MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas dispute must be resolved through peaceful and negotiated means, reiterates UN C24
The United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization on Wednesday adopted a new resolution reiterating its position that the sovereignty dispute over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands between Argentina and the UK, must be resolved through peaceful and negotiated means. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Argentina minister says, ....''but not the wishes — of the current inhabitants, while respecting Argentina’s territorial integrity as outlined in Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) on decolonization.''
Jun 19th, 2025 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0UNGA 1514 of 1960 Misused by Argentina in Respect of Territorial Integrity: https://www.academia.edu/129405237/UNGA_Resolution_1514_of_1960_Misused_by_Argentina_in_Respect_of_Territorial_Integrity
Nothing to negotiate about , what the Argies want they can not have, you can sit and talk for ever and a day but sovereignty is not up for discussion, the sooner they realise that the better it would be for them.
Jun 19th, 2025 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse +1“British occupation of the Malvinas Islands in 1833 was an act of force that expelled Argentina’s legitimate authorities and settlers”.
Jun 19th, 2025 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse +1This is a statement of historic untruth. Nobody was expelled in 1833.
Every single person who left on January 6th 1833 was planning to leave on January 5th 1833.
There can be no discussion or negotiation made on an historic untruth invented by Argentina.
Urghhh, here we go AGAIN. Argentina did not exist in 1833. Their first constitution as a republic dates from 1853.
Jun 19th, 2025 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“It was, unequivocally, a colonial act, in violation of international law and of Argentina’s territorial sovereignty,”
Jun 19th, 2025 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hans 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'..”
Same old, same old from Argentina, none of which is supported by any evidence, on the contrary, the evidence contradicts the Argy version of events.
Jun 22nd, 2025 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, doesn’t the Argentinian constitution say sovereignty is non-negotiable?
Its time this silly circus was closed down once and for all, it is a waste of time, a waste of money and a waste of oxygen,
Jun 22nd, 2025 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!