MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK political reaction to Pentagon leak: 'Falklands sovereignty is not up for debate'
The UK government closed ranks on Friday around its sovereignty claim over the Falklands, after the publication of an internal Pentagon email that considers reconsidering US diplomatic support for London over the archipelago as retaliation for Britain's refusal to join the military offensive against Iran. The institutional response was matched by a political front that included governing and opposition parties, as well as the Falklands government itself, amid the imminent state visit by King Charles III to the United States. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesUti possidetis iuris of 1810 is a rule relating to the succession of States to territory followed by the States of Spanish South America. The relevant date for South America does not match the dates of proclamation of independence in the various South American countries for the reason that, from 1810 onwards, these ceased to recognise the colonial authorities – although formal proclamations of independence would only come later. The new states inherited the territory belonging to the Spanish Crown, on the basis of the administrative divisions existing in 1810.
Apr 27th, 2026 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse -3Uti possidetis is a general rule of customary law applicable to the territories of new States. This was set out by the International Court of Justice in the case of the Frontier Dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali in the following manner:
“it should be noted that the principle of uti possidetis seems to have been first invoked and applied in Spanish America. Nevertheless the principle is not a special rule which pertains solely to one specific system of international law. It is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of the obtaining of independence, wherever it occurs.
The principle also reaffirmed that no terrae nullius existed in Latin America as a consequence of the process of independence. In other words, the scope of territorial sovereignty recognised to Spain and Portugal had to be equally recognised to the new Latin American States. The main political objective of the principle was to out a stop to any neocolonialist ambitions of other nations of the time.
Our country is occupied by the United Kingdom; we achieved self-determination a long time ago.
What utter garbage, no other countries recognise Spain and Portugals claim to divide the South American continent up, a man in a dress in Rome has zero authority as did Spain and Portugal, your post is nuts,
Apr 27th, 2026 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +2so NO. your country is not occupied by Britain and repeating the same lies over and over does not make it so, self determination ? you mean conquest rape murder and genocide, what a clown you are,
@ Jones, read and learn
Apr 27th, 2026 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse -3The Chamber of the International Court of Justice in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case (El Salvador/Honduras, Nicaragua intervening) also applied uti possidetis iuris, with the date of independence of the States of Central America being 1821. It clearly states:
“The Chamber has no doubt that the starting-point for the determination of sovereignty over the islands must be the uti possidetis juris of 1821. The islands of the Gulf of Fonseca were discovered in 1522 by Spain, and remained under the sovereignty of the Spanish Crown for three centuries. When the Central American States became independent in 1821, none of the islands were terra nullius; sovereignty over the islands could not therefore be acquired by occupation of territory”
The same analysis perfectly fits the case of the Falklands/Malvinas, with the difference that Spanish title to the islands was not only based on discovery, but also the effective occupation of the archipelago until 1811 and recognition by other powers.
You are talking crap Malvi. no country had any right to divide up a continent. no religious cult had the the right to dictate that South America belongs to any country. it was colonial military strength that dictated nothing more. Spain .Portugal, France, Belgium. Netherlands. Britain etc, all conquered lands by military strength, as did Argentina when they conquered what is now southern Argentina, Spain tried to claim the islands by force when they expelled the small British garrison, Britain never accepted this. they threatened war. Spain backed down and eventually accepted the islands where British, your post is irrelevant and waffle. what ever Spain said was not international law but just a claim like any other claim, . the Falklands where British long before Spain and France played silly games, they both new full well the islands where British. and accepted that eventually. you where nothing more than a rebel break away Spanish colony. you inherited nothing, not Uruguay. not Peru not Chile not anything, the islands where not Spanish to inherit, why did the UP send a military force ? to take them by force thats why. they didnt think Britain would respond. if the Brits had arrived one week later. all the people from VARIOUS countries would have all left. another Argie with 2 accounts. your whole argument is no better than toilet paper. oh and by the way. Central America and South America where not Spanish or Portuguese, French Guyana Dutch Suriname British Guyana. Haiti Bermuda and many many more islands that where colonised by different countries. you live in a fantasy world. read it and weep.
Apr 27th, 2026 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@ Jones, read and learn:
Apr 27th, 2026 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse -2The case of the island of Trindade is even more interesting when considering the Falklands/Malvinas, as it directly involves the United Kingdom. The Brazilian island was
uninhabited when, in 1895, one of Her Britannic Majesty’s ships took possession of it. The dispute was finally settled thanks to the mediation of the Portuguese government, who found in favour of Brazil. The United Kingdom accepted the mediator’s point of view. The Portuguese proposal unequivocally asserted:
“When, under the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro of the 29th August, 1825, Portugal proclaimed the independence of its ancient Colony, the Island of Trinidad was transferred to Brazil, together with the group to which it belongs, for formal possession by the new Empire. There could be no doubt in the mind of His Majesty's Government on that point, although no special mention of this transfer is made in the Treaty referred to, the island being, as it was annexed for administrative purposes to the Province of Espíritu Santo, a dependency of the Captaincy Major of Rio de Janeiro”.
You really really dont get it or understand it do you, their was no such thing as real international law before the League of Nations/United Nations where formed. no such thing as inheritance either. countries could make deals and sign treaties with each other just like the Dutch and British did over New York, the only deal ever made about the Falklands was when Spain accepted the British right to the Falklands. its you who needs to read and learn. its you that cant accept that Britains historical claim of the Falklands is older than any other country. its you than can not accept that the UN has said all peoples have the right to self determination. its you that cant accept that Argentina invaded what is now southern Argentina and stole it and are actually colonists themselves. your whole argument is utter and complete nonsense. Uruguay has a stronger claim to the Falklands than you do.
Apr 27th, 2026 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Jack: Read and learn
Apr 28th, 2026 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse -2https://www.iri.edu.ar/publicaciones_iri/manual/Malvinas/RESOLUCION%202065.pdf
Malvinas fanatic. you can post any drivel you want including the 2065 resolution, its absolute meaningless. the bottom line is that British history far predates Argentine history regarding the islands and the UN have 1000% said self determination applies to all without exceptions. you live in a dream world nobody takes your posts or Argentinas claim seriously. its embarrassing watching you twist and turn with desperation. their is zero evidence to support Argentinas claim of a mythical Malvinas. and even if you had a claim that had a 5% chance of just evidence then that makes your country hypocritical when you colonised southern Argentina. you know the facts dont support your claim. their is nothing in the resolution that says the islands belong to Argentina. their is nothing that says the Islanders should hand their country over to you. negotiations are not possible your constitution has only one out come and that will not happen. sovereignty is not up for discussion, wake up for goodness sake,
Apr 28th, 2026 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse +1@ Jack, read and learn:
Apr 28th, 2026 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse -2Noting the existence of a dispute BETWEEN the Governmest of ARGENTINA AND UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,
1- Invites the Governmest of ARGENTINA AND UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND to proceed WITHOUT DELAY with the negotations recommended by the Special Committee.....
its you who needs to learn, negotiations need give and take, your constitution doesnt allow that does it .drop your ridiculous claim then negotiations can take place.. this is a pointless discussion, you need to grow up as do your politicians. the UK has fulfilled all its obligations. if you want discussions change your constitution and talk to the islanders, who are a BOT, just like Bermuda, they decide their future not you, not Argentina,
Apr 28th, 2026 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +1for 1000th time ALL peoples have a right to self determination . and the words INVITE and RECOMMENDED are not orders. are they ? read and learn.
@ Jack repeat with me, of a dispute BETWEEN ....
Apr 28th, 2026 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -2the Governmest of ARGENTINA....
ARGENTINA AND....
come on Jack, you can do it
Your fanaticism has clouded your judgement and frazzled your brain. you cherry pick anything that suits and ignore what is valid. come on little Argie you cam do it. All people have a right to self ? come on you can say it. its not difficult. it starts with the letter D. your posts get more childish by the week. no wonder your country is despised by the rest of South America, arrogance and ignorance taught at school.
Apr 28th, 2026 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse +1All people have human rights, that's undeniable.
Apr 28th, 2026 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -2From the mainland, we've always said that the way of life of the islanders will be respected.
Regarding self-determination, it's a fundamental principle of law for liberating peoples oppressed or subjugated by another power, which is not the case with the Falklands.
It's a territory where the inhabitants of Argentina were expelled and occupied by citizens of another country—Great Britain—they are not an oppressed people, they are not a subjugated people, they are British.
Furthermore, it's well known that not every human group has the right to self-determination.
Do you understand, Jack?
You clearly dont understand Malvi as you keep posting garbage the same old crap claiming the Falklands are a special case, when its not, no Argentine inhabitants where expelled you constantly lie through your teeth about that. 4 civilians left voluntarily 2 Uruguayans and 2 Brazilians, the few UP people that where part of the international business have their generational offspring still living on the islands, and an illegal occupying military force who where going to leave anyway, further more it is well known that all peoples have a right to self determination it is enshrined by the UN, another lie, just because you cant accept the facts does not make it true, you have no case. you never did. a fantasy made up by Peron. do you understand Malvi now its been explained. or do i need to post it in Spanish so it sinks in between your ears and eyes. ?
Apr 28th, 2026 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Jack
Apr 28th, 2026 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Have you read the Buenos Aires newspapers of the time to assert that no one was expelled?
Furthermore, if the British found the islands uninhabited, it doesn't automatically make them British.
The islands weren't terra nullius; haven't you read what was written above?
The islands were never British.
There lies your problem Malvi. your media have never been honest just like they claimed the Invincible was sunk 6 times just like they claimed only 1 soldier died in your illegal invasion, just like they claim the whole world supports you all of it is lies. you are right about one thing, seeing them first does not make the islands yours, claiming them first does, 1594 1690 1745, you did not exist as a country, its not rocket science, yet another lie, of course the islands where British. even Spain accepted that, the islands where never Argentine, any court would laugh at your claim when presented with the evidence. so called inheritance their was no such law, and the islands where not even Spanish, i dont need to read any more of your posts, i have read them for the last 6 months and had a good laugh at them. your claim is so weak its astonishing that you even believe it, i am finished with this now, if it makes you happy living in an alternate universe then hey go for it but, its not reality, such a sad way to spend a life . until you grow up as a country and stop loving in the past full of lies then your nation will neve move forward in the modern world. most Argentines are sensible and decent people who get on with their lives.
Apr 28th, 2026 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Look, Jack, as you say, it's not rocketl science. Spain relinquished territories in North America in exchange for England's promise not to claim anything in South America.
Apr 29th, 2026 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Furthermore, a claim without occupation is invalid; that was the norm at the time.
When the British arrived at the islands, they were already occupied by France.
The British government never made a claim, unlike Spain.
The return of France to Spain was a public act, not protested by the British government.
The British were expelled by force, and the return of Port and Fort Egmont was agreed upon as an act of redress.
This act of redress did not signify the loss of Spanish sovereignty over the islands.
The British recognized Spanish sovereignty with a treaty and withdrew, leaving Spain to occupy the islands.
In short, they never occupied the islands alone before 1833. No one has yet been able to explain to me how it's possible that the islands are British based on a simple claim from 1594, without being occupied, while Spain occupied them, appointed governors, and there were no protests.
Oh, they always say that Argentina isn't Spain, but what they omit is that if they didn't do anything against Spain, it's clear the islands aren't British. I explained it simply, like I would to a schoolchild; it's not rocket science.
“Uti possidetis iuris of 1810 is a rule relating to the succession of States to territory”
Apr 29th, 2026 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +1You have no claim as you are barred under the following treaty.
Peace Treaty of Utrecht 1713.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.”
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 afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Your claim the islands have never been British is so absurd, quite frankly its stark raving mad. the rest of your post is just drivel. lies and distortions, but then again we expect nothing else from a country that has lied about the Falklands history since Peron made up a fantasy story in the 1940s, the islands where never ever Argentinian or Spanish legally . your explanation to Jack is not an explanation. it is false propaganda and down right lies, Britain did do something against Spain. they threatened war, Spain backed down pretty dam quick. and an uneasy balancing act occurred while both where on separate islands, never , been looking at this site for nigh on 3 years now, but quite frankly i have never known so many lies posted by an Argentinian as you do,
Apr 29th, 2026 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Mr. Foster, you didn't answer my question like the rest of the British. It's very simple; it's all documented. The history is very well known.
Apr 30th, 2026 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse -2Admiral Anson was denied permission to explore the South Atlantic in 1749.
The British clandestinely settled on the western island, and as you say, a delicate balance was achieved, and war was avoided.
The British withdrew after recognizing Spanish sovereignty.
To say that it was never legally in Spanish possession is to ignore history.
The British returned in 1833 by force, expelling its rightful inhabitants.
Before that time, there were no British settlers; therefore, the much-touted concept of self-determination is a fallacy.
Regards, Mr. Foster.
I dont need to answer any questions you post as what you state is neither factual or relevant, i have watched you and to be polite post massive distortions of the history of the Falklands for 6 years, firstly anyone who believes Argentine media posts anything remotely close to the truth is either nieve, stupid, or living in denial, Jack Bauer pegged you right a few weeks a go and he is not even British, firstly British ships where free to navigate, sail and land anywhere they chose, no one owned the sea, secondly your clandestine quote, if you really believe that statement then you need help, France new Britain claimed the islands, Britain never ever withdrew, another lie, Spain ejected the Brits, Britain protested threatened war and the Spanish backed down pdq, yet another lie you keep posting, Britain never ever accepted Spanish sovereignty over the Falklands yet another lie, wherever you get this propaganda from it is false, so no the islands have never been Spanish legally, no the British did not return to expel the rightful inhabitants in any way shape or form, Buenos Aires new full well the islands where British, they where warned in advance not to send any military and warned again to leave when they ignored the warning, an illegal military garrison was removed, they where going to leave anyway and would have been gone had the British arrived later, on self determination is enshrined in the UN, no exceptions, it must hurt you like hell that they dismissed your objections, go on the facebook site Falkands/Malvinas.Gibraltar lets settle this, and you will see old Argentinian maps that show the Falklands as NOT their territory. 90 years of silence until an unpopular Argentine president used it to deflect from the mess he had made of running and ruining the country, the islands where British before you even existed as a sovereign country and if you continue to deny that then it makes you a pathological liar or at the very least indoctrinated,
Apr 30th, 2026 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!