MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
A book, a hymn and the “Malvinization” of the Argentine society
How was it possible that when the Argentine military government in 1982 decided to militarily recover and occupy by force the Malvinas Islands it managed such almost unanimous support from the Argentine society? All political parties, Peronism, the Radicals, and the powerful labor union organization, CGT, which only a few days before had organized a strike against the military government, all of them had openly supported the takeover action by force in the Islands. Even groups persecuted by the military government, and exiled groups from overseas expressed support for the military recovery. Firmenich an Argentine notorious terrorist undergoing guerrilla training in Havana, Cuba, pledged that the terrorist Montoneros group would attend the meeting in Plaza de Mayo to oppose the English aggression, and even the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, which did not support the military government had to “Malvinize” their speech, “the Malvinas are Argentine, and so are the disappeared”. In other words, they had to 'Malvinize” the universal human right. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesCollective brainwashing based on myths and lies. All the while the real evidence was in the logs of the SS Sarandi in BA.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse +2List of troops, their families and laborers from the Malvinas Islands aboard the Sarandí.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -7The truth is that as a consequence of the British invasion, 53 people who were living on the islands returned to Buenos Aires from Puerto Soledad. The British schooner “Rapid” escorted the “Sarandí” for the British and carried in shackles the nine insurgents who had killed Argentine commander Francisco Mestivier. These were: 2nd Sergeant José María Díaz; 1st Corporal Francisco Ramírez and privates Manuel Sáenz Valiente, Antonio Moncada, Bernardino Cáceres, Manuel Delgado, Mariano Gadea, Manuel Suares and José Antonio Díaz. The schooner “Sarandí” took 17 military men with 10 members of their families (wives and children) to Buenos Aires and 17 inhabitants of the islands that worked there. The military men and their families were the following: Captain J. Antonio Gomila; Sargeant Santiago Almandos; 1st Corporal Miguel Hernández and his wife María Romero; Corporal Daniel Molina; and privates José Barrera, José Gómez, Manuel Francisco Fernández, Toribio Montesuna, Juan J. Rivas and his wife María I. Beldaño, Dionisio Godoy, Hipólito Villareal and his wife Lucía Correa and two children, Gregorio Durán and his wife Carmen Manzanares with two children, Benito Vidal and his wife María Saisa, José Soto and José Rodríguez, Juan Castro and his wife Manuela Navarro and Antonio García. Finally, the group of civilians was composed of the following workers: Joaquin Acuña and his wife Juana, Mateo González and his wife Marica, and the foreigners José Viel, Juan Quedy, Francisco Ferreyra and Máximo Warnes and a female group with their children: María Rodríguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; Tránsita González and daughter. The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands.
The truth about the Falklands Mythical claim is that the Argentines have for years been indoctrinating and brainwashing their people that the islands belong to them.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Not a single Argentine has been taught the truth and even when the military junta seized power in Argentina, before the Falklands war, the regime tightened its grip on the population by causing mass disappearance of it's people in order to frighten them into doing what they wanted them to do.
It started to fail so galterie decided he needed a plan to reinforce his power so invaded the islands. He could just as easily invaded Chile, but the facts were Chile had a very strong fighting force where the islanders were a very soft and easy target.
The people of Argentina by and large were brainwashed into believing that the invasion would give them hope of a better future, so they supported galterie. Truth is had he succeeded in his plan and Britain never intervened the people of Argentina would still be persecuted today because no one in Argentina had the power to overthrow a dictator. Britain did that for them by defeating their regime and exposing the lie that was being told to them that right up untill the 14th June the Argentines were told they were winning the war.how gullible could they be. They then challenged a very much destroyed military regime and restored democracy. But each president used the Falklands to win the voters and still do to this day.
Ask the Argentine people what they really believe and most will say it is a stupid claim and that the islanders should be allowed to live the lives of their choosing. What they will never tell you is that they are afraid to shout that out on public.
If the British eviction had not occurred, the population would have remained on the islands, and the reestablishment of order would have permitted the return of the population sent scattering by the “Lexington” in 1831. The Argentine settlement would have continued to develop, a task Luis Vernet was devoted to in Buenos Aires.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -71) there was a permanent human settlement in the islands, which had no military objectives but only the aim of the economic development of the territory promoted by the Argentine government; 2) in 1831 the Lexington´s brutal actions disbanded the population; 3) in 1832, Argentina was making the necessary efforts to re- establish the situation and 4) in 1833 the British dispossession put an end to the first true human development of the Falklands/Malvinas. Great Britain expelled Argentina from the islands in 1833. They evicted the authorities and part of the population – men, women and children. The key point is that by this act of force Argentina was prevented from re-establishing the settlement that had been founded in the 1820s with so much effort. As a consequence of the 1833 use of force, the residents of the Argentine settlement in the Falklands/Malvinas who had been removed in 1831 were never able to return. The residents living in the Falklands/Malvinas in 1833 were only part of the population.
Myths? The preliminary Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office´s Investigation Department on September 17th, 1946 concludes: “the British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription”.
“The preliminary Memorandum issued by the Foreign Office´s Investigation Department on September 17th, 1946 concludes: “the British occupation of 1833 was, at the time, an act of unjustifiable aggression which has now acquired the backing of the rights of prescription”.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse +2The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
”...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.“
The 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”
Really in hindsight, the threat of the Argentine military government invading my country in the late '70s; dramatically changed my life.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Thru my English based education, it encouraged me to seek my country's naval academy; resulted the experience to witness the Falklands War.
As long as my Argentine neighbors lament about “spilt milk”, many South American countries prosper.
Let's hope the current president uses tact to avoid the nonsense.
¡Saludos de La Dehesa!
“Thru my English based education, it encouraged me to seek my country's naval academy; resulted the experience to witness the Falklands War”
Apr 16th, 2024 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Couldn't have seen much from the other side of the Andies.
Malvi, Malvi, Malvi, here we go again with the fake story of eviction, you have been given proof that it did not happen, No Argentine settlement, but a multi national failed business venture led by a German and a Brit, their descendants still live there, the few that left voluntary went to Uruguay, not one of the was a so called Argentine, check the logs of Pinedo, that proves who left and how many, stop with the lies, you make a fool of yourself by repeating the silly nonsenses over and over again, getting back to the thread, you where a bunch of sheep that was easily led and fed lies throughout the war, er are winning, we sank the invincible and so on, it is all a con, wake up man,
Apr 16th, 2024 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4This is a very good article with a lot of information, it is also interesting to see the evolution of fascist education, finally engineered by Peron.
Apr 16th, 2024 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2In Argentina we can see how fascism evolves through the generations and we can observe that the indoctrinated demand more indoctrination.
Unless Argentina goes through a re-evolution this problem will continue for ever.
It is sad that when Peron fell in 1955 the fascist education wasn't withdrawn from primary school. Only the “Peron and Evita” poison was taken out by revolutionaries.
The problems of today can be layed at feet of the project in education called “La Nueva Argentina” from Peron who aimed to double the surface of Argentina, this must fail, there are no grounds for it. Also Argentina has untold weath which it is not exploiting, this project of Peron makes no sense and there is no need for it in Argentina or on the Islands.
Only for the record, I read above about people leaving on the Sarandi, they weren't “inhabitants”, as suggested, they arrived in October 1832 and left in January 1833 after the chaos which they caused.
”it encouraged me to seek my country's naval academyr”
Apr 16th, 2024 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Arturo Prat Naval Academy located in Valparaiso, makes it difficult to view the South Atlantic.
Malvi
Apr 16th, 2024 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +4This is simply not true, the logs written by Pinedo prove it.
The majority of your list were already on the Sarandi and had been picked up by Pinedo when he dropped of Mestevier.
Some others had already agreed transit before Captain Onslow arrived.
The ONLY people evicted were the murdering militia, who wanted to leave but Pinedo had refused to take them until told to by Onslow.
This is verifiable historic FACT, written by the Captain of the Sarandi in his logs.
I am sorry you don’t like it
@Malv1833
Apr 17th, 2024 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse +1“That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands.”
No civilian was evicted from that land.
And you twist 0% evicted into a 70% eviction rate.
“The numbers speak for themselves”. It's more like, “people speak with numbers”.
Military and their family are not a part of a “population”. They are transitory.
Murderers are not a part of a “population”.
The military was forced to leave, their families went with them.
The murderers were forced to leave, because they murdered.
27 military & family ÷ 75 total people = 36%
9 murderers ÷ 75 total people = 12 %
So:
Fake number of 70%, take away 36%, and take away 12% = 22%,
of a falsely defined overall population, were civilians, who left, who were NOT evicted, who were invited to stay.
17 civilians that left ÷ 75 total people = 22%
The 17 civilians were NOT forced to leave.
I repeat, to anyone who isn't brainwashed.
The Argentine fake claim is based on a mere 17 civilians who, were NOT forced to leave.
How long were these 17 people living in the Falklands? 3 months?
How long ago were these 17 civilians living in the Falklands? 190 years ago?
So, that is “22%”, of Malv1833's fake “population” who, were NOT forced to leave.
Not “70%”.
That is, 44% of the “civilian” population who, were NOT forced to leave.
They could have stayed with the other 56% (22 civilians) that stayed.
You do not emphasize that. You ignore that fact, and always will.
Do you use the number, 56% of the population stayed?
Do you say, “over half the population stayed!”?
No, you say “they evicted over 70% of the population!”.
But 70% is a fake number, and is a lie.
No civilian was evicted from that land.
The scattered 1831 population would have returned?
That is not known. Why didn't they return in 1832?
Why were they scattered?
“the population would have remained on the islands”.
More than half of the population did remain.
Galtieri nor the military junta had the support of the Argentine people, you can see the videos that when Galtieri talks about himself he was booed, only when he mentioned Malvinas was he cheered.
Apr 17th, 2024 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse -5The other person responsible for the war was Rex Hunt, who imagined an invasion on San Pedro Island/South Georgia when some workers arrived who had to dismantle an old factory. They had arrived with permission from the British embassy in Buenos Aires.
The other falsehood is that thanks to the United Kingdom the dictatorship in Argentina ended. That is false. It ended due to the struggle of the Argentine people. The war only accelerated the decline.
In another vein, none of you can explain to me yet how it is possible for the islands to be British with an Argentine population and previously a Spanish population and ZERO 0 British population.
Patience Juan, have some patience.
“how it is possible for the islands to be British”
Apr 17th, 2024 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Learn from genuine history sources, as shown here https://en.mercopress.com/2024/04/15/a-book-a-hymn-and-the-malvinization-of-the-argentine-society/comments#comment530918
1833, you cant really believe the diatribe you just posted.
Apr 17th, 2024 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvinense 1833 please tell us why you are lying.
Apr 17th, 2024 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You know very well that your “female group with their children: María Rodríguez with three children; Anastasia Romero; Encarnación Álvarez; Carmen Benítez; Tránsita González and daughter.” in the real world and in Pinero's list are:
“Mujeres pertenicientes a los militares” = “Women belonging to the military”, and of course the British didn't leave them on the Falkland Islands when their men were sent to Buenos Aires.
As you well know from reading the list, the only civilians who left the British Falkland Islands on 15 January 1833 were a couple from Banda Azul (present day Uruguay) and a Brazilian couple plus three foreigners plus a prisoner.
All other civilians preferred to stay on the islands.
Malvinense 1833 why do you lie?
Coronel de Marina, José Maria Pinedo's list (in Spanish) from Ernesto J. Fitte's book is right here for all to see:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
@Don, Malvi is a fanatic, no matter how much evidence is provided or how much of the Argentine propaganda is debunked he will continue to keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again. it must hurt him like hell to find out everything he believed in is a lie, his latest post is even more ridiculous. when he first started posting i gave him some credit, now its nothing more than trolling,
Apr 17th, 2024 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wondered why there would be women & children in the Falklands without husbands. I thought maybe they were wives of the murderers of Mestivier.
Apr 17th, 2024 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, the 17 civilians that left, by choice, becomes 8 civilians.
So, 22 civilians remained, 8 civilians left.
That means 73% of the civilian population remained!
And,
Malv1833 reports 70% of the “population” left.
And four of the 8 did not go to Argentina, but to Uruguay and Brazil.
Leaving 4 who returned to Argentina.
So, 4 Argentine civilians voluntarily left the Falkland Islands in January of 1833.
They were not evicted.
And from these 4 freely departed, Argentina creates its National Tragedy.
Malvi
Apr 17th, 2024 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please go to BA and find the logs of Pinedo.
Why is it that 80% of your list were already on the Sarandi BEFORE the HMS Clio arrived?
They had already requested passage back to Argentina or Uruguay before the British arrived. This isn’t an eviction Malvi, they had been lied to by Vernet who then left himself in 1831 and never returned.
Pinedo was exploring the islands when the Clio arrived and returned to Port Louis where he was instructed only to remove the militia who had murdered Mestevier.
This is historic fact.
I quite like you Malvi but you lose all credibility when you repeat a false history.
In answer to your question, Britain had a settlement on West Falkland in the 1760s, it recognised Spanish sovereignty of East Falkland. When Spain voluntarily left in 1810, Britain reestablished its historic claim to WF and claimed the vacated EF.
Britain never recognised the Vernet business as Argentine sovereignty, not in 1828-31 nor today.
@Terence Hill
Apr 17th, 2024 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Article VIII of the Treaty of 1670:subjects of the King of Great Britain shall on no account direct their commerce or undertake navigation to the ports or places which the Catholic King holds in the said Indies, nor trade in them.
Article XIV of the Treaty of Madrid 1713: His British Majesty has certainly agreed upon the promulgation of the strictest prohibitions and has subjected all his subjects to the most rigorous penalties in order to prevent any British vessel from crossing to the South Sea or trading in any other area of the Spanish India, except for the company devoted to the slave trade.
Article VIII Treaty of Utrecht: On the contrary, that the Spanish dominions in the West Indies may be preserved whole and entire, the Queen of Great Britain engages, that she will endeavour, and give assistance to the Spaniards, that the ancient limits of their dominions in the West Indies be restored, and settled as they stood in the time of the above-said Catholic King Charles the Second, if it shall appear that they have in any manner, or under any pretence, been broken into, and lessened in any part, since the death of the aforesaid Catholic King Charles the Second.
This article it guarantees the integrity of all the possessions of the Spanish Crown. It refers to the “ancient limits of their dominions”. The only “limits” were those laid down by the Tordesillas Treaty, with the exception of those already occupied by other nations.
The Queen herself is the guarantor of Spanish territorial integrity. I can't see how the islands can be British, even assuming you are right with the article you mention. It is demonstrated by the exposed articles of different treaties that the Malvinas Islands were never British.
My question remains unanswered.
Malvi
Apr 17th, 2024 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +1AS I've often said to you but you don't seem to understand. Nobody gives two funkies mucks about what happened or didn't happen 2, 3 or 4 hundred years ago.
All that matters is what the Falkland Islanders want and the one thing they most certainly do not want is to be governed by a bunch of Spanish/Italian squatters in Argentina.
So time for you to grow up, leave your mummies basement and go out into the world and get a proper job.
Malvi's walls of verbiage read like Pat the Expat's. Coinkidinks?
Apr 18th, 2024 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, Argentina is not Spain, your arguments get more desperate by the week, Britain claimed the islands in the 1590s, not France not Spain, those 2 countries have never said they claimed the islands first, stop being so ridiculous about only the Spanish had claim to the south Atlantic,
Apr 18th, 2024 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Don Alberto: Once the violent usurpation of the Malvinas Islands was completed, the commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, marine colonel Don José María Pinedo - whose dishonorable behavior facilitated the attack carried out by the corvette Clío - had no other option but to re-embark his troops, once the decision was made not to oppose armed resistance to the eviction notice presented by the captain of the English ship.
Apr 18th, 2024 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse -3On January 15, 1833, he returned from his trip and anchored at inland beacons. The next day he submitted a detailed report of what had happened to the government, trying to justify his dubious behavior.
Ernesto J. Fitte.
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5053/5533028871_5a2bfae23c_b.jpg
Don, explain to me where the lie is. The list of names in your link is the same as the one I presented.
The military garrison is the presence of the Argentine state on the islands, precisely because the colony was attacked by the warship Lexington.
In addition to the military, women and children were expelled.
Some chose to remain which in no way makes the islands British.
The usurpation occurred, it is documented and you know it.
Thank you very much for presenting more evidence of the usurpation.
Just where is there any proof of usurping Malvi, the answer is zero zilch nada, only in your deluded mind, the islands where British long before you existed, and will belong to the islanders long after you and i and every other poster has popped his clogs,
Apr 18th, 2024 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Apr 18th, 2024 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You are ignoring the key question, the Sarandi arrived in October 1832, and the Clio arrived in January 6th 1833.
According to Pinedo logs the civilians that left on the Sarandi had already requested to leave BEFORE the Clio arrived. Please explain how they were evicted?? If you can’t please don’t claim they were evicted by Onslow.
The murdering rapist militia had also requested to leave with Pinedo but he refused, Onslow forced Pinedo to take them. This isn’t eviction either.
Nobody, I repeat nobody was forced to leave against their will. Had the Clio arrived 2 weeks later he would have found only the militia and the 22 civilians with Pinedo gone, and the militia would have asked him to take them to Argentina….leaving exactly the same civilians.
You also claim the Vernet business would have been rebuilt, Vernet sent Brisbane to the islands after 1833 but he was murdered by Rivero.
You need to stop spouting easily disprovable garbage.
Malvi has completely lost the plot, but i suppose when everything you are led to believe is proven to be false then one has to make things up, stop wasting your away on this BS for goodness sake,
Apr 18th, 2024 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Monkey: Indeed, the Sarandí arrived in October 1832, but made a mistake with the Clío, which arrived in Puerto Soledad on January 2, 1833.
Apr 19th, 2024 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2What you mention lacks any logic:
1- Where is the report of the civilians requesting the departure of the islands?
2- Even if this were true (the request to leave the islands) the concrete thing is that those civilians had not retreated, therefore when Onslow arrived they were expelled.
To your question how they were evicted, the answer is in the report presented by Pinedo to the Argentine government.
Pinedo asked the English captain if there was war between Buenos Aires and England.
Onslow responded that there was no war and ordered him to lower the Argentine flag, withdraw his forces and abandon the land. If resistance was encountered, he was ordered to act with the necessary violence.
If that is not an eviction, but an usurpation, explain to me what you mean by eviction or usurpation.
As for the rest he mentions, the possible arrival of the warship Clío in 2 weeks is pure speculation, the factual fact is what happened between January 2 and 3, 1833.
As for Rivero, he was taken to England to be tried, something that did not happen because the court did not have jurisdiction over the Malvinas Islands.
The facts about Vernet, Pinedo, Rivero are always mentioned, everything revolves around the Argentine colony, it is clear because there is nothing to mention about England, which leads me to the next question that still remains unanswered:
How is it possible that the islands are British with an Argentine population and a previous Spanish population?
Regards.
Malvi for the 1000th time, there was no Argentine population, it was a failed business venture with people from various countries, Vernet was German, Brisbane was British,
Apr 19th, 2024 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Apr 19th, 2024 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The reports are in Pinedos own logs.
The civilians were already on the Sarandi BEFORE the Clio arrived.
The order to “withdraw his forces” was to remove the rapist militia who wanted to leave but Pinedo refused.
Why had Mestevier raised the flag if the islands were Argentine for 13 years?
The Western islands had always been British, Spain vacated the Eastern island….and Argentina are irrelevant.
“the Malvinas Islands were never British. My question remains unanswered.”
Apr 20th, 2024 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 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”
Malvi
Apr 20th, 2024 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your research should extend beyond the works of Kohen which are flawed.
The ARA Sarandi arrived in the Falklands on the 10th October 1832 with its crew and 25 men (some of whom were prisoners) and soldiers with their wives and children. The Sarandi found a small remnant of the Vernet business on the islands of 40 or so civilians, many of who begged Pinedo to return them to Argentina.
The Sarandi went on an expedition on the islands on 21st November 1832.
On 30th November Mestevier was murdered by his crew and the uprising was put down by the crew of a French whaling ship and a British sealer the rapid. Mesteveir's wife was rescued from her Argentinian rapists and given safe haven on the Rapid.
The militia and mutineers requested and agreed with the crew of the Rapid to return them to Argentina. This was agreed.
Pinedo returned to Port Louis in mid December, just two days before the Rapid was due to leave, and demanded that the mutineers and militia remain on the islands.
He had agreed that all the civilians that were requesting to leave could return with him on the Sarandi.
The Clio arrived at Port Egmont on the 20th December and port Louis on the 2nd January.
Captain Onslow requested Pinedo take down the Argentine flag, and that the Sarandi leave with exactly the people it was already planning to leave with, and The Rapid transport the militia back to Argentina as they had planned previously.
Not one single person left the islands who didn't want to, The 2 month attempt by Argentina to seize the islands failed.
The 24 remaining civilians were joined by others (some of which were returning members of Vernets business) and they formed the basis of the population under British rule.
No usurpation, no eviction...everyone who left were either already planning to on the Sarandi, or already wanted to on the Rapid.
This matches Pinedos own logs on the Sarandi and Onslows on the Clio...the only thing it doesn't match is your version.
“The usurpation occurred, it is documented”
Apr 20th, 2024 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According 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.“
”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’”
Akehurst’s Modern Introduction To International Law, Seventh revised edition
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!