MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Beautiful South Georgia from the air on a day of great visibility
The BFSAI is reporting that an RFA Airbus Atlas 400 M during a recent fisheries patrol operation, ColdStare, along South Georgia Island and waters enjoyed spectacular flying conditions, with blue skies, since they are normally covered in cloud’ Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAnother argentine island illegally occupied by the United Kingdom.
Feb 11th, 2025 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse -2San Pedro Islands discovered on June 29, 1756 by the Spanish ship León (Lion). They were baptized with the name of Saint Pedro, for the saint of the day.
A small historical contribution so that the islanders do not continue to be deceived.
So South Georgia is Argentine because a Spaniard saw it first in 1756?
Feb 12th, 2025 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse +2Surely that means Argentina belongs to the first humans that arrived there 1000s of years before the Latinos.
Best hand it back and beggar of back to Europe Malvi.
Complete loony tunes 1833, you need deprogramming from the fantasy world you live in,
Feb 12th, 2025 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse +1“The South Atlantic island of South Georgia, situated south of the Antarctic Convergence, was the first Antarctic territory to be discovered. It was first visited in 1675 by Antoine de la Roché, an English merchant born in London to a French father. He left Hamburg in 1674 as a passenger on a 350-ton vessel bound for Peru. During the return journey, it was en route to Salvador in Brazil around Cape Horn. While trying to navigate through the Le Maire Strait near Staten Island, it was driven off course far to the east. In April 1675, the vessel found refuge in a bay of an unknown island where it anchored for 14 days. La Roché published a report of his voyage in London in 1678 in which he described the new land. That report is now lost but shortly afterwards, in 1690, Captain Francisco de Seixas y Lovera, a Spanish mariner, published an account of La Roché's discovery in his Descripcion geographica, y derrotero de la region austral Magallanica.”
Feb 12th, 2025 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands
The answer is affirmative Monkey, due to the Spanish discovery and other issues, such as the effective occupation of the territory, none of the islands in the South Atlantic belong to Europe, it is better to return them to their legitimate owner, the Argentine Republic.
Feb 12th, 2025 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse -2”These early visits resulted in no sovereignty claims. In particular―unlike the case of the Falkland Islands―Spain never claimed South Georgia. The latter anyway fell within the 'Portuguese' portion of the world as envisaged by the 1494 Tordesillas Treaty concluded between Spain and Portugal.
Feb 12th, 2025 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The mariner Captain James Cook in HMS Resolution accompanied by HMS Adventure made the first landing, survey and mapping of South Georgia. As mandated by the Admiralty, on 17 January 1775 he took possession for Britain and renamed the island 'Isle of Georgia' for King George III.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_South_Georgia_and_the_South_Sandwich_Islands
The Spanish may well have seen them first or may not have , who cares,, it means nothing, but Spain have never claimed them or complained about British sovereignty over them , on top of that it is nothing to do with Argentina period, Spain is not Argentina , stop acting like a dickhead and a petulant child, your posts get more stupid by the month, how about you return Argentina to its rightful owners, and you return to Spain, Italy and Germany or where ever else you came from, what a childish post,
Feb 12th, 2025 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Better to return Argentina to its legitimate owners and go back to Europe Malvi.
Feb 12th, 2025 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1When all the Latinos are out of South America, we will talk
Until then, we are as we are.
@Terence
Feb 13th, 2025 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2It doesn't matter what Captain James Cook did in the San Pedro/Georgias Islands. England recognized Spanish sovereignty of the South Atlantic islands with the Treaty of Nootka Sound, in both the Georgia and Sandwich Islands England could only land temporarily. At the time of signing the treaty, the Malvinas Islands were occupied by Spain.
ART 6°: It has also been agreed, with regard to both the eastern and western coasts of South America and the adjacent islands, that the respective subjects will not form in the future any settlement in the parts of these
coasts situated to the south of the parts of the same coasts and of the adjacent islands already
occupied by Spain. Well understood that the said respective subjects will retain the power to disembark on the coasts and islands thus located, for the purposes
of their fishing, and to build cabins and other temporary works that serve only
to these objects.
I know darragh gets mad at me and says this happened a long time ago. My intention is that they do not lie to the islanders.
Regards.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_de_las_islas_Georgias_del_Sur_y_Sandwich_del_Sur
Malvi
Feb 13th, 2025 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You have turned from a sensible debater to an ignorant troll.
Interestingly this change occurred when you became aware of Luis Pinedo logs of the SS Sarandi, that unequivocal disproves the expulsion myth.
I think this evidence destroyed your faith in Kohen, and the false narrative you have been fed from a young age.
Instead of acknowledging the weakness that has been shown in the fundamental argument of Argentina, you have just started trolling.
Its probably time to reassess your behaviour.
I know you want the islands, but simply you have no case.
@Monkey
Feb 13th, 2025 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The problem is that you limit yourself only to the period of time of the Argentine occupation, which continued the Spanish one.
You don't say anything that during the Spanish occupation there were no British protests.
Even during the Argentine occupation, the British protest was late.
The problem is that you know that I am right and that the islands are Argentine.
No 1833, the problem is you can not accept the truth, you are a fraud, the islands where not are not and never will be Argentinian, if you had a case you would have gone to court decades a go, but your cowardly politicians know that have no legal case to stand on. keep lying and trolling away, if that makes you happy but it achieves nothing other than wasting your life away on a pack of lies,
Feb 13th, 2025 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Malvi
Feb 13th, 2025 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I've not logged on here for some time yet here you are still spouting the same old garbage.
Isn't it time you grew up and did something useful with your life?
“It doesn't matter what Captain James Cook did in ...”
Feb 13th, 2025 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Nor what, or might be, as the only relevancy is 'what is'. The UK holds the wining hand. By holding the only recognized International legal sovereignty, bar none.
“The Treaty of Nootka Sound” doesn't support Argentina at all.
“San Lorenzo works against Argentina: ”... an extra secret article removed the restriction on new establishments if any other power did make an establishment south of “the parts of those coasts already occupied” by Spain. In the late 1820s, Argentina did in fact form an establishment at Port Louis in the Falklands, south of coastal areas already occupied by Spain in 1790. By a strict interpretation of the Nootka Sound Convention, Britain therefore became entitled to form an establishment in the Falklands as soon as Argentina had become established there.
Argentine historian Diego Luis Molinari believes that the secret clause in the Nootka Sound Convention was specifically put in by Britain with the Falklands in mind, and that Britain's reassertion of sovereignty in 1833 ... ...was an exercise of Britain's rights under this clause. In the opinion of Professor Dolzer, the Nootka Sound Convention was a purely bipartite agreement between Britain and Spain, which means that Argentina could not benefit from its provisions in any way. ...”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Malvi
Feb 14th, 2025 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse +1Rubbish and you know it. I fully acknowledge Spain had sovereignty of East Falkland for 45 years.
They voluntarily left in 1810, All the Spaniards returned to Spain via Montevideo. It is recorded fact.
Had those Spaniards remained on the islands and wanted to become Argentine it would be different
Had those Spaniards gone to Argentina and then wanted to return it would be different
But they were Spanish, remained Spanish and left voluntarily.
Therefore Spain ceased to exercise sovereignty, and the islands were uninhabited.
Whilst uninhabited three CLAIMS existed, the Spanish who did not renege their claim, the historic British claim, and the new made up Argie on.
Britain never recognised the various trips the UP ships made in the early 1820s as exercising sovereignty, nor quite clearly did it recognise the Vernet business as exercising sovereignty.
The moment the UP actually sent a governor, with troops, Britain responded, however they need not have, because either has failed within 10 weeks on its own, as per Pinedos logs.
No Argie sovereignty, not in the 1700s, not in 1810, not in 1828, not 1832 and certainly not today.
You humiliate yourself now and are a laughing stock.
The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
Feb 14th, 2025 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse +1“...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.”
@ Terence It is further agreed, with respect to the Eastern and Western coasts of South- America, and to the islands adjacent, that no settlement shall be formed hereafter, by the respective subjects, in such parts of those coasts as are situated to the South of those parts of the same coasts, and of the islands adjacent, which are already occupied by Spain: provided that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands to situated for the purposes of their fishery, and of erecting thereon huts, and other temporary buildings, serving only for those purposes. This clearly not only reaffirms the prohibition of navigation and fishing, but also the prohibition of establishing settlements on the coasts and islands already occupied by Spain. It proves three points: 1) that the Falklands/Malvinas were Spanish and that this was recognised by Great Britain; 2) that it was Spain which authorized British subjects to temporarily perform activities of a private nature in its possessions, and that 3) such activities were not in any way connected with the exercise of sovereignty over the Spanish territories. In 1790, the Latin American independence movement had not yet been born. When the independence movements did burst onto the scene, they were considered to be part of a civil war within the Spanish Empire. Great Britain was unable to invoke the secret clause, whether in its own favour or against Spain or Argentina. The key point is that the Treaty of San Lorenzo del Escorial or Nootka Sound of 1790 clearly demonstrates that at the moment the Argentine independence process began in 1810, the Falkland/Malvinas islands belonged to Spain and that Great Britain both recognised this fact and undertook to respect Spanish sovereignty.
Feb 14th, 2025 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse -4You are mistaking Spanish for Argentine.
Feb 14th, 2025 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Spanish people only became Argentine if they chose to
Some Spanish people in South America chose to be Argentine, some chose to be Uruguayan, some chose to be Paraguayan, some chose to be Chilean. Land and territory follow what the people chose to be.
The Spanish people on the Falkland Islands chose to remain Spanish and return to Spain, like Argentina (1000 miles away) or Uruguay, or Chile (300 miles away), or anywhere else, they could have chosen Independence or Union with another region, they did not.
They vacated the islands, removed the Governor and returned to Spain.
With it Spain stopped exercising sovereignty.
Argentina then made up a claim
Spain did not revoke its claim
Britain exercised its historic claim
All three “claimed” the islands, claims mean nothing.
Between 1810-1828 a few people visited the islands, mostly whaling and sealing ships from multiple nationalities, and the likes of Jewitt and others...it makes no difference at all.
Between 1828-31 Luis Vernet had a small business on the islands that failed and he vacated voluntarily.
In November 1832 the UP attempted to usurp the islands by force, ignoring the claims of both Britain and Spain in an act of aggression and war-mongering.
By December the UP usurpation had failed, their governor murdered and the vast majority of invaders planning to return to the mainland.
By January, Britain reasserted its historic claim, made a peaceful and permanent settlement, which is still there today.
These are the historic facts. Nothing else matters.
Indoctrinated clueless fanatic from Argentina, grow up and get a life and stop spouting lies, you need an intervention from your family,
Feb 14th, 2025 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Terence In spite of the fact that the islands were under Argentine possession in 1833, Great Britain could not possibly ignore the fact that for Spain the islands, as indeed all the territory of the newborn Argentine nation, were still part of its empire of the Indies. There are a variety of reasons why the secret clause could not be invoked against Argentina. Firstly, because Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights over the Falklands/Malvinas; at the moment in which it recognized Argentine independence and the two nations established diplomatic relations and entered into a treaty of amity in 1825, Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity. Secondly, even if the secret clause were in force and opposable to Argentina – which is not the case – because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights, there was no settlement established by “subjects of other powers”, but only a continuation of Spain’s rights. British sources concur on the fact that the Treaty of 1790 prevented Great Britain from settling in the Falkland/Malvinas islands. No serious British author, nor the British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence. Professor M. Deas stated in the House of Commons on January 17th, 1983 that:
Feb 14th, 2025 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -4in 1790 the Nootka Sound Convention was signed, by virtue of which, Great Britain waived the right of establishing future settlements in the east and west coasts of South America and in the adjacent islands; and the Royal Navy indifferently informed subsequent Spanish activities in the islands [Malvinas]. Briefly, we set one foot (but there were others) and we left.
@ Darrahg I hope you have good days and reap good fruits of your hard work in the camp. Regards.
“Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity.”
Feb 14th, 2025 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The 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.”
“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
So.
Feb 14th, 2025 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We have established with historic evidence that no usurpation took place. Not a single individual was forced to leave the islands against their will on Jan 6th 1833. The entire eviction myth was a complete lie. Like the Belgrano lie in 1982, the Captain of the vessel in question is the source of truth.
Therefore there was no eviction, the people arriving in October 1832, and the civilians who left on the Sarandi in January 1833 all wanted to leave.
Britain never recognised the Vernet business as evidence of Argentine sovereignty, not in 1828-31, not today, and Vernet left voluntarily with 2/3 of the workforce in 1831 after his business failed.
I am sure once the inheritance myth is destroyed again, Malvi will return to the eviction myth.
The inheritance myth fails because the Spaniards on the islands remained Spaniards, they did not choose independence or become Argentine. Therefore there was no population to inherit the islands.
Had the Spaniards on the islands wished to align with Argentina, or Uruguay, or Paraguay or Chile, I am sure they could have, they did not and returned to Spain in 1810. There was no inheritance.
Claiming that the islands were administered by Buenos Aires when Spanish makes them Argentine, would be like claiming Yemen is part of India. It is not.
So no inheritance
No Argentine civilian population
no usurpation or expulsion
Just Malvi lies, proven false time and time again.
Malvi is a complete lost cause and its pointless debating with him
Feb 14th, 2025 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +11 He is either so far indoctrinated in to the lies of the Argentine Politicians that no amount of facts will sink through to his brain,
2 Or he does knows the truth and posts his garbage just to get a response because he has nothing better to do, and cant admit he is wrong,
Personally i think its the second one, which makes it worse, no credibility what so ever,
“Great Britain had the obligation to respect Argentina’s territorial integrity.”
Feb 15th, 2025 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1Rubbish, it is a creation of the UN Charter, thus it cannot be applied to an issue that preceded its enactment.
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.
Juan
Feb 15th, 2025 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1I also think it is the second one.
One by one his myths and lies are exposed with real historic evidence. He starts out with the same fantasy that a peaceful population of Argentines were expelled by the British in 1833. As the story is proven false the date of the so-called British usurpation moves back...
When we get all the way back to the papal bulls he starts again at 1833.
“British government itself or its officials considered the secret clause to be applicable after Argentine independence.”
Feb 15th, 2025 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong yet again.
“The political situation as it developed after the fall of the Spanish colonial Empire in Latin America was entirely different from the one that existed in 1790. Therefore, it will have to be concluded that the Nootka Sound Convention influenced neither the legal situation in the year 1790 nor subsequent development of the territorial status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).”
[The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas): Past and Present Rudolf Dolzer 1993 p.58]
”Intertemporal law
The principle of tempus regit actum
Intertemporal law is based on the idea that an action is governed by the law in force at the (local) time of its occurrence. ... ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_law
@Terence
Feb 17th, 2025 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Memorandum Department of History of the Foreign Office December 7th, 1910.
“By virtue of this section (section 6 of the Treaty of 1790) becomes apparent that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Malvinas islands”.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memorandum John W. Field February 29th, 1928.
On October 28th, 1790 a Covenant was signed between this country and Spain, the section 6 of such covenant provided that in the future, any of the parties should establish any settlement in the east of west coasts of South America and adjacent islands, to the south of such portions of those same coasts and islands at the time occupied by Spain. According to this section becomes evident that Great Britain was banned from occupying any portion of the Falkland Islands. This Treaty was abrogated in October, 1795, when Spain declared war to Great Britain. Nevertheless, it was reinforced by section 1 of the additional sections comprised in the Treaty of Amity and Alliance between Great Britain and Spain of July 5th, 1814, signed in Madrid on August 18th, 1814.
In 1810, the relevant year for Argentina succession to Spain rights, the Falkland/Malvinas islands were undoubtedly Spanish. Great Britain was prohibited from occupying and claiming sovereignty over the islands. Argentina acts on the islands after independence could in no way affect a British sovereignty that did not exist at all.
@Monkey England renounced the sovereignty of the islands many times and with various treaties. It is totally false that there was a claim from England. Since 1774 when they recognized Spanish sovereignty there was not a single claim, which was logical after the resignation.
And yes, they expelled men, women and children as Pinedo reported.
They continue to invade Argentine territory to this day.
Repeating the same old pack of lies 1833 does not make it true, Britain signed nothing away, the claim goes back to the 1590s, you did not exist,
Feb 17th, 2025 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nothing more than a fraud, a troll and gutless to boot, as a fellow poster has said many many times, grow up and get a life,
Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
Feb 17th, 2025 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“..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'..”
Missed one Esteban, an important one, ( Parrot,)
Feb 17th, 2025 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights”
Feb 17th, 2025 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Impossible as what ever was ever agreed to in that bilateral treaty excludes third parties by its very nature.
The offering of a mere bureaucrat was probably on basis policy development of the views of Argentina. But we will never know as the UK government certainly hasn't accepted such a claim. You offer no URL, so we do not know whether that is even true.
Treaty of Nootka Sound
HC Deb 07 February 1983 vol 36 c275W275W
§Mr. Dalyell asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list any United Kingdom obligations under the treaty of Nootka Sound in relation to former Spanish colonies.
§Mr. Onslow Under article 6 of the Nootka Sound convention 1790, Britain and Spain agreed not to make any settlement on the eastern or western coasts of South America, or on the adjacent islands to the south, already held by Spain. However, the convention was terminated in 1795 as a result of the war between Britain and Spain. In 1811 Spain evacuated the Falkland Islands and abandoned them, so that, although the convention was revived in 1814, it could not then be taken to apply to the Falkland Islands.
@ Terence
Feb 18th, 2025 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“because Argentina has succeeded to Spain’s rights”
Impossible as what ever was ever agreed to in that bilateral treaty excludes third parties by its very nature.
The American government, with Andrew Jackson as president, addressed the Spanish government through its representative in Madrid, with the aim of knowing if the Falkland/Malvinas Islands had been part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Don Martín Fernández de Navarrete, the renowned Spanish historian, was in charge of answering the president. His reply was delivered on October 15th, 1833:
Navy captain Mr. Felipe Ruiz Puente proceeded to take possession of said islands, on behalf of His Catholic Majesty and in his capacity of governor, and on April 1st, 1767 the Spanish flag was raised at Soledad bay. Since then, the peaceful possession of the Malvinas was not disturbed again, as possessions of the Spanish Crown and its viceroyalty of Buenos Aires. [...] It can be concluded from this that the Malvinas islands, as possessions of the viceroyalty of Buenos Aires before the insurrection, lawfully belong to Spain like all the countries of that portion of America, until such a time as His Majesty determines their future fate.
Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship on September 21st, 1863.-
Spain recognised the Argentine Republic or Confederation as a free, sovereign and independent Nation, made up of all the provinces appearing in its Federal constitution in force, besides the territories that legally belong or will belong in future to that Nation.
Article 4 further recognises the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain rights and obligations.
No matter what is said, you will deny everything for that same reason, the United Kingdom cannot argue with Argentina because the British argument is inconsistent, it has more holes than the Titanic.
Enough of the lies Mr. Terence.
Regards.
“the United Kingdom cannot argue with Argentina because the British argument is inconsistent”
Feb 18th, 2025 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes they can, as they stated, the treaty was moot because of Spanish withdraw.
There is nowhere, in the annals of international law, where a third party has ever succeeded to an inheritance claim; in an inclusive bilateral treaty.
@ Terence
Feb 18th, 2025 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -1If it exists, one of those states is called the Argentine Republic.
I repeat in 1810, the relevant year for Argentina succession to Spain rights, the Falkland/Malvinas islands were undoubtedly Spanish. Great Britain was prohibited from occupying and claiming sovereignty over the islands. Argentina acts on the islands after independence could in no way affect a British sovereignty that did not exist at all.
What a load of bollocks 1833, you are deluded and a fantasist, their is no treaty that says Britain has no right to the Falklands, Spain and France both new Britans claim was older than theirs, and had no problem with British sovereignty after they both left, you inherited diddly squat from Spain, you where nothing more than a rebellious breakaway region, 1000 miles away, where ever it is that you get this stupid nonsense from is no more real than the moon made of cheese, get a grip of yourself and stop this ludicrous madness, o either go to the ICJ with your nonsense or STFU. you bore the pants off everyone,
Feb 18th, 2025 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“for Argentina succession to Spain rights,”
Feb 18th, 2025 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is nowhere, in the annals of international law, where a third party has ever succeeded to an inheritance claim; in an exlusive bilateral treaty. Thus an Argentine claim is without merit or precedent
Moreover, Argentina is bound by the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain
ARTICLE VIII
“...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.”
So Britains claim has so many holes in it does it Argie troll, compared with your colander of a claim its concrete, best joke i have read today, if you believe the garbage you post give you evidence to your government and take it the International court of justice, watch it get laughed at and see your country get embarrassed yet again, your new President knows, but cant say it out load because of fanatics like yourself, the only way you will ever get any say over the islands is if the islanders choose that path, but people like you make that fantasy impossible, as posters say , grow up,
Feb 18th, 2025 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi
Feb 18th, 2025 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The logs of Pinedo list those wishing to sail on the Sarandi on the 4th January 1833 before the Clio arrived.
They also show that the militia mutineers had chartered the Rapid to take them to the mainland but Pinedo ordered them to stay.
When the Clio arrived only those already leaving on the Sarandi and those who had chartered the Rapid left the islands. Not a single additional person.
Had the Clio arrived 48 hours later, Pinedo and the Sarandi would already have left as would the mutineers.
It is unfortunate this was not the case, as it allows you to perpetuate a lie 190 years later.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!