MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands MPA, German Lufthansa Airbus scheduled to arrive March 2025
A German airline Lufthansa aircraft is scheduled to land at Mount Pleasant Airport, Falkland Islands, next March, according to the air business site AeroRoutes. When this happens, it will be the second time a Lufthansa aircraft has landed at MPA. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNot be long before Buenos Aires starts crying about it,
Oct 21st, 2024 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse +3The company has already requested the corresponding permit from Buenos Aires.
Oct 21st, 2024 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2Yeah, if you say so Malvi, lol
Oct 21st, 2024 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0No Malv, they have not, nor will they.
Oct 21st, 2024 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2They have filed a flight plan with Argentinian air traffic control, which they are required to do as they are passing, and may have to divert to, in an emergency, Argentinian airspace.
Notifying Argentina you are flying past their airspace does not enhance their sovereignty claims in the S. Atlantic, it just reminds them they don’t control the airspace there.
Hence the whining.
Yet again, Malvi getting his facts wrong,
Oct 21st, 2024 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvi
Oct 21st, 2024 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +2After consideration, I believe you are making a fundamental mistake in your arguments. You seem to believe that if you can show that Argentina had a stronger “sovereignty claim” in October 1832 than Great Britain, somehow that means that sovereignty in 2024 would pass to Argentina. This is where you have made your error.
You are correct that the United Provinces claimed the islands in 1820, you are also correct that they endorsed a business by Luis Vernet in 1828-31.
You recognise that Britain had an earlier claim. particularly to West Falkland and also that Spain had a claim they did not relinquish until 1860s.
Three claims to the same territory.
You seem to believe that there could be some kind of retrospective 21st century assessment of those claims and whichever were stronger would somehow achieve sovereignty of the islands against the wishes of the inhabitants.
Can you imagine if that was the rules? Not a single territory on earth would not be challenged.
What you have failed to show is that Argentina or the UP exercised sovereignty in 1832. You are quite right, neither did Spain or the UK. So the territory was available to settled by anyone who could put a population on it.
Britain never recognised the Vernet business as an Argentine population, and it failed anyway.
Britain did recognise the attempt to send Mestevier as an Argentine population so immediately acted to stop it.
This is why Argentina made up the eviction myth claiming it was already exercising sovereignty and an Argentine population was evicted. You know this is false.
Trying to prove that either Britain, Spain or UP had a stronger “claim” is a futile waste of time. The truth is in 1832 none of them were exercising their claim. Therefore none had unequivocal sovereignty.
However, Britain has had unequivocal sovereignty for 200 years, a working population and
made no eviction of an Argentine population.
I think your life's work is a waste of your time Malvi.
Bummer, hey?
Oct 22nd, 2024 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if it keeps him happy then whatever floats your boat, at least he is ‘polite’ about things.
Oct 22nd, 2024 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse +1For 97 years their wasnt a squeak out of Argentina about the Falklands, then guess what, a useless Argentine government makes up a lie about a mythical land being stolen to distract them from their incompetence and corruption, and the sheep believe it,
Oct 22nd, 2024 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1For 150 years and 170 years respectively, Argentina did not question British sovereignty over S. Georgia and S. Sandwich Islands.
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse +2Where Argentina has only disputed British sovereignty of those territories for 98 and 78 years respectively.
Argentina only revived its claim to the Falklands 81 years ago, having dropped it 174 years ago.
Argentina did not even exist, in any form, until 51 years after the British ‘took possession’ of the Falklands Territory.
Yet in Argentina you still read this sort of thing:
https://www.clarin.com/opinion/caso-archipielago-aland-ejemplo-tratar-malvinas_0_1LSzUINVhL.html
‘it will be two centuries since the illegitimate British occupation of the Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands’
Yet it has been less than a hundred years since Argentina first ever claimed S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
In Argentina they have created a ‘paper Dragon’.
Correction, for 150 years and 170 years respectively, no one disputed British sovereignty over S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For 110 and 130 years respectively, Argentina did not dispute British sovereignty of S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
I stand corrected Pug about the number of years, it was just an item that i read that they only started all the Bee ess in 1946 after decades of nothing , the sheepies believed the nonsense , baaaaaaaaaaa,
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Monkey
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The United Provinces with their first government already carried out acts of sovereignty.
General San Martin, to undertake his liberation campaign towards Chile, already in 1816 requested men to fight from the Malvinas Islands.
Indeed, in 1820, after our independence, possession of the islands was taken.
The travels of Vernet's men began in 1823 with authorization from the Argentine government, long before the period 1828-1832.
There was no claim by Great Britain to Greater Malvina. The English settled on Saunders Islet and, as demonstrated in letters and diplomatic documents of the time, they demanded the reestablishment of the Port Egmont settlement as reparation for the pride of the crown.
After the pride was repaired and after settling down again, in return the British abandoned Port Egmont, recognizing Spanish sovereignty, not only withdrawing from the place and leaving Spain occupying the islands but also with a treaty.
Since this recognition and with Spain occupying the islands, with governors and working population as you demand, there were no British claims.
That is why it is inexplicable that you say that Spain did not exercise sovereignty.
The only country that did not exercise sovereignty was Great Britain and the two times they arrived they did so with the islands already occupied.
You also make the mistake of considering that the territory was available for anyone to colonize. The Spanish withdrew due to the independence struggles with the patriots, it was a territory disputed between two sides.
The territory was not res nullius. So much so that Great Britain did not dare to occupy it during this period. Spain only gave up its territory in 1863 when it accepted Argentine independence.
the only country that did not exercise sovereignty was Britain,? Britain didnt dare occupy the islands in that period,? what absolute ridiculous statements, in fact they are down right lies. but i expect nothing more from Peronist fanatic sheep,
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malvi
Oct 23rd, 2024 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You are at it again.
Argentina did not exercise sovereignty in 1816 or 1820 or 1823. It claimed sovereignty. So did Spain and Britain. Claiming means nothing.
Visiting the islands and then leaving is exercising sovereignty .
Putting a population on the islands with governance is exercising sovereignty.
Britain did it from 1765-67, and has done since the 1830s.
Spain did it from 1760s to 1810.
Argentina claim they did it from 1828-31 with Vernet, but even Vernet contradicts it.
Argentina tried to do it from October 1832 but they murdered their own governor after a few days.
Argentina NEVER exercised sovereignty.
They had a sovereignty “claim” which without a population was just a claim, the same claim as Spain or Britain.
You seem to believe that this “claim” is worth something. It wasn’t in 1832 and isn’t now. The same as the British claim was worthless in 1770-1810.
I am sorry Malvi, without an eviction of an Argentine population your claim is worthless, hence the eviction myth….
Said it before and i say it again, Malvis posts have become more outlandish by the month, he ceased being a decent debater some time ago, just parroting silly false propaganda, his claims of no British sovereignty of the islands at any time is nuts, his claim that Britain clandestinely occupied them is crazy, and to say Britain dare not in that period claim the islands is to say the least absurd, he may be polite but still a fanatic, how many years has he wasted on this nonsense ?, too many thats for sure.
Oct 24th, 2024 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1@ Monkey
Oct 24th, 2024 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse -2In short, until 1811 Spanish possession was effective, exclusive, continuous, peaceful, public and in good faith. These characteristics leave no doubt about the fact that at the moment of Argentine independence, Spain had sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and it was the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata that administered them. Between 1774 and 1811, there is no trace of any act of the British state, nor any form of British claim of sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas – or even over Port Egmont. We may wonder why, if a British territory existed in the South Atlantic, the British naval station in South America established from 1808 was not situated there, but in a foreign territory (Rio de Janeiro) and was not even tasked with visiting the Falkland/Malvinas Islands regularly. The British naval station was well aware of the Spanish presence in the Falklands/Malvinas: the chief of the station sent a note on February 24th, 1809 in which he referred to an uprising in Buenos Aires and said that it had been controlled and “that the unruly leaders of the Cabildo were detained and put onboard a vessel for the Maloinas [sic], or Falkland islands”. The answer to these questions is simple: during the period in question, the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were not considered to be a British territory, whether by the Spanish, the British themselves, or any other power.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
Malvi
Oct 24th, 2024 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse +1I agree until 1810 Spain exercised sovereignty over at least East Falkland and had for 50 years.
The inhabitants of the islands left and returned to Spain and therefore at 1811 nobody exercised sovereignty over the islands.
As you concede, Spain still claimed them
The United Provinces started claiming them in 1820
Britain had a historic claim on them dating back 50 years
Claims are worth very little.
To exercise sovereignty you need a population.
We can debate whether the failed Vernet business constitute an Argentine population between 1828-31, I don't believe so, but it can be debated. What can't be debated is that Vernet left in 1831 with the majority of the workers and never returned.
I agree that the attempt in 1832 was to exercise sovereignty by sending Mestevier. Sadly we know what happened to him.
Therefore, in Jan 1833 nobody was exercising sovereignty, it can be strongly argued that nobody had for 22 years. Therefore Britain was completely within its rights to turn its historic claim into sovereignty.
If a period of 50 years negates a claim Malvi, you lose again.
@ Monkey
Oct 24th, 2024 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -2As the International Court of Justice said in the Temple of Preah Vihear case, we are faced here with countless situations in which “the circumstances were such as called for some reaction, within a reasonable period, on the part of the authorities.” The British authorities had four decades to react to Spanish sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas. They did not, which undoubtedly implies the acceptance of Spain´s sovereignty. What the Hague Court states in the following paragraph regarding Siam´s absence of reaction to Prince Damrong´s visit to the Temple is applicable to Great Britain in relation to each and every exercise of Spanish public power in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. It is a tacit acknowledgement
(...) through a failure to react in any way, on an occasion that called for a reaction in order to affirm or preserve title in the face of an obvious rival claim. What seems clear is that either Siam did not in fact believe she had any title (...) or else she decided not to assert it, which again means that she accepted the French claim, or accepted the frontier at Preah Vihear as it was drawn on the map.
Every British claim of sovereignty over the Trinidad/Saunders Island, over Gran Malvina/West Falkland or over the archipelago as a whole cannot compete with the continuous and unchallenged acts of public power carried out by Spain for four decades.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez.
The 50 year no claims period applies first against you Monkey, for that reason the UK cannot use it as an argument.
Kohen-Rodriguez, really 1833 ?, they are nobodies who spout biased nonsense and are not remotely objective, truthful or accurate, as said before, decade after decade after decade there was silence in Buenos Aires about the Falklands, until a useless government invent a mythical lie to distract the Argentine population from their failed governance , just like Galtieri did, then by the Peronism fanatics who wrecked your country, if you cant see that then you are either blind or refuse to see it as it blows your claim out of the water,
Oct 24th, 2024 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@ Esteban
Oct 24th, 2024 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say they are biased lies but you cannot refute Kohen-Rodríguez's arguments, and as I told Monkey the 50-year period first applies against you.
It is true that our corrupt politicians have tried to destroy our country but they have not succeeded.
Argentina is a country that has a destiny of greatness, I can assure you at this moment that only Patagonia can surpass Saudi Arabia in oil reserves.
Malv
Oct 24th, 2024 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Still trying to argue what happened in the 1820s, where the British claim is much older, you claim Argentina ‘took possession’ of the territory in 1820, whilst completely ignoring the fact that Britain did that in 1765.
Even if you accept Argentina had a claim in the 1820s, you still have to explain away Argentina signing and ratifying the Arana-Southern Peace Treaty in 1850, only 30 years after Argentina/UP first claimed the Malvinas:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1850_Convention_of_Settlement
‘putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship’.
‘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.’
And the cessation of Argentinian diplomatic protests for the next 93 years?
How do you explain the lack of any diplomatic protest, or any other actions by Argentina, for 93 years, other than Argentina’s acquiesce to British claims, especially given Uti Possidetis:
‘a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated’.
Argentina’s claim today can only date from 1943, whatever happened in the 1820s is irrelevant.
1833, Yes you can refute K-R, they already have been time and time again by various posters,
Oct 24th, 2024 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Yes the Peronist clowns have wrecked your country, and it will take many years before any fix is made, you will probably vote the clowns back in at the next election, they are the problem not the solution. Kirchner Fernandez where an embarrassment to your country,
Argentina has a destiny of greatness, really ?, not in my life time or yours for that matter, alternate fuel is the future not oil, having said that i hope Argentina does get its act together and become a true democratic country free of nationalism corruption and indoctrination,
as far as the Falklands go, the matter is settled, your non Peronist leader knows that but he cant say it out loud for obvious reasons, technology will have made massive strides forward,
Patagonia is a land you stole from the natives and carried out genocide, how about returning it back to them what few there are left of them, let then choose their own destiny,
@ Pugol: False. Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature is of key importance, having been made a month after the signature of the Arana-Southern Treaty. The address relates in detail the negotiations that resulted in the signature of the agreement. Nothing emerges from the preparatory works of the treaty, nor from the debates in the British Parliament, that may prove that Argentina accepted to settle the issue of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands through that instrument. On the contrary, after presenting the Anglo-Argentine treaty, Rosas’ 1849 address to the Legislature continues by expressly mentioning the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas in relation to the reports in British newspapers concerning the exchange of notes between Moreno and Palmerston, and ratifies the actions of the Argentine representative in London30. Therefore, it is absurd to claim that Rosas renounced the Falklands/Malvinas through the treaty, when he continued to officially claim the islands a month after having concluding the treaty! The fact of having discussed the subject separately clearly shows the difference between the two issues (the blockade of the Rio de la Plata and fluvial navigation on the one hand, and the issue of the Falklands/Malvinas on the other).
Oct 24th, 2024 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Malvi
Oct 24th, 2024 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You keep repeating the same nonsense, and are failing to see the difference between a sovereignty claim and exercising sovereignty.
A sovereignty claim is almost meaningless. Britains sovereignty claim from 1765 to 1832 is almost meaningless.
Spains claim from 1810 to 1865 is almost meaningless.
Argentinas claim from 1829 to 1833 almost meaningless.
You can “claim” whatever you like. I could “claim” Mars tomorrow and write it on a statute and call it Marsvinas….its a claim.
You only exercise sovereignty with a population, they were the “rules” as all three parties knew they were in the 1700 and 1800s.
That is why Argentina was so keen to populate the islands, there would be no need to if there was a straight inheritance as you argue.
The Vernet business is complicated, you argue that between 1828-1831 this was exercising sovereignty, I am far from convinced it ever was, and as it failed so what?
Clearly Mestevier was attempting to exercise sovereignty but was murdered.
Britain has exercised sovereignty since 1833.
Your only hope was the lie that Britain stole sovereignty by removing a population. Pinedo logs proved that never happened.
If Mongolia had turned up in 1833 with no prior claim, and exercised sovereignty for 200 years without evicting a population, the world islands would be Mongolian.
You are arguing the wrong thing Malvi, a claim is worthless and you had no population.
Malv
Oct 25th, 2024 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1What’s relevant here is what the treaty says, not what Rosa told the legislature he thought it said.
‘putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship’.
‘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.’
Hence, Uti Possidetis:
‘a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated’.
There is no ‘stipulation otherwise’ for the Malvinas, which therefore could not have been a dispute at the signing of the treaty.
Also, and most importantly, how do you explain the cessation of Argentinian diplomatic protests, or any other actions by Argentina, for the next 93 years.
Argentina acquiesced to British sovereignty over the Islands is the only reasonable conclusion and certainly the conclusion and independent tribunal or court would come to.
Your argument doesn’t stand up.
I look forward to your explanation for the absence any diplomatic protest, or any other actions by Argentina, for 93 years following the signing of the treaty.
@Monkey
Oct 25th, 2024 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Following your reasoning
Great Britain had no claim to sovereignty from the years 1765 to 1832.
You are not being intellectually honest.
They arrived clandestinely and with the islands already occupied.
Even assuming that he is somewhat right, Great Britain's claim would be from the years 1765 to 1774 when they recognized Spanish sovereignty and withdrew.
The Malvinas Islands were part of a whole, a Spanish Province called the United Provinces of the Rio de las Plata.
If for a moment we consider it separately, Spain exercised sovereignty from 1767 to 1811 and claimed it until 1863.
This without taking into consideration that France transferred sovereignty to Spain, so the date of Spanish settlement can be taken as the date carried out by France, that is, April 5, 1764.
The Argentine claim therefore is from 1810 to the present.
And the occupation from 1820 to 1833.
You mention - correctly - that according to the rules of the years 1700-1800
Sovereignty is only exercised with population.
Then Spain exercised sovereignty from 1767 with its governor being Don Felipe Ruiz Puente until 1811 with its last governor being Don Pablo Guillen.
Argentina exercised sovereignty since 1820 with David Jewett taking possession, its last governor being José Maria Pinedo in 1833.
Following his reasoning, Great Britain ended its sovereignty and claim in 1774. Resuming its claim in 1829! For you Jewett, Areguati Vernet, Mestivier etc., it is complicated. Imagine then how complicated it is for the United Kingdom to prove that the islands are British without a claim and without a population. The United Kingdom has exercised de facto sovereignty since 1833 when it illegally expelled the Argentine population with threats of cannon fire from Captain Onslow. Since then, Argentina has claimed its legitimate right.
Regards.
They did not recognise Spanish sovereignty, stop lying,
Oct 25th, 2024 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1No Argentine population was expelled, stop lying
Argentina has no legitimate eights, stop lying
Argentina did not exercise sovereignty, stop lying
@ Pugol
Oct 25th, 2024 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“The Government pays serious attention to the pending claims of the Republic before Great Britain for the unjustifiable retention of the Malvinas Islands (...) The government fully approved the well-founded complaint and protest of the Argentine minister against the inaccurate assertions of HM’s minister of foreign affairs and expressed that, through that protest it supported, as it should have and as it had to verify in any case, the proper rights of the Argentine Confederation in the Malvinas Islands, against the renewed disregard of HM’s Minister of foreign affairs, who made the unfounded supposition that the correspondence had ceased by reason of acquiescence on the part of the Confederation or of both parties, according to the different versions that appeared in the newspapers (...) the Government ordered its Minister that when discussing this, he always uphold the same principles and base himself on the same facts that resulted from the correspondence followed on this topic, and transmitted other orders for upholding the unquestionable rights of the Confederation in the Malvinas islands.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
The speech was made a month after the signing of the treaty.
Therefore:
1-Denies that Argentina renounced sovereignty.
2- This fact automatically denies that Argentina did not make claims for 93 years.
3-The United Kingdom never used the treaty as an argument-proof to end the Argentine claim
4- It is curious that the winning country gives a part of its territory to the defeated country in a treaty and also with the consent... of the President of Uruguay! Ridiculous! true?
Regards.
Malvi
Oct 25th, 2024 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The Argentines did not occupy the islands from 1820 to 1833. At all
They occupied the islands from October 1832 to sometime in November 1832 when Mestevier was murdered.
Britain did not take the islands that were occupied, they took islands that had been empty for 23 years all but a small business owned by a German who had left two years earlier.
They recognised Argentinas attempt to occupy the islands in the October, which would have indeed given them sovereignty and blocked it.
If you are going to blatantly lie and say Argentina occupied the islands between 1820 and 1832 there is really nothing further to discuss, because you are lying through your teeth.
Argentina (and Britain) gave authority for a private enterprise between 1828-31, the owner of which is on record of saying he didn't care who had sovereignty.
Argentina officially attempted to seize the islands and occupy them in October 1832 and Britain stopped them.
As I say Malvi, Jewitt is bollox..no population doesn't count any more than any fishing or whaling boat.
Vernet was a private business man who left in 1831.
Pinedo was never governor, that is another blatant lie, he was the Captain of the ARA Sarandi and never lived on the island or intended to stay after dropping off the militia.
This is the problem Malvi, you need to blatantly lie to make your case.
Spain had sovereignty of East Falkland I have never said otherwise, they gave it up and walked away
Argentina never had sovereignty
Britain had sovereignty, gave it up, then regained it.
Argentina wanting sovereignty but failing to populate the islands between 1810-1833 is utterly irrelevant.
Well put MM. 1833 seems to have totally lost the plot, repeating the same old lies over and over again, i dont think he really believes what he posts, but he has to do it to try and keep the myth and the fantasy alive, as all his claims 1 by 1 have been knocked on the head, fanatics are never ever rationale, may be one day he might just wake up and say to himself, what a complete waste of time i have spent posting on mercopress,
Oct 25th, 2024 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Yes, he did what i expected him to do.
Oct 25th, 2024 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse +2He knows full well that there was no eviction in 1833. He knows everyone who left on the Sarandi had already planned to leave BEFORE the Clio arrived. Its hard to evict someone who already planned to leave.
He knows that the militia who Pinedo was trying to force to stay on the islands had already contracted the rapid to take them back to the mainland.
Britain did not evict a single person who wasnt already planning to leave, its all in the logs of the ARA Sarandi.
So there was no Argentine population.
No Argentine population equals no exercise of sovereignty.
No exercise of sovereignty equals only a sovereignty claim.
Argentina had a sovereignty claim
Britain had a sovereignty claim
Spain had a sovereignty claim
Britain had exercised sovereignty 50 years previously
Spain had certainly exercised sovereignty for 50 years
Argentina tried to exercise sovereignty and failed.
In 1832, it is irrelevant who's claim is strongest, on balance probably Spain
Since 1833, Britain has exercised sovereignty
Today, the islanders own the sovereignty choice.
As, after the evidence provided Malvi returned to the eviction myth (lie), from now on I will not respond to him. He is just a troll like Argentine zit or Trimonde.
Malvi stopped being a genuine decent debater some months ago, from now on i too will blank him. and just down vote his silly nonsense, he needs to grow up and get a life and live in the real world,
Oct 25th, 2024 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Malv
Oct 26th, 2024 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Whatever is ‘denied’ in that speech, the fact is the treaty ‘ends existing differences and restores perfect relations of friendship’.
There are no ‘stipulations otherwise’ or exceptions in the treaty.
What Rosa told the legislature was clearly bullshit to cover up what he had done. Not the first or last time a politician did that.
What is relevant her is what the treaty says, not what the legislature was told it said.
And you still haven’t explained the cessation of Argentinian diplomatic protests, or any other actions by Argentina, for the next 93 years.
Otherwise, Argentina unquestionably acquiesced to British sovereignty over the Islands.
Here is where your claim blows up in your face,, as both governments call it a Peace Treaty.
Oct 27th, 2024 - 10:13 am - 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
Legal Definition of uti possidetis
: a principle in international law that recognizes a peace treaty between parties as vesting each with the territory and property under its control unless otherwise stipulated
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1851/aug/04/buenos-ayres
93 years? 1850? really?
Oct 28th, 2024 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2-1910-
The British Foreign Secretary receives a note from his ambassador
in Buenos Aires, by which he requests instructions regarding the attitude to adopt regarding a map on which the Falklands appear as Argentine. It is resolved to keep one's temper adopted for a while and do nothing. For some officials, Argentina does not has valid titles.
It could be presumed that the Argentine reaction regarding its claims on sovereignty over the Malvinas when a British ambassador in the last century raised a similar question about a map to be published, there was determined the indicated mode of action, that is, not giving rise to an Argentine claim for sovereignty as consequence of a question raised by Great Britain due to a fact of relative or little importance.
Sydney Spicer, head of the American Department of the Foreign Office, states that the Department of Investigation produces a memo regarding the problem with Argentina, he which is prepared by Gastón de Bernhard, with an extension of 17,000 words.
End of the year. The memo destroys Palmerston's thesis regarding the tacit recognition of British sovereignty by Spain by returning Port Egmont. At the end of the reading,Sydney Spicer describes the Argentine position as “not entirely unjustified and the British like something haughty.”
Without protests, without problems with Argentina, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs would not call for an investigation.
Much less with the 1850 treaty available where Argentina with the consent of the Uruguayan president “gives up” the Malvinas.
I dont know what world you live in 1833, but it most certainly not in this one, as JC has said may times stop making a fool of yourself it is embarrassing to see, the Falklands matter is closed for good, no matter how much you lie or twist or ignore things it is just pointless, you have lost all credibility, get a life and stop this silly bloody nonsense,
Oct 28th, 2024 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain had a claim in 1832 it was probably the strongest given 50 years of continuous inhabitants between 1860 and 1810, and no population to claim “independence”
Oct 28th, 2024 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina had a claim in 1832 it was quite weak based on them supporting a German businessman’s private enterprise for 3 years but understandable.
Britain had a claim in 1832 it was quite weak but understandable due to an historic claim
Let’s say Malvi was right. it doesn’t matter a bit, in 1832 you could claim what the heck you like, loads of countries claimed all sorts of places. Without a population it’s just a claim, and everybody knew it.
There was no Argentine population on the islands in 1832.
The handful of the remnants of Vernets business were neither Argentine nor wanted to stay and had sought and agreed passage off the islands before the Clio had arrived.
The militia had already agreed passage on the Rapid and Pinedo was trying to force them to stay against their will.
This is why Argentina made up the eviction lie. Because they know “claiming” somewhere in 1832 was worthless.
This is why Malvi has lost all credibility. He knows full well there was no eviction and no population.
He knows full well that in 1832 “claiming” territory was worthless.
Therefore he just lies through his teeth. It is a shame because of the Malvinistas on this forum he appeared to be the only one capable of more than repeating g parrot fashion Peronist propaganda.
We got him wrong.
Yep, polite he may have been, and he put his case forward reasonably , but as each point was debunked he then moved on to the next one, and so on , once all his points had been defeated he then returns to the first one again and repeats it all over again, last few months have been pitiful, lying , twisting facts, deliberately ignoring large chunks of historical facts, misinterpreting things, believing Kohen-Rodriguez as though it was gospel, Sad decline, he should be better than that, unlike the other fanatics,
Oct 29th, 2024 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse +193 years? really? who lies? who is indoctrinated?
Oct 29th, 2024 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse -1-1911- Arbitration. In 1911, in the heyday of the conclusion of arbitration treaties between States, the British Government explored the possibility of signing one such instrument with Argentina. The note by the British Secretary of Foreign Affairs Sir E. Grey, to his colleague in the Colonial Office, dated September 27th, was blunt. In reply to the concerns of the latter, he informed him that the Foreign Office “[does not] propose the conclusion of a treaty [of arbitration] with the Argentine Government until the British title to the Falkland Islands has been recognised”. This clearly shows that the British Government was perfectly aware that Argentina still maintained its claim over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands in 1911.
-1919- Restrictions on radio traffic with the Malvinas.
November 14. The head of the Ministry of the Navy, Julio Moreno, informs the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the restrictions imposed on radio traffic with the Malvinas Islands.
Mr. Minister: I am pleased to address your Excellency requesting the views of the worthy Department in your charge, regarding the resolution of this Ministry that the radiotelegraph stations of the maritime zone do not accept wireless dispatches destined for the Malvinas Islands, except express orders from a competent authority or the occurrence of a maritime disaster or call for help, since the very special situation of our government, which has never renounced its sovereignty over the aforementioned islands, makes it advisable to adopt such a temperament.”
November 19. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Honorio Pueyrredón, informs the Minister of the Navy of his agreement with the measure adopted.
It is a debate, an exchange of ideas and knowledge, you learn from everything.
Regards..
You lie 1833, debating with you is pointless, you have turned in to a troll.
Oct 29th, 2024 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't make bricks without clay.
Oct 29th, 2024 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sherlock Holmes.
You lack clay, Esteban.
No 1833, i call a spade a spade, you lie about an inheritance that never happened you lie about usurping that never happened, you lie about a mythical Argentine town that never was, you lie about sovereignty that you never had, you lie about the British history of the islands, the list goes on and on, all you ever had was a very weak claim, which was nowhere near as strong as Britains claim which goes back to 1594, the whole Malvinas myth is built on a whopping great lie, only sad tunnel visioned fanatical clowns are obsessed with this nonsense, the Falklands are here to stay, and no amount of lying, crying, whinging and moaning will change that, show some decency and friendship to the islanders and it can lead to some good paying jobs for Argentinians which would be good for your economy, like 2 others above i am also finished with your nonsense, as Juan C says get a grip and get a life,
Oct 29th, 2024 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Esteban:
Oct 29th, 2024 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Oh of course, there was no population, the warship Lexignton did not destroy anything, Clio and Tyne did not expel the inhabitants, threatening them at gunpoint and lowering the Argentine flag, but the claim of 1594 is enough to carry out these acts. of international bandits according to the own words of a foreign ministry official.
I don't dislike the British. There has always been friendship between the countries and if there is no greater relationship it is because of the United Kingdom's refusal to solve the problem caused by themselves.
I don't dislike them, I repeat.
We grew up listening to their music, their TV shows, movies, their books and great authors that we studied at school. We are not that different. We just need a little will to establish better relationships.
Regards.
1833, for the 100th and final time, there was an international settlement from an international business venture . German British, Argentine, Uruguayan. Brazilian people where all present, in no way did this represent an Argentine settlement, in fact you know very well Vernet had asked permission to go to the islands has he had done previously before, so that another lie, you say you dont hate the British, unlike some of the clowns who post on here, well i dont hate Argentinians, in fact we have one at my local football club and he is loved, what i dislike is political nationalistic lying fanatics ,and your country has too many of them
Oct 29th, 2024 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Oct 29th, 2024 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Think about this:
Had the Clio arrived one week later what Argentine population would have been on the islands?
The Sarandi would have set sail with EXACTLY the same people who left on January 6th. Exactly the same.
The Militia, ordered to stay by Pinedo, would have waited for the Sarandi to disappear over the horizon and then contracted the Rapid to take them to the mainland, as they planned.
Onslow would have arrived on the islands on the 10th of January to find 24 inhabitants under the control of William Dickson an Irishman.
He could have lowered the UP flag and raised the union Jack.
Nothing would be different....no change whatsoever to anyone.
There was no eviction.
The Lexington was an American ship acting against a private individual. If it destroyed an Argentine colony then it was an Act of War.....when were the US at war with Argentina?
You have been proven a troll malvi because you ignore historic fact. Argentina did not have sovereignty in 1832.
It had a claim
Britain had a claim
Spain had a claim
On balance Spain's claim was strongest, but it doesn't matter. You cannot retrospectively say at some moment in history I had a sovereignty claim stronger than yours hand me the territory, and get to pick that moment in history.
Had Argentina had actual sovereignty taken by force, maybe....which is why you cling to the expulsion myth.
The Clio didnt expel anyone. That is the bit you cannot stomach...the lie you cling to and repeat....but it didnt. The Captains log of your own ship says everyone who left wanted to leave.
You can continue to troll, to quote Kohen, but you were lied to Malvi..and you fell for it, and wasted years repeating the same lies.
900 people died because of your lies Malvi. There is not a close friendship because until now Argentine governments perpetuate and repeat your lies.
Stop lying and maybe the friendship would be closer...it is what it is. The islanders are our only concern and they hold you in contempt.
900 people died not because of me but because of the actions carried out by Captain Onslow in 1833 and then the British refusal to establish a dialogue.
Oct 30th, 2024 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You all try to ignore the British usurpation of the islands. Finding the islands without population does not automatically make them British, because the English had already renounced the islands through a treaty, and there was no British claim or working population as you demand.
Furthermore the islands were populated and governed by the Spanish so again, there is no way the islands can be British, even with zero people on them, because they were not terra nullius.
Unfortunately for you, the islands were populated, it is known from the statements of people who were in that place and at that time, Fitz Roy, Darwin, María Saez de Vernet, Luis Vernet, José María Pinedo etc.
Captain Pinedo drew up the list of expelled people, he was put on trial for not defending the islands. What happened is also known from the boiling editorials of the Buenos Aires press.
Great Britain had a naval base in Rio de Janeiro, inexplicable with “its islands” at its disposal, right?
Newspaper El Lucero Buenos Aires 21 de Enero 1833
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Archivo_Hist%C3%B3rico_Provincia_Buenos_Aires_-_Extractos_de_El_Lucero.pdf?uselang=es
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Archivo_Hist%C3%B3rico_Provincia_Buenos_Aires_-_Extractos_de_El_Lucero.pdf?uselang=es
La Gaceta Mercantil Newspaper 18 de Enero 1833
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Archivo_Hist%C3%B3rico_Provincia_Buenos_Aires_-_Extractos_de_El_Lucero.pdf?uselang=es
Jeeeeez, little Pinocchio above has a huge nose and a full diaper,
Oct 30th, 2024 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You all try to ignore the British usurpation of the islands”
Oct 30th, 2024 - 06:26 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.“
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'..”
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!