenos Aires with raids of 2,000 Indians or more, armed with English rifles that they bought from you in exchange for the skins they stole throughout the southeast of Buenos Aires.
Argentina was already a sovereign country in 1816, when these groups financed by you attacked and looted our cities.
They are the same groups that in recent years have been re-emerging in Chile and in some part of our Patagonia with financing from MI6.
The current Mapuche groups are “RAM”, “Grupo ancestral Mapuche”, etc.. Oh voila!, they have their registered office in London and receive English funding.
Something to read Zit?
Mar 08th, 2023 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +1https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row
AG
Mar 08th, 2023 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1A group of people who didnt live somewhere took land from those that did, then pretended that calling themselves independent meant they werent the colonisers. Every country in the Americas exists today based on that EXCEPT the Falklands where they were empty.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!