MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands: Result of referendum remains clear 10 years on
Over 10 and 11 March 2013, Falkland Islanders overwhelmingly decided their future political status. The referendum asked voters “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIts funny, its not often the people of the islands are given a choice that is recorded for history.
Mar 10th, 2023 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +4In January 1833, there was a choice given to the people on the islands
The militia who had arrived on the islands 10 weeks earlier were given a choice to leave or be incarcerated for the murder of Mestevier. They left with Pinedo, who was returning to BA, it is recorded in the ARA Sarand ships log.
The handful of civilians who were the remnants of the failed Vernet business where given a choice to stay or be given free passage back to Argentina or Uruguay, many chose to stay, some chose to leave as life on the islands was difficult. One who chose to leave was the British Matthew Brisbane to understand what Vernet wanted, he returned a few months later.
These choices in 1833 are in direct contradiction to Argentine lies, which suggest a long standing civilian population was evicted.
Shame on them
Useless corrupt Argentine governments use it as a distraction from their woeful performance of running the country, its been like that for years, especially by right wing nationalists, its all they have , chest beating and flag waving, knowing full well the Falklands are here for good,
Mar 10th, 2023 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@MonkeyMagic The inhabitants were expelled and as you yourself say they were 'invited' to stay.
Mar 11th, 2023 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -3For what reason would they be invited to stay if they were already there? Which proves once again that they would be expelled if they did not accept his gracious Majesty.
The Argentine settlement began in 1820 with Pacheco. The expulsion that you carried out in 1833 was the remnant that was after the attack of the ussLexignton.
A concession, a prison, a garrison, are all acts of sovereignty, just like the prison you created in Australia...
The HMS Beagle's own logbook described the town of Puerto Soledad as prosperous, and with inhabitants, a stocked library, infirmary, etc.
The only reason why the Argentine settlement is questioned by some island historians... is because there was nothing English on the islands previously...
Argy_Planter
Mar 12th, 2023 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse +4‘Argentine settlement began in 1820’.
By 1820 the Islands were long established British territory.
First you need to prove when exactly it was that the Islands stopped being British territory, for any later actions to be considered the basis for a valid claim.
Violations of established British sovereignty by Argentina, do not constitute a valid sovereignty claim for Argentina.
Argentine citizen
Mar 12th, 2023 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In October 1832 there were only handful of people on the Falklands, they were the remnants of the business set up by Luis Vernet, and were under the management of the Scottish Matthew Brisbane.
There was no settlement in 1820, Vernet arrived for the first time in 1826 and left, and didn't return until 1828, the Lexington raid was in 1831. Stop lying about verifiable historic facts.
So, the first question is was the business set up by Vernet an “act of sovereignty” as you suggest, the historic evidence is contradictory, and certainly Vernet himself stated that he didn't care who had sovereignty as long as he could run his business. He also later claimed reparations from the Britsh for the Lexington raid on the basis Britain had sovereignty in 1831. He also advised Woodbine Parish of the British Consul in Buenos Aires of his plans as he was fully aware of the British sovereignty claim. None of these things support your view of unequivocal acts of sovereignty.
I fully agree that sending Mestevier and his militia in 1832 to the islands was an act of sovereignty, which is precisely why the British acted immediately and removed them. Odd dont you think they did this immediately in 1832 and not to Vernet in 1828? Almost as if they saw Vernet as a private entrepreneur and not a sovereign act of Argentina.
So your whole argument rests on the remnants of Vernets business led by Brisbane
Please provide evidence that those 40-50 people were less happy to see Captain Onslow in January 1833 than Pinedo and Mestevier in 1832?
If their self-determination is paramount, and by your twisted logic worth handing the islands to Argentina over the heads of 3500 islanders in 2023, you must be certain that they welcomed Mestevier with open arms, and were horrified when Onslow turned up??
Were they still happy when Mestevier was murdered in front of them...or his wife raped
Why did the majority stay? Why did a handful leave voluntarily?
You have no answers
Unfortunately Argentine posters will never accept the truth about the Falklands, decades of distorted facts and lying by successive Buenos Aires governments has left them totally brainwashed, sad but true, May be one day a more mature Argentina will evolve,
Mar 12th, 2023 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Indigenous people of Argentina were the majority population in Argentina in their hundreds of thousands if not millions in the 1820s , where is their claim for sovereignty based on colonization of Argentina in 1820s ? :)
Mar 12th, 2023 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@Monkeymagic
Mar 13th, 2023 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The nationality of Mattew Brisbane is irrelevant.
In 1820 the takeover of Argentina was published in The Times of London, there was no protest.
In 1826, when the Argentine government granted concessions to Pacheco, there were no protests.
Vernet on each trip came and went with people, food and animals and everything necessary for the population.
The Vernet colony is an act of sovereignty appointed and authorized by the Argentine government. The document exists.
No document exists to prove any authorization from the Parish or the British government to Vernet or Vernet's preference for the British government.
Argentina performed sovereign acts long before Vernet without protest.
General San Martín requested the release of prisoners in Malvinas, which proves that there were people inhabiting the islands.
After the British abandonment of the Trinidad/Saunders islet, the United Kingdom never protested the Spanish presence.
Approximately 50 people were driven out by Onslow. Their names are documented.
Most of the people did not remain on the islands.
Captain Pinedo was tried for not fighting with the British.
The murder of Mestivier or the happiness or not of the people is irrelevant, I do not understand how that can support the supposed British sovereignty.
The question that is not answered:
How is it possible that the islands are british without protests, without occupation and with others performing sovereign acts?
Argentine citizen, stop lying, Brisbanes nationality is irrelevant,?. so was the nationality of everyone that was on the islands on a private multi national business venture, no Argentine Settlement, no Argentine sovereignty ever and no eviction of Argentine people, your continued repeating of theses lies shows you to be nothing more than a fanatic, over and over and over again, the lies have been debunked and destroyed by various posters who have presented the facts to you, how about you give the whole of Argentina back to the natives who are the real owners of the land, not the implanted Spanish,Italian and German robbers who stole it, no matter how much you lie, distort facts and make things up, the Falklands are here to stay and that is that,
Mar 13th, 2023 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense
Mar 13th, 2023 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are funny.
We have established “sovereign acts” have to mean nothing for your argument to work, or irrefutably Britain had “sovereign acts” before Argentina.
So, the only way your argument can work is to prove that an Argentine civilian population was expelled from the islands in January 1833.
We have established that the majority of the Vernet community left in 1831
We have established that only 20-30 were on the islands in October 1832
We have established that Mestevier arrived on the islands in October 1832 with a 40 strong militia and was warned by the British they be removed.
Mestevier was murdered and Pinedo was ordered to leave, around 8 of remaining Vernet residents chose to leave including Brisbane who returned a year later.
This left 18 civilians on the islands, under yet another British member of the Vernet team William Dickson.
So, your claim is based on the self-determination of these 18 individuals of which at least one was British.
You have no idea of their sovereignty preference...and in order for your argument to work you'd have to prove they preferred Argentine sovereignty to British.
Not people who left, one year, three years, 50 years earlier....just those 18.
On the basis of what you think these 18 peoples wished 190 years ago (at least one of them, their leader was British), you want to forget 190 years of the islanders history.
You lose Malvinense......checkmate.
Britain did not establish sovereign acts. They arrived on the islands clandestinely and with the islands occupied.
Mar 14th, 2023 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse -1Then they withdrew and during the entire Spanish occupation there were no protests. This is logical because the islands did not belong to Great Britain.
You are trying to separate the Argentine colony from the Spanish colony. And I understand it because his entire argument falls apart.
What is now Argentina arises from the Spanish territories including the Malvinas/Falklands Islands.
After the Spanish withdrawal due to the independence struggles throughout the Americas, the first Argentine government immediately took action in relation to the islands. There were no British protests.
Our liberator General San Martín writes a letter asking for the release of the Malvinas inmates to fight. Year 1816.
In 1820 Argentina formally took possession of the islands. The fact is published in the United States, Spain and in The Times of London. There were no British protests.
In 1825 the United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence, by that time concessions had been granted to Pacheco, Pablo Areguati had been appointed governor, all acts of state. There were no British protests.
The military and civilian population was expelled is documented.
Pinedo was tried for failing to engage the British. It is also documented.
The community was treacherously partially destroyed by the warship Lexington, otherwise the people would not have left. The Argentine government and Vernet were working to rebuild the community.
The funny one is you, you are very close to saying that the establishment was British, I understand it because nothing British existed on the islands. In addition, self-determination is not 18 individuals or 70 or 200 from the Malvinas/Falklands Islands, it is all the individuals that make up the Argentine territory and I repeat again including the Malvinas/Falklands Islands. You can read Vernet's wife's diary recounting the celebration of national dates.
Malvinense
Mar 14th, 2023 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've lost...give it up.
Argentina can make concessions to the moon if it likes...its not sovereignty
You also do not inherit sovereignty of unpopulated places...least of all 1000 miles away. Argentina took possession of NOTHING in 1820....it could be reported Argentina owns Mars...without a civilian population it means nothing.
Your argument rests on the Vernet business, we both have evidence that shows Vernet knew full well of the conflicting claims of both Argentina and Britain and both were happy for his business to be on the islands
However, his business failed, only an handful of people remained, at least two of that handful were British.
So, Argentina sent a militia to claim the islands, immediately Britain removed it. You deliberately confuse this removal with the Vernet business. I say confuse, I mean lie.
There were no civilians expelled, read Pinedos log, he clearly states only the militia were expelled. Stop lying.
“They arrived on the islands clandestinely”
Mar 14th, 2023 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No they didn’t, they arrived after two diplomatic protest notes. So Buenos Aires was fully appraised as to the UK´s view and intention.
“Then they withdrew … the islands did not belong to Great Britain”
Yet another deliberate lie as I have shown you this very same evidence.
'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
“Argentina arises from the Spanish territories including the Malvinas/Falklands Islands.”
A third deliberate lie that I have shown the evidence refuting your assertion.
The Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
Continue...
Mar 14th, 2023 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I am happy to be able to exchange opinions about the population of the islands because this simply demonstrates the Argentine occupation.
There were no claims, no British occupation. There was an unwarranted act of aggression in 1833.
We are not ignorant of the history of the people who live there, if we are in this situation it is because of the aggression that occurred in 1833 and because the United Kingdom since then and as it currently does is refusing to dialogue and throw the problem forward.
Finally I just want to say that you are very funny, read your own words:
it could be reported Argentina owns Mars...without a civilian population it means nothing.
What was the British population of the islands? hahaha
Capisce...?
Malv
Mar 14th, 2023 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘they arrived on the islands clandestinely’.
Really, again you offer no evidence to support this claim.
Which is not believable given that 1775 is only 3 years after the end of the seven years war, which saw Britain become the only global power at the expense of the French and especially the Spanish.
In 1775 Britain did not have to do anything ‘clandestinely’, especially where the Spanish were concerned.
Also, you say Argentina claimed/inherited the islands in 1820, yet the Spanish continued to claim the islands until 1886 (or thereabouts), clearly they cannot be the same claim.
And again you offer no evidence to support the claim of inheritance, such as a document signed by the Spanish saying they gave it to you.
I could go on and on but in simple terms ‘that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence’.
And as you have no evidence, you are dismissed.
”There was an unwarranted act of aggression in 1833”
Mar 14th, 2023 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The act by the UK was completely legal, and more than justified by Argentine acquiescence in the face of her silence to diplomatic protests.
“..qui tacet consentiré videtur-lit. he who is silent is thought to consent. Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. In law, the silence of a party implies his consent.. A maxim of crime and consent. qui tacet, consentit-lit. he who is silent agrees. Thus, who keeps silent consents; silence means consent; silent consent is same as expressed consent; consent by conduct is as good as expressed consent. This is an implied term in law....”
SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES
A Compendium Of Latin Thought And Rhetorical Instruments For The Speaker Author And Legal Practitioner
”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’.
Malvinense
Mar 14th, 2023 - 09:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's my point dumbass......
There is no doubt that the islands were empty in the early 1820s, so all there were were claims...British claims, Argentine claims, Spanish claims....without a population they were irrelevant....for all. We will call this rule 1.
The question is whether the Vernet business was as you call it a sovereign act, before 1828, between 1828 and 1831, and between 1831 and 1833.
My argument is that anything before 1828 fails Rule 1.
Between 1828 and 1831, we would agree, Vernet ran a relatively successful 100 or so people community on the islands. Argentina clearly claim this constituted a sovereign Argentine population and de facto gave Argentina sovereignty...Vernet was unclear on this dealing regularly with Woodbine Parish the British consul in BA, and making it clear in writing that should the British return to the Falklands he had no issue. It was vague in 1828 and Britain were obviously happy for Vernet to be there.
by 1832 nearly all of the Vernet community had chosen to leave, the remainder (20-30) were suffering severe hardship, Does this remnant fail rule 1, did they see themselves as a sovereign Argentine community....highly unlikely.
There is no doubt that the militia sent by Argentina in October 1832 WAS a sovereign Argentine act, they raised the flag and were officially sent for the purpose, Britian acted immediately and removed them. I don't think anyone seriously claims 10 weeks occupation constitutes sovereignty.
Therefore, your whole argument lives and dies on the Vernet business....its vague, its failed, it had a Briton in charge in 1832 and none of them were evicted....
All the rest is fantasy and illusion....sad thing is that you know it.
The only “aggression” in 1833 was a response to Argentina trying to seize the islands in Oct 1832. Not a shot was fired!
Actually long before fake claims based on people from spanish area which is now Argentina, a naval station in Falkland islands was run from Montevideo so Uruguay has an earlier claim of soverigntity, not Argentina, but as far as they are concerned that's all in the past, let bygones be bygones, Argentina needs to follow there example but they just want to use FI as a political football
Mar 15th, 2023 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense
Mar 15th, 2023 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is quite simple:
If you argue that historic claims are important, Britain wins as it claimed the Falklands before Argentina existed, therefore it suits your argument that if the population leaves, so does the sovereignty. I agree.
Therefore we would need to agree that in 1825 when the islands were empty, that although there were “claims” nobody actually had sovereignty. If you don't agree that, then we can return to a historic claim and Britain wins.
So, we now agree that you need to have a population on the islands to have sovereignty.
We disagree whether the Vernet business between 1828-1831 was recognised as Argentine sovereignty rather than a private business, both today and 130 years ago. I agree we disagree.
What we should agree on, is that after the Lexington raid there were only 20-30 left, and about 10 were desperate to take the first ship off the islands. They were not evicted.
We can also agree that only those who arrived in October 1832 were actually evicted. 10 weeks does not constitute a population.
So, you would need to prove beyond doubt, that the 18 remaining souls on the islands under the management of a British citizen had British sovereignty inflicted on them, against their will to be Argentine and were not happier to see Onslow than Pinedo.
I see no proof of this.
Therefore, on every measure your argument fails.
Possibly had the Lexington raid not happened, possibly if Vernet was still on the islands and made a formal complaint against British sovereignty....but none of this happened.
In fact Vernet accepted that if Britain had sovereignty in 1831, Britain owed hom (and paid him) reparations for the Lexington raid. If he didn't accept that, then he (and his descendants) need to repay it.
Every which way, I see no reason for the islanders of today to suffer for your false history.
@Pugol: It is true the Spanish withdrew from the islands but they did not abandon their claim, not only to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, but to all their territory that was under the struggle for independence. In this part of America, the patriots claimed all the territory that administratively made up the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, obviously including the islands.
Mar 15th, 2023 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -1While the Spanish withdrew and in the midst of the fighting, Argentina formed its first national government, also in 1820 it took formal possession of the islands.
After the struggles ended, Spain did not recognize Argentina until September 21, 1863, that is, Spain did not abandon the claim of its territories until the recognition of Argentine independence.
Spain cedes its territories to the Argentine Republic that legitimately belong to it or will belong to it retroactively to May 25, 1810.
Pugol, as you can verify, the document as proof of inheritance exists, the document of cession of territory exists, the document signed by the Spanish crown exists and it is nothing more and nothing less than the act of recognition of Argentine Independence.
The evidence exists, therefore it cannot be ruled out.
1833, your so called evidence would not stand up in any court of law and would be thrown out instantly, its pure fantasy, you were a small break away region from the Spanish empire thousands of miles way from the Falklands, you inherited nothing, just stop this foolish nonsense, Monkey magic Falklands Free and many others have given you the facts, you lose every which way i know it must hurt but move on,
Mar 15th, 2023 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0””Spain cedes its territories to the Argentine Republic that legitimately belong to it or will belong to it retroactively to May 25, 1810.”
Mar 15th, 2023 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then it would have been an ultra vires act. (beyond the powers)
!. Spain lacked sole proprietorship.
“The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated:... that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands. In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
2. The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
“...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.”
“The evidence exists; therefore it cannot be ruled out.”
Malv
Mar 15th, 2023 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, the British always rejected the Spanish claim and the Spanish had to accept this, as demonstrated in the 1771 treaty. So as far as the British are concerned there wasn’t a valid claim for Argentina to inherit, only a dispute.
The Islands became British in 1690 when BA was the Governorate of the Río de la Plata, part of the Viceroyalty of Peru. The Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata did not exist until 1766, by which time the British had taken possession of the territory and established a settlement there, while the Spanish did not set foot there until 1767.
Hence the Islands were not part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, at any time, or ever Spanish territory by any other name.
Also, the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata also included Uruguay and large parts of Chile, Bolivia, and Paraguay, do you also claim these territories???
If not, why not???
Again, you cannot ‘take possession’ of a territory that someone else already owns, it’s called stealing.
You seem to be saying that you inherited previous Spanish territory in 1810, but the Spanish did not agree with this until 1863, by which time the British had re-established their control over the territory and Spain no longer had any part of the Falklands archipelago it could bestow upon the Republic of Argentina.
Also, in 1863, at the same time that Spain was negotiating a treaty recognising the Republic of Argentina as a sovereign state, the British Governor of the Falkland Islands officially received a Spanish diplomatic and scientific delegation to the British Falkland Islands and received no protest.
Not only is there no evidence that the Malvinas was included in the Treaty of Recognition 1763, the behaviour of the Spanish says they thought it was British.
@Terence Hill The Masserano-Rochtford agreement is very clear: Her Catholic Majesty's commitment to restore (only) Port and Fort Egmont (not Trinidad Saunders islet, not West Falkland, not Falklands Islands) cannot and should not in any way affect the question (OF ITS) previous right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, also called the Malvinas Islands.
Mar 17th, 2023 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the declaration of the Spanish King, where he made an explicit reservation of his sovereignty and it was accepted by his British counterpart.
It is ridiculous to think that in HIS declaration the Spanish king made reservations about British sovereignty. This Spanish declaration and British acceptance is further proof of Spanish sovereignty over the islands, verified and corroborated some time later with the British withdrawal, with the effective Spanish occupation and without British protests. As for the peace of Utrecht, its history is very extensive, Spain lost many territories and Great Britain gained many territories at its expense, such as Gibraltar, Newfoundland, etc. They also expanded their commercial power, increased the slave trade to America that was exclusive to Portugal and Spain.
However, the article that you mention and transcribe is missing another part:
”On the contrary, so that the dominions of Spain in America can be preserved in their entirety, the Queen of Great Britain promises to give help to the Spaniards, so that the old limits of their dominions in the West Indies may be restored and established as they were in the time of the aforementioned Catholic King Carlos II, if it appears that in any way they have been violated and diminished in any of their parts, from the death of the aforementioned Catholic King Carlos II” In other words, Spain lost territories in Europe and North America and the exclusivity of the slave trade in America but consolidated its possessions in the South Atlantic and the Crown of Great Britain was guarantor.
Malv
Mar 18th, 2023 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really, who do you think you are kidding:
‘cannot and should not in any way affect the question (OF ITS) previous right of sovereignty of the Malouine Islands, also called the Malvinas Islands’.
Is NOT what is says.
https://www.fiassociation.com/shopimages/pdfs/1.%201771%20Agreement%20between%20the%20British%20and%20Spanish%20Governments.pdf
It says:
‘cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands’
No ‘(OF ITS)’ in the real text, which completely changes the meaning.
The Spanish wanted to include ‘Spanish previous right of sovereignty’ but the British said no and as this was a treaty negotiated at the point of a gun, the Spanish, as in everything else in this treaty, had to agree.
Thirty years ago when they used to hide information like this in books, you could misquote things like this and unless someone had been to the library and checked they couldn’t argue.
Now however we live in the information age with phones, tablets, computers all with internet access and teenagers to work it all for you.
No hiding your Bullshit, Capishhh.
Historically it is crystal clear what the Declaration said. Spain had to agree or UK would have declared war, thus Spain lacked sole proprietorship.
Mar 18th, 2023 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated:... that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands. In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Moreover, UK’s sovereignty was recognized internationally.
'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
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!