MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Chilean President Kast backs Argentine claim over Falklands in first state visit to Buenos Aires
Chilean President José Antonio Kast formally backed Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime areas during his first state visit to Buenos Aires, where he met his counterpart Javier Milei at the Casa Rosada. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesKast “reiterated the Chilean government's support for the legitimate sovereignty rights of the Argentine Republic” over the archipelagos and “reaffirmed the need for the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in order to find, as soon as possible, a peaceful and definitive solution to the sovereignty dispute in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the United Nations and other regional and multilateral forums.”
Apr 07th, 2026 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse +1Legitimate rights of the Argentine Republic based on what, prey tell?
Well he would say that wouldnt he while on a state visit, he can hardly say anything else can he, another pointless headline and story.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse +1Most of Argentina's claim is based on 'Usurpation' which is meaningless drivel and that they supposedly inherited the Falklands and other islands in the South Atlantic from Spain. Fact is,
Apr 07th, 2026 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain (1 pg): https://www.academia.edu/44496176/Argentina_did_not_inherit_the_Falkland_Islands_from_Spain
The fact that they have never took the case to court says everything, such a feeble claim they have. the Argies that post on this site are completely delusional.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse +1The United Kingdom does not recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction over the islands. Only its dependencies offered to negotiate. Well, but negotiation is impossible, since the Rubin fractured Argentina's territorial integrity, evixted and expelled the inhabitants of the islands in 1833, when Argentina already had a legally established claim to the islands. The sovereignty claim is non-negotiable and imprescriptible; it is enshrined in our constitution. What Argentina needs to focus on is growing its economy, increasing its population above 100 million, and continuing with its legitimate and open claim. The defensive slip or geopolitical imbalance will eventually arrive, opening opportunities to retake, as happened in '82. For now, what can be done is to generate passive pressure, increasing the burden on UK taxpayers' wallets (it's not much, but it's not insignificant either, and it helps), since every pound spent here on defense is a pound less for goods and services in their country and an opportunity for other adversaries like China or Russia.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -4More stupid delusional nonsense the same shit you posted last year and the year before. the size of your population is irrelevant, you have NO legitimate claim otherwise you would have gone too the the ICJ years a go . just Argie lies, more stupid nonsense about geopolitical imbalance and slips. try it again and you will be destroyed, far far more than you where in 82, their is zero pressure on the UK tax payer, the military budget is miniscule, you are decades behind the UK military, weapons development will ensure aby invasion force will be obliterated, you should be ashamed of yourself for wanting more wars and deaths. what an idiot you are , and what idiotic statement and finally NO civilians where ejected stop lying, 2 Brazilians and 2 Uruguayans left voluntary, no Argentinians, you have become an embarrassment to your country, the Falklands will be a fully independent sovereign nation in time, and you will have popped your clogs, but hey if it floats your boat living in an alternate universe. grow up you for goodness sake.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +1So, what has Pres Kast got to say about Chilean Antarctic claims which overlap with both Britain’s and Argentina’s.
Apr 07th, 2026 - 11:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Not to mention the maritime dispute between Chile and Argentina over the continental shelf in the Southern Zone Sea.
And fairs fair, Argy Cit is right about one thing, Britain does maintain that self-determination applies to the Malvinas, whereas S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands have no permanent population therefore there is no issue of self-determination or de-colonisation and the issue can be decided in the ICJ.
Indeed, unlike the Malvinas, S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands are not listed by the UN for de-colonisation.
However, Argentina is not willing to put its case in court, even over territories where it can go to court.
Tells you all you need to know really.
Because we don't had nathing to negotiate.. it's at our constitution. Regarding the right to self-determination, it is the ICJ and the UN General Assembly that determine who it applies to.
Apr 08th, 2026 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse -2And who is considered a “peoples” and who is not.
Not the invading power
AC the UN has already said ALL people have the right to self determination. with no exceptions. your objection was over ruled, you have been told that a hundred times, dont be so childish, and it was you who illegally invaded, and the UN told to you to withdraw immediately your posts get more childish by the week. your constitution is meaningless and irrelevant regarding the Falklands,
Apr 08th, 2026 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0“... it's at our constitution.”
Apr 08th, 2026 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for admitting that your “constitution” contains lies. Given the history of your country, it makes perfect sense. ;)
The sheer stupidity of his argument is mind boggling. claiming am eviction of civilians that never happened. when just 4 people left voluntarily and none of those 4 where from the UP. then the claim about Peoples nonsense, when he knows very well the UN have already stated that all people have the right to self determination despite Argentinas objections, then more nonsense about an invading power. but he can not understand that it was the evil military Junta was the illegal invading power who where told to leave. his previous nonsense about slips and geopolitical clap trap and growing population etc, he does not understand the progress advancement of military equipment, you have only to look at the Ukraine , people like him and Malvi etc are the problem for Argentina, they dont live in the real world but in one of lies myths and fantasies. the only way the Falklands and the islanders will ever become Argentinian is if the islanders choose that route, people like him make that an impossible fantasy and drives it even further away, most sensible Argentinians know its settled and get on with their lives,
Apr 08th, 2026 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“reiterated the Chilean government's support for the legitimate sovereignty rights of the Argentine Republic“
Apr 08th, 2026 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's an absolute non sequitur since ni such right exists under international law.
”Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to GB results in a different conclusion. Extinctive prescription involves possession,... ...However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
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. ”
Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
Argy Cit
Apr 08th, 2026 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing to negotiate, it’s in your constitution, right!
Then why does Argentina keep asking for negotiations???
Exactly what is there to talk about???
For it to be a ‘negotiation’ then more than one outcome must be possible, but you say it’s not.
There are two golden rules of ‘negotiation’:
Firstly, you must have someone to negotiate with, however you refuse to recognise the FIG the only people who can decide their future.
Secondly, you must have something to negotiate with, what exactly does Argentina have to offer, what does it bring to the table?
Of course, you are free to believe as you wish in Argentina, but this does not involve and cannot affect the British or their S. Atlantic/Antarctic territories.
Your president has got it right, ‘they have to want to be Argentinian, but for this to happen Argentina has to be a normal country’.
The Islanders can decide to become Argentinian, if they wish.
“Exactly what is there to talk about???”
Apr 09th, 2026 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing, since you have indicated your assertions, were false.
“The precise scope of the obligation is, however, that states should settle disputes peacefully, not that they should settle them. In other words, there is no general rule requiring a state to settle its grievances. Rather, the rule is that if a state does decide to settle, this must be done in a peaceful manner.”
page 275
The assertion that no population was displaced in 1833 is not sustainable when examined against the historical record. By the time of the British reoccupation, the islands had already experienced continuous administrative presence under Spain, which had appointed more than thirty governors and maintained a settled population.
Apr 09th, 2026 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Following independence, Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights under the principle of uti possidetis iuris and proceeded to exercise authority over the Islas Malvinas. Between 1820 and 1833, Argentina undertook multiple acts demonstrating effective sovereignty, including the establishment of a permanent settlement, the appointment of officials, regulation of economic activities, and the development of a civilian population evidenced by births, marriages, and commerce.
These developments were only interrupted by external interference, notably the attack carried out by the Incidente de la fragata Lexington, which nevertheless did not extinguish Argentina’s authority or claims. At the time of the British reoccupation in 1833, Argentine authorities and inhabitants were present, and their removal constitutes a disruption of an existing administration.
Moreover, the British claim faces significant challenges. The United Kingdom did not establish an exclusive or continuous title based on discovery, nor did it maintain uninterrupted occupation. Its earlier presence was limited, contested by other European powers, and ultimately abandoned in the late 18th century, followed by several decades without effective control.
In international law, the mere symbolic assertion of sovereignty—such as leaving markers or plaques—does not suffice to establish title in the absence of continuous and effective occupation. Territorial sovereignty is grounded in the actual exercise of authority, not in isolated or symbolic acts.
Taken together, the historical evidence demonstrates a pattern of effective administration first by Spain and subsequently by Argentina
contrasted with discontinuity in the British presence. Any legal assessment must therefore consider the principles of continuity, effective occupation, and the absence of valid competing title at the relevant time.
Apr 09th, 2026 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1As John Troutbeck, then head of the FCO’s American department, outlined the problem surrounding Britain’s control of the Falklands in a memo in 1936. He wrote that “our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.”
Argentina succeeded to Spain’s rights“ that was an impossibility.
Apr 09th, 2026 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK can rely on the Peace of Utrecht, which explicitly bars any Argentine claim of succession.
”...it is hereby further agreed and concluded, that neither the Catholic King, nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer, or by any means, or under any name, alienate from them and the crown of Spain, to the French, or to any other nations whatever, any lands, dominions, or territories, or any part thereof, belonging to Spain in America.“
”As late as 1886 the (US)Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Seems not.. the uk didnt build a title before argentina took posesion in 1820
Apr 09th, 2026 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Argy Cit
Apr 09th, 2026 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Sorry, but evidence does not support the Argentinian version of events, as you have been told many times.
Britain took possession of the territory in 1775.
The British claim is older than Argentina, as the 1771 Anglo Spanish agreement proves. And Argentina is not Spain.
Then there is the 1850 Anglo Argentinian treaty, ending any claim by Argentina, such as it was.
Anyway, since the British recovered the Malvinas in 1833, following the illegal UP occupation in 1832, UP/Argentina has gone on to occupy the whole of Patagonia and TDF, which was not terra nullius, and you talk about illegal occupation, implanted populations!
You’re having a laugh, mate.
Not much more to be said.
The assertion that Britain “took possession” of the islands in 1775 oversimplifies a more complex historical process. The British settlement at Port Egmont was evacuated in 1774 for “strategic and economic reasons”. Although the United Kingdom maintains that it left a symbolic marker of sovereignty, in classical international law EFECTIVE OCUPATION and continuity of administration are key elements in establishing and maintaining title. During the subsequent period, Spain exercised administration over the islands until 1811.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 02. The 1771 Anglo-Spanish Agreement
The 1771 agreement resolved a specific diplomatic crisis following Spain’s expulsion of the British from Port Egmont. However, it is generally accepted in legal scholarship that this agreement did not settle the question of sovereignty, but rather restored the status quo temporarily, with both parties maintaining their respective claims.
3. State Succession and the Argentine Claim
While it is correct that Argentina is not Spain, the Argentine position is grounded in the principle of uti possidetis iuris, under which newly independent states inherit the administrative boundaries of former colonial entities. This principle has been widely applied in Latin America. Its applicability to offshore territories such as the Falkland Islands remains legally contested, but it constitutes a recognized doctrinal basis for Argentina’s claim.
4. The 1850 Convention
The Arana-Southern Convention restored diplomatic relations between Argentina and the United Kingdom following earlier hostilities. Importantly, the treaty does not explicitly address sovereignty over the islands. Consequently, interpretations differ: the British view tends to see it as normalization without protest, whereas the Argentine position holds that no renunciation of sovereignty can be inferred from silence.
Also the uk made clear that 59 years of silence dont constitute a prescription
Argy Cit
Apr 10th, 2026 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I meant 1765 took possession, my mistake. Either way long before 1820.
The point about the 1771 treaty is, whatever ‘spin’ you put on it, that it proves the British claim is older than Argentina.
It did not start in 1833, where Argentina did not start until what, 1866.
uti possidetis iuris is roman law, it was used by some former Spanish colonies in S. America to define boundaries, but not all. Certainly cannot be applied to the Malvinas, as they were not Spanish territory visa vie the treaty of 1771.
However, uti possidetis does apply to the treaty of 1850.
‘Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law where, following a war, parties retain the territory and property they hold at the treaty's conclusion.
Argentina effectively signed away its claim, such as it was.
Argentina was ‘silent’ about the Malvinas from 1850 to 1943, 93 years.
The argument still rests on several incorrect or overstated legal assumptions.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse -1First, priority of claim (1765) does not in itself establish sovereignty. What matters in classical international law is effective and continuous occupation, and Britain withdrew from Port Egmont in 1774. Spain then exercised administration until 1811, which is directly relevant to continuity.
Second, the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement did not recognize British sovereignty. It resolved a crisis and restored British presence temporarily, while both sides explicitly maintained their claims. It cannot be used as proof of a superior British title.
Third, uti possidetis iuris is not “Roman law” in this context but a well-established principle in Latin American state formation, recognized in international jurisprudence. Its application to the Falkland Islands may be debated, but it is not legally irrelevant as suggested.
Fourth, the Arana-Southern Convention did not extinguish Argentina’s claim. The treaty contains no reference to sovereignty, and international law requires explicit renunciation, not inference from silence.
Fifth, the “93 years of silence” argument misapplies prescription. Acquisition of territory by prescription requires uncontested and peaceful possession with acquiescence, which is itself debated here, and in any case, the doctrine is not universally accepted in territorial disputes.
Argy Cit
Apr 10th, 2026 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Again, whatever spin you try and put on it, the fact remains that 1765 predates 1820.
Which means Argentina’s actions in 1820 are null and void.
The British garrison was withdrawn in 1775, however the commercial activities continued regulate by Britain. After the British return in 1771 the British never left.
Spain only controlled one Island.
The point about the 1771 Anglo-Spanish agreement, is that it proves the British always rejected the Spanish claim and have claimed the Islands since long before Argentina ever existed. The British have the prior claim.
In this context, uti possidetis iuris is an AGREEMENT between TWO states on how to define the border between them based on previous Spanish borders. Such as Colombia and Venezuela or Peru and Bolivia.
In the case of the Malvinas the Two states Argentina and Britain do not agree, the British do not even accept the territory was ever Spanish never mind inherited by Argentina.
In these circumstances uti possidetis iuris cannot be applied and hence is irrelevant.
‘Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law where, following a war, parties retain the territory and property they hold at the treaty's conclusion.
Britain held the Malvinas territory at the conclusion of the 1850 treaty, with no reservation or exemption or even mention of the Malvinas in the treaty, Argentina automatically accepted British possession of the territory when Argentina signed the treaty.
Which was known by Argentina at the time, hence no further mention by Argentina till 1943.
Argentina’s historical claim only works if you ignore the previous British history.
Zit. if you are so confident of your fantasy distorted facts then present them to your government then ask them to take them to ICJ. your long winded waffle is laughable. i find it entertaining how you and your fellow Argentine fantasists twist and turn,
Apr 10th, 2026 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@Pugol-H’s your argument rests on several propositions that, from the standpoint of international law, require important qualifications.
Apr 10th, 2026 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -1First, the assertion that a prior act of discovery or symbolic possession in 1765 automatically invalidates Argentina’s later acts (circa 1820) does not reflect the classical doctrine of territorial acquisition. As established in arbitral jurisprudence such as Island of Palmas (1928), mere priority of claim is not sufficient; what is निर्णative is the continuous and effective display of state authority (effectivités). Therefore, the legal relevance of 1765 depends not on its chronology alone, but on whether it generated a sustained and exclusive exercise of sovereignty—which remains historically contested.
Second, the claim that “the British never left” after 1771 is difficult to reconcile with the generally accepted historical record that the British settlement at Port Egmont was withdrawn in 1774. While the United Kingdom maintains that it left behind symbols of sovereignty, international law traditionally distinguishes between symbolic acts and actual administration, the latter carrying significantly greater legal weight.
Third, regarding uti possidetis iuris, it is inaccurate to characterize it solely as an agreement between two states. In Latin American state formation, it operated as a general principle of decolonization, recognized in cases such as Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali) (ICJ, 1986), whereby newly independent states inherited the administrative boundaries of former colonial entities. Its applicability to insular territories like the Malvinas Islands is indeed debated, but it cannot be dismissed as legally irrelevant; rather, it constitutes a plausible doctrinal basis for Argentina’s claim, contingent on whether Spain possessed valid title.
Fourth, the interpretation of the 1850 Arana–Southern Convention as implicitly extinguishing Argentina’s claim is not supported by a strict reading of treaty law.
Under general principles later codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, waiver or renunciation of sovereignty must be clear and unequivocal. Silence or absence of explicit reservation does not ordinarily suffice to extinguish a territorial claim, particularly in matters of sovereignty (this is the main british argument invoqued for the 58 years of silence and abandonment between 1775-1829)
Apr 10th, 2026 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Finally, the argument based on prolonged “silence” (1850–1943) invokes the doctrine of prescription. However, acquisitive prescription in international law requires not only the passage of time but also peaceful, public, and uncontested possession accompanied by acquiescence. Given the existence of intermittent diplomatic protests and the broader debate over the doctrine’s status, its application in this case remains controversial rather than definitive.
In sum, Pugol-H’s your position reflects one interpretative line but tends to overstate the conclusiveness of elements—priority, treaties, and silence—that, in international law, are context-dependent and legally contested rather than dispositive on their own.
Argy Cit
Apr 10th, 2026 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My you have been busy, although your conclusions are flawed in so many ways.
By 1820 three countries had already had settlements in the Malvinas and disputed its ownership, but only the British still maintained their claim.
Argentina did not exist when British rule was established.
In the case of Burkina Faso v. Mali, an AGREEMENT between TWO states on how to define the border between them based on previous, in this case French, borders.
This is not the case with the Malvinas, you are not drawing a boundary between Argentina and Uruguay.
uti possidetis iuris simply does not apply.
‘Uti possidetis’ applying to peace treaties is an established principle, however you read treaty law.
Also, if Argentina signed a peace treaty in 1850 with no mention of the Malvinas, then the Malvinas being British could not have been an issue.
And wasn’t an issue again until 1943. ‘Peaceful, public, and uncontested possession accompanied by acquiescence’ for 93 years.
The context is that most of the history happened before Argentina ever existed, in any form.
In sum, you completely ignore the obvious in favour of the fanciful and the irrelevant.
But you don’t have a case otherwise, do you!
Your argument relies on selective interpretation of both history and international law.
Apr 11th, 2026 - 03:34 am - Link - Report abuse -2First, the claim that Argentina “did not exist” is misleading. Argentina’s position is based on succession from the Spanish Crown under uti possidetis iuris, a principle consistently applied in Latin America and recognized in international jurisprudence. The issue is not whether Argentina existed in 1833 as a consolidated state, but whether it inherited Spain’s prior rights—which it did.
Second, prior settlements by multiple powers do not strengthen the British case; they demonstrate that sovereignty over the islands was historically disputed. Spain exercised continuous administration until the early 19th century, and Argentina—its successor—continued that presence until the British forcibly removed Argentine authorities in 1833. That act is central to the dispute.
Third, your reference to “peaceful, public, and uncontested possession” ignores the fact that Argentina protested British occupation repeatedly throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. There was no acquiescence. Continuous diplomatic protest prevents the consolidation of title through prescription under international law.
Fourth, the comparison with Burkina Faso v. Mali is actually relevant: the case confirms that uti possidetis iuris applies to newly independent states inheriting colonial administrative boundaries. The principle is not limited to bilateral boundary agreements—it is broader and foundational in decolonization contexts.
Fifth, the absence of explicit mention in the 1850 treaty does not constitute recognition of British sovereignty. Silence in a treaty cannot be interpreted as renunciation of a territorial claim, especially when protests continued before and after.
Finally, the idea that the issue “wasn’t an issue until 1943” is historically inaccurate. Argentina maintained its claim consistently, and the dispute was recognized internationally long before the mid-20th century.
eventually being taken up by the United Nations in 1965 (Resolution 2065).
Apr 11th, 2026 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse -1In sum, the case is not based on “fanciful” arguments, but on well-established principles: territorial succession, protest against unlawful occupation, and the legal effects of forcible displacement of authorities. Dismissing these does not resolve the dispute—it simply overlooks its legal foundation.
What dispute was that, in Argentina you think its disputed, but then you thought Peronism was good, and look how that worked out for you, an unmitigated disaster.
Apr 12th, 2026 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse +1Your basic problem is that the British history, presence and claims in the S. Atlantic are very old.
Whereas Argentina and its claims are very new, hence you are forced to argue Spanish history (where Spain is not Argentina) in order to have a Spanish claim to inherit.
Frankly, given the arguments you have put forward here, neither can be sustained.
Also, given that the Spanish occupation of the Malvinas was done by the Spanish navy out of Montevideo in Uruguay, if anyone ‘inherited’ the territory from Spain, it was Uruguay not Argentina and you can apply uti possidetis iuris to that and agree it’s Uruguayan.
Yea.
Your argument mixes a few separate issues and draws conclusions that don’t really follow from international law or the historical record.
Apr 12th, 2026 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse -1First, the existence of a dispute is not a matter of opinion. It has been formally recognized by the United Nations since 1965 (Resolution 2065), which explicitly acknowledges a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and calls for negotiations. So this isn’t just an “Argentine view.”
Second, the idea that Argentina’s claim is “new” ignores the principle of uti possidetis iuris, which applies precisely to newly independent states inheriting the administrative boundaries of former colonial units. Argentina’s claim is based on succession from Spain’s jurisdiction over the territories administered from Buenos Aires—not on Spain being “the same country,” but on legal continuity recognized across Latin America.
Third, the Montevideo point doesn’t hold. Administrative logistics (such as naval operations departing from Montevideo) do not determine sovereignty. What matters is the jurisdictional framework of the Spanish Empire at the time of independence. The relevant administrative unit was the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, centered in Buenos Aires, not a separate Uruguayan state—which did not exist at the time.
Fourth, British presence being “older” is also incomplete. British, French, and Spanish settlements all existed at different times, and sovereignty was contested long before 1833. The key issue is that Argentina maintained a presence after independence and was removed by force in 1833, which is why the dispute persists.
Finally, bringing up Peronism is irrelevant to the legal question. Domestic political outcomes don’t determine territorial rights under international law.
In short, the disagreement isn’t about opinions or ideology. it’s about how principles like territorial succession, effective control, and protest are interpreted. And that’s precisely why the matter remains an internationally recognized dispute rather than a settled issue.
Apr 12th, 2026 - 08:03 am - Link - Report abuse -1‘sovereignty was contested long before 1833’
Apr 12th, 2026 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Exactly, but not by Argentina.
Argentina did not have a ‘presence’ in the Islands until 1832 and then only for two months, the Vernet settlement of 1828 got permission from the British to be there.
Only the garrison was deported 1833 as they did not have permission to be there.
The dispute persists because successive Argentinian governments keep it alive as a distraction, an opiate for the masses, for when the economy tanks, yet again.
International law is firmly on the side of self-determination, end of.
Just curious here, on what basis does Argentina claim Patagonia and TDF, which (like the Malvinas) were never Spanish territory?
The argument that Argentine sovereignty was non-existent prior to 1833 overlooks the legal doctrine of uti possidetis iuris and the documented administrative continuity of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.
Apr 13th, 2026 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse -11. Administrative Continuity and the Vernet Settlement
The assertion that Luis Vernet sought British “permission” is a common historical decontextualization. Vernet acted under the authority of the Buenos Aires government, which granted him land and fishing rights through the decrees of 1823 and 1828. His communication with the British Consulate was a private commercial courtesy—intended to protect his investments from naval interference—rather than a legal recognition of British sovereignty. The formal creation of the Political and Military Commandancy of the Malvinas in 1829 was a sovereign act of state that the United Kingdom did not effectively protest until years later, long after the Argentine administration was already established and exercising jurisdiction (including the enforcement of fishing laws).
2. The Nature of the 1833 Intervention
To characterize the 1833 events as the mere deportation of a “garrison” ignores the forceful expulsion of the legitimate Argentine political authority and its population. Under the international law of the 19th century, Argentina held title as the successor state to the Spanish Empire, which had exercised undisputed sovereignty over the archipelago since the British withdrawal in 1774. The arrival of the HMS Clio constituted an act of force in a time of peace, breaking the territorial integrity of a nascent state—an act that Argentina formally protested immediately in 1833 and has maintained consistently ever since.
3. The Limits of Self-Determination
Regarding the principle of self-determination, the United Nations (notably through Resolution 2065) classifies the Malvinas as a “special and particular” colonial case. The UN distinguishes between “peoples” entitled to self-determination and “populations”
No Zit the Falklands are not a special ; case regarding self determination, that is a lie that you keep claiming, the UN has said ALL people have the right to self determination. you objected and it was dismissed, 100.000.000 % Vernet asked permission from the British government. without permission he would never have gone, Britain did not withdraw at all. its military garrison left but British business on the islands continued. you lie again, decontextualization ? what a load pf piffle and long winded waffle , its irrelevant that Buenos Aires also gave him permission, the islands where already claimed by Britain. BA knew this. your whole long winded waffle is full of inaccurate statements and twists. the whole claim would be destroyed in any court of law, reasonable negotiations ? not possible you want only one out come and that will not happen. another lie about a continued claim. 90 years went by without a peep, only started again when the Peron government became unpopular and made the lie up, just like the Junta did. you also have exposed yourself having 2 accounts. the bottom line, is you have no case. that is why you have never gone to court and never will. more holes in your claim than a colander, and before you start your sill slip and geopolitical clap trap. just look at Iran and Ukraine,
Apr 13th, 2026 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse +2Your argument rests on an absolutist interpretation of self-determination and a simplified reading of the historical record, both of which are contested in international law and historiography.
Apr 13th, 2026 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -2First, while it is correct that the principle of self-determination is recognized by the United Nations, it is not applied in a vacuum. International law requires balancing it with other principles, notably territorial integrity and the legal framework governing decolonization. In the specific case of the Falklands/Malvinas, the UN has not treated the situation as a standard exercise of self-determination. Instead, UN General Assembly Resolution 2065 explicitly recognizes the existence of a sovereignty dispute between two states and calls for bilateral negotiations, referring to the “interests” (not the “wishes”) of the islanders. This distinction is deliberate and widely acknowledged in legal scholarship.
Second, the case of Luis Vernet does not demonstrate uncontested British sovereignty. While Vernet did engage with British authorities, he was simultaneously appointed by Buenos Aires as a civil and military authority. This duality reflects a contested and unresolved sovereignty situation, rather than clear British jurisdiction. Selectively emphasizing one element does not resolve that ambiguity.
Third, the assertion that Britain “did not withdraw” prior to 1833 overlooks the fact that there was no continuous British administrative presence on the islands between 1774 and 1833, despite the maintenance of a claim. Whether one interprets 1833 as a reassertion or as a forcible interruption of an existing administration is precisely the point of dispute—there is no universally accepted legal conclusion.
Fourth, the claim of “90 years of silence” is historically inaccurate. Argentina issued diplomatic protests in the 19th century, although it is true that the issue gained greater prominence in the 20th century. Fluctuation in diplomatic intensity does not equate to abandonment of a claim under international law.
Apr 13th, 2026 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Fifth, the absence of litigation before the International Court of Justice is not evidence of a weak legal case. The Court requires consent from both parties, and the United Kingdom has not accepted adjudication on this matter. Consequently, the dispute remains within the framework of negotiation, as repeatedly recommended by the United Nations.
Your argument rests onabsolutist interpretation of self-determination“
Apr 13th, 2026 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +2There is only the correct interpretation under international law.
Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination. The Falklands are on the list, so they enjoy the right to self-determination.
”the absence of litigation before the International Court of Justice is not evidence of a weak legal case“
”Your argument rests onabsolutist interpretation of self-determination“
There is only the correct interpretation under international law.
Regarding the right of self-determination and the Falkland Islands here it is in simple terms: in 1946 the UN agreed to place the Falkland Islands on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. The UN states that the inhabitants of all Non-Self-Governing Territories have a right to self-determination. The Falklands are on the list, so they enjoy the right to self-determination.
”the absence of litigation before the International Court of Justice is not evidence of a weak legal case“
Oh yes it absolutely does.
”Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to GB ....results in a different conclusion. Extinctive prescription involves possession,... ...However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general
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. ”
Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Argy Cit
Apr 13th, 2026 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Argentina argues that self-determination does not apply as it would ‘disrupt the territorial integrity’ of Argentina. Where, ‘not disrupting the territorial integrity of another state’, in de-colonisation, is in UNGA res 1514, the decolonisation deceleration.
The British position is, it has been British territory since long before Argentina ever existed and cannot therefore disrupt the territorial integrity of a state it has never legitimately been a part of.
Again, we come back to history.
You must first establish Argentina’s sovereignty claim as valid, before you can claim a ‘disruption of territorial integrity’, what we call ‘putting the cart before the horse’.
You’re trying to argue that the long British history and presence in the S. Atlantic does not give rise to sovereignty, but the recent Argentinian claims of sovereignty do.
Which is nonsense.
Based on a fictional version of history and pseudo legal arguments that are simply wrong.
But then you can say what you like, as the arguments are not going to be tested in court.
Since neither Britain nor Argentina accept the jurisdiction of the IJC over the Malvinas and Argentina does not accept it over S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
Negotiations don’t apply, Argentina’s constitution doesn’t allow for it and you have no one and nothing to negotiate with.
Leaving the status quo to continue, which seems to suit the Islanders, but not Argentina.
Which is Argentina’s problem, and no one else.
I told you, your president has got it right, ‘they have to want to be Argentinian, but for this to happen Argentina has to be a normal country’.
The most intelligent thing I have ever heard from an Argentinian politician on the subject, ever.
@TH Your argument relies on presenting self-determination as an absolute and automatic rule, which is not how it operates under international law.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse -1First, while it is true that the United Nations recognizes the right to self-determination for peoples in Non-Self-Governing Territories, its application is not isolated from other legal principles. In cases where there is a sovereignty dispute between states, the UN has consistently treated the situation differently.
In the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, the UN General Assembly—through Resolution 2065—explicitly acknowledged the existence of a sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom and called for negotiations between both states. Importantly, it refers to the “interests” of the islanders, not their “wishes,” which is a deliberate distinction in decolonization language.
Second, the claim that there is only “one correct interpretation” of self-determination overlooks the fact that international law is based on interpretation, balancing, and context. The principle must be considered alongside territorial integrity, especially in cases where the population in question originated from a colonial settlement.
Third, regarding the International Court of Justice, the absence of litigation is not evidence of a weak legal case. The Court can only hear disputes when both parties consent to its jurisdiction, and the United Kingdom has not accepted compulsory jurisdiction over this matter. Therefore, the issue remains within the framework established by the UN: bilateral negotiation.
Finally, citing doctrinal opinions on prescription does not resolve the matter. Prescription in international law is itself controversial and requires clear acquiescence, which Argentina has consistently denied through diplomatic protest.
In short, the situation is not legally “settled,” nor reducible to a single principle. It remains an acknowledged international dispute requiring negotiation, as repeatedly affirmed by the Un
Pugol-h Your argument rests on a series of legal assumptions that are, at best, contestable within the framework of international law.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse -2First, the emphasis on priority of claim (i.e., British activities dating from 1765) does not in itself establish sovereignty. As clarified in arbitral jurisprudence such as the Island of Palmas case (1928), mere discovery or early assertion must be accompanied by a continuous and effective display of state authority (effectivités). The historical record indicates discontinuity in British administration following the withdrawal from Port Egmont in 1774, while Spain exercised effective control thereafter until the early 19th century.
Second, the argument that uti possidetis iuris is inapplicable because it requires bilateral agreement mischaracterizes the doctrine. In Latin America, uti possidetis iuris functioned as a general principle of decolonization, allowing newly independent states to inherit the administrative boundaries of former colonial entities. This was later recognized in international jurisprudence, including the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v. Mali) case. Its applicability to insular territories such as the Falkland/Malvinas Islands remains debated, but it cannot be dismissed outright as irrelevant.
Third, regarding the 1850 Arana–Southern Convention, the interpretation that Argentina implicitly recognized British sovereignty is not supported by a strict reading of treaty law. Under general principles later codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the renunciation of sovereignty requires clear and unequivocal expression. Silence or omission does not ordinarily constitute a waiver of territorial claims.
Fourth, the invocation of acquisitive prescription based on an alleged “93 years of silence” oversimplifies a complex doctrine. Prescription requires peaceful, public, and uncontested possession accompanied by acquiescence.
This is the UK argument abaut theyr 59 years of silence from 1774 to 1829
Argentina’s intermittent but persistent diplomatic protests throughout the 19th and 20th centuries complicate any claim of clear acquiescence, and the status of prescription itself remains debated in international law.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse -2Finally, the assertion that the dispute is not genuine is contradicted by its formal recognition within the international system. The United Nations General Assembly, through Resolution 2065, explicitly acknowledges the existence of a sovereignty dispute and calls for bilateral negotiations. This places the issue within a legal framework that is, by definition, unresolved rather than settled.
In sum, your position reflects one interpretative line, but it tends to treat contested elements—priority, treaties, and prescription—as dispositive. A more cautious legal analysis suggests that the case remains open, shaped by competing principles of territorial title, succession, and self-determination, none of which can be applied in isolation.
Arg-Zit? Still here and with two accounts I see. Making your tedious arguments, even longer and more tedious.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse +1193 years of effective occupation backed up by the will of the inhabitants.
Unbeatable
Case closed
Twist and turn and distort all you want with your waffle and opinions Zit, the UN has said categorically that ALL peoples have the right to self determination without exception, its irrelevant how you want to interpret it, and no you did not protest throughout those 90 years of silence, no case open at all, no protests at all, yes Argentina did finally accept UK sovereignty until Peron made the lie up, whether you like it or not your whole case is full of false assertions and personnel opinions that would stand up in court,
Apr 14th, 2026 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse +1“Your argument relies on presenting self-determination as an absolute and automatic rule, which is not how it operates under international law”
Apr 14th, 2026 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes it does.
“An attempt sponsored by Spain and Argentina to qualify the right to self-determination in cases where there was a territorial dispute was rejected by the UN General Assembly, which re-iterated the right to self-determination was a universal right”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination#Self-determination_versus_territorial_integrity
”Resolution 1541 (XV), 15 December 1960
The day after the Declaration on Decolonisation was adopted, the General Assembly adopted a further resolution, in order to define which territories were regarded by the UN as being covered by the Declaration. The specification of the Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73(e) of the Charter, includes the three options of (a) full independence, (b) “free association“ with another state or (c) integration with another state. If one of these options has been endorsed in a general election or in a referendum by the population of a colonial territory, they will be recognised as having achieved self-determination.”
6. All States shall respect the right of self-determination and independence of peoples and nations, to be freely exercised without any foreign pressure,
Chapter III, Article 19 of the OAS Charter
No State has the right to intervene, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the internal or external affairs of any other State.Consequently, ..and all other forms of interference or attempted threats against the personality of the State or against its political, economic and cultural elements, are condemned.
One simple question to all the Malvinas fanatics, why has your government never took your claim to court ?
Apr 14th, 2026 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse +1Argy Cit
Apr 14th, 2026 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +1‘population in question originated from a colonial settlement’, errr, like Argentina for example, an implanted population.
You never did answer the question ‘on what basis does Argentina claim Patagonia and TDF, which (like the Malvinas) were never Spanish territory?’.
Yet again you quote uti possidetis juris which cannot be applied and try and waffle away uti possidetis as not applying.
‘Uti possidetis (Latin for “as you possess”) is a principle in international law where parties to a peace treaty or newly independent states retain territory they occupy at the conclusion of a conflict or upon independence, preventing a vacuum of power and securing borders. It transforms temporary military occupation or administrative lines into permanent international frontiers.’
‘Peace Treaty Application: In treaty negotiations, it means each side keeps what it holds at the time of signing, contrasting with status quo ante bellum (reverting to pre-war boundaries).’
There is no ‘status quo ante bellum’, clause in the 1850 treaty, or indeed any reservations or mention of the Malvinas, so uti possidetis applies.
Disruption of territorial integrity does not negate the right to self-determination, it does affect how de-colonisation happens, but only where it applies.
De-colonising the Malvinas cannot disrupt the territorial integrity of Argentina, a state it has never legitimately been a part of.
Esteban Domingo Fernandez
Neither Britain nor Argentina accept the jurisdiction of the IJC over the Malvinas and Argentina does not accept it over S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands.
Britain maintains the right to self-determination applies to the Falklands, so the court cannot decide their future, they must.
Argentina knows it doesn’t have a case, so it won’t go to court.
I mean, look at the standard of the pseudo legal and fictious historical arguments put forward by Argy Cit, none of it would stand up to scrutiny in a court.
And they know it.
The Argentine claim to the Falklands is a joke. Malvi and Zit are the comedians, problem is they are telling the same joke over and over again. no new material of relevance,
Apr 14th, 2026 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pugol Your argument reflects a common interpretation of uti possidetis juris, but it overlooks how the principle has actually been applied in Latin American decolonization and in the specific case of the Malvinas.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -2First, uti possidetis juris in Latin America did not refer to effective occupation at the moment of independence, but rather to the inheritance of the administrative boundaries of the Spanish Empire as they existed in 1810. This doctrine was explicitly developed to avoid fragmentation and external encroachment. Argentina’s claim is grounded in the succession to the jurisdiction of the Spanish Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, which included the Malvinas following Spain’s continuous administration from 1767 until 1811. The argument is therefore juridical and historical, not based on later occupation.
Second, the comparison with Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego is misleading. These regions were undisputedly part of the Spanish imperial domain, even if not fully settled or effectively controlled in all areas. Under uti possidetis juris, imperfect occupation did not negate sovereignty; what mattered was legal title within the imperial administrative framework, not demographic presence or settlement density.
Third, regarding the 1850 Arana–Southern Treaty, the absence of an explicit mention of the Malvinas cannot be interpreted as recognition of British sovereignty. The treaty restored diplomatic relations after the Anglo-French blockade but did not settle territorial disputes, nor did Argentina renounce its claims. In international law, silence does not equal cession, especially in the absence of clear and explicit language.
Fourth, on self-determination: the principle is not applied in a vacuum. The United Nations has consistently treated the Malvinas as a special case of colonialism, where the population is considered a transplanted population rather than a “people” entitled to full external self-determination.
This is reflected in repeated UN General Assembly resolutions (e.g., Resolution 2065), which frame the issue as a dispute between two states and call for negotiations, taking into account the interests—but not necessarily the wishes—of the islanders.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Finally, the assertion that decolonization of the Malvinas would “disrupt the territorial integrity of Argentina” reverses the legal framing adopted by the UN. The core issue is precisely whether the islands are part of Argentina’s territorial integrity as inherited from Spain. Argentina maintains that the British presence since 1833 constitutes a breach of that integrity, not its foundation.
In sum, Argentina’s position is based on:
Succession to Spanish legal title under uti possidetis juris,
The illegitimacy of the 1833 British occupation,
The non-self-determination status of the island population under UN doctrine,
And the continued recognition of the dispute by the international community.
No they have not treated the Falklands as a special case at all, that is another lie. for the 1000th time all peoples have the right to self determination its enshrined in the UN, all the UN say is resolve the situation peacefully nothing more, the minute the Falklands become a sovereign state, they will be removed from the impotent pointless decolonizing list, their was no international law of inheritance for a break away region of Spain, Spain eventually accepted the island where British not Spanish and most certainly not Argentine, no British illegal occupation at all, no civilians evicted just the removal of an illegal military who had raped and killed and who where going to leave anyway as the business venture collapsed, not necessary the wishes of the islanders ? utter garbage, as said before SELF DETERMOINATION over rules everything else, no Patagonia was not part of the Spanish Empire another lie. you invaded it and stole it, and committed murder, rape and genocide to get it. you can deny. twist, ignore and cherry pick as much as you want, the reality of the situation and the true history and sovereignty of the Falklands, but the historical facts dont agree with you crazy fantasy , the matter was settled in 1982,
Apr 14th, 2026 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“uti possidetis juris in Latin America did not refer to effective occupation at the moment of independence”
Apr 14th, 2026 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1LAWS 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, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterwards be called into 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.
Supported by the following international legal scholars:
GROTIUS, Vattel, HENRY WHEATON, LL.D, JAMES MADISON CUTT, T. J. LAWRENCE, M.A., LL.D,
GEORGE GRAFTON WILSON, Ph.D., LL.D, L. OPPENHEIM, M.A., LL.D, Hans Kelsen
Additionally supported by Argentine subsequent acquiescence.
The Argentine president Domingo Sarmiento’s Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869:
ls the aspirations of the country. Nothing is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness.” (printed in: British and Foreign State Papers 1870-1871 (printed London 1877), p. 1227-1228).
All peoples had the right of self determination, but u had to fit on peoples definition.. which is not the case of those inhabitants
Apr 14th, 2026 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are one very deluded person Argie C, what you believe is 100% wrong, your definition claim is ridiculous and a fantasy.. the UN has said all people have the right to self determination. Argentina protested, the UN ignored the protest and it was sanctioned, why lie, when you know this to be the case, did your tv and newspapers not report it , did they lie about it just like they do about everything concerning the Falklands, just like you sank the Invincible 6 times, claiming only one soldier was killed in your illegal invasion where the UN told you to leave immediately. grow up.
Apr 14th, 2026 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The United Kingdom has to abide by international law, or suffer the consequences of living in a more insecure world, which includes terrorism, latent threats of war, etc. Maybe they should start by returning the Chagos Islands, they are failing to comply with the ICJ ruling. And you ask why Argentina doesn't go to the ICJ? You cannot negotiate with international bandits who do not comply with the law
Apr 14th, 2026 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking shit Argie, firstly the UK is acting by international law, and is not suffering any consequences, secondly the Chagos islands where never legally part of Mauritius ever, the UN decision was only advisory one , and the UK was under no obligation. get your facts right before posting crap, international bandits ? the reason you will not go to the ICJ is because you have no case and will lose, it still hurts you that you lost out to Chile, grow up and get a life, your posts are stark raving bonkers,
Apr 14th, 2026 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argy Cit
Apr 14th, 2026 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘Vernet Settlement’. ‘His communication with the British Consulate was a private commercial courtesy’.
Firstly, you admit the communication happened, that’s a start, better tell Rodrigues and Cohen the letters (the proof) does exist.
Secondly, clearly, he knew the British maintained their claim, ‘private commercial courtesy’, laughable.
‘Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. These regions were undisputedly part of the Spanish imperial domain’.
So, what was ‘the conquest of the desert’ about then?
If the indigenous people were already under the ‘domain’, was it just an excuse to annihilate them?
As for:
‘The United Nations has consistently treated the Malvinas as a special case of colonialism, where the population is considered a transplanted population rather than a “people” entitled to full external self-determination’.
This is just rubbish, entirely false.
And you are no one to talk about’ transplanted population’ not having rights, or you’ll have to F*ck off back to Italy.
You are talking patent nonsense, but at least you are polite, I hope they pay you well for this, you certainly put the effort in.
Seldom has such rubbish been spoken so well.
Saludos.
uti possidetis, don’t forget the Pink Map ultimatum.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum
‘While Spanish-American states may have been content to draw mutual boundaries by adopting the internal administrative divisions of the old Spanish Empire (see uti possidetis juris, below), this was not done as between Portuguese-America (Brazil) and the Spanish-American polities,[36] and was not possible. Explained John Bassett Moore:
Apr 15th, 2026 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0There can be no more conclusive proof of the futility of the attempts made by Portugal and Spain to fix the limits of their dominions in South America than the fact that they left to their successors no treaty by which those limits purported to be determined.’
Peace treaties
Apr 15th, 2026 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Classical international law
When two states had been at war, the ensuing peace treaty was interpreted to mean that each party got a permanent right to the territory it occupied at the conclusion of hostilities, unless the contrary was expressly stipulated. Probably the most influential 19th century textbook, Henry Wheaton's Elements of International Law, asserted (in text virtually unchanged through successive editions for 80 years):[68]
The treaty of peace leaves everything in the state in which it found it – according to the principle of uti possidetis – unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the conqueror, and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. During the continuance of the war, the conqueror in possession has only a usufructuary right, and the latent title of the former sovereign continues, until the treaty of peace, by its silent operation, or express provisions, extinguishes his title for ever.
This was only a default rule, however, for usually states were careful to specify explicitly in the peace treaty.
Except Argentina wasn’t, so it, ‘extinguishes his title for ever’.
@puhol Pascoe and Pepper use a quote by the North American jurist Henry Wheaton to justify their mistaken interpretation. The British writers refer to the consequences emerging from the signing of a peace treaty in relation to conquered territories. But here they seriously contradict themselves: if the islands were British, as they claim, then there was nothing for the United Kingdom to conquer. As we saw in the previous chapter, none of the prerequisites in the international law of the time are met for an acquisition of British sovereignty by conquest in 1833. The 1849 treaty also does not relate to conquest. The fact that commentaries have referred to it as a “peace treaty” does not change this fact. There was no declaration of war made by Great Britain against Argentina (and Uruguay) or vice versa. Military actions were unrelated to the Falklands/Malvinas. The treaty of November 23rd, 1849 makes no mention of an Argentine renunciation, as is done in peace treaties where the parties dispose of sovereignty over their territories.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse -1Henry Wheaton says: ”The effect of a treaty of peace is to put an end to the war and to abolish the subject of it. It is an agreement to waive all discussion concerning the respective rights and claims of the parties and to bury in oblivion the original causes of the war.”40 And he continues:
“If an abstract right be in question between the parties, on which the treaty of peace is silent, it follows, that all previous complaints and injury, arising under such claim are thrown into oblivion, by the amnesty necessarily implied, if not expressed; but the claim itself is not thereby settled either one way or the other. In the absence of express renunciation or recognition it remains open for future discussion.”41
Finally, he establishes that “The treaty of peace does not extinguish claims founded upon debts contracted or injuries inflicted previously to the war, and unconnected with its causes, unless there be an express stipulation to that
Missing the point Zit. 193 years of effective possession is the winning hand.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Add to that the will of the people (recognised as a people by the UN when listed as a NSGT) and Argentina has nowhere to go.
Of course, Argentina could seek an advisory opinion regarding UPJ from the ICJ by taking the same route that Mauritius did (lobbying the UN to put the question).
Feeling lucky punk?
Remember Prof. Rudolf Dolzer? Employed by Argentina in 2009 to argue its case at a conference in London. Strange choice, all things considered:
“The principle of uti possidetis does not imply that a state created in the wake of a process of decolonization will necessarily acquire the same territorial rights as the previous colonial power, without regard to the geographic territorial unity of the colonial empire, and the occupation of the territory in question by the newly created state... In consequence, it has to be concluded that Argentina did not acquire the Islands in 1816 automatically after independence, without regard to the principle of effective occupation.” [The Territorial Status of the Falkland Islands: Past and Present Rudolf Dolzer 1993 p.61]
You'll never learn Zit. You have no oter arguent.
If anyone is intereated, I have consolidated my Timeline into 5 volumes. UPJ comes up more than once in Vol.2.
https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/falklands-wars-vol.2-1816-1899-2nd-ed.pdf
No lorton, First, “193 years of effective possession” is not, by itself, a dispositive legal title. International law distinguishes between mere possession and lawful sovereignty. As established in cases such as the Island of Palmas Case, effective occupation must be peaceful, continuous, and based on a valid legal title. Where the original act of possession is contested or alleged to be unlawful—as Argentina maintains occurred in 1833—subsequent control does not automatically cure the defect. Prescription in international law is not automatic and requires acquiescence, which Argentina has consistently denied.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse -1Second, regarding self-determination, the situation is not as straightforward as you present. While the Islanders are recognized as inhabitants of a Non-Self-Governing Territory, the United Nations has never framed the dispute as one to be resolved solely through self-determination. Instead, multiple General Assembly resolutions (notably UN General Assembly Resolution 2065) explicitly characterize it as a sovereignty dispute between two states and call for bilateral negotiations, taking into account the interests—not the wishes—of the inhabitants. This wording is deliberate and reflects the legal distinction between settler populations and colonial peoples in classic decolonization contexts.
Third, citing Rudolf Dolzer does not decisively support your position. His observation about uti possidetis simply notes that Argentina did not automatically inherit title in 1816; it does not validate British sovereignty either. In fact, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris is only one element in a much broader legal analysis involving prior occupation, succession, protest, and competing claims.
Finally, comparisons with the Chagos Advisory Opinion are not directly transferable. That case turned on the unlawful detachment of territory prior to independence and the right of territorial integrity of a colonized people. The Malvinas dispute involves competing soverei
Pascoe and Pepper are at great pains to demonstrate that Onslow did not expel the civilians living in the Argentine settlement, but that only the garrison was evicted, which cannot be considered the “genuine population”. They also claim that only eleven civilians left the island, most of which were not “genuine residents”. According to the British authors, only those present since the time Vernet had established a human presence in the islands, not those who had arrived in 1832, were “genuine residents”. The authors conclude that only four “genuine residents” left the islands as a result of Onslow´s actions.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse -1The aim of the British pamphlet is quite clear: attempting to prove that the Argentine population was not evicted, thereby circumventing the argument which denies the application of the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination to the present British inhabitants of the islands. It would be hard to justify the application of this principle to a situation in which the colonial power replaced a population with its own and then claimed that the latter should decide the fate of the territory.
There is an evident manipulation of data, particularly through the arbitrary differentiation between “genuine” residents and others who are not part of that category. Why should the residents settled there by virtue of the Argentina´s actions be distinguished on this basis? The presence of the newcomers, many of them with their families, was a logical continuation of Argentina´s existing presence, and their arrival aimed at re-establishing a normality violently shattered by the actions of the American frigate “Lexington”.
Apr 15th, 2026 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse -1There is also a gross manipulation of numbers. The truth is that as a consequence of the British invasion, 53 people who were living on the islands returned to Buenos Aires from Puerto Soledad. The British schooner “Rapid” escorted the “Sarandí” for the British and carried in shackles the nine insurgents who had killed Argentine commander Francisco Mestivier. These were: 2nd Sergeant José María Díaz; 1st Corporal Francisco Ramírez and privates Manuel Sáenz Valiente, Antonio Moncada, Bernardino Cáceres, Manuel Delgado, Mariano Gadea, Manuel Suares and José Antonio Díaz. The schooner “Sarandí” took 17 military men with 10 members of their families (wives and children) to Buenos Aires and 17 inhabitants of the islands that worked there.
The numbers speak for themselves: 53 people set sail, and according to the British pamphlet itself, only 22 remained on the islands. That is to say, the British eviction resulted in almost 70% of the population leaving the islands. The British pamphlet claims that “only the garrison was expelled” and that the civilians who left made that decision freely.157 It does not require a great deal of intelligence to understand that the “choice” was motivated by the British occupation and the subsequent expulsion of Argentina. If we take into account the multinational nature of the Argentine population settled in the islands, it becomes clear that essentially individuals from the Río de la Plata left.
“the Chagos Islands, they are failing to comply with the ICJ”
Apr 15th, 2026 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse -1“The European Court of Human Rights has dismissed a case brought by Chagos Islanders claiming the right to return to their home in the Indian Ocean, bringing a long legal battle to a close.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/9758451/Chagos-Islanders-defeated-in-European-Court.html
”The 1849 treaty also does not relate to conquest.”
It decidely does.
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, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterwards be into 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.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!