MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“Falklands are British”, an unequivocal message from UK Minister for the Armed Forces
Plymouth has a long and rich naval history. It is celebrated as where Sir Francis Drake played bowls as the Spanish Armada loomed in 1588 and as a key embarkation point for invading Allied forces on D-Day. However, the city’s critical role in the Falklands War is perhaps less widely appreciated. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesFor now. With England's visible decline, the inhabitants of the Islands themselves will soon want to cut the ties of colonization.
Nov 08th, 2024 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse -9Who is this idiot above ?, has he escaped from a lunatic asylum, ? Britain not England is not in decline, the Falklands are self governing territory and not a colony, they will not cut ties , and will never be Argentine, clearly you know nothing,
Nov 08th, 2024 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse +5Giving a non-self-governing territory to another State without the consent of its inhabitants would be a denial of human rights and contravene the UN Charter. Falklands – Freely Determined Political Status (1 pg):
Nov 08th, 2024 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse +5https://www.academia.edu/36555342/Falklands_-_Freely_Determined_Political_Status.pdf
Unfortunately for you history is not on your side. Since you don't like it, you're just going to have to lump it
Nov 08th, 2024 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse +3Terence,
Nov 08th, 2024 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Why do you think I don't know the story? What will I have “to lump”?
Thank you in advance for your answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrdh_63V78Y&list=PLv9YMDNf7fKa3Il8wqZJqyAfmU9iOJ0ds&index=5
Everything you posted Bras is 100% wrong and not remotely reality,
Nov 08th, 2024 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“Why do you think I don't know the story?” You either don't, or are a liar.
Nov 08th, 2024 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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
”ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat (cum per rerum naturam factum negantis probation nulla sit)-the burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, not on him who denies, (since by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof). The claimant is always bound to prove: the burden of proof lies on him. Upon the one alleging, not upon him denying, rests the duty of proving. Upon the plaintiff rests the proving or the burden of proof,”
Soma's Dictionary of Latin Quotations, Maxims and Phrases: A Compendium of ..
Brasso fancies himself a new Luís Carlos Prestes, but sadly, he is no leader, let alone a military man. Maybe Brasso should take a hike along the path of the “Coluna Prestes” to get in shape for his big “Putsch.”
Nov 08th, 2024 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +2I see that clueless commie had crawled out of his cave again, his Russian education on economy, finance, geography and history is sadly lacking ,
Nov 09th, 2024 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +3what he fails to see is that Russia became the largest country on earth by conquering other states, pr that Brazil isa product of colonialism, he should join the circus, they employ clowns,
Come, come now, Argentina can have Islas Malvinas if they want them, although I doubt Chile will cede them.
Nov 09th, 2024 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +2https://www.google.de/maps/place/Malvinas+Islands/@-46.6218883,-72.5269877,509m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0xbd92f905490866c1:0xd08e2647fd79c317!8m2!3d-46.6219149!4d-72.5269775!16s%2Fm%2F0r8qg_t?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEwNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
An ancient Turkish proverb says:
Nov 09th, 2024 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“When a clown moves into a palace, he doesn’t become a sultan.
The palace becomes a circus.”
Stephen Hicks, Ph.D.
Philosopher
https://www.stephenhicks.org/2022/03/15/turkish-proverb-about-clowns-in-palaces/
Error, Mr. Luke Pollard, the Malvinas are Argentine, illegitimately usurped by your country and claimed since 1833.
Nov 12th, 2024 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse -3“Error, ...the Malvinas are Argentine”
Nov 12th, 2024 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
2 To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and ...
They did through the UN Charter article 73.
“UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
@Terence I remind you that the Malvinas are not a people subjugated by a foreign power, but rather they are subjects of the usurping country.
Nov 12th, 2024 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Clueless clown above, no usurping occurred in any way shape or form, you lie through your teeth, and the only place that is called Malvinas is in Chile.
Nov 12th, 2024 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +1In front of the province of Santa Cruz, under the province of Buenos Aires and above the province of Tierra del Fuego, there is an archipelago called Malvinas usurped by your country. The Malvinas are Argentine
Nov 12th, 2024 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -3“You all try to ignore the British usurpation of the islands”
Nov 12th, 2024 - 02:51 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'..”
@ Terence, well I must thank you then for recognizing that the islands are not British, and that according to you they are British by conquest.
Nov 12th, 2024 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Which brings me to the next question and of course they never answer:
So why did the United Kingdom never end the conflict by aleganding conquest?
The only usurping done was when the thieves from the United Provinces stole the whole of Patagonia from the natives and then committed genocide on then, must be many circuses in mainland South America, we have 2 on here, the novelty shops must do well selling red noses. the islands are not Argentine and never have been Charlie Caroli,
Nov 12th, 2024 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have a lot of respect for clowns and the circus, they bring joy to people, when there is no argument, insults are resorted to, although for me it is not.
Nov 12th, 2024 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Natives? There were no natives on the islands, there was a hard-working and peaceful Argentine population until the usurpers arrived.
You lie constantly, so sensible debate is impossible with you, i have watched this site for 4 months and seen you post lie after lie, your lies are called out for what they are. peaceful Argentine population ? you mean a business settlement with people from various countries, the leader of this venture was German was he not ? had been to the island more than once and always asked permission from Britain, 2nd leader was Brisbane a Brit, 3rd leader an Irishman , these where sod all to do with the UP, no wonder people call you out,
Nov 12th, 2024 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina has an argument - legal, historical or geographical - it should go to the ICJ.
Nov 13th, 2024 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/01/falkland-wars-1700-1850-second-edition.pdf
Until Argentina does so, the matter is settled
Dont waste any time responding to Malvi, he is just a tunnel visioned fanatic wasting his life away, no matter how much evidence is provided or how much his claims are proved to be false he will continue to spout his ridiculous nonsense, he is no longer a credible poster,
Nov 13th, 2024 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0“So why did the United Kingdom never end the conflict ...”
Nov 13th, 2024 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Give your head a shake. Why would they display all cards they hold; they would then be as stupid as you?
Not that it is difficult to know, what legal precedents they could rely on; that gives them sole colour of right.
Nice try Terence, your hesitant response only shows that they have nothing.
Nov 13th, 2024 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Mr. Luke Pollard, the Malvinas are Argentine.
“Nice try Terence, your hesitant response only shows ...”
Nov 13th, 2024 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your proposition is your mere opinion.
They have every possible international law precedent on their 'side.', including the UN Charter.
“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.”
“A State which has ceased to exercise any authority over a territory cannot, by purely verbal protestations, indefinitely maintain its title against another which for a sufficiently long time has effectively exercised the powers and fulfilled the duties of sovereignty in it.''(Theory and Reality in International Law, de Visscher, 1957, p201).
Higgins in '82 states exactly “No tribunal could tell her [Argentina] that she has to accept British title because she has acquiesced to it But what the protests do not do is to defeat the British title, which was built up in other ways through Argentinas acquiescence.”
“However intensely Argentina may disagree, Britain has clearly built up good title to the Falkland Islands under International Law over the last 150 years.”
Therefore she has confirmed the Islanders right to self-determination by that statement. Moreover, Argentina is barred from using “territorial integrity” as an argument. As it is a post UN law and cannot be applied retroactively.
”...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion. ...
The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994. So in spite of your typical Argentine propensity for lying your argument is shown for the fraud that it is.
With all those beautiful words of law that you always quote and with everything in your favor, then why doesn't the United Kingdom put an end to the conflict?
Nov 13th, 2024 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -2British recognition of Spanish sovereignty.
The Prince of Masseran declares, at the same time, in the name of the King his master, that the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty, to restore to his British Majesty the possession of the PORT and FORT (no West Falkland, No Saunders Island) called Egmont, CANNOT NOR OUGHT ANY WISE TO AFFECT THE QUESTION OF THE PRIOR RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY (of the Spanish King) the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland Islands.
Credits: Roger Lorton
“Why doesn't the United Kingdom put an end to the conflict?”
Nov 13th, 2024 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They have by winning twice decisively.
As for:
the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland's Islands.
In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.
'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” “The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
....the engagement to restore CANNOT NOR NOR OUGHT TO AFFECT THE QUESTION OF THE PRIOR RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY....
Nov 13th, 2024 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Of course it is the declaration of his Catholic Majesty and safeguards his previous rights of sovereignty over the islands.
Speculation that the rights of both countries were left intact can only belong to a lunatic.
What a desperate pathetic fanatical troll you have become 1833, you are making a fool of yourself but you can not see it, one by one you have turned posters against you who no longer wish to converse with your nonsense, get a life FFS, the matter is settled, it was settled when you stopped talking and went to war,
Nov 13th, 2024 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
Nov 13th, 2024 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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.
Extinctive prescription involves possession... one could conclude under general principles of
international law that this was a sufficient to extinguish ArgenƟna'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 prescriptionS, Argentina should have submitted her claim to the international court ... For over 50 years prior to 1982, ArgenƟna 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
Thomas Pownall´s British Parliament, on March 5th, 1771:
Nov 13th, 2024 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse -2“whatever may be the present ostensible form of the convention, mark well the end: It will end on our part either in the actual cession of the island or in a gradual direliction of it. Without some such idea as this; namely that as soon as reparation is made to our honour for the violent and hostile manner in which we were driven off that island, and as soon as we were put in a situation to evacuate it of our own motion, its tacitly understood we are to cede it. Without some such idea as this; the whole of the negotiation is inexplicable and unintelligible. But taking this line, as going to a matter mutually understood, the whole is plain, definite and but of one construction.”
Sad, so very very sad,
Nov 13th, 2024 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever fairy tales you wish to invent at https://www.malvinas-falklands.net/avada_portfolio/chapter-ii-2/ is fine. But without proof i.e authentication it remains unproven, and thus is untrue.
Nov 13th, 2024 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whereas the issue as related by Margret Thatcher is.
“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)
https://www.malvinas-falklands.net/avada_portfolio/chapter-ii-2/
Marv - THE QUESTION
Nov 14th, 2024 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0All that was reserved was a question. A question that was never answered.
“# Researcher's Comment: Since 1771, thousands of column inches of text have been written in trying to explain what the Spanish 'Declaration' and the English 'Acceptance' meant regarding sovereignty. .... They meant nothing; with the question clearly set aside for a future negotiation. A discussion which would never happen. The status quo of 1769 had been restored. Spain in the east. Britain in the west. Nothing had been decided as to who owned the archipelago.”
Credit: Me page 136
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/1767-to-1774.pdf
Regardless, Thomas Pownall was simply giving his opinion. It didn't result in any binding legal effect.
Nov 14th, 2024 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Forgive me Lorton but your work lacks objectivity and seriousness, the status quo in any case was momentarily restored while negotiations were taking place.
Nov 14th, 2024 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse -3The text of the British recognition of Spanish sovereignty is above in the previous comment, and this is how the protagonists of that time understood it, confirmed with the British withdrawal.
@Terence
Thomas Pownall understood the text that you and Lorton and the others do not understand or do not wish to understand.
As both governments call it a Peace Treaty.
Nov 14th, 2024 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'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
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/uti%20possidetis
Malvi
Nov 14th, 2024 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1As I've often said on here but will repeat as you don't seem to understand... What did or didn't happen 200-250 years ago is totally irrelavent all that matters is what the Falkland Islanders themselves want and they have made it quite clear that they want to retain their links with the UK and want nothing whatsoever to do with Argentina.
End of story.
@darragh
Nov 15th, 2024 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Maybe it's not the end of the story, but I respect your opinion, maybe between the lines you're giving me somewhat reason.
You are also somewhat reason.
Regards.
“Maybe it's not the end of the story”
Nov 15th, 2024 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0According this source of US government opinion it is. Your claim is long dead and buried..
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.
Extinctive prescription involves possession... one could conclude under general principles of
international law that this was a sufficient to extinguish ArgenƟna'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 prescriptionS, Argentina should have submitted her claim to the international court ... For over 50 years prior to 1982, ArgenƟna 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
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!