MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina: Malvinas claim recognizes Islanders “interests” and a “mature relation” with Britain
The third of January has been an iconic date for Argentina's claim over the Falkland Islands, since on that day but in 1833, the “United Kingdom forcibly occupied the Malvinas Islands over which ”a recently independent Argentine Nation was exercising sovereignty, given her condition of heir to such possessions of Spain in South America.” Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYet more Bee Ess from Buenos Aires, the truth is, no usurping no eviction no sovereignty no Argentine settlement no inheritance, no nothing, just lies, a myth and a fantasy,
Jan 04th, 2024 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +3'Mature relationship'? Does Argentina actually know what that means?
Jan 04th, 2024 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +3The day of infamy.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -6No Spanish cession was necessary
Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State. No express cession of sovereignty is required by the colonial power. The new State inherits the same territory by virtue of its existence as a State. The fact that Spain had not formally recognised Argentina, and only signed a Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship on September 21st, 1863, is absolutely irrelevant for the sovereignty dispute. Moreover, by virtue of this treaty, Spain
recognised the Argentine Republic or Confederation as a free, sovereign and independent Nation, made up of all the provinces appearing in its Federal constitution in force, besides the territories that legally belong or will belong in future to that Nation.
Article 4 further recognises the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez.
Malvinas,
Jan 04th, 2024 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +4What claim are you talking about?
When an old Pope decided he had the divine right in 1492 to divide up all the as yet still undiscovered world- after Colombus found North America -
and IF any land was ever found in the various geographical regions it would become Spain,s or Portugal,s?
Remember only Spain and Portugal ever agreed to that old parchment- no other nation accepted it.- so from the British side it was irrelevant.
Then we move into the late 1760s when rather than have a war- Spain agreed to the British re-establishing them shelves on the Islands- and it was only then- after the first earlier British and earlier French settlement attempt - that the Spanish acutually came down here then selves.
So when your war of independence got underway- where did the small Spanish militray garrison at Port Louis leave and move to?
Not Buenos Aires- but to Montevideo - so if ANY South American Country wants to try and claim to have inherited the Islands from Spain
Then it is Uruguay who maybe could try and make that claim.
You really are all muddled and confused - but in the modern era the real world goes by the UN Charter- which even Argentina signed- and that clearly states that the people of a place(country) have the right to choose their own political future of their own free will.
Our choice- not some Foreign Minister who knows little announcing she will take our“ interests” into account- who decides someone else,s interests eh?
There is a big difference between “interests” and wishes- one is totally democratic and the former is dictatorial and coloniailistic- but them that is what we expect from Argentina
Malv
Jan 04th, 2024 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Firstly happy new year to you and yours, let’s hope it’s a good one for all.
Again you completely ignore the British history of the S. Atlantic, pretending it doesn’t exist won’t make it go away.
Argentina cannot have inherited the territory from Spain, as Spain was never the undisputed owner of the territory. As I have said before, the most Argentina can claim to have inherited is a dispute.
The British never accepted the Spanish claim, as the 1771 treaty proves beyond any doubt.
The agreement also maintains both parties claims, it says:
‘the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty, 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.’
So, in 1771, long before Argentina existed in any form, the British rejected the Spanish claim and maintained their own claim as they had done since 1690 and have continued to do right up to the present day.
Then in 1811 the Spanish completely abandoned the territory and according to you, gifted it to Argentina in 1863.
52 years after the Spanish had abandoned it and 13 years after Argentina had dropped its claim in the South Aran Treaty and stopped sending diplomatic protests.
And at a time when neither Spain nor Argentina exercised any control over the territory, when it was firmly back under British control.
Not much of a claim and not an argument that would stand up in court and Argentina knows this, hence won’t accept any independent arbitration.
Saludos.
That statement is not worth the paper it is printed on. Full of mythical ideals and errors.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The Falkland Islanders do not want or need future negotiations over their territory. A territory that has been owned by Britain since before Spain or even France set foot on the territory.
How convenient to deliberately not include that part of the ownership.
An account of the last expedition to Port Egmont In the Falkland Islands in the year 1772” by Bernard Penrose (Surgeons Mate)
'Be it known to all nations, that Falkland's Island, with this fort, the storehouses, wharfs, harbours, bays, and creeks there unto belonging, are the sole right and property of His most Sacred Majesty George the Third, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. In witness whereof this plate is set up, and his Britannic Majesty's colours left flying as a mark of possession by S. W. Clayton, commanding officer at Falkland's Island, A.D. 1774.' So even with or without the French settlement on East Falklands Britain never gave up their claim. Spain never actually owned any part of the islands but assumed they had received them from France who in fact did not own them but simply established a settlement on East Falklands to attempt their authority over them. Britain and France almost went to war because of that. Argentina was not even born then. The Spanish having invaded South America were still running their ill-gotten gains.
Any way we the islanders have made it abundantly clear where we stand, and any negotiations will not change our status. Argentina can attempt to negotiate or make a claim, but it will never succeed against the constitutional rights of the inhabitants of these islands.
The ICJ will no doubt come to the same conclusions if it were ever approached.
It is worth noting that Argentina cannot apply the UPJ inheritance rule to the Falklands.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/44496176/Argentina_did_not_inherit_the_Falkland_Islands_from_Spain
I think all this article says is that Argentina promises that in future they will ask nicely. That may dial back the expectations of the Argentine people but unfortunately those expectations still exist and there is nothing to prevent them from being exploited in the future. The only solution here is for Argentina to recognize the Falkland Islands as an independent nation. Argentina recognizes Belize, an ex-colony of Britain. Why is it so hard in the case of the Falklands ? And btw, the plural of forum is fora, not forae.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Malvy, Kohen Rodriguez thoughts are about as reliable as a chocolate fire guard,
Jan 04th, 2024 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The problems with what is said today is that it can be unsaid tomorrow by a different political party, so it is impossible to take anything seriously.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +4This is compounded by the nightmare of turning “Falkland Issues” in to “internal Argentine politics” Which is even worse than any external policy issue, the islands would be in the hands of envy and lies theoretically without the protection of the Crown. ANYTHING promised would go out of the window if Peronism were to return.
I wonder how many will actually click on and even read the article Steve Potts posted above. The Argentines would refuse to accept this report because it would mean that they would have to admit they are wrong and their pride will never allow that.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +3I also believe that even if they were to take this unwinnable case to the ICJ and told they dont have a case , they would equally never accept it, because they are so indoctrinated with a myth, they know nothing else.
Argentina no more inherited the Falkland Islands from Spain than a bank robber inherits his loot.
Jan 04th, 2024 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Thats the crux of the matter FF, they will never go to the ICJ , as the whole fantasy story will be exposed and then they would have nothing left to cling to and divert from the real issue of how Argentina has been raped of its wealth by corrupt lying politicians and business people, for Malvi the only adult Argentine poster, it must really hurt, the others are no more than joke trolls,
Jan 04th, 2024 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“... The General Assembly of the United Nations had characterized the Malvinas Islands Question as a special and particular colonial situation ...”
Jan 05th, 2024 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse +4Where's the General Assembly said that then?
Oh, they haven't.
In fact the General Assembly has said nothing since 1988. No UN GA resolution. No UN GA debate. Nothing.
Argies cannot but help themselves ... they lie, continually.
@Pugol-H The Southern Arana Treaty does not make any mention or influence on the question of the Malvinas Islands.. according to international jurists such as Kelsen, Korman or Wheaton....so 13 years are nothing.
Jan 05th, 2024 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse -6Finally, according to international law, once a dispute and the claim has already been made repeatedly... there is no need to revalidate it every year.
with or without Masserano Rochtford agreement, with or without inheritance of spain.. the islands were completly null land.. and british never had a settlemen carrying out soverany acts.. argentina took posession of east island in 1820.. after 60 years of silence of brithis or any claim. an island where the British had never had a presence or settlemen.
The United Kingdom made it very clear that the 60 years of silence and absence of sovereign acts... maintained their right to claim the islands.
“The Southern Arana Treaty does not make any mention or influence on the question of the Malvinas Islands.”
Jan 05th, 2024 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse +3That is because there is no such requirement.
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#
As it cannot apply retroactively to preceding date.
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Whereas, Kelsen clearly states ”It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.”
Supported by the following international legal scholars:
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, LL.D, JAMES MADISON CUTT, T. J. LAWRENCE, M.A., LL.D,
GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D., LL.D, L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D, Hans Kelsen
Additionally supported by Argentine subsequent acquiescence.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
It's troubling that Skippy Jessop (Terence Hill) cannot accept his scandalous history.
Jan 05th, 2024 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -3For more information, I suggest you review his YouTube channel.
¡Saludos de Panquehue!
@ Islander1
Jan 05th, 2024 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -4It is not necessary to mention any old Pope. Suffice it to say that the British were not the first to occupy the islands. In any case it was a matter to be resolved between France and Spain and it was resolved in favor of Spain.
There were no British protests when the transfer of sovereignty was made.
Spain agreed to return Fort and Port Egmont to save English honor nothing more. After this they withdrew and there was no formal protest against the Spanish presence on the islands.
You forget that Montevideo was another city in the Spanish Province called the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata.
Montevideo was just another town, like Buenos Aires, Puerto Luis or any other place in that Province.
You recognize that there was a small Spanish garrison, so explain to me what the British Isles could be like? Without a garrison, without a population?
The seat of the Viceroy was Buenos Aires. The other existing administrative divisions, (audiencias, governorates, intendencias) had a limited autonomy and depended on the authority of the Viceroy. According to the Royal Ordnance of Intendentes dated 1782, the Superintendence of Buenos Aires comprised the district of the Buenos Aires Bishopric, which included the coastal cities and their respective jurisdictions, the Governorate of Montevideo, the Governorate of Malvinas, the eastern area of Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and other territories which formed part of the old Governorate of the Rio de la Plata, with the exception of the thirteen missions founded along the Parana river, which had been incorporated in the diocese of Asunción.19 Consequently, none of the administrative divisions that subsequently became independent States (Paraguay in 1811, Bolivia and Uruguay in 1825) had jurisdiction over the Falklands/Malvinas in 1810. Furthermore, their independence is an instance of separation from the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez.
Argy Planter
Jan 05th, 2024 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are half right the ‘Convention for re-establishing the perfect Relations of Friendship between Her Britannic Majesty and the Argentine Confederation’, does not mention the Falklands that is the whole point, however it does say:
VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.
So, there was no dispute as far as this agreement was concerned in 1850 and following it Argentinian diplomatic protests stopped for some 90 years.
You cannot argue that Argentina has maintained its claim, well not any argument that would stand up in court.
Argentina could not legitimately ‘take possession’ in 1820 of territory that was already long established British territory. Also the 1820 settlement obtained permission from the British to establish a commercial settlement there and as such cannot contribute to any Argentinian sovereignty claim.
There was 53 years of silence and absence of sovereign acts from Spain before they allegedly gifted the territory to Argentina and then 90 years of silence and absence of sovereign acts from Argentina where Argentina never had a presence or settlemen..
By your own logic Argentina and Spain both dropped their claims.
Malv
For Argentina to have ‘inherited’ the territory from Spain, the territory must be Spanish in the first place.
As I have shown, in 1771 Britain rejected the Spanish claim and maintained their own claim, the Spanish claim was disputed.
You have to show when, after 1771 and before 1810, the British relinquished their claim or at the very least acquiesced to the Spanish claim or Argentina simply cannot have inherited the territory only a dispute.
A dispute in which Argentina is not Spain and not able to claim the support of Spanish history.
Except Argentina does not have a claim in its own right, does it!
”It's troubling that Skippy Jessop (Terence Hill) cannot accept his scandalous history.“
Jan 05th, 2024 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Why would would anyone accept your unsupported assertion, what the evidence clearly refutes?
So you've claimed I'm both fat and skinny. You've said that I'm 34, and claimed another time that I'm 80.
Not according to the only authentic photo of me in 2018. Looking slim and trim in this picture of me with my tankard in March 2018. It shows my name, my rank, squadron 18, of the RAF in 1963. It is the only bona fide image of me on the web, any other claims will fail for lack of authenticity.
https://imgur.com/a/WDPeU
”If you review Skippy's YouTube history it becomes clear ...“ which party the malignant narcissist is projecting.
”A man is known by the company he keeps.“ Aesop
Which is unproven which will remain so because it's untrue.
But that is no surprise as you are a malignant narcissist, and he is your obsessive projection.
”To a narcissist, everything is a game, and to win at the game, they must make themselves appear as both the victim and the hero. You will become the true victim of conspiracies that will escalate into false allegations that include everything they themselves have been doing all along – projection is a common action of a narcissist; these accusations will be executed with a jarring lack of empathy and you will wonder where the person is that you met. These claims will generate confusion because they will seem to be an alternate reality relative to what your life together was really like.”
https ://narcissistabusesupport.com/common-traits-narcissist/
Please not again guys, its 2024, just ignore each other,
Jan 05th, 2024 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess there's nothing of interest here. But, don't let the door hit you in the back.
Jan 05th, 2024 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“Argentina could not legitimately ‘take possession’ in 1820 of territory that was already long established British territory. ”
Jan 06th, 2024 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse -3Haha Funny guy.. british had Not settlemen at east island.. and they never made a claim of that.. 59 years of silence until first iligetimate claim in 1829.. the islands (both) were null land for international law of that time.
Adding more, talking abaut west island , british never had a real Settlemen at port egdmont.. was a temporary garrison between 1765 to 1774 with sporadic times of null presence.. not civilian population, not births, comerce, nathing.
being extremely fanciful and stretching the story to the ridiculous and assuming that the United Kingdom had a legitimate settlement in Port Egdmont. There was no title or basis for the attack and occupation of the eastern island where the settlement of Port Louis was located.
“They never made a claim of that.. 59 years of silence”
Jan 06th, 2024 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your the only one's that didn't get the message, is that what claiming?
”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
Arg Cit
Jan 06th, 2024 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who gives a s..t what did or didn't happen 200 years ago. You can't return the world to what it was then.
The only thing that is relevant is the self determination of the Falkland Islands now, today, 2024. (don't bother to come back with some nonsense that they re not a people blah, blah, blah)
So why doesn't Argentina stop acting so childishly..
Or alternatively take it to the ICJ.. Put up or shut up.
100% agree Darragh, look at the topic below this one, and se what silly nonsense he has posted, the man lives in a dream world, but then all fanatics do,
Jan 06th, 2024 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@darragh
Jan 07th, 2024 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse -3It matters to us :) that's enough... in addition to all the Latin American countries + China. among others... that's enough for us
“You can't return the world to what it was then” In reality, we can, we can invade and recover the territory illegally occupied since 1833, taking advantage of any minimal advantage or window of opportunity that presents itself on the future---
While the door is open... it is valid for the Argentine armed forces to occupy the territory... and it is valid for the royal army fight for it.
“The only thing that is relevant is the self determination of the Falkland Islands now, today, 2024.” there is not self determination.. for this inhabitants. same as the inhabitants of Donetsk, lughansk or crimea...
No Argie zit,, China does not give a stuff about the Falklands and neither does Latin America, China/Xi only cares what China can rape and take from Argentina, the rest of Latin America is completely indifferent, and are sick to the back teeth of your crying and moaning, its called lip service, you are making a fool of yourself with these silly comments, any future attempt to take the islands by force will be dealt with swiftly , there will be no window of opportunity, from history we have learned that you are about as trustworthy as Hitler and Trump was, no Argentine military will ever set foot on the Falklands again,
Jan 07th, 2024 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“no Argentine military will ever set foot on the Falklands again”
Jan 07th, 2024 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse -2We think Yes, we will be back.,, thats exactly the reason of why we make the constitution reform, and we pass the torch to next generations...
Also your country think we will doit agian, we already show what we are capable of.. It is precisely the reason that we push them to have to build an air base, maintain forces there, and military assets.
This is the wonderful thing about nonviolent resistance and peaceful protest.
The cost of keeping the legitimate claim open is zero, we can even increase the defense spending of the islands to the sky simply exerting passive and peaceful pressure..
Of course 500 million pounds a year is nothing, and if we scale it to 5 billion a year according to our defense analysts... it will still be a drop in the kingdom's defense budget.
The important thing is to keep the drops flowing... while their real enemies (Russia, China, the Arab world) advance on other fronts.
its keep the claim open, its Free!!
No Argie zit, only you believe this ridiculous nonsense, you say the same thing in every post, its utter and complete nonsense, what on earth are you talking about non violent resistance. all you are doing is crying and moaning to the same people who are sick to death of it, your legitimate claim is not legitimate and all, otherwise you would have gone to court many many years a go, you can increase your military spending as much as you want it will never be enough to take the Falklands, you will never spend 5 Billion om your military. your own politicians will never trust them again, and 5 Billion is a drop in the ocean to the UK, the cost of 1 ship , Satellites will watch any pathetic attempt of a build up of military force. missile defence systems will be in place and take out anything that is remotely a threat, your posts get crazier and have no base in reality.
Jan 07th, 2024 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Arg Cit
Jan 07th, 2024 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's just the point. Nobody cares what YOUR opinions are.
If you want to set the world back 200 years then fine why don't you ask the ICJ or the UN or China or Brazil or the Martians to do it for you as you are clearly unable to do it whatever you may think
The British have lots of big bangy things...want to risk it?
We already took risks and we did it in 1982 and it will happen again. What I do hope is that our future generations continue with nuclear development and long-range missiles... like the condor or tronador project... We already realized that at the moment of truth they urinate, and do not open total war... They could not stop the nuclear plan of a small country like Iran or North Korea, much less the Russian invasion of Crimea. When the pressure rises, they give in, it seems that what you lose is more and you don't dare to use those weapons.
Jan 07th, 2024 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Argie Zit, you need to seek professional help, your posts are becoming crazier by the day, you make no sense, not responding to this nonsense any more, you have become a troll.
Jan 07th, 2024 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Jan 07th, 2024 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Viceroyalty of Rio plata or the viceroyalty of Peru, or the Viceroyalty of New Spain….these weren’t countries, there are no successor states, none of those boundaries exist today.
You (or Kohen) are applying non existent laws that nobody recognises either 200 years ago or today to try to steal territory belonging to others.
The fact is that independence in the Americas were a function of people and their wishes or what they fought for NOT land areas.
Not a single individual on the islands ever fought an independence war, or ever decided to become Argentine.
That is the inconvenient fact that Kohen ignores.
@Monkeymagic.. Its irrelevant because at 1820 the islands were Null Land without human precense
Jan 07th, 2024 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1.. the easten island where argentina carryed out acts of sovereignty, there was a population of 200 inhabitants.
Human activities were carried out such as marriages, births, concessions, prison, livestock activities, etc.
This peaceful human development was interrupted by acts of force, both from the United States and the United Kingdom.
The reality is that the United Kingdom never had a human settlement before the Argentine settlement of 1820...
At most, they had a temporary military settlement in Port Egdmont between 1765 and 1774, in another geographical area totally different from the one they usurped in 1833.
There was never a Claim by the United Kingdom on the eastern island that they attacked or complaints during 59 years of silence.
The UK after two diplomatic protests, moved to effect the only legal remedy open to it. Which was Argentina's eviction. They can point to at least two Anglo-Spanish treaties that exclude any possibility of an Argentinean legal claim. So in addition the UK has a peace treaty that legally recognises that Argentina has no claim, moreover also a right of conquest that was lawful at that time.
Jan 07th, 2024 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“In the 19c international law allowed states to acquire territory by conquest ...
It is therefore not surprising that 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'. Siehr, Conflicts, Indian ”
Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law Seventh Revised Edition, Peter Malanczuk
There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
The protest of 1829 is not legitimate. Neither for us nor for international law.
Jan 08th, 2024 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse -1Firstly, the United Kingdom never had a claim or basis of sovereignty for the eastern island where the settlement of Port Louis was located. According to the English argument. According to their famous plaque, they claimed ”the Falkland Island (individual)” of Port Egdmont.
They never developed any title. no presence
Second, 60 years of silence had passed...and for international law it was acquisitive prescription and null land.
The only means for the conquest to be legitimate at that time... was the declaration of war between countries... and the recognition of the title by the losing party... There is no conquest in the case of the Malvinas.
Apart from the fact that it would destroy itself and contradicts the argument of the United Kingdom that they did have sovereign rights over the islands... Well, you cannot conquer something that in theory belongs to you.
If there is a conquest, it is because the possession was not yours.
“The protest of 1829 is not legitimate. Neither for us nor for international law.”
Jan 08th, 2024 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse -1“An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http ://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
No proof, no truth.
“On 17 June 1833 the first major protest by Argentina referred to the succession to Spanish rights as the basis of its claim. Spain's rights to the
Falklands were, in turn, based upon the prior occupation by and purchase from France and by the abandonment of possession by Britain. Palmerston's
response on 8 January 1834 was to refer to the communications that had taken place in 1770-1 as demonstrating no intention on the part of Britain of
relinquishing its claim, and included the often quoted statement that ”the Government of the United Provinces could not reasonably have anticipated
that the British Government would permit any other State to exercise a right as derived from Spain, which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself”
P.35 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Argentine zit
Jan 08th, 2024 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am afraid you are mistaken.
The islands were indeed empty of a civilian population between 1810-1828. Therefore nobody was there through the entire independence era to claim inheritance or independence.
Your “200 person Argentine civilian community” between 1828-1831 is yet another exaggeration or blatant falsehood.
The Vernet business is
1) a commercial enterprise run by a German and a British
2) Never exceeded 100 people
3) all but 30 voluntarily left in 1831 and only the British Matthew Brisbane returned
4) 10 of the remaining 30 asked to leave with Pinedo in 1833 before Onslow arrived
Of the remaining 20 (including their leader the British William Dickson) it is unknown whether they preferred British or Argentine rule, given many stayed for generations it is possible to infer the former.
If you are so confident of your position, stop lying about the historic facts.
“The only means for the conquest to be legitimate at that time... was the declaration of war between countries... and the recognition of the title by the losing party... There is no conquest in the case of the Malvinas.”
Jan 08th, 2024 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse -1Not 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.”
Argy Planter
Jan 08th, 2024 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1820 the territory was clearly British, the settlers in 1828 sought and received British permission to reside on the Islands.
They clearly knew the British maintained their sovereignty over the territory, after what happened to the Spanish in 1771.
Or why did they have get permission from the British to establish the settlement in 1828???
It cannot be Argentina ‘taking possession’ of the territory in 1820, if the settlers in 1828 had to get permission from the British in the first place.
However it clearly proves that the British maintained their claim, as they had done since 1690.
There was 90 years of silence from Argentina about the Falklands following the 1850 convention of settlement, in which Argentina acquiesced to British sovereignty.
If the military ‘costs’ were ten times as much and 2% of defence spending, or more, this would not be a problem to the British, such is the importance they attach to defending the Islanders rights and the strategic location in the S. Atlantic, not least in securing access to the British Antarctic Territories.
Meanwhile the Argentinian military cannot secure its own borders or airspace, much less protect its 200 nml EEZ.
You live in a dream world.
Cit really thinks Argentina will develop nuclear weapons, he has to be stark raving bonkers.
Jan 08th, 2024 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he thinks Argentina will try to invade again even though his own government have said never again, and if they ever did try, it would the end for every sailor, airman and soldier that tried, the delusional world he lives in is astonishing ,war mongering fanatics can not see the wood from the trees, he is making an utter and complete fool of himself,
Thinking is not really his strong point, but exceptional quality Blither is.
Jan 08th, 2024 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@@@ Pugol-H , TH, Monkeymagic..
Jan 08th, 2024 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you are completely sure that the United Kingdom was in possession of the sovereignty of the islands... and you are sure of your titles.
Accept the invitation of the democratic governments of Argentina to go to the ICJ to close the dispute and prove that historical line of argument that you have.
the UK government agrees to negotiate closure with de facto dictatorial governments... But he refuses to accept going to the ICJ and defining sovereignty with democratic governments.
In any case, sovereignty will be defined and closed to you only...
Not for Argentina, not for the UN, not for several countries in the world.
If what you want is a Recognition of British sovereignty by Argentina, and all the countries of the world you can accept the invitation to end the dispute in the icj..
If british are sure that the arguments they put forward are legitimate, there is nothing to fear.
It is not for Britain to go to the ICJ, it is up to Argentina to do that, it is they who want to take away the land from its rightful owners, i.e the Falklanders, you get more weird by the day,
Jan 08th, 2024 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine zit
Jan 08th, 2024 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the future the Falkland Islanders will gain independence and the issue will be permanently resolved. Until then, Britain will provide their defence.
You are under the misapprehension that Britain wants sovereignty, it does not.
It wants Argentina to let the islanders prosper alone
“Accept the invitation of the democratic governments of Argentina to go to the ICJ to close the dispute and prove that historical line of argument that you have.”
Jan 08th, 2024 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why would the UK submit to such an illicit and improper enquiry at the behest of country who's claim has no recognisable legal standing?
“Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
“Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims … One
must conclude that Argentina failed to do so through neglect. ... However, … Great Britain acquired definitve title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.”
...But, over critically reviewing the bases for Argentina's claim to sovereignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are conclusive in establishing sovereignty.
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to Great Britain's claim results in a different conclusion.
Evidence of prescription involves possession... one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a 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.
To avoid losing her claim by extinctive prescription, Argentina should have submitted her claim to the international court ... For over 50 years prior to 1982, Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims.
The Falklands (Malvinas) James Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
Argy Planter
Jan 10th, 2024 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately the ICJ is not applicable here as the Islanders rights to self-determination enshrined in the UN charter, de-colonisation declaration and subsequent UN resolutions means the inhabitant’s rights overrule any alleged territorial dispute and this cannot be undone by the court.
A right which can only be removed by a vote in the UN general Assembly.
Good luck with getting that resolution passed.
However the British have in the past offered to take the issue of S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands to the ICJ, it has no permanent settled population, and thus no people with a right of self-determination, and it is not a listed territory within the Decolonization Committee.
Argentina, without explanation, rejected all of these offers and refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in this matter.
Hardly surprising as the UK formally took possession of the islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in 1775 and Argentina had never protested British sovereignty over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands until it conceived its claim to South Georgia in 1927 and to the South Sandwich Islands in 1948.
Once again, as in the Antarctic, Argentina came to the party a few hundred years too late.
“But he refuses to accept going to the ICJ and defining sovereignty”
Jan 12th, 2024 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ Although we have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich or British Antarctic Territory, some of my right hon. and hon. friends have suggested that we refer the matter to the International Court of Justice. Since Argentina does not accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the court, the issue cannot be referred for a binding decision without her agreement. We have never sought a ruling on the Falkland Islands themselves from that court, but we have raised the question of the dependencies on three separate occasions—in 1947, 1949 and 1951. Each time Argentina refused to go to the court. In 1955, the British Government applied unilaterally to the International Court of Justice against encroachments on British sovereignty in the dependencies by Argentina. Again, the court advised that it could not pursue the matter since it could act only if there was agreement between the parties recognising the court's jurisdiction. In 1977, Argentina, having accepted the jurisdiction of an international court of arbitration on the Beagle Channel dispute with Chile, then refused to accept its results. It is difficult to believe in Argentina's good faith with that very recent example in mind. There is no reason, given the history of this question, for Britain, which has sovereignty and is claiming nothing more, to make the first move. It is Argentina that is making a claim. If Argentina wanted to refer it to the International Court, we would consider the possibility very seriously. But in the light of past events it would be hard to have confidence that Argentina would respect a judgement that it did not like.”
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1982/apr/29/falkland-islands
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!