MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazil speaking for Mercosur supports Argentina's Falklands sovereignty claims at UN debate
The United Nations Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) began its general debate on decolonization and related items on Monday, with many speakers emphasizing the need to resolve the questions of the 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories, more than six decades after the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. The Falklands/Malvinas case was speared by Brazil in representation of Mercosur, while as usual the Spanish representative criticized the Gibraltar situation. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBRICS supports everything against the West of Europe and the Anglosphere, that is what Brazil represents and even worse, at the moment Argentina!
Oct 03rd, 2023 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +5They support the aggression of Putin and any other aggression against anything that moves towards Western Europe or the Anglosphere. They are our enemies.
So we can only hope that Milei can take Argentina back to its pre-Peron fantastic unquestionable Western greatness and power but we must remember always that in the present we deal with a generation or two of brainwashed children which we and Milei will bump in to, full of irrational Marxist anti-Western ideology, some totally uncompromising and not open to debate, they cancel anything which fails their anti-Western pro-Marxism test.
Well put Live peanuts, BRICS is a disaster waiting to happen,
Oct 03rd, 2023 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The inhabitants of donetsk, crimea, jerson and zaporiya autopercibe theyr self as russian with 99% referenfum..
Oct 04th, 2023 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse -2Its valid to rusia invade and stole ucranian territory? The answer is no..
They dont had right of self determination.. and the islanders ar british people, there is not right of self determination to the invading power. They had another fundamental rights
At no time in the history of the Falklands have they been Argentinian territory! The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France established a colony on the islands in 1764. In 1765, a British captain claimed the islands for Britain.
Oct 04th, 2023 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1@Argentine Citizen
Oct 04th, 2023 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse +1Another Spoonful of Hate filled Propaganda! one day you will realise that you have been Lied to by the Argentine Politico`s who used the Myth of the Malvina to sell you Fascism (Peronism).
AC. that is a pretty desperate argument to equate the Ukraine situation with the Falklands issue that you are obsessed with . they are not remotely the same. the sooner you realise the Falklands are here to stay the better it will be for you. the delusion of pressure and logistical problems are non existent . in your own words Argentina loses. show friendship compassion honesty and decency to the islanders and may be in a few generations time when Argentina has grown up the islanders may choose a closer relationship. that is their choice, one thing is certain. Argentine attempted bullying and harassment will achieve nothing,
Oct 04th, 2023 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody is deseperate.. its just one more prove of hipocresy of UK abaut the try of manipulation of the right of self determination.
Oct 04th, 2023 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -3According to the UK, Chagosian people havent right of self determination, your malign country killed all pets and poison the water of the island of mauritius ib 1955 evicting all the inhabitants for place a RAF base.
According usa and uk There is not right of self determinarion for the 3 millon people living at donbass and crimea.
They say that self-determination does not apply to those 3 million human beings who have lived in the Donbass for more than 1,000 years since the time of the Russian Empire, are Russian speakers and auto percibe themselves Russian.
From 1965 to 1973, the British government forced the displacement (same as they did there in 1833) of the entire population of the inhabited Chagos - including Diego García, Peros Banhos and Salomón. People were taken to Mauritius or Seychelles, where they ended up living in abject poverty, without adequate food, housing and work. Under a secret plan, the population of Diego García was forcibly evicted. The British government then divided the Chagos Archipelago, separating it from the island of Mauritius to form a new British colony, to be called the British Indian Ocean Territory. At the time, according to HumanRightWatch Britain falsely lied and claimed that there were no people permanently living in Chagos. (and voila! coincident with the story that there was no permanent population in Port Louis in 1833).
Oct 04th, 2023 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -4EVIL..
You have the audacity to call the British evil, are you forgetting Galtieri, who had thousands of your own countrymen killed. who sent thousands of troops to the Falklands who had no desire to be there. are you also forgetting the true natives of Argentina who were almost drove to extinction by the expansionist United Province have a day off will you, hypocritical or what.
Oct 04th, 2023 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine zit
Oct 04th, 2023 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Clearly history isn’t your strong point.
In 1833 not a single person was evicted who had been on the islands for more than 10 weeks. The logs of Pinedo of the Sarandi prove this. The handful of long term residents were under the command of a Briton William Dickson before the Sarandi arrived and after it was evicted.
The vast majority of the Chagos islanders accepted payment to leave, realising they would die without drinking water once the plantations closed, regrettably those handful who refused payment were evicted, they should have been left on there, and in a couple of months the problem would have resolved itself.
The regions of Ukraine is an internal Ukraine issue, the UK gave part of its country the option to leave in 2016 by referendum, if Ukraine wants to, so be it.
Pascoe and Pepper are at great pains to demonstrate that Onslow did not expel the civilians living in the Argentine settlement, but that only the garrison was evicted, which cannot be considered the “genuine population”. They also claim that only eleven civilians left the island, most of which were not “genuine residents”. According to the British authors, only those present since the time Vernet had established a human presence in the islands, not those who had arrived in 1832, were “genuine residents”. The authors conclude that only four “genuine residents” left the islands as a result of Onslow´s actions. The aim of the British pamphlet is quite clear: attempting to prove that the Argentine population was not evicted, thereby circumventing the argument which denies the application of the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination to the present British inhabitants of the islands. It would be hard to justify the application of this principle to a situation in which the colonial power replaced a population with its own and then claimed that the latter should decide the fate of the territory. There is an evident manipulation of data, particularly through the arbitrary differentiation between “genuine” residents and others who are not part of that category. Why should the residents settled there by virtue of the Argentina´s actions be distinguished on this basis? The presence of the newcomers, many of them with their families, was a logical continuation of Argentina´s existing presence, and their arrival aimed at re-establishing a normality violently shattered by the actions of the American frigate “Lexington”.
Oct 04th, 2023 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Credits Kohen-Rodriguez
@JuanCervantes The defacto military junta, which governed Argentina by force between 1976-1983. It was not a democratic government freely elected by the population.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse -3It was a dictatorship imposed by the United States of America with the complicity of its allies... to impose its interests in the fight against Marxism and the Cold War.
In addition to doing business, stealing resources and inserting their weapons industries in Latin America.
No democratic government attacked the Malvinas Islands by force, and they always maintained the claim and peaceful pressure on Argentine rights over the archipelago.Over the years, the United Kingdom took advantage of its position of strength to ignore sovereignty claims and avoided resolving the dispute with democratic governments yo 1970, and on the other hand decided to carry out negotiations with the evil defacto dictators.
In addition to carrying out business with them, such as selling them weapons, type42 destroyer, frigates, missiles, weapones etc.hypocrisy, refusing to settle an open dispute in peacetime, then doing business with defacto governments and agreeing to negotiate with them
@MonkeyMagic Puerto Soledad/Louis once had a population of more than 140 people. After the attack by the American frigate Lexington, that population declined.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse -2The population that Oslow expelled was a continuation of the Vernet settlement.
Argentina developed many acts of sovereignty between 1820 and 1833. Births, marriages, civil acts, business concessions, prison, etc.
Of which we have a lot of historical evidence.
Even Charls Darwin was on the islands months before Onslow's evil act of force.
In his log Darwin described it as a very prosperous town and village, with even a library.
The only reason why for british “historians” (like lorton, pascoe, philips) the settlement is doubtful... is because the one oh british did not exist. They had no settlement, no human presence or evidence on the islands before 1833 and that collapses the self-determination argument.
Agree 100% with @Malvinense1833
AC1 and AC2. nothing more than a poor excuse about your evil Junta, it was supported by the Yanks not installed, Argentine leaders are responsible for the deaths and disappearance of thousands of your fellow countrymen. you should be jumping for joy that Britain helped to bring the Junta down, Argentina developed did they ?, first of all the name was the United Provinces, secondly the only settlement on the island was a MULTI NATION business venture led by a German and a Brit, nothing to do with Buenos Aires or the UP. but you already know this as it has been discussed 100s of times on here. if you are so confident of your claim and facts then you know what you need to do and where to go, the rest is just farcical repetitive nonsense.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse +3@JC The dictatorships in Latin America were installed and promoted by the United States and his allys from the School of the Americas in Washington.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse -2Argentina does not have so much power to orchestrate with surgical precision in 20 Latin American countries at the same time defacto govs.
Your country carried out sovereignty negotiations with that defacto non-democratic government, while refused to peacefully resolve the dispute with successive democratic governments over time.
And all this was because they supported and financed these murderers to carry out their fight against Marxism in the Cold War, and at the same time do business with the interests of British companies and sell them weapons.
Without caring that they were financing a dictatorship that committed crimes against humanity, killed more than 30,000 people and threw them alive from airplanes.
between 1970 and 1982, your governments not only held sovereignty talks with these de facto “friendly” governments. They also sold them weapons, type 42 frigates, bombers, Sea Cat and Sea Darth missiles, ammunition, armored vehicles..
What happens is that this turned against you, when the lunatics that you armed and who were nationalists began to act alone.
Abaut port soledad settlemen, yes of course .. It was a Multi nation people under argentine sovereinghy, like all the people at buenos aires were from diferent nations. we are multi culturar country, the united provinces, had the public administration and several civil acts were carried out. into others a prison operated there too.
As you know, all countries were formed and built based on concesions, businesses, public organizations such as prisons, churches, etc.
Australia founded on (prison&prostitutes) and New Zealand were built similarly at the time of Port Louis.
nothing out of the ordinary
Under Argentine sovereignty ?. then why did Vernet ask permission from Britain, (recorded historical fact) then, he knew full well that the UK claimed the islands. in no way was there any settlement that represented the UP, that is pure fantasy, the small number of people that chose to leave the islands went to Uruguay, not the UP. you are wandering off in to the realms of fantasy. go to the ICJ. if you win i will not like it or agree with it. but i would accept it., your crazy Peronists will never do that, do you really think that the Yanks installed 20 Latin American governments ?. that is absurd. i have no doubt that they tried to interfere just like the USSR did and China is doing now. and it was about stopping the spread of communism throughout Latin America, the Yanks probably went about things in the wrong way, they often do. this conversation is going nowhere. i bid you good day.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse +1@jc I have that wish, that one day our countries both accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, that all the facts and context are judged by an impartial court (if that exists), and that both countries adhere to the court's decision. I would not like a result in favor of the United Kingdom either, but I would accept it, as we did with the friendship treaty with Chile.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the moment, the sovereignty dispute is open as far as my country is concerned, and it is my duty to transmit this position to my descendants, and in the event of a hypothetical conflict to align myself with what the government in power orders.
AC (having 2 accounts on mercopress is against the rules)
Oct 05th, 2023 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Being an expert on the subject perhaps you can explain to me how, seeing as your claim to the Falkland Islands is enscribed in your constitution how any Argentine could negotiate sovereignty with the UK and the Falkland Islanders as surely that would not be permitted under the constitution and would then be regarded as treason.
Bit of a puzzle to me.
The British pamphlet asserts that “Vernet submits his concession to the British” in 1828 and the British Consul in Buenos Aires, Mr. Griffiths, “countersigned it on January 30th, 1828” Unsurprisingly, there is no footnote indicating the source of this assertion. On the basis of this claim, British bloggers affirm that Vernet´s settlement had “British authorization”, something suggested, but not categorically affirmed, by Pascoe and Pepper´s pamphlet. The authors then speculate on whether or not Parish met with Vernet at the time, and fast forward to a meeting the latter requested with Vernet more than a year later. The pamphlet attempts to make its readers believe that while the venture was private in nature, the British government was free not to react, and that such a reaction was only required when the venture became public. This is plainly wrong. If the British government considered the islands to be a possession of His Majesty, it could not have remained passive faced with the Argentine government´s granting of public concessions to a private party.Far from favouring the British claim, the truth supports the recognition of Argentine sovereignty by Great Britain. All Vernet did was to have the Decree of January 5th, 1828 certified at the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. This certification was given on January 30th, 1828 and was signed by the British Consul Charles Griffiths. It was a typical consular legalisation by which a Consulate in a foreign country certifies that an official document is signed and sealed by the competent authorities of the State in which the Consulate is located or has jurisdiction. This function of “legalisation” of official foreign documents is still exercised in Consulates the world over.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse -2Credits Kohen-Rodríguez
malvi
Oct 05th, 2023 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Whatever you may think, whether you are correct or not it seems to have escaped your attention that this was all 200 years ago and as such nobody gives a funkies muck.
All that matters is the Falkland Islanders right to self determination and as such is sod all to do with Argentina.
You can whinge and cry and stamp your feet it makes no difference.
If you are unhappy with that take it to the ICJ.
Put up or shut up.
This function of “legalisation” of official foreign documents is still exercised in Consulates the world over.Why did Vernet have his official Argentine documentation certified or legalised at the British Consulate? Because his plan, which he effectively carried out, was to send the documents to Europe, with the aim of attracting European settlers to the Falklands/Malvinas. We have already cited the model contract above. This was a way to prove that he was going to the islands to establish a settlement with State authorisation. The certification relates to documents referring to acts of authority and provisions of the Government of Buenos Aires regarding the Falklands/Malvinas. This is a far cry from “giving up his concession to the British”. By invoking this act, instead of favouring the British claim, the pamphlet, offers clear proof of Great Britain´s inaction. If the islands belonged to His Britannic Majesty, the documents should have caught the attention of the British Consulate, particularly the authentication of the decree of January 5th, 1828. At the very least, as happened with the consular certification of the fictitious cession of the concessions to Pacheco in 1826, these certifications prove that Great Britain knew about the concession of terrains, fishing rights and franchises made by the Argentine government in 1823 and 1828 regarding the Falklands/Malvinas.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The United Kingdom cannot validly invoke ignorance of these dispositions. In such circumstances, a reaction was required from the British government. But reaction came there none.
Credits Kohen-Rodriguez.
Malvi/Argentine Zit
Oct 05th, 2023 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Not even the United provinces in 1832 claimed “The population that Oslow expelled was a continuation of the Vernet settlement”. That is a ludicrous rewriting of history.
The Vernet settlement had failed by 1831, whether you think it was Argentine, Spanish, German, British or just a private enterprise is irrelevant, it like the British, French and Spanish settlements before had failed, and the islands were all but empty, the handful of civilians on the islands were under the leadership of two Britons between 1831-Oct 1832, first Matthew Brisbane and then William Dickson.
The UP arrived in October 1832 and planted the flag, assigned a governor and claimed the islands an incredibly odd thing to do if the people there were already Argentine and fully aware of their status.
10 weeks later they were removed, Argentina was warned before they left that they would be.
We can keep having the same arguments, tell you what, go to any country on holiday for 10 weeks and see if it makes you a civilian.
@Monkey
Oct 05th, 2023 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The United Provinces took possession of the islands in 1820, not in October 1832. This fact was published in the Times of London.
The Spanish settlement did not fail, it was a continuation of the French settlement of Bougainville which also did not fail.
The Vernet settlement also failed, it was destroyed by the warship Lexington.
It was also already explained that the islands were not terra nullis since the patriots disputed the same territory with the Spanish.
Furthermore, if 10 weeks seems insufficient, what can we say then about the British argument that the islands belong to them according to a claim of 1.590?
Regards
@Monkey The passage of 200 years or 500 is irrelevant, in addition the United Kingdom was very clear about this, in fact they base their rights on a supossed Claim of 1590.
Oct 05th, 2023 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The only reason British historians (without reputable university refferals) try to cast doubt on the settlement of Port Louis is because there was no English presence before 1833 on the eastern island.
In addition to this there is historical evidence, such as the trip of Charles Darwin and the HMS Endurance a few months before the Onslow attack, which describes in detail the town of Port Louis/Soledad as very prosperous and recovering from the attack by the American frigate.
That Russia has invaded Ukraine, evicted its population and force to take refuge to neighboring countries due to the war, and held referendums of 98% with the implanted russian population throughout the country. It will not transform those territories into Territories of the Russian Federation in the year 2223.
Ukraine has and will have the right to keep the sovereignty dispute open over the Donbass, and to attack it at the slightest Russian defensive negligence or weakness.
You cant take possession of a territory without a population. You can “claim it”, but you don't have possession.
Oct 06th, 2023 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1The Spanish settlement did fail, they left voluntarily back to Spain in 1811. So, if as you claim the UP took possession in 1820 it must therefore have been “terra nullis” for at least 9 years.
I am glad you admit the Vernet business failed.
So, there was no population of note on the islands between 1811 and 1832 except the Vernet business which is of highly disputable sovereignty, and that failed anyway.
And the only people evicted in 1833 had been there 10 weeks and were warned before they set off that they would be.
We agree the events Malvi, unfortunately you interpret them entirely differently.
Argentine Zit
I will give you a better example, had Argentina ONLY invaded South Georgia in 1982, Britain would not have sent a task force, if now there were a few thousand Argentines living on the island 40 years later, it would indeed be Argentine territory.
@Monkey
Oct 06th, 2023 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse -1I meant that the Vernet settlement did not fail. I made a mistake when writing.
The territory was not terra nullis, it was being disputed by the patriots and the Spanish.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if uti possidetis is set aside, being considered the applicable customary rule unless otherwise agreed by the parties involved, the same conclusion can be reached, in a different manner. On example is the analysis of the consequences flowing from the status of belligerent and the fact that the South American provinces eventually separated from the Spanish Empire. Due to the state of rebellion in the South American provinces, the international legal situation in Spanish America was comparable to that of a civil war. The rebels could not invoke a right of independence from Spain: they had to gain independence. Third States had to adopt a policy of neutrality –which they did. This means that they could not take advantage of the situation to take possession of the territories of the rebel provinces. The existence of a civil war or rebellion did not turn the territories of the States involved into vast terrae nullius, requiring occupation by one side or the other to avoid foreign occupation.
Credits Kohen-Rodríguez
The South American provinces separated from the Spanish Empire, and the people who lived in each area decided what they wanted to become, Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Peru, Chile etc....those people gained independence from Spain.
Oct 06th, 2023 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There was nobody on the Falklands to decide what they wanted to become or to gain independence. I would agree that if the Spanish inhabitants of the Falklands had remained and joined the fight for independence, they and the islands would have become part of Uruguay most likely, they didn't they returned to Spain.
Not a single person from the Spanish garrison remained on the islands and joined the independence cause.
Therefore the islands were empty at the time of independence, there we no people to claim independence and the nearest Argentine or UP territory was 1000 miles away, you know full well there was no automatic transfer any more than there was for Venezuela to automatically inherit Caribbean islands.
So we come back to the point...Spain left a decade before independence. Argentina failed in 23 years to have a working viable population.
Argentina knew full well of the conflicting claims for the islands
When Argentina finally put together an official claim of the islands, Britain warned them not to, and then evicted them.
190 years later, the islands are a prosperous community, who rely on Britain only for defence....and sadly, only for defence from you.
@Monkey Exact! You hit the nail on the head. Of the countries you mention, 3 were part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. As you know, the islands were part of the Viceroyalty and this is very well documented.
Oct 06th, 2023 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Some of those regions later separated.
In the particular case of the United Provinces, the islands were under their jurisdiction. There is numerous evidence of the acts of sovereignty carried out on the islands after independence was achieved.
Therefore, it is false to say that there was no one on the islands to determine what they wanted to be because they were part of the same territory.
It was formally taken possession in 1820, formally recovering the establishment of Puerto Soledad left by the Spanish.
I'm sorry to say but the self-determination of the islands was achieved more than 200 years ago.
Greetings.
Malvi
Oct 06th, 2023 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Like I said before whether you (or should I say the rather less than impartial cohen) are correct is irrelevant it's all ancient history.
What is relevant is the FACT that the people of the Falkland Islands wish to exert their RIGHT to self determination.
All your squealing and wailing and stamping your foot like a five year old has no bearing.
So why don't you and Argentina act like grown ups and allow the Falkland Islanders to do as they wish.
Malvi
Oct 07th, 2023 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0We agree that of the historic Viceroyalty there are today parts of South America that were part of it and parts that were not. The four parts that were Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina and East Falkland. Three of these are not part of Argentina today...can you see which three?
There is also huge swathes of Patagonia that was not part of the Viceroyalty which is now Argentina.
How has this happened?
Well, the people of Uruguay do not want to be Argentine, they did not automatically become Argentine, the people of Paraguay did not want to become Argentine. You see the people chose....not the land. I doubt the people of Patagonia wanted to be Argentine, but you massacred most of them and filled it with people who do...so now its Argentina.
There were no people on East Falkland to choose.
The “numerous acts of sovereignty” amount to nothing without a population.
We can argue (and you should admit) that the Vernet business as an Argentine population is debatable and it failed anyway.
There is no evidence at all that the 20 or so folks on the islands in September 1832 would chose to be Argentine or British.
What is certain is that the people who live there now chose to be a self-governing overseas territory.
They have done what your ancestors did Malvi. The heroes you are so proud of, they have taken a bit of South America and made it their home. Unlike your heroes and ancestors they didn't commit genocide to do it, they evicted the crew of one boat who'd been there 10 weeks, and most likely would have been removed by Pinedo anyway after their mutiny.
Could not have put it better Monkey. the inheritance nonsense is so ridiculous that any court would throw it out. Argentine posters know that but struggle to accept it as it goes against everything they have been fed over decades. Spanish history is not Argentine history,
Oct 07th, 2023 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Within the period from 1820 to 1833, Argentina had a settlement of more than 140 people, with many civil acts of sovereignty. Several of these people were not allowed to return to their birth homes, being banned by the United Kingdom and affecting their rights to self-determination.
Oct 08th, 2023 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse -3Their descendants by jus sanguinis have that right violated.
We have every right to maintain the sovereignty dispute and the open claim, just as the Ukrainians do over the Donbass.
“affecting their rights to self-determination”
Oct 08th, 2023 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rubish there was no such right recocognised in 1833, so yours just a word salad.
Self-determination
The right of a people to self-determination is a cardinal principle in modern international law, binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the Charter's norms. Wikipedia“.
As it is a post UN law and cannot be applied retroactively.
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized 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. So in spite of your typical Argentine propensity for lying your argument is shown for the fraud that it is.
What a load of Tosh Citizen, its like reading the beano and dandy every time you post,
Oct 08th, 2023 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine zyt
Oct 08th, 2023 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please provide the names of the people not allowed to return to their birth home. The Vernet settlement was encouraged to stay, and indeed Matthew Brisbane (Vernet's deputy), did indeed return after January 1833, Vernet himself (and indeed his family to whom you are referring) chose not to return.
Please provide documented evidence of a single individual born on the islands between 1828-31 who was part of Vernet's business, that was evicted against their will, or “not allowed to return”.
You must have it in your archive to claim it.
Absence of evidence will be assumed as absence of the claim.
1828-1831??
Oct 08th, 2023 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I would be interested to know why these attempts to fragment the time periods.
(I think because your country did not have any inhabitants or a trace of presence on the islands before 1833)
Argentina took possession in 1820 and developed a population of 140 inhabitants.
“I would be interested to know why these attempts to fragment the time periods.”
Oct 09th, 2023 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Already asked and answered
https://en.mercopress.com/2023/10/03/brazil-speaking-for-mercosur-supports-argentina-s-falklands-sovereignty-claims-at-un-debate/comments#comment528424
“First in time has right” Is as old as Roman law.
'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
@Monkey @Bud @Terence:
Oct 09th, 2023 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse -2It is worth recalling that the American government, with Andrew Jackson as president, addressed the Spanish government through its representative in Madrid, with the aim of knowing if the Falkland/Malvinas Islands had been part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Don Martín Fernández de Navarrete, the renowned Spanish historian, was in charge of answering the president. His reply was delivered on October 15th, 1833, and is extremely important:
Navy captain Mr. Felipe Ruiz Puente proceeded to take possession of said islands, on behalf of His Catholic Majesty and in his capacity of governor, and on April 1st, 1767 the Spanish flag was raised at Soledad bay. Since then, the peaceful possession of the Malvinas was not disturbed again, as possessions of the Spanish Crown and its viceroyalty of Buenos Aires. [...] It can be concluded from this that the Malvinas islands, as possessions of the viceroyalty of Buenos Aires before the insurrection, lawfully belong to Spain like all the countries of that portion of America, until such a time as His Majesty determines their future fate.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez.
“It can be concluded from this that the Malvinas islands”
Oct 09th, 2023 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly, as the Spanish wisely beat a hasty retreat on the issue, otherwise they would have been severly trounced.
”The Argentine 2007 pamphlets say (English p. 1, Spanish p. 4) that the agreement contained:... a Declaration by which Spain restored Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of the King of England, making express reservation of its [Spanish] sovereignty over the whole of the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain remained silent as to the Spanish reservation of rights. A reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. 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.
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” ”The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these
Mr. Terence: All the evidence of the time, letters from the officials involved in the negotiations completely refute what was expressed by you and Lord Palmerston.
Oct 09th, 2023 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Dr. Johnson
------This reserve [that of the Spanish sovereignty] has supplied matter for much clamour, and, perhaps the English ministry would have been better pleased had the declaration been without it. But when we have obtained all that was asked, why should we complain that we have not more?-----
----------To have inquired whether our settlement at port Egmont was any violation of the Spanish rights, had been to enter upon a discussion, which the pertinacity of political disputants might have continued without end. We, therefore, called for restitution, not as a confession of right, but as a reparation of honour.---------------
The islands were never British....
Capisce...?
The islands were never Argentinian Capisce. ?
Oct 09th, 2023 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Bud hahahaha Regards.
Oct 09th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Oct 09th, 2023 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once again I say to you 'so what'. Whether you are right or wrong is totally irrelevant it's all ancient history. All that matters is the RIGHT of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Argentina or Spain.
Why cannot Argentina allow the Falkland Islanders that right?
Why cannot Argentina be a good neighbour and friend?
Lets be clear, Spain had sovereignty on West Falkland, Vernet was given permission to have a business on West Falkland. How that translates to all the Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and all surrounding maritime spaces would appear unclear.
Oct 09th, 2023 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine zyt.
There was practically nobody on the islands between 1820 and 1828..a few visits by multiple countries including the UP and the UK and others including the US. No population means no sovereignty.
I don't know where you get 140 people from, most data would suggest about 90 people at peak, and they really fall into three categories.
Vernet left in 1831 with a few people to pursue legal claims against the US sealers, nobody evicted him or his family, he chose never to return as did his family. It can be assumed about 30 people travelled with him, including Matthew Brisbane, who returned to the Falklands in 1834 (disproving your argument that Vernets crew were forbidden to return).
Whilst Vernet was away the Lexington arrived in the Falklands and arrested 7 people, they also gave free passage to 30 some people who wanted to leave the islands claiming terrible conditions and Vernet had lied to them.
This left 27 people on the islands that were there when Pinedo arrived in October 1832, they were under command of the British William Dickson and were of multiple nationalities, a few 5-10 of them chose to return with Pinedo, none were evicted.
The truth was that the Vernet business failed, most of them couldn't wait to leave, none of them were barred from returning...therefore your entire claim is bogus.
Spain left West Falkland in 1810, no population worth the name for 18 years, that population was a private business that disbanded voluntarily and the British have been there for 190 years.
Thats it!!
@Mr M.Magic
Oct 09th, 2023 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“There was practically nobody on the islands between 1820 and 1828..a few visits by multiple countries”
Our historical records do not indicate that ,
architectural plans for buildings, livestock pens, church, etc , nor do the voyage logs of foreign ships.
Not even the English expedition of the british explorer Fitz Roy (
They describe in detail the settlement, the population and civil buildings.).
He had two expeditions to Puerto louis between 1820 and 1833 on the HMS beagle ship.
Arg Cit
Oct 09th, 2023 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll say the same to you as I did to Malvi who hasn't replied because he is unable to answer what I said and that is
“Whether you are right or wrong is totally irrelevant it's all ancient history. All that matters is the RIGHT of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Argentina or Spain.
Why cannot Argentina allow the Falkland Islanders that right?
Why cannot Argentina be a good neighbour and friend?”
So as Malvi doesn't have the courage of his convictions how about you?
Argentine zyt
Oct 09th, 2023 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Best you look again at your own historic records. Or provide the details.
There were pretty much no civilians living on the islands between 1811 and 1828, a few failed trips, a whole load of ships using the ports but no civilians. Vernet tried in 1824 and gave up, he tried again in 1826 and gave up.
The expedition of 1828 was moderately more successful until he crossed the Americans, seized their boats under a fake authority, and then left the islands with 1/3rd of the population (about 30). When the Lexington arrived, it arrested seven and thirty more literally begged to be taken back to the mainland. This left 27 on the island when the Sarandi arrived.
the 27 were of multiple races and under the command of the British William Dickson.
So I repeat:
Who were the people born on the islands that were evicted and refused the right to return?
When did they arrive?
On what boat did they leave?
When were they forbidden return?
A single name will do....you have claimed it so it must be true (or not).
Or the facts.....
The united Provinces wanted sovereignty, they knew at the time sovereignty claims were meaningless, you needed a civilian population. Vernet's business was dubious and Argentinas unequivocal claims today were even less then that the business amounted to sovereignty.
When they finally sent a full garrision, Britain knew that it were ever going to exercise its historic claim, it would need to now...so it acted.
If it is a crime (which is highly highly debatable) it is a victimless one.
Not a single civilian was evicted, not a single civilian was denied right of return.....only 27 civilians were on the islands in October 1822.
Thats it.
Cont.
Oct 09th, 2023 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
“The islands were never British.”
Not according to The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849
Nor 'As late as 1886 the (US)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
@Terence
Oct 10th, 2023 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -11-The islands were already occupied.
2-The English were in a foreign territory.
3-The English recognized Spanish sovereignty with a treaty.
4- The English abandoned the Saunders/Trinidad islet
5- There were no subsequent claims of sovereignty.
6-The Spanish remained occupying the islands, without the presence of another foreign power.
7-They still cannot explain how leaving a flag flying has greater importance than the years of Spanish occupation and the years of Argentine occupation.
The islands were never British
Capisce...?
Malvi and Arg Cit
Oct 10th, 2023 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Why don't you answer my questions? or are you cowards?
On the contrary, they have always been and always will be British.
Oct 10th, 2023 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1'The Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, 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.
§VISCOUNT PALMERSTON replied, that the question was a very simple one, so far as this country was concerned. It was well known that a TREATY OF PEACE and reconciliation was concluded and ratified between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation more than twelve months ago.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1851/aug/04/buenos-ayres
“The confidential draft of CONVENTION OF PEACE, arranged with H. E. the Honourable Henry Southern Esquire, and referred by him to the Government of H. B. M. and which is the same that same that has been accepted without any alteration by the Government of H.M., and signed by the Argentine and British Plenipotentiaries, after the exchange of their respective powers,” Juan M. De Rosa.
Buenos Ayres, December 27th 1849. Chamber of Representatives
which question darragh?
Oct 11th, 2023 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse -1Arg Cit
Oct 11th, 2023 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0OK, as apparently you don't read other people's comments I'll cut and paste for you
“Whether you are right or wrong is totally irrelevant it's all ancient history. All that matters is the RIGHT of the Falkland Islanders to self determination. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Argentina or Spain.
Why cannot Argentina allow the Falkland Islanders that right?
Why cannot Argentina be a good neighbour and friend?”
There you go, shouldn't be a problem for you to answer unless, of course like Malvi you don't have the courage of your convictions.
@Darragh
Oct 11th, 2023 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I will try to answer your question to the best of my ability.
The story is old but it has repercussions even today, because from day one the United Kingdom refused to establish a dialogue.
From my point of view the islands belong to Argentina. Even so, I am in favor of the conflict being resolved through dialogue, regardless of whether the result is in favor or against Argentina.
If the result is against, only then can the islanders be recognized as good neighbors and friendship can be achieved.
If the result is favorable, the islanders would integrate with the rest of Argentina,
respecting their way of life, language, and culture.
Unlike other of my compatriots, I am in favor of shared sovereignty as a solution method.
I also said many times that in the future it is possible that we will have an islander president of Argentina who speaks English.
Regards.
Malvi
Oct 11th, 2023 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Please do not sign your notes off with Capisce, it makes you look like Think and you are so much better than that, he is a troll, I do not believe that you are.
I understand that you believe the islands belong to Argentina, in fact you both put up a spirited defence of your position and unlike mist others can adjust the mantra when faced with new information.
The problem as I see it is that in order to see your point of view it would suggest that land in the Americas could never change hands and that somehow there is a huge wrong done to modern or historic Argentina.
I would need to accept the following:
Every territory controlled by the Viceroyalty of Rio Plata automatically became United Provinces of Rio Plata upon independence, and indeed additional territories (East Falkland, South Georgia, the South Sandwich islands and British Antarctica and all surrounding maritime spaces). I see no reason why this is the case, and believe this is only the case for the territories where the people claimed independence.
So West Falkland was vacated.
There is plenty of evidence that Spain, Britain and Argentina all claimed West Falkland between 1811 and 1833 and plenty of evidence that showed they all knew their claims were spurious without a civilian population. Argentina knew this and therefore wanted a population to cement their claim, they wouldn't have gone to the effort if inheritance was automatic.
Vernet left and took a third of his team with him, the Lexington took another third who wanted to leave, the Sarandi took a few more volunteers. Those that remained, about 20 stayed quite happily under British sovereignty.
Britain no more usurped West Falkland than Argentina tried to usurp East Falkland, it disregarded an historic claim and nobody was hurt.
We wont agree, and to me 200 years have passed and the islanders now own the islands, not Britain or Argentina. Like pretty much all Atlantic islands.
@daragh The supposed right of self-determination that you mention is not built on the basis of stealing and expelling and banishing another population.
Oct 12th, 2023 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse -1There is no time limit, the United Kingdom was very clear about this, since they base the claim and ,legitimized the atrocious act of 1833, invoking the discovery of the islands in 1592.
The conflict shuld be resolved with dialogue or by the court, if the UK acept the jurisdiction, If the result is against argentina, only then can the self determination be recognized, and the islanders be recognized as good neighbors and friendship can be achieved..For the moment, we will not be good neighbors, like Israel and Palestine... waiting for a slip or minimal geopolitical change.
“The supposed right of self-determination that you mention is not built on the basis of expelling and banishing another population.”
Oct 12th, 2023 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes it is, Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state, he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
”..It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem 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'..“
Even if a peace treaty was not in effect, the British occupation was still recognized as valid under international law of the time. Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: ”Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law a
@Trollence Hill
Oct 12th, 2023 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was no conquest because there was no war or declaration of war between the united provinces and the united kingdom. There was simply an illegal act of force and eviction of the inhabitants of Port Louis.
And only war was the way to acquire territories by conquest.
This is precisely why the UK Legal team, with lawyers qualified in international law, never invoked the “Conquest” argument... Furthermore, according to the UK, the islands belonged to them due to a sighting in 1592, and According to his logic, he would self-contradict and destroy his story. Because you can't conquer what theoretically belongs to you.
Page 105-109 (specialy page 106) Sharon Korman (British ICJ jurist), explain the inaplicance of conquest to malvinas islands, and recognize the UK used ilegal force to the civilian argentine settlemen..
https://www.google.com.ar/books/edition/The_Right_of_Conquest/ueDO1dJyjrUC?hl=es-419&gbpv=1&dq=sharon+korman+the+right+of+Conquest+falklands&pg=PA105&printsec=frontcover
Citizen, there will be no slip or geopolitical change, we have learned from history that you can not be trusted,, the Falklands are here to stay end of story, and to even suggest the Israel/Palestine situation will happen shows what a fantasy world you are living in,
Oct 12th, 2023 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0@BS The Spanish, Romans, and the USSR said the same thing.
Oct 12th, 2023 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse -1Let's hope we don't have a conflict like that between Israel and Palestine.
But the doors are open and both countries have already shown what we are capable of doing and where we are willing to go.
AC
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0You continue to repeat the long proven false myth of “the atrocious act of 1833” and “ illegal act of force and eviction of the inhabitants of Port Louis”.
This has been proven false on numerous occasions and if you wish to access the logs of Pinedo and the SS Sarandi you will find you have swallowed a lie.
Mestivier sailed from Buenos Aires in a small Argentine warship, the Sarandi, captained by Jose Maria Pinedo, on 23 September 1832. With him went a garrison of 26 soldiers, with their 11 women and 8 children. They reached the Falklands on 6 October 1832.
Britain made a formal complaint on 28th September before the Sarandi arrived.
Pinedo and his crew always intended to return to Argentina, after exploring the islands.
Mestevier was then murdered by members of the garrison whilst Pinedo was away on the Sarandi. The mutineers then tried to charter a British ship the Rapid to leave the islands. When Pinedo returned on the 30th December he ordered the Rapid not to leave.
Five days later Captain Onslow arrived and ordered both Pinedo and the garrison to leave. Pinedo was planning to leave anyway and the garrison had already chartered the Rapid.
Nobody was ordered to leave who didn't want to go, or who was not already planning to leave. Its in Pinedos logs, go read them.
No usurpation, no atrocious act...just made up nonsense
“There was no conquest because there was no war or declaration of war between the united provinces and the united kingdom.”
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not according to this world renowned jurist Hans Kelsen, in his book General theory of law and state he writes:
“if the conquest is firmly established. Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Okay, @Mr. Terrence, the United Kingdom made a conquest in 1833 against a civil settlement of the united provinces.
Oct 12th, 2023 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Since you made a conquest, the territory was not your possession before 1833, the Argentine titles are automatically recognized for your line of argument. Since you cannot conquer what belongs to you.
I will accept your argument that there was a conquest.
Since there was a conquest here, any argument that the islands belong to the United Kingdom is destroyed.
We will keep open the legitimate claim of sovereignty waiting for our future generations since there was a conquest and eviction against our civilian population.
So, not good neighbors, and not good relations while the dispute is still open..
“I will accept your argument that there was a conquest.”
Oct 12th, 2023 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are the party that claims you were usurped, so you don`t have a choice.
Sharon Korman was wrong, as The Caroline “anticipatory self-defense” in international relations, which holds that it may be justified only in cases in which the “necessity of that self-defense ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_affair#
Whereas, Kelsen clearly states ”It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
Assessment of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
“Argentina failed to submit the dispute...there is little doubt that GB acquired definitive title to the Islands before 1982.”
after reviewing for Argentina’s claim, Argentina never developed title to the Islands.
Applying the rules, extinctive prescription
one could conclude this was a sufficient to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite diplomatic protests. The establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to alive.
The League of Nations and, later, the UN were capable of adjudicating the competing claims. ...
To avoid losing her claim her claim to the LON, the PCIJ or the ICJ....For over 50 years prior to the armed conflict of April 2, 1982, Argentina failed to submit the dispute
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to GB results in a different conclusion. It involves possession,...However, since this was such a period of time, exceeding eighty years, one could conclude that this sufficient to extinguish Argentina's claim
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
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY;
AC
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets try again, how did Great Britain make a conquest against a civil settlement of the United Provinces?
Read the logs of Pinedo.
There were 27 people living on the islands in September 1832. Far from these people being a civil settlement of the United Provinces, they were under the leadership of the British William Dickson and represented about ten different nationalities, all people who Vernet had employed or convinced to join him, of these 27, twenty remained on the islands long into the British rule, many for the remainder of their lives. There is no evidence whatsoever they considered themselves a civilian population of the UP.
They were joined in the October by 43 others, this is indisputably a representative group of the UP under Mestevier.
Sadly very soon after arrival the group mutinied and killed Mestevier and raped his wife, they then chartered the Whaling ship the Rapid to return them to Argentina.
Pinedo then ordered them to stay, which was symbolic only as Pinedo was returning to Argentina and they would have just chartered the next available boat. Pinedo offered safe passage to Argentina and Uruguay for seven of the original Vernet community including an Italian a Uruguayan couple and others.
When Onslow arrived he ordered all the newcomers to leave with Pinedo along with the seven who had already asked to leave.
No conquest, No atrocious act, No usurpation.
There were 27 people living on the islands in September 1832 and 20 of them remained in January 1833, the other seven chose to leave BEFORE Onslow arrived.
@monkeymagic.. your partner terrence hill is argumenting, that the uk made adquisition by conquest.. not me. He is self destroying your position argumenting a conquest in 1833 not me..
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“that the uk made adquisition by conquest”
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I am showing is it does`nt matter how you look at the UK. She holds all the bench marks, of international law required by acts, time, and treaty.
While Argentina is unfortunately revealed in a poor light as dishonest, and double dealing.
Citizen, read it again,
Oct 12th, 2023 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sharon Korman was wrong, as The Caroline “anticipatory self-defense” in international relations, which holds that it may be justified only in cases in which the “necessity of that self-defense ...
Oct 12th, 2023 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_affair#
Whereas, Kelsen clearly states ”It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
”The Caroline affair (also known as the Caroline case) was an international incident involving the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Canadas which started in 1837 and lasted until 1842.“
Regardless it is post retroactive law as it could be applied only after 1842.
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized 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.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!