MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina warns it could 'fully exercise all actions' over Falklands oil drilling plans
Argentina's government warned that it could “fully exercise all” available actions over plans to develop an oil field near the Falkland Islands, in a fresh escalation of the sovereignty dispute. The Foreign Ministry declared the plans of Britain's Rockhopper Exploration “unlawful” and described that company and its Israeli partner, Navitas Petroleum, as “clandestine,” after the Sea Lion project moved from exploration into development. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis oil exploration is obviously contrary to Argentine law which is applicable in....Argentina but not the real world.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse +2Regarding Falklands oil exploration, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana stated in February 2010, that his Government would take 'all measures necessary to preserve our rights' and also reiterated that Argentina had a 'permanent claim' on the islands, saying ' Buenos Aires would complain to the UN over the oil project and might take the case to the International Courts of Justice in the Hague.' (British Drilling for Falklands Oil Threatens Argentine Relations, Pope, F. , 13 Feb 2010 and Potential Drilling off Falkland, Provokes Tension Between Argentina & UK, IRRU News, 17 Feb 2010).
Why's it taking soooo long Jorge?
Fully exercise all actions ? cry. whine , moan and throw their Teddy Bears out their pram. thats all you have, and you can keep your silly claim going for a thousand years. its irrelevant,
Jun 05th, 2026 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse +3So Argentina is now exposing itself as to just why they are trying to steal a British territory. It has always been about the oil. Not the actual myth they invented about these islands being given to them from Spain when they won their independance in 1816. They fought Spain for six long years. Spain refused to recognise them until 1859.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse +4So no rights even if they had existed was ever transferred from Spain.
Spain renounced their actual interests many years earlier in 1779 when it agreed to allow the British settlement to return to full British control.
Argentina did not exist then.
Argentina tried to establish a military presence in 1832 and was removed in 1833, legally by the British. Argentina has since that time been at odds with Britain and as a result invented the myth.
They now talk about potentially going to the ICJ which would once and for all sort this myth out. But we all know that they will never do that because their claim is a myth and they would lose their case. All they will ever do is cry from the roof tops and try and make it look like they are powerful enough to stop Navitas operating in what is British Falkland Islands Waters.
They imposed sanctions on us which have failed to stop our progress because we simply go around them.
They want this bonanza because they know it would resolve their critical international debt problem. They are a struggling economy where almost half their population live in poverty. They are desperate.
We are sitting on potentially a new world discovery of billions of barrels of oil and they know it and it is hurting them badly.
'Unlawful' ?
Jun 05th, 2026 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse +2They can grumble all they want but they can't run away from the reality...
Falklands – Territorial Waters (3 pgs): https://www.academia.edu/10574593/Falklands_Islands_Territorial_Waters
All countries have some idiotic and childish politicians but Argentina takes the gold medal for having the most.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse +4We hear and see you Argentina. We raise you:one Astute class submarine and a company of Gurkhas.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse +2“Hydrocarbon exploration or exploitation activities in the disputed areas constitutes an unlawful act under ... international law ... which requires Argentine authorization to operate on its continental shelf”
Jun 05th, 2026 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse +4Under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:
Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the North Sea continental shelf cases, in which Denmark and the Netherlands based their claim inter alia on the doctrine of proximity, i.e., that the part of the continental shelf closest to the part of the state in question falls automatically under that state's jurisdiction. In these cases the ICJ rejected any contiguity type of approach. As for continuity, it is argued, the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf and Contiguous Zone, Article 1, now contained in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention, Article 76, does not support the view that coastal states have sovereignty over islands above the continental shelf. On the contary it laid down doctrine that islands had their own “continental shelves,” p.74
The Falklands/Malvinas Case Breaking the Deadlock in the Anglo-Argentine...By Roberto C. Laver
There was never a British settlement or control; the British withdrew after salvaging their honor and recognizing Spanish sovereignty.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -5As a sovereign state, Argentina took possession of the islands in 1820, a fact published in The Times of London. Previously, the islands had been under Spanish control, and there was no attempt at “legal” expulsion by Great Britain, which clearly demonstrates that the islands did not belong to them.
Regarding oil, according to some studies I've seen, Patagonia is floating in oil and other strategic minerals. Currently, there are plans to build oil and gas pipelines, roads, and ports, so if some differences are set aside, very lucrative business opportunities exist.
Regards.
“There was never a British settlement or control”
Jun 05th, 2026 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Not according to The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849
Nor '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
No British settlement ? lie one, No British control ? lie two.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 02:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Argentina stole Patagonia against poorly armed natives., Argentina tried to steel the Falklands twice and got what it deserved. only sick delusional pathological liars keep up the myth of a Malvinas with Argentine sovereignty,
what is important is the here and now and the right to self determination enshrined by the UN, wake up and smell the coffee.
Yes, Falklands-Free, this has always been about the one resource that drives geopolitical events. Back at the time of the Falklands war, the reserves were only speculation, but the vast majority of petroleum was and is transported in supertankers that can no longer be accommodated by the Panama canal, leading to a strategic resurgence of the Cape route and neither Britain, nor the US could afford to leave that unprotected. The discovery of economically viable deposits is an added benefit.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +3@Terence
Jun 05th, 2026 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -3- “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands
- under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained
Explain to me where, when, and how, and maybe I'll understand.
I previously asked him to tell me the years of protests and who the British officials were to assert that there was a title claim that was maintained.
Not according to The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849
.....the silence of this Office should not be taken at any time as confirmation of the wrongful assertion attributed to H.E. in the event it effectively occurred, I allow myself to remind to H.E. that the Government of Buenos Aires and the Argentine Confederation, has never consented the dispossession of its sovereignty over the Malvinas islands made by the English Government in 1833 (...) and, if, at any time to these days, the correspondence has not been as active, is due to the exhaustion of the discussion and to the status of the relations since the intervention; but H.E. the Viscount Palmerston, in his highest consideration, cannot misinterpret the interval of correspondence with an acknowledgement or acceptance whether tacit or express that has by no means been given by the Argentine Government to the acts in this regard by HM’s Government.....
Manuel Moreno to Palmerston
“Explain to me where, when, and how,”
Jun 05th, 2026 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.” “The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Thomas Pownall´s statement in the British Parliament, on March 5th, 1771:
Jun 05th, 2026 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -5whatever may be the present ostensible form of the convention, mark well the end: It will end on our part either in the actual cession of the island or in a gradual direliction of it. Without some such idea as this; namely that as soon as reparation is made to our honour for the violent and hostile manner in which we were driven off that island, and as soon as we were put in a situation to evacuate it of our own motion, its tacitly understood we are to cede it. Without some such idea as this; the whole of the negotiation is inexplicable and unintelligible. But taking this line, as going to a matter mutually understood, the whole is plain, definite and but of one construction.
Terence,his statement was refuted by his own government at the time the events occurred.
I'm accused of being a liar or perpetuating a myth, but the evidence proves otherwise.
Regards.
Malvi. Thomas Pownals opinion is of no relevance he was an MP and ex governor in North America,, he was not in charge of anything related to the Falklands, he was of no importance what so ever, he was in charge of diddly squat, his opinion accounts for nothing, its the same as the British guy who posts crap in the Guardian newspaper, just an opinion of nobodies, the sheer desperation in your arguments is laughable, and yes you are constantly accused of lying because its what you do, your denial of British history is pathetic to say the least. the list goes on and on. the bottom line is you have no claim that would stand up in court, nothing but lies distortions and fantasies made up by Peron, and then repeated by successive governments, Haig invited you to court in 82, you declined. you have serious issues with your mind set, the islands have never been legally Argentinian. you need to grow up, the silent majority of Argentinians have, and they are sick to death of people like you, its over,
Jun 05th, 2026 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Malvinense 1833
Jun 05th, 2026 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Why don't you mention one, just one piece of international law that Argentina can put before an international court that supports her Falklands claim?
“his statement was refuted by his own government at the time the events occurred.”
Jun 05th, 2026 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“An assertion is a statement offered as a conclusion without supporting evidence. Since an argument is defined as a logical relationship between premise and conclusion, a simple assertion is not an argument.”
Ignoring the Burden of Proof http://learn.lexiconic.net/fallacies/index.htm
Firstly, Argentinian law does not apply in the British South Atlantic, its writ does not run there.
Jun 05th, 2026 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Secondly, the UN decolonisation declaration, UNGA resolution 1514, says the inhabitants of the non-self-governing territories (of which the Falklands are one) have the right to use their natural resources.
The inhabitants exploiting their hydrocarbon reserves, in their territory, is entirely legal.
Argentina will no doubt respond with some strongly worded sound bites, with due gravitas, and the dummy will go flying out of the pushchair.
Malv
The British have never recognised Spanish sovereignty of the Malvinas.
Quite the reverse in fact, Spain recognised the British claim in the agreement of 1771 (as has been pointed out many times now), and Argentina recognised British sovereignty in the agreement of 1849 (as has also been pointed out many times now), you remember Uti possidetis, I’m sure.
The British took possession of the Islands in 1765, long before Argentina ever existed, in any form.
The rest, as we say, is history.
Apparently not in Argentina though.
Get some reality mate, you’ll feel better for it, arguing Bullshit must be tiring, I hope they pay you well for it.
Saludos.
That is all he ever does Pugol. he calls the British settlement clandestine, lol. claims things for Spain that Spain themselves have never claimed, claims Britain accepted Spanish sovereignty, denies all British history, denies Argentina stole what is now Southern Argentina. the list goes on and on. the fact he calls himself Malvinese 1833 says a lot about his character and mind set, 10 years of his Bullshit. lies and fantasies, such a sad strange little man.
Jun 06th, 2026 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse +1Freddie Foster
Jun 06th, 2026 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The supporting evidence as to which version of history is correct (where both cannot be correct) is not hard to find, especially in these days of universal internet and AI search engines.
And whatever else Malv may be, he is not stupid and is capable of checking the facts for himself.
So, either he does not want to because he realises he probably won’t like what he finds, or perhaps he is Neurodivergent and unable to process things not conforming to his view of the world, or as I have suggested before he is being paid to argue Bullshit.
An Argentinian version of a cipayo.
However, he is always polite, which is more than many here, myself included, can always manage.
Which would tend to rule out the Neurodivergent theory.
Take your pick.
My guess is he cant accept the truth as it would mean everything he has been fed is a lie and he fell for it hook line and sinker which in turn means he has wated a decade of his life. he will continue to push his false narratives. fantasies and distort facts, being polite is irrelevant. lying is lying and should be exposed every single time and deserves no respect, i have read his claims, he most certainly has some sort of mental block regarding the Falklands.
Jun 06th, 2026 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Steve Ufff Many of the ones I've already mentioned here.
Jun 08th, 2026 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse -2@Terence What more evidence do you need than the statements and letters from members of your own government at the time of the events?
@Pugol The same thing I mentioned to Terence. The British saved face; in exchange, the Spanish obtained recognition of their sovereignty and retained possession of the islands.
Another point you don't acknowledge is that you can't take possession of a territory occupied as it was in 1765.
It's all documented in the various archives of Argentina, Spain, France, and England.
Finally, I'm not being paid; I just hope that at some point someone in London will accept dialogue like we do here.
It seems absurd to me that an emergency patient has to be evacuated from the islands and taken to Montevideo when they can be treated in hospitals in Patagonia or at the British Hospital in Buenos Aires. Call me neurodivergent, but I think there are others who are worse than me.
Greetings from Malvinense.
Malv
Jun 08th, 2026 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +1We have been over the different (completely different) versions of history with you time and again, on here.
Where, for us, the evidence simply does not support your version of events, it contradicts it. Uti possidetis being just one example.
The British have always been open to dialogue, on matters of mutual interest. However, there can be no discussion of sovereignty. The UN resolutions call for a negotiated solution to the dispute, with no mention of, or reference to, sovereignty.
Argentina’s insistence on discussing sovereignty directly contradicts the UN charter and subsequent UN resolutions, such as UNGA resolution 1415.
All easy enough to check.
The S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands issue can be resolved by Argentina agreeing to going to the ICJ for a judgment. Argentina refuses to do so, without explanation. A case of silence speaking volumes.
It is Argentina that is the obstacle to normalising relations here, refusing to accept the facts in favour of a story that is essentially a tissue of lies.
Never mind, if your current employment ends, I hear the Iranians are looking for people who can argue that day is night and rain falls upwards.
Saludos.
Again you lie, the British government has never ever accepted Spanish sovereignty over the Falklands. you are sick in the head to keep claiming that, different dialogue ? its you who refuse to speak to the islanders, but the islanders and UK government would speak to the Argentine government tomorrow, but what is the point, you want one outcome only and that will not happen, nearly 1000 people died because of people like you. grow up and stop being deliberately obtuse. the islands have never been Argentinian and never will be. they where and are British. .
Jun 08th, 2026 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse +1@Pugol, as you well know, the British proposal to take the matter to court did not include the Malvinas/Falkland Islands. The proposal only concerned the South Georgia Islands—which, incidentally, were not discovered by Captain Cook—and the South Sandwich Islands. For this reason, Argentina did not accept the proposal.
Jun 08th, 2026 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Include all the islands, and I'm sure Argentina would accept.
Problem is Malvi, historical records dont support your warped view of history do they, and if you did go to court and by some massive miracle won then the UN and the rest of the world would be on your side. so what is their to lose, ? your denial of British history is ridiculous and to be honest quite childish, Argentina got but hurt over the beagle dispute, they will never risk it again, you are now deflecting and are arguing for arguments sake. the historical dispute was between Britain and Spain, Spain accepted eventually that the islands where indeed British. Argentina was never in the game. you did not exist, you tried to take the islands by force knowing full well the Falklands where British. you failed. 90 years of silence. and 200 years of people living how they choose to live on the islands, you have no case, Argentine propaganda is not historical fact, Kohen-Rodriguez words are a joke. and you have become a laughing stock. now lets talk about how you stile southern Argentina shall we,
Jun 08th, 2026 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jack London
Jun 08th, 2026 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Tell me when Spain recognized and ceded the islands to the United Kingdom, the dates, the name of the treaty, and the authorities who signed the agreement.
“Argentina didn't exist” is a phrase repeated due to a lack of arguments, and it falls apart under scrutiny. In fact, The Times of London mentions that the United Provinces took possession of the islands. Read Vernet's wife's diary to learn how national holidays are celebrated on the islands. Argentina didn't exist, but Captain Onslow ordered the Argentine flag lowered and everything belonging to the Argentine government removed.
“Argentina didn't exist, but Buenos Aires has existed since 1536, and Port Soledad since 1764, long before Port Stanley.”
“Argentina still has the foundation stone of Port Soledad.”
“We didn't take the islands by force; we were always on the ground. You were the ones who acted illegally and by force.”
And the 200 years that have passed are not enough to hide the crime committed.
Malvi Malvi Malvi. not from London by the way. you have been given the facts over and over and over again, i dont play your silly childish games, j Argentina is not Spain. Spanish settlements are not Argentine settlements its irrelevant that Spain ran the islands from BA. where which Britain never recognised anyway, their is no such thing as inheritance in international law not then and not now, they where contested islands which Britain had the older claim, the Vernet business was neither an Argentine settlement nor was Vernet a governor. just a failed business man, but you already know this and have done for decades, the only crime committed was in southern Argentina , come on lets talk about it, the land didnt belong to you did it, you conquered it, stole, it raped it, but thats ok because the people where not white ? you claim to the Falklands is so weak it has no standing, now come on lets talk about southern Argentine history.
Jun 08th, 2026 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jack London
Jun 08th, 2026 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Believe it or not, we've been talking about southern Argentina this whole time. We have a part of our country occupied by the British.
The Spanish settlements aren't Argentine settlements, so tell me, what are Buenos Aires or Puerto Soledad?
It's irrelevant that Buenos Aires administered the islands from Buenos Aires, but a supposed older British claim is more relevant.
Vernet wasn't a governor, just a failed businessman, but Great Britain didn't have a governor or even a failed businessman on the islands.
Regarding crimes, we can say that men like Samuel Hyslop (England), John McRae (Scotland), and Montt E. Wales (England)
sent native heads to the Anthropological Museum in London. Jack, Jack, Jack, please.
More bollocks Malvi, we have not been talking about Southern Argentina at all we have been talking about the Falklands, a land that was first claimed in 1594 by Britain, not Spain, the claim reasserted by Britain in 1690 not Spain, then reasserted once again in 1745 by Britain not Spain, the islands where visited often by British ships, Spain did not own the Islands, it is they who and to use your silly word usurped Britain, not because they belonged to Spain but because they had a stronger military there. lots of conflict between European powers, when Britain threatened war Spain backed down pretty dam quick, an uneasy truce then occurred with British and Spanish on separate islands. all this before Argentina existed, but you know this, the Spanish then left never to return, they never recognised you as a country till the 1850s, the islands where then under full control of Britain, you dont need a governor to run the islands just sensible educated people. where is Argentina when all this happened ? you didnt exist. you where a thousand miles away.BA knew full well Britain claimed the islands, they always knew, you played a silly game and lost. and did the same gain in 82, We never deny we had done some bad things, but we also did a lot of good things too. our former colonies still want to be in the Commonwealth, again you are dodging the southern question, i wonder why, because you did exactly what you claim Britain did. your arguments are so childish. they are embarrassing. 90 years of silence till an unpopular government led by a liar made up the story for deflection, none of what you claim is relevant or true, what is important is now, and that is the right to self determination. your childish squealing does not change that, your Politicians and you especially need to grow up. now again lets talk about Southern Argentinas genocide, where the natives now make up 1% of your country,
Jun 08th, 2026 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, given that Spain had not recognised the independence of any of its American colonies or relinquished the sovereignty of any of its territories to the rebel colonies in the Americas by 1833, any claim by Argentina or any other Spanish-American colony to have established sovereignty over any Spanish territory must stand only its own merits and not those of Spain. Any evidence you come up with regarding Spanish sovereignty over the Falklands proves absolutely nothing regarding Argentina having established sovereignty over the Falklands between 1816 and 1833. This is basic common sense. It's like you arguing you have inherited land from your father even though a)your father is still alive, b)he has publicly and expressly told you that he has not given you the land and has no intention of ever giving you the land, and c)has told you to return control of the land to him. This was still the situation between Spain and its rebel colonies by 1833.
Jun 08th, 2026 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The British saved face; in exchange, the Spanish obtained recognition of their sovereignty and retained possession of them”
Jun 08th, 2026 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is not correct.
Not according to The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849
Nor '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
https://en.mercopress.com/2026/06/05/argentina-warns-it-could-fully-exercise-all-actions-over-falklands-oil-drilling-plans/comments#comment534138
Malv
Jun 08th, 2026 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are some fundamental differences between the Malvinas issue and the S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands issue.
Firstly, the Malvinas are listed by the UN as a ‘non-self-governing territory’ and are to be de-colonised, with all the rights described in the UN charter and decolonisation declaration UNGA resolution 1514.
Which includes the right to self-determination and to use their natural resources.
S. Georgia/S. Sandwich Islands, however, are not listed by the UN for de-colonisation, there is no permanent population, therefore no issue of de-colonisation or self-determination.
It is a straightforward territorial dispute, where the British took possession of both territories in 1776, then Argentina claimed S. Georgia in 1923 and S. Sandwich Islands in 1943 and have yet (to my knowledge), to state on what basis they claim the Islands. Once again silence speaks volumes.
Oh yes, Argentina seeks to treat both matters and Antarctica as one issue, but in reality, they are three very different matters, with one common factor, the British history and presence in all three territories, is older than Argentina.
Saludos
dab14763+
Jun 09th, 2026 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse -3Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State. No express cession of sovereignty is required by the colonial power. The new State inherits the same territory by virtue of its existence as a State. The fact that Spain had not formally recognised Argentina, and only signed a Treaty of Recognition, Peace and Friendship on September 21st, 1863, is absolutely irrelevant for the sovereignty dispute. Moreover, by virtue of this treaty, Spain
recognised the Argentine Republic or Confederation as a free, sovereign and independent Nation, made up of all the provinces appearing in its Federal constitution in force, besides the territories that legally belong or will belong in future to that Nation.
Article 4 further recognises the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations.
Credits: Kohen-Rodríguez
@Pugol
As I mentioned before, the San Pedro/South Georgia Islands were not discovered by the British; they were claimed earlier by Spain.
Regarding activities in the South San Pedro/Georgia Islands, one can mention the rescue of a shipwreck by a group of people sent by the Argentine Governor of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, Luis Vernet.
All this without mentioning that the Malvinas Command also included San Pedro/South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and Tierra del Fuego.
“Uti possidetis iuris means that the territory belonging to the old colonial administration is transferred to the newly independent State.”
Jun 09th, 2026 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvi, there was no such international law by 1833. At the time UPJ was nothing more than a proposal regarding borders between ex Spanish colonies that had been taken up by some of them only bilaterally by then. It only became regional between some ex Spanish colonies in
1847 at the Congress of Lima. It had no legal effect on Spain, the UK or Brazil. Think about it any process can only have a legal effect on a party that does not consent if it's compulsory. Not only is there no evidence whatsoever that UPJ had become compulsory by 1833, there's irrefutable proof that it hadn't. After independence Brazil established effective control over vast amounts of territory that had been on the Spanish side of treaties between Spain and Portugal. Between 1850 and 1910 Brazil negotiated border treaties with its Hispanic neighbours. If UPJ had been compulsory, Brazil would have been legally obliged to withdraw from those territories. Instead while the Hispanic countries argued for UPJ, Brazil argued for UP de facto, in the end Brazil prevailed and it kept the territories, but the fact they were arguing for 2 different ways means neither of the 2 UPs was compulsory at the time.
“Article 4 further recognises the 25th of May, 1810 as the date of Argentine succession to Spain’s rights and obligations.”
Nowhere does article 4 backdate succession to 25th of May, 1810. It says the rights and privileges and also debts and obligations Argentina acquires apply to territories Argentina then holds or might in future hold evacuated by Spain on the 25th of May, 1810, not that it backdates succession to then. The Falklands were evacuated by Spain in 1811, not 1810. The idea of backdating succession to a time Argentina had not yet claimed sovereignty over any territory on Earth, not even any part of what was then territory of Argentina is absurd.
@dab he is a bot, who posts garbage just to get a reaction, i am certain he doesnt believe all the lies he posts, some are so laughable its like watching the comedy cannel on tv,
Jun 09th, 2026 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ dab14763+
Jun 09th, 2026 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -2I believe you are mistaken; your argument is quite valid.
However, Spain recognizes the moment of Argentine independence as May 25, 1810. At that time, Spain indisputably held possession and sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.
International law recognizes the succession of states, and the state that succeeded Spain in the sovereignty of the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is the Argentine Republic, formerly called the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata. This independence process occurred precisely because they were claiming territories and their own government.
I have already mentioned here that one of the first measures of the patriotic government was to pay the wages owed to people who were working in the Malvinas.
Other Example
In the Isla de Aves case, which opposed Venezuela and the Netherlands in the 19th century, the arbitral award issued by Isabel II, Queen of Spain, found in favour of the South American state. The main basis of the decision is that the island in dispute belonged to the Audiencia of Caracas during the colonial period and that
----upon becoming an independent nation, Venezuela was constituted on the territory of the Captaincy-General of the same name by which it could consider the Isla de Aves to be part of the Spanish province of Venezuela the Venezuelan government was the first to establish its armed forces and to carry out acts of sovereignty, thus confirming the dominion it had acquired by general title it derived from Spain-----
“Spain recognizes the moment of Argentine independence as May 25, 1810. At that time, Spain indisputably held possession and sovereignty over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands.”
Jun 09th, 2026 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not according to The British Foreign Secretary, Lord Palmerston, On 27 July 1849
Nor '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
The 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.”
Malv
Jun 09th, 2026 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uti possidetis juris, was the principle used to draw some borders between former Spanish colonies only, based on the previous Spanish colonial boundaries. It was not used to draw any borders with non-Spanish colonies such as Brazil, a former Portuguese colony and can not be applied to the Malvinas.
As has been explained to you before.
And once again to repeat your pervious argument, and once again you offer no evidence to support your argument.
And then there is Uti possidetis, which does apply and not in Argentina’s favour, as has also been explained to your before
So, ‘San Pedro/South Georgia Islands were not discovered by the British; they were claimed earlier by Spain.’
Any evidence to support that claim???
Anyway, even if they did, what has that to do with Argentina???
‘Spain recognizes the moment of Argentine independence as May 25, 1810’
This is completely untrue, absolutely false, bullshit.
Spain did not recognise Argentina as independent and ‘successor state’ to Spain until 1863, when Spain controlled no part of the Malvinas territory, or anywhere else in the S. Atlantic, but the British did.
Argentina declared itself independent in 1816, when Spain also controlled no part of the Malvinas territory or anywhere else in the S. Atlantic, but the British did.
Know your own history, mate.
Saludos
Malvi. Spain did not recognise you as a country in 1810, another lie. Spain did not have absolute sovereignty over the islands another lie. no such thing as inheritance in international law then or now, the islands where in dispute between Spain and Britain, you are making things up and i am being polite .you have no case. you never did. you are not a stupid guy but you do post stupid nonsense, Fred was right you are being obtuse and arguing for the sake of arguing,
Jun 10th, 2026 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0June 10,1829 -June 10,2026
Jun 10th, 2026 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse -3Decree of June 10, 1829 – Creation of the Political and Military Command“When, by the glorious revolution of May 25, 1810, these provinces separated themselves from the dominion of the Metropolis, Spain held material possession of the Malvinas Islands and of all others surrounding Cape Horn, including that known under the denomination of Tierra del Fuego. This possession was justified by the right of first occupant, by the conviction of the principal maritime powers of Europe, and by the adjacency of these islands to the continent that formed the Viceroyalty of Buenos Aires, to whose Government they belonged.For this reason, the Government of the Republic having succeeded to all the rights which Spain previously possessed over these provinces and their dependencies, and having exercised them through its competent authorities, it is necessary to give the administration of the islands the form and regularity required by the interests of the population, and to ensure the exercise of the dominion corresponding to the Nation.Therefore, the Government has resolved and decreed:Article 1. The Malvinas Islands and those adjacent to Cape Horn in the Atlantic Ocean shall be governed by a Political and Military Commander, to be appointed immediately by the Government of the Republic.Article 2. The Political and Military Commander shall cause the laws of the Republic to be observed by the inhabitants of the islands, and shall regulate the protection of the coasts and the established fishing regulations in accordance with existing laws and ordinances.Article 3. This decree shall be published and circulated, and communicated to the General Command of the Marine.”
(Signed) Martín Rodríguez
Signed) Salvador María del Carril (Minister of Government)
Irrelevant waffle, what Buenos Aires states is not valid, Spain had already left the Falklands and Britain was in full control.
Jun 10th, 2026 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse +1@ Terence
Jun 10th, 2026 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -3---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----
Dr. Johnson´s
This reserve [that of the Spanish sovereignty] has supplied matter for much clamour, and, perhaps the English ministry would have been better pleased had the declaration been without it. But when we have obtained all that was asked, why should we complain that we have not more?
His claim is again refuted.
Regards.
Lies Malvi. Britain took full control long before then and you know it did. its called cherry picking. now you have still avoided the conversation of your country stealing what is now southern Argentina,
Jun 10th, 2026 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Jack, where are you from?
Jun 10th, 2026 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Irrelevant where i am from and not really any of your business is it Malvi, now to your stealing of southern Argentina.
Jun 10th, 2026 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“His claim is again refuted.”
Jun 10th, 2026 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The opinions of Dr. Jonson Carry no official weight. Whereas, the claim of the (US)Secretary of State, is official, authoritative, and permanent.
Malv
Jun 10th, 2026 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, ‘that known under the denomination of Tierra del Fuego. This possession was justified by the right of first occupant’.
Except you, or the Spanish, were not the ‘first occupant’ of anywhere in modern Argentina, you massacred the ‘first occupants’ and then stole their land.
When the British arrived in the S. Atlantic, it was unexplored, unclaimed and uninhabited. The British were the ‘first occupants’ in the S. Atlantic/Antarctica.
Secondly, a declaration by a Governor of Buenos Aires in 1824, is not any kind of a recognition by Spain of anything, never mind of the boundaries of the Governate of Buenos Aires, which did not include the Malvinas anyway.
I told you, ‘Spain did not recognise Argentina as independent and ‘successor state’ to Spain until 1863’.
Know your own history, mate.
Now you’re embarrassing yourself.
Saludos.
“ Argentina warns it could 'fully exercise all actions' over Falklands oil drilling plans...”
Jun 11th, 2026 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh goodie, I can't wait to read the list of casualties and destroyed materiel. That will neutralize the Portenos once again and set their economy on a real tailspin. Talk about something to look forward to, eh Malevolence...?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!