MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

Why the Falkland Islands are British

Great Britain is no longer the owner of the Falklands, only the “administering power”

By Graham Pascoe - On April 24 it was reported in the Guardian and the Telegraph in London that President Trump has asked the Pentagon to “review Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands”, as a possible “punishment” for Britain’s unwillingness to support his war on Iran.

The article in the Telegraph says the Pentagon is considering a number of options, including reassessing “diplomatic support for long-standing European ‘imperial possessions’ such as the Falkland Islands”. The story appeared in all major Argentine newspapers the next day, and follow-up articles have appeared in various media since then. I feel it’s important to get things straight before taking this too seriously, so here are some basic facts about Britain’s claim to the Falkland Islands.

To begin with, the islands are not an “imperial possession” of Britain – that’s 19th-century language. In the 19th century Britain simply possessed the Falklands, just as other colonial powers possessed their imperial possessions.

But since the Second World War the steady development of the international law of decolonisation has decisively changed the position. International decolonisation law is contained in the UN Charter, UN General Assembly Resolutions, and rulings by the International Court of Justice. Under all of those things, Britain is no longer the possessor of the Falklands, but only the “administering power”; full self determination over the islands is held not by Britain but by their inhabitants, the Falkland Islanders.

United Nations Resolution 1541 of 1960 lays down three ways in which decolonisation may take place. It may lead to:

(1) Independence;
(2) Free association with an independent state; or
(3) Integration with an independent state.

Resolution 2625 of 1970 repeats those three options and adds the so-called “fourth option”:

(4) Any other political status freely determined by a people.

To add a word of explanation:

(1) “independence” would mean that the Falklands would becomea sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, with embassies abroad and with foreign embassies in Stanley; (2) “free association” would mean that the Falklands would become an independent country and a member of the United Nations, with a few embassies, but that Britain would have responsibility for their defence.

An example of free association is the Republic of Palau, a small island country in the Pacific with some 350 islands and around 18,000 people; it has been a UN member state since 1993, but it is in “free association” with the United States, which provides its defence since it has no armed forces of its own; (3) “integration” would mean the Falklands would become part of Britain, i.e. part of some British constituency (say in Cornwall), and would vote for an MP in British elections. Both (2) and (3) would naturally require Britain’s approval too. And (4) “any other status” is what the Falklands have now. Their constitutional progress since 1945, with the constitutions of 1949, 1985 and 2009, has brought a steady increase in the participation of the Falkland Islanders in the governance of their country, and the referendum of 2013 showed that they have “freely determined” the political status they wish to have, i.e. partnership with Britain. That could of course change at any time, but only in accordance with the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

In several of its rulings, for example its Advisory Opinions in the Namibia case in 1971 and the Chagos Islands case in 2019, the International Court of Justice has stated that “the subsequent development of international law in regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them”. That naturally includes the Falklands; any assertion that they are not covered by decolonisation law (for example because they are the subject of a territorial dispute) is untrue.

In addition, the historical development of the islands’ relations with the outside world reveals that Argentina gave up its partial claim to the islands in the 19th century, and confirmed its renunciation on several occasions.

In the pivotal year 1833, whenBritain expelled the Argentine garrison, which had murdered its commanding officer in cold blood and had terrified and traumatised the civilian inhabitants, there was no international consensus on who the islands belonged to. Argentina regarded the Falklands as 100% Argentinian; Britain regarded them as 100% British; Spain still regarded them as 100% Spanish (but accepted significant British rights under the 1771 Anglo- Spanish treaty and the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention) – and the United States denied all those claims and held that the islands were terra nullius (“no man’s land”). To the United States they were part of the high seas, belonging to no country, and were open to all. So in 1833 it was unclear who owned the Falklands – or indeed whether anyone owned them at all.

The view of the United States changed during the 19th century, and in 1875, when the US appointed George Gerard as US Consul in Stanley, the US ceased to regard the islands as part of the high seas and recognised that they were under British sovereignty. Consular recognition was the highest level of international recognition the islands could be accorded, since they were not a sovereign country.

From the 1850s to the 1970s there were ten countries that at various times accorded the Falklands consular recognition: Belgium, Chile, Denmark, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United States and Uruguay. Each of those countries had a consulate in Stanley for many years. Norway holds the record for length of consular representation with almost 100 years, from 1877 to 1974; the United States was represented for 33 years from 1875 to 1908, while the other countries were represented for several decades

Uruguay, for example, had a consulate in Stanley for over 50 years from 1924 to 1975. For 17 years, from 1833 to 1849 inclusive, Argentina protested annually against Britain’s possession of the islands, thus keeping the Falklands dispute alive and maintaining the Argentine claim (which was always only partial, of course, since it was limited by the equally valid, but likewise partial, claims of other countries).

But in 1850 there was a radical change. In that year Britain and Argentina ratified the Convention of Peace, an all-embracing peace treaty between the two countries, signed in 1849 and brought into effect by its ratification by both sides in 1850. That treaty ended a British military intervention around the River Plate and established
“perfect friendship” between Britain and Argentina.
That ended the Falklands dispute. “Perfect friendship” naturally ruled out the existence of any disput between the two countries.

It is impossible to reconcile the 1850 Convention of Peace with any idea of a continuing Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands.

That was clearly accepted by Argentina. For example, the Vice-President of Argentina, Marcos Paz, in opening the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1866, mentioned some outstanding compensation claims by British citizens, and said: “This question, which is the only one between us and the British nation, has not yet been msettled.”

So apart from those private claims, there were no issues between Britain and Argentina – there was no dispute over the Falkland Islands.

Accordingly, Argentina ceased to protest against Britain’s possession of the Falklands for 38 years, from 1849 to 1888, and after a brief revival of the claim in 1888 dropped it again and has never delivered a formal protest since then.

There are many other significant facts that demonstrate that Argentina has no claim whatsoever to the Falklands, but those are the main ones. The Falkland Islands are British territory in international law, and territorial sovereignty over the islands is held by the Falkland Islanders, who possess the full right of internal and external self-determination.

Graham Pascoe is the author of “The Falklands Saga” (3 vols.; vol. 4 forthcoming) and “Falklands Facts and Fallacies”.(Published in Penguin News 1 May 2026 )