Who rightfully owns the Falkland Isles?

[Duke Malcolm]

Coming from the discussion in the thread "Would America attack Iran?". Just now, they islands are British Sovereign territory, but Argentine claims to be the rightful owner.

A bit of history (copied from Wikipedia) :

1504: Amerigo Vespucci (Florence/Spain)

1520: Esteban Gómez (Spain)

1540: Ferdinand Camargo (Spain)

1592: John Davis (England)

1593: Richard Hawkins (England)

1600: Sebald de Weert (Netherlands)

1684: Cowley & Dampier (England) discovered Pepys Island, renamed South Georgia by James Cook in 1775.

1690: John Strong (England) landed, and named the sound and eventually the entire island group after Viscount Falkland, Admiralty Commissioner

1764: Louis de Bougainville (France) founded a naval base at Port Louis, East Falkland. The French named them the Îles Malouines.

1765: John Byron (Great Britain) established a base at Port Egmont, West Falkland in 1765.

1767: France sold its base to Spain.

1770: Spain declared war on Great Britain in a fight over the islands.

1771: That dispute was settled, with Spain retaining East Falkland and Great Britain West Falkland (until 1774).

1774: The British abandoned Port Egmont but left behind a nice shiny plaque saying the islands were under continuing British dominion

1776: Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata after 1776.

1811: The islands were uninhabited after 1811.

1816: The United Provinces of the River Plate, later called Argentina, gained independence from Spain

1820: Argentina proclaimed sovereignty over the islands. The Argentine frigate, the Heroina, was sent to the islands to take possession of them. Argentina set up a penal colony on them.

1825: The United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence from Spain.

1829: Argentina named Luis Vernet as the islands' governor. After a dispute over fishing rights with an United States vessel, the Argentine authorities arrested and detained the vessel´s captain. The US responded by shelling the island, destroying the main settlements.

1833: The United Kingdom invaded the islands and expelled the Argentines, but Argentina maintained its claim.

1965: United Nations Resolution 2065 called upon Britain and Argentina to proceed without delay with negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem bearing in mind the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.

1982: Various tensions, but mainly the desire of the Argentine military junta to distract attention from domestic economic and political ills, led to an Argentine invasion. The islands were later retaken by the UK.

Britain rightfully owns the islands because Argentina claimed that it owned the lands which were under continuing British dominion.

[Pindar]

The winner

[Stefan the Berserker]

According to International Law the Falklanders.

If they decide for independance or joining Argentinia (which is unrealistic), Britain would have to accept it.

[Silver Rusher]

WE DO

(not the argentinians)

[Radier]

There are no rightfully owners, only the one with strongest power...

[Viking]

The closest nation should own it.

I mean that Greenland should belong to us and not those danish..

[ah_dut]

Britain won the war fair and square. Bitch about "Rightful" all you want, it's still might that makes right in these issues.
So america owns the world if they wanted to? Would you be justified invading say Kuwait or Nigeria? (completely hypothetical) to prove your might is right theory?

[Silver Rusher]

NM ~:grouphug:

[Ianofsmeg16]

I read a book about the falklands, most of the population there (like Gibralter) consider themselves British, and if you look at videos of the Paras walking into Port Stanley waving the old union jack you will see that they are pretty much British Orientated

and i agree with gelatinous cube, we won the war, so they're ours :)

[sharrukin]

How about the people currently living on them!
Or the City of Florence.

[Duke Malcolm]

The closest nation should own it.

I mean that Greenland should belong to us and not those danish..

surely by that logic, Greenland should belong to Canada, and therefore Britain?

[Devastatin Dave]

The Queen.

[Viking]

surely by that logic, Greenland should belong to Canada, and therefore Britain?

We`re closer to Greenland than the danish, and we lost Greenland to them. But yeah, Greenland should belong to Canada; at least not to the danish.. :P
--

Back on topic, now Britain should own the Falklands, because the people there feel loyal to GB, however, the brits should never have taken that island in the first place.

[sharrukin]

Back on topic, now Britain should own the Falklands, because the people there feel loyal to GB, however, the brits should never have taken that island in the first place.

Does that mean that Canada should belongs to Norway as well because of Erik the Red?

Norway shouldn't have invaded England under King Canute but they did.

[Viking]

Does that mean that Canada should belongs to Norway as well because of Erik the Red?

No, because it already lived someone in Canada, while, as far as I know, it didn`t on the Falkland Isles. The Falklanders are mostly descendants of the first british settlers.


Norway shouldn't have invaded England under King Canute but they did.

However, we didn`t stay, and England is not on the opposite side of the globe.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Me.

[sharrukin]

However, we didn`t stay, and England is not on the opposite side of the globe.

You took the country over and then invaded again in 1066 under Harald Hardrada when the Norwegians were defeated at Stamford Bridge.

[CBR]

We`re closer to Greenland than the danish, and we lost Greenland to them. But yeah, Greenland should belong to Canada; at least not to the danish.. :P

Ah its always nice to be among fellow Scandinavians ~;)


CBR

[Tribesman]

Back on topic, now Britain should own the Falklands, because the people there feel loyal to GB, however, the brits should never have taken that island in the first place.
In that case perhaps the British government should have rewarded the islanders loyalty instead of stripping them of citizenship .

Since the British claim is based solely on "first discovery" of the islands , yet it is clearly disputed historically who first discovered the islands then there can be no "rightful" claim at all .

As an interesting side note . There is a small volcanic island re-emerging in Italian waters in the Med. .
The British claimed this island , last time it rose above the surface , as British territory .
Will they try and reclaim it again this time ? It may make an interesting dispute over fishing rights and quotas .

[Duke Malcolm]

In that case perhaps the British government should have rewarded the islanders loyalty instead of stripping them of citizenship .

The government stripped the islanders of citizenship?

[AggonyDuck]

What's actually the importance of these islands? (would be interesting to know that)

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Whoever the islanders want to be owned by. So, Britain.

[Duke Malcolm]

What's actually the importance of these islands? (would be interesting to know that)

ahem, the importance is that one country is right, and the other is wrong. It is to save face, to reserve dignity. I believe that there was also fishing down there somewhere... oh, and Antarctic research, but since the British Commonwealth owns most of it, that hardly matters.

[Silver Rusher]

Closed..
Oh, it's just my imagination. Thank god.

On the subject though, the islanders (even if there are only something like 200 of them) are loyal to us, they speak our language and I think they are all British descent. So they would be unhappy under Argentina and that that is why they are ruled by us instead.

[Tribesman]

The government stripped the islanders of citizenship?
Yes , at the same time as they announced the reduction of the garrison and the withdrawl of a Naval presence . At a time when islanders were obliged to work for the Falkland Islands and dependancies Company which had a monopoly on everything .
You see Malcolm , Britiain didn't really want to be bothered with supporting a few thousand sheep , thousands of miles away . They were in the process of abandoning the place again .
Which is one of the reasons Galtieri thought he could get away with the invasion . And he probably would have if Thatcher wasn't in such a political mess at home that she needed a good flag waving victory to boost her image .
And it would seem that Britain still doesn't really want the Islands as they have signed away the mineral exploration and exploitation rights away .....to Argentina .....soon to be followed by joint soveriegnty , which will in most probability be followed by sole soveriegnty .
So instead of asking "who rightfully owns ?" maybe the question should be "was the bloodshed and expense worth it ?"

[Viking]

You took the country over and then invaded again in 1066 under Harald Hardrada when the Norwegians were defeated at Stamford Bridge.

We did never rule Britain completely, and this is quite some time ago compared to the british colonisation.

On another note: we don`t own the South Pole, even though the norwegian flag was the first to be planted there(Hah! We beated the british).

[Louis VI the Fat]

What's actually the importance of these islands? (would be interesting to know that)- National pride

-EEZ. Exclusive Economic Zone. A state has exclusive rights to the sea and all resources underneath it for an area that extends 200 nm (367 km) into the ocean.
There is a good reason ($$$!!!) behind all those seemingly trivial disputes over barren worthless rocks. (Hans oe, Spratleys, Falklands/Malvinas).


France


Due to its numerous overseas departments and territories scattered on all oceans of the planet, France possesses the second-largest EEZ in the world, covering 11,035,000 km² (4,260,000 mile²), just behind the EEZ of the United States (11,351,000 km² / 4,383,000 mile²), but ahead of the EEZ of Australia (8,232,000 km² / 3,178,000 mile²).


The EEZ of France covers approximately 8% of the total surface of all the EEZs of the world, whereas the land area of the French Republic is only 0.45% of the total land area of the Earth.It pays to have yourself a fine imperialistic collection of exotic islands. ~;)

[ah_dut]

If we so chose, yes. I believe so. I am an isolationist, so I'd be against such agression, but that doesn't change the fact that nobody would effectively be able to stop us.
I did say hypothetically, I'm not a raving lunatic enough to say the USA will invade the rest of the world, you might have the power but does that make it right? That is the question I am asking.

[Strike For The South]

the Irish

[ah_dut]

Depends on what you mean by right. Clearly the definition of Might makes Right is just that--Might = Right. In my opinion, "Right" is whatever is good for the USA, within certain political parameters.
And what are these political parameters? Is say invading somewhere to secure a resource or to (in the past) crush communism which would be benefit the USA, but say at the cost of 10% of the population. Sure, you probably can do it...but does that make it right (I don't know what you mean? ethically acceptable/the best choice?)

[Soulforged]

A bit of history (copied from Wikipedia) :

1504: Amerigo Vespucci (Florence/Spain)

1520: Esteban Gómez (Spain)

1540: Ferdinand Camargo (Spain)

1592: John Davis (England)

1593: Richard Hawkins (England)

1600: Sebald de Weert (Netherlands) 1684: Cowley & Dampier (England) discovered Pepys Island, renamed South Georgia by James Cook in 1775.

1690: John Strong (England) landed, and named the sound and eventually the entire island group after Viscount Falkland, Admiralty Commissioner

1764: Louis de Bougainville (France) founded a naval base at Port Louis, East Falkland. The French named them the Îles Malouines.

1765: John Byron (Great Britain) established a base at Port Egmont, West Falkland in 1765.

Here's the main problem. Who discovered it? Anyway i would not give such an importance to this.


1767: France sold its base to Spain.

So it rightfully now is spanish property, therefore of the Virreynato.


1770: Spain declared war on Great Britain in a fight over the islands.

1771: That dispute was settled, with Spain retaining East Falkland and Great Britain West Falkland (until 1774).

So our ancestors kept one of the islands.


1774: The British abandoned Port Egmont but left behind a nice shiny plaque saying the islands were under continuing British dominion

Well this doesn't say anything. But the before sure does.


1776: Spain ruled the islands as part of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata after 1776.

Our legacy.


1816: The United Provinces of the River Plate, later called Argentina, gained independence from Spain

Thus gaining rights over the islands. Or at least one of them.


1820: Argentina proclaimed sovereignty over the islands. The Argentine frigate, the Heroina, was sent to the islands to take possession of them. Argentina set up a penal colony on them.

If what you posted is true, then we didn't simply claim rights over them, we actually had rights over one of them.


1825: The United Kingdom recognized Argentina's independence from Spain.

So your empire said anything about our little country taking them. ~:confused:


1829: Argentina named Luis Vernet as the islands' governor. After a dispute over fishing rights with an United States vessel, the Argentine authorities arrested and detained the vessel´s captain. The US responded by shelling the island, destroying the main settlements.

How tipical...thus creating an excuse to their main allies to attack us.


1833: The United Kingdom invaded the islands and expelled the Argentines, but Argentina maintained its claim.

One is ours at least, you cannot deny that.


1965: United Nations Resolution 2065 called upon Britain and Argentina to proceed without delay with negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem bearing in mind the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.

There's never a negotiation, Britain always uses the veto power that they've and we not.


1982: Various tensions, but mainly the desire of the Argentine military junta to distract attention from domestic economic and political ills, led to an Argentine invasion. The islands were later retaken by the UK.

Right, our politicians were falling from the 13 floor and tried to grab something. Many argentinians and many british died for no reason. Still Margaret Tatcher was rewarded didn't she?
So the conclusion is that we own one of the islands at least.

On the other hand. The Malvinas have a terrain with a lay of a material that will become petro-oil in time. So there's some economic dispute over it.

Our law sais that the Malvinas belong to us. England adquiered the two by force. So who has right.

[Reverend Joe]

France. They founded the first outpost there, and even though they sold it to Spain, they were still first.

Also, they are a neutral party, and thus are a good way to put an end to this needless bickering over a few useless, rocky islands.

Speaking of which, I wouldn't mind if Russia took Alaska back from us (the US).

[Soulforged]

Incorrect. If you sell something to somebody then it's property of who bought it.

[Reverend Joe]

Actually, I am really just looking for an excuse to get rid of Alaska. And to settle this conflict without either party (Argentina or UK) gaining anything. Another Treaty of Versailles, if you will. ~;)

[Soulforged]

Actually, I am really just looking for an excuse to get rid of Alaska. And to settle this conflict without either party (Argentina or UK) gaining anything. Another Treaty of Versailles, if you will. ~;)

The conflict will never be settled unless that the UN grant us more power. But the better end will be the two islands for us. Period.

[Reverend Joe]

I was just joking. I know full well that this crap is gonna keep going on and on and on, because neither side will relent. Even if Argentina gets the islands, Britain will continue to insist that they are theirs, and eventually they may take them back by force.

Lighten up, man- we're all knee-deep in the bull****; we may as well keep laughing.

[Papewaio]

Surely the way it helped displace the Junta means that Argentinians owe the Brits?


the Argentine military government was ousted after mounting protests by human rights and war veterans groups. Galtieri was forced to resign, paving the way for the restoration of democracy. Elections were held on October 30, 1983 and Raúl Alfonsín, the Radical Civic Union (UCR) party candidate, took office on December 10, 1983. Alfonsín defeated Italo Luder, the candidate for the Justicialist Party (Peronist movement).

[bmolsson]

Can't it be independent ?

[Soulforged]

I know you're joking man. ~:cheers:
I thought it was funny seeing and USA man on the contrary side of the british.

[Soulforged]

Surely the way it helped displace the Junta means that Argentinians owe the Brits?

This must be a joke right...or is it another of those stupid statements trying to justify a war. If the comission of the Human Rights had been sent before non of this would've happened. We don't owe nothing to the british. They tried to invade continental lands in 1816, with no right on it, and tried to get on it again later by claiming some continental ground near Tierra del Fuego like theirs. From where do they get those ideas? I'll guess that it's the last breath of an ancient empire, who cannot leave aside the olde ways. But it's just my guess.

[Soulforged]

Can't it be independent ?

I'm not on the side of nationalism, it appears to be a decent proposal. But neither my government (or my people in general) nor the british will like it.

[sharrukin]

This must be a joke right...or is it another of those stupid statements trying to justify a war. If the comission of the Human Rights had been sent before non of this would've happened. We don't owe nothing to the british. They tried to invade continental lands in 1816, with no right on it, and tried to get on it again later by claiming some continental ground near Tierra del Fuego like theirs. From where do they get those ideas? I'll guess that it's the last breath of an ancient empire, who cannot leave aside the olde ways. But it's just my guess.

The Falkland Islands have 2,900+ people on it and they wish to remain British.

Does Spain have the right to occupy Argentina as one of their colonies despite the wishes of the people?

If not, then Argentina has no right to occupy the Falklands despite the wishes of its people.

[Papewaio]

You do understand the term tongue in cheek right?


From where do they get those ideas? I'll guess that it's the last breath of an ancient empire, who cannot leave aside the olde ways. But it's just my guess.

Man that breath must have been some bad halitosis.

====

Was a treaty signed after the Falkland war? Or was it just a surrender with no terms?

[Soulforged]

You do understand the term tongue in cheek right?



No. I just understand basic english, not frases like that. But enlighten me please.

And talking about treaties:link (http://www.educared.org.ar/CAL_EDU/06/06_10.ASP) (in spanish)

I'll make an scheme:
-XVI: The europeans travel to America. The Papacy established "all those island and firm lands, found or to be found, discovered and to be discovered, to the west and to the middle day" will be property of Spain. Then this makes the Malvinas property of Spain, even if the discoverer was british (though it's discused).
-1670: By the treaty of Madrid it's agreed that all lands that the british already possesed in North America will be of Britain. While they shouldn't commerce or fish in those lands owned by the Catolic King.
-1690: John Strong is hitted by an storm and he names the islands "Falkland" for the first time.
-1713: The treaty of Ultrech is signed. The british compromise themselves to return all lands in dispute to Felipe V (Phillip V).
-1748: England sends an expedition to the islands. The spanish opose. The british retreat recognicing a tacit but categoric rights of Spain over the islands.
-1764: King Luis XV (Louis XV, i suppouse) sends an expedition to the islands, wich creates the port of Saint Louis in the oriental Malvina. The spanish protested, the king retreated from the lands recognicing the spanish rights over them, but ordering them to pay for all the expenditures they've invested.
-1765: England sends a clandestine expedition leaded by John Byron. The spanish realize of this usurpation and destroy their outpost. From there to 1811 the spanish dominated continiously the islands. This is the list of the sovereings that ruled the island in the name of spain:Ramón Carassa (1777), Salvador de Medina (1779), Jacinto de Mtolaguirre (1781), Fulgencio Montemayor (1783), Agustín Figueroa (1784), Pedro de Mesa y Castro (1786), Ramón Clairac (1787), Pedro de Mesa y Castro (1788), Ramón Clairac (1789), Juan José de Elizalde (1790), Pedro Pablo Sanguineto (1791), Juan José de Elizalde (1792), Pedro Pablo Sanguineto (1793), Juan Aldana y Ortega (1794), Pedro Pablo Sanguineto (1795), Juan Aldana y Ortega (1796), Luis de Medina y Torres (1797), Francisco Xavier de Viana (1800), Ramón Fernández de Villegas (1801), Bernardo Bonavia (1803), Antonio Leal de Ibarra (1803), Bernardo Bonavia (1804), Antonio Leal de Ibarra (1805), Bernardo Bonavía (1806), J. C. Martínez (1807), Gerardo Bordas (1810) y Pablo Guillén (1810).
-1820: London recognices the independence of the United Provinces of River Plate (Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, surging from the ancient name of the Virroalcy, now called Argentina (the silvered, made of silver, because of the river rich in silver on those times)
-1825: And even signs a traty of Friendship, Commerce and Navegation with us. In neither of the traties they made a claim over our historic lands, and we took politic control over them on 1820 (10 of June), and also over others islands. The 6 of November of the same year the argentinian flag was rised for the first time on the island, thus confirming our inherated rights over them.
-1829: Luis Vernet was designed the first argentinian governor of the islands and forbids all fishing. The british protest when he orders to stop an USA ship that had transpased the law (the "Breakwater"). The USA consul protested and menaced with taking hostile actions, he supported his decision with the military ship the USS Lexington. The ship destroyed all military settlements and took many habitants like hostages, then it retired declaring that there was no government on the island. Thus begins the eternal conflict.
-1832: Buenos Aires designed a new military leader, and sent the ARA Sarandí (a cannon ship), to repare the damage and restablish order. Thus the second governor was stablished, but then when the ship returned to continental port, the garrison revolted and killed the governor. Then the ship returned and tried to stop the revolting. At the same time the HMS Clio (military ship of England) sent to consolidate the british sovereingty over the islands, taken advantage of the desorder caused by the USS Lexington.
1833- The captain of the Clio informed the captain of the Sarandí (Pinedo) that the british flag will be rised on the next day replacing the argentinian. The captain disagree but could not respond because of the british superiority. Thus he took some all "criminals" on the prison in the island, and some (but not all) citizens.

Said all this demonstrates that the rights of Argentina over the Malvinas are a great debt of the international community to our people. We hope some day, not by means of war, but peace and diplomacy get them back.

[Papewaio]

Tongue in cheek:

Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously. ie a joke.

[bmolsson]

Tongue in cheek:

Meant or expressed ironically or facetiously. ie a joke.

Wouldn't that require that you also have a sense of humor ?? ~D

[Papewaio]

Wouldn't that require that you also have a sense of humor ?? ~D

Hence the irony as I have no humour. ~:cool:

[Aurelian]

The sheep. They have an overwhelming majority.

[Soulforged]

The Falkland Islands have 2,900+ people on it and they wish to remain British.

Does Spain have the right to occupy Argentina as one of their colonies despite the wishes of the people?

If not, then Argentina has no right to occupy the Falklands despite the wishes of its people.

Not you're wrong. Behind this exist all a matter of titles, so is not that simple. Besides you ignored all history.

[Papewaio]

What does the last treaty say?

[Soulforged]

What does the last treaty say?

I really don't know. I'm reading on this moment the arguments that are proposed by both parts. And if what the treaty sais doesn't matter because the question has some history, and Britain itself violated previous treaties. I'll be posting the conclusions some time soon (if anybody wants to read them ~:) ).

[English assassin]

History, shmistory. About the best claim to sovereignty in international law comes from effective occupation. The Falkland Islands are occupierd by approximately 3000 people who call themselves and want to be British, and about 0 people who call themselves and want to be Argentinian.

Until that changes, y'all know what you can do with history and treaties and UN resolutions.

[Ja'chyra]

History, shmistory. About the best claim to sovereignty in international law comes from effective occupation. The Falkland Islands are occupierd by approximately 3000 people who call themselves and want to be British, and about 0 people who call themselves and want to be Argentinian.

Until that changes, y'all know what you can do with history and treaties and UN resolutions.

Lol.

The islands are owned by Britain and occupied by British, that makes them ours.

And let's face it, you couldn't take them back the last time you tried so what makes you think you could do it now?

[Duke Malcolm]

So it rightfully now is spanish property, therefore of the Virreynato.

Only the formerly French base...




Well this doesn't say anything. But the before sure does.

This says that the West Falklands are continuing British Territory




If what you posted is true, then we didn't simply claim rights over them, we actually had rights over one of them.

exactly, had being the operative word...



On the other hand. The Malvinas have a terrain with a lay of a material that will become petro-oil in time. So there's some economic dispute over it.

Our law sais that the Malvinas belong to us. England adquiered the two by force. So who has right.

Well our law says that the Falklands belong to us. In 1982, Argentina acquired the two by force. We have as much right as you, if not moreso, based on the fact the inhabitants of the island want to be remain a British territory.

[Aenlic]

It's pretty clear from the argument that the Falklands are in fact owned by the penguins, the cormorants, the ducks, the geese, the herons, the seagulls, the sealions, the seals and all the rest of the flora and fauna on the islands - but one. The only problem denizens appear to be the intransigent, argumentative, self-proclaimed "evolved" hominids. So boths sides should just pack up and leave the islands to the more sensible species to go on about their lives. ~D

[Reverend Joe]

That doesn't sound so bad. Hell, let's do the same with Alaska.

[Slyspy]

The historic ownership of the Falklands is very difficult to establish with any certainty, although Britain's claim is rather weak.

However we currently own the Islands for two reasons:

a) We won the war. The fact that this victory led to the collapse of Argentina's military regime is a bonus.

b) The Islanders prefer us to any other suitors.

Much the same applies to Gibraltar only its proximity and genuine strategic value make it more valuable. The Goverment which gives up the Falklands may, if it is lucky, survive. I doubt the same could be said over Gib.

[Duke Malcolm]

Spain ceded sovereignty of Gibraltar to us in a Treaty, slightly different from the Falklands situation. Britain has as much claim as any other over the islands

[ShadesPanther]

The Falklands is like my country basically. So I believe that the Land is owned by the poeple on the islands. The majority (Well in falklands is overwelming ~;) ) want to be British and so Britain allows them to be British and thus owns the falklands with the people will.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I mean that Greenland should belong to us and not those danish..
There's a country up there called "Canada"...

[BDC]

Britain.

[Adrian II]

http://www.falklandsconservation.com/logo.gif

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

You can't, like, own an island, man! It's one of Mother Earth's creatures!

[Papewaio]

The fishing rights around the Falklands are a cash cow.

[Papewaio]

"The people are mixing concepts, as for whom has the right on the islands we might debate for fifteen centuries and not to agree. But as for what the people want, is it obvious that the inhabitants of the islands prefer belonging to Great Britain and being in all his right, chronicles of the war do not exist chance where they count the atrocities committed by the Argentine officials?

Soulforged quoted the English invasions of 1816, which are taught in our schools rigorously, but nobody counts the real history behind the supposed invasions, where the parents of our homeland wanted to sell the colonies to England.
The real fact is that we were never invaded really, two times that English soldiers disembarked on our coasts were invited, for NOT small aristocratic sector that saw the economic potential and others of being a part of the big British empire. The rest of our history is the evolution of the hypocrisy praised up to the infinite.

Sincerely this feeling of wanting to belong to Great Britain was supported even practically when Perón came to the government.

On the other hand, the people in general, instead of feeling scorn for the leading class overturned a visceral hate towards the Englishmen, another beautiful detail of our culture, we are perfect, we do everything well, those have the fault of everything are the others.

Another point that it is necessary to mention is the fact of when Galtieri declared the war to England, he was not alone, thousands of persons were applauding him, obviously after the war nobody admits to have been there. Before the conflict nobody, NOBODY know about the existence of the islands, and suddenly the slogans in all sides " the Malvinas are Argentine ". Hypocrisy.

If the islands were ours, who would go to live there?, nobody. What profit would the Argentine people as nation extract? None, any economic advantage would get lost in the arks of the corruption. Since I see it, the only ones that would go out winning would be the Japanese whalers, which catch freely especially the territory that occupies our continental platform.

Perhaps Argentina has right on the islands in the historical political global frame, but like a sovereign nation never gained itself this right.

Perhaps some of you think that I hate my country, but on the contrary, I love it. And since Argentine citizen I have the right to feel proud of my homeland but they keep on taking it from me, when our people open heart to themself and to the world. we will be able to begin to construct a better country. A serious one.

Argentina is the best place in the world to live, but unfortunately it is inhabited by Argentinians."

...

[Soulforged]

Here's the legislatives conclusions and the voice on doctrine:(the link (http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/derech01.php) in spanish)

First the position of Argentina before the problem:
We present three basic arguments:(that derives from norms of international aplication between nations, recognized by the custom of the setences and the treaties)
Basically all reduces to the sucession of States. The principle applies when a given state leaves certain lands and transfers the sovereingty to the other. To apply this on Argentina we've to demonstrate that in the critical moment of the born of the rights Spain owned the lands. Also implies the aplication of the principle of intertemporality of law, wich states that the laws vigent in the times of the origin of the conflicts can be used to stablish a better title over the land (the whole problem reduces to who has the best right or title, and not who has a title)
a-Spain occupied those lands when Argentina became independent (critical moment, the born of rights). b-This occupation (of Spain) was the result of a first french occupation wich granted the lands to the spanish in recognition of their rights over the lands. c- Spain discovered the islands and their rights of occupation were recognazed by third states (a third party).

Respect of the discovery: Since the century XV and through the XVI, the simple fact of discovering a land created a right over it. During the XVII and XVIII new conditions were imposed was that there had to exist some efective ocupation for a reasonable time to create perfect rights (if not the mere discovery created rights but imperfect, and if the efective occupation didn't take place then the rights banished). If this wasn't accomplished the land turned into res nullius (without king, without an owner). If for this motive that the extension of this rights are the one who matter for the determination of best title, and the discovery has no importance at all, even when this is still being discussed (Camargo, Magallanes or John Strong). Likewise the papal bull and the treaty of Tordesillas (Spain and Portugal) didn't generate any conflict on that time and for instance don't have any application on the modern case (desuse of the law).

Occupation (about the continued occupation of Spain until 1810, notice that the continued occupation by right or fact can be interrupted by the protest of those who can alegate rights over the territory):
-First settlement on the island: Louis Antoine de Bougainville, of France, who came with a contingent of people of St. Maló (the name Malvinas is the spanishation of the term "malouines") who stablished in Port Louis (St. Louis) in the oriental island. When he noticed that the spanish were protesting he retired recognacing Spain as the true owner of the lands.
-In 1765 the captain J. Byron of Britain proclamed the islands like british territory (formally) giving the name of Port Egmont to the future lands (in the southern island Saunders) in the name of George III king of Britain. In 1766 another expedition stablished in the settlement of Port Egmont. The british noticed the previous settlement of the french, wich for them questioned the preferencial rights of Spain (with no reason).
-Before this facts the dispute between the three parts begins. Frances grants formally the rights to Spain and retires. Spain takes efective posetion of the islands in 1767. Thus begins the first continued occupation on the island.
-In 1770 the Governor of Buenos Aires arrives at Port Egmont and evacuates the british settlement by force. Before the fear of a potencial confrontation between Spain and England, Spain offers the restitution of Port Egmont to calm down the situation. The spanish leaves a constance of their rights over the islands, and the priority of them. The british only want the reparation before the insolit and brutal act performed by the spanish.
-Part of the doctrine guesses over the information of certain historic facts that there could exist a secret agreement between Spain and England, that stated that they would retire from the island after the reparation and restitution of Port Egmont. Finally the spanish ambassador prince of Masserano and Lord Rochford, make this formal. Spanish government stablish that this doesn't mean a decrese of their sovereingty over the islands. The british accept this terms.
-In 1771 accomplishing the terms, a british contingent reasume their position on Port Egmont. In 1774 the british retire from the island making public that they only do this for economic reasons and not abdicating the their rights on the settlement. They leave a plaque and a flag like a symbol of their continued occupation. In 1777 the spanish destroyed what was left of that settlement, the british didn't protest.
-Later the british considered that the agreed on 1771 was on acknowledgement of their rights over the islands (when in fact they didn't signed the same)
-The reparation and satisfaction of the british could be considered like a return to the status quo before the agression. So there isn't any agression against the state of law, this will mean that all turns back to what it was before, being the spanish the only owners of the lands. In this sense is relevant the words of Lord Chancellor Cadmen, wich stated that the situation continued like it was before of the incident "...the king of Spain only declared that he couldn't be alienated of the previous reclamation for that act of possesory restauration...".
-In the acomplishment of all agreements is important to consider the subsequent facts of both parties. The conduct of Great Britain that finally retires from the islands and that of Spain wich continues it's occupation of the oriental island, and later destroy the final symbols of british presence on the island, erasing all british presence on the island, confirm the abandon of the islands from the side of the british independently if it's the result of agreements or not. When the text is insufficient to know the will of the parties the posterior acts are interpreted like the expression of that will. Even if there existed another treaty in contrary the acts can be interpreted like the result of a new tacit agreement. So in the end the acts a posteriori are more important.

Animus (anima, spirit, will) or intention of occupation:
-Indenpendently of all secret agreements. The interrumption of the british occupation in 1774, wich was far from being pacific, but could create rights with the time, marked a point in history. The animus alone (represented by the plaque and the flag) is insufficient to stablish continued occupation or rights over the island, without the actual official protest of the interested parties (remember that Britain never protested the continued occupation of the spanish or the destruction of Port Egmont).
-A similar case between Mexico and France happened in the island of Clipperton, wich France owned after don't receive any protest from the other one who could pretend rights over it, Mexico. The sole intention of being the owner is not sufficient, there has to be actual acts of control or sovereingty over them (this could be efective occupation or not, but it's interpreted like efective occupation anyway).
-Even more. The british doctrine has refuted the postition of the animus in the words of Lord Phillimore, who didn't grant any relevance to the plaque an the flag as actual materialization of the animus ocupandi.
-Likewise it could be said that Britain never achieved rights over the land because their occupation was interrupted before the rights turned perfect. So Britain didn't leaved any rights when they left on 1774. The occupation was precarious and controversial, it could create rights only in the future.
-Spain by the agreements of Madrid (1670 and 1713) and the one of Ultrech in 1713 created a solid position (commercial and politic, see my post above) for Spain against all other nations. So the act of the british in 1766 was violatory of this treaties.
-But this treaties were violated over and over. Other treaties were need to confirm the status quo of the later situation every time that the lands were occupied violating previous treties. Only the situation of facts agreed conventionally could be opposed to other parties. To this point is relevant the treaty of Nootka Sound of 1790 (Britain and Spain), wich recognazed the rightful occupation of the Malvinas since that date (this means all of the lands were spanish).
-The 9º article of the treaty stablished that:"...it remained agreed respect of the oriental and occidental coasts of South America and the adjacent islands, that the subdits"-british of course- "will not form any settlement on the future in the parts of the southern coast and the adjacents coast already occupied by Spain; it's acknowledged that the subdits can arrive at the coast and islands with the porpose of fishing and stablishment of refuges and other temporary structures that serve to those porposes..."
-This treaty makes Britain renunce to all pretends on the islands over the basis of an unproved descovery, irrelevant to the judicial system and the occupation, that wasn't the first or the one that prospered with the time.

-So this proves the better rights of Spain over the islands to the date of 1810, date in wich all their rights passed to us. The emancipated territory remains defined by the principle of uti possidetis. This principle makes all the jurisdictions stablished by the antecessor remains as previous (the principle is confirmed like an statute of the International Law and is founded in conventional norms and custom recognized by Latin América in the XIX century). If the antecessor state was before third states the sovereing, since the date, the succesor continues with the sovereingty. This way making us the continuation of the jurisdiction of the River Plate (a component of the Virroyalcy) to wich the Malvinas belong.

Exercise of the dominion since 1810:
-Since the date the United Provinces of River Plate (later Argentina) exercized continued acts of jurisdiction on the islands without any protest from the british and their posterior express recognicement without conditions over the succesion of the UPRP.
-Since 1811 Spain retired from Malvinas by orders of Gaspar Vigodet (governor of Montevideo). It was in 1820 when the governor of Buenos Aires (capital of the UPRP and Argentina since forever) ordered Daniel Jewitt to take physic possetion of the island onboard of the "Heroína". So for almost 10 years the government of the UPRP never used it jurisdictional power over the islands. However Britain didn't protested, ever, the situation and never tried to excersice again over the islands, so all remained status quo. Since 1820 a series of jurisdictional acts stablish the sovereignity of the UPRP over the island (the official permision extended by the governor of Buenos Aires to Jorge Pacheco, to colonize the islands; the nombrament of the captain Pablo Areguati like the commandant of the island "Soledad"; the effective settlement of Luis Vernet in 1826; the land consetions and fishing rights granted to Luis Vernet by decret of the governor of Buenos Aires on 15 of January of 1828, etc.)
-The 30 of July of 1831 Luis Vernet applies his authority over three USA ships that violated the law imposed by him. Then the USA consul intervene pretending to deny all rights of the governor over the islands. This over the basis of a supossed freedom of commerce only recognized by USA and England on that period, then he did this without any reason. The captain of the USS Lexington ordered to Luis Vernet the realease of the ship "Harriet" and the punishment of the ones involved, qualifing him like a pirate. When he denied the petition the Captain Duncan arrived at Puerto Soledad, took prisoner the commandant of the garrison, destroyed the instalations, rob skins and other goods and declared the island free of all government!! (it appears that the true pirate was him). The government of Buenos Aires formulated a protest to the USA government in 1832. The same year the governor declared Don Esteban Mestivier the new governor of Malvinas, and granted Don José María Pinedo, onboard of the "Sarandí", the mission of restauration of peace and order on the island, and the reparation. Two months after the restoration of order, when the "Sarandí" wasn't on port, the garrison revolted and killed Mestivier. When the captain Pinedo came back he was surprised by the ship "Clio" of Britain who took the islands on 1833, submiting the authorities and declaring the unexisting rights of the Crown.
-In 1835 an USA court recogniced that the actions of Luis Vernet over the ships, stating that the Malvinas were the rightful possession of the government of Buenos Aires. The court also expressed that an official of the state had no right to enter in the sovereingnity of a friend country without authorization and take control of property and declare it property of the citizens of the USA. But later on 1839 another court denied the right of Buenos Aires over the islands (this desition was not based on objective prooves and facts, but in the order of the Department of State wich manifested it's political position).
-In matter of occupation a precedent jurisprudence (custom of the sentences, this time on the international area) stablished that the jurisdictional acts over a given territory are sufficient proof to stablish rights over that land. So all this demonstrate the continued and rightful occupation of the lands by Argentina, only interrupted by force. And the same principle excludes the pretentions of Great Britain, wich didn't manifested any act of reclamation or opposition.
Later i'll post the british conclusions and other things. But make your questions.
If there's anything that's not understandable (it could be my translation)ask me.

[Soulforged]

This is the british position:

Protest and brtish reclamation:
- When the state of the United Provinces of River Plate begun to take jurisdictional responsability of the islands a man, Woobine Parish, presented a protest the 19 of november of 1829 (the date when the government in Buenos Aires designed a political-military leader to the islands). The bases of the protest are the discovery already refuted, the subsequent occupation that didn't existed (it was french) and the recognisment of Spain of the sovereingnity of Britain over the islands expressed on the treaty made by the parts in 1771, wich in fact was the contrary.
-This actitud contradicts itself with the passive and friendly actitud of the british government about the succession and rights of the new state.
-The recognisment of the new state exist (implicit) in the Declaration of the Department of Exterior Relationships in Britain, wich in 1823 expressed "...the King my lord...it was served to design mister Woodbine Parish as the general consul, in that state..."
-In the same sense a treaty celebrated in the UPRP, between this and the King of Britain on 1825, states: "Having existed for many years an extense commerce between the dominion of your majesty and the territories of UPRP...and in support of a good inteligence between your majesty and the provinces expressed here...that the relationships already existent, to be formally recogniced and confirmed by a treaty of friendship, commerce and navegation..."
-In the first article is stablished that there was going to be eternal friendship between the dominions of your majesty the King and the lands of the UPRP. The second article stablishes the commercial freedom between the two nations. Therefore this act of protest is contradictory with the actitud of the british government and the facts, making it irrelevant.
- Finally in the 8 of January of 1834, Lord Palmerston writes to Manuel Moreno, on behalf of the protest that Argentina did a while ago. Palmerston alegates the same as Woodbine, discovery, occupation and the treaty of 1771 with Spain (again with no reason). He added that Great Britain wasn't dipose to recognize derivated titles to third states from rights of Spain that was already denegated!!. The lord also reelaborates the writing so it reflects no conflict at all. In a note brought by Earl of Aberdeen in 1842, the britanic government also states that they can't grant the UPRP the right to alter a treaty between two other nations 40 years before it's emancipation (when in fact they altered it). To their convenience and with no argument at all they considered this new document the definitive.
(About the extension of the first documents and the principles that aply i'll refer myself to my previous post)

Discovery and occupation over nobody's land (res nullius):
Like it was stated before the first discovery is unproved and irrelevant because the british didn't occupied the land. The second in 1776 with a short occupation, is the one that they pretend to state as happening in an state of res nullius.This is incorrect, wich is proved in the previous post. Again in 1833 they alegate the recovery of that res nullius lands that they took. But even if they've the background to support this alegation, they ignore completly the fact that the occupation and acts of jurisdiction over the lands from the UPRP have created an state of rights in favour of this last nation, giving them a better title.
- The custom of this matter is revealed in a resolution of the General Asembly (number 3292 (XXIX)) that resolves a conflict of a presunted res nullius. I'll refer to it, thus making the post shorter. It belongs to the International Court of Justice, released on 1975, about a conflict on the Sahara zone.
This sentence proves that the Islands weren't res nullius at the time of 1776 or 1833.
-Great Britain cannot invocate the illicitud of the argentinian presence in 1833, because before (in 1823 and 1825), as noticed previously, they recogniced the independence and sovereingnity of the UPRP on the islands.

Facing this weakness of argumentation the british invoque a last weapon:
Conquest:
Returning to the XIX century we look at the doctrine of that time:
C. Calvo: the conquest is a legitim way to gain territories if there exists a posterior peace treaty between the involved or with the consent of the affected population (directly).
Oppenheim: when the defeated state banishes or when a treaty of peace is signed.
Lauterpacht: the affected state has to recognize the anexion to the new state of the conquered lands (wich could mean a peace treaty too).

There wasn't at the time of the conquering in 1833 any peace treaty or recognisement from part of Argentina, we even protested. So this means that this resource is also inadmissible.

The argument that has had more repercution in later times is the one of "adquisitive prescription".So it doesn't matter if the land was res nullius, because a posterior occupation generates the aplication of this principle. In the doctrine it's considered illegal, but the with the time, and if the occupation is effective, public, continued and pacific, then the illegallity is healed. It's pacific that occupation wich isn't molested by any acts of protest.
However the principle doesn't apply when there exists an state with a better title over the lands that has real animus (will) of occupy them. In this cases the effective occupation don't generate any title that could serve before third parties. The period for effective prescription is gave to each case in particular. To this the doctrine also sais that the protest don't have to be reitered over and over, one protest made after the occupation remains for an undetermined period of time,thing that's accepted by international regulations as well. In 1849 Argentina made it's intentions explicit with a protest that has lasting effects for undetermined time (as stated before), in this case it was special because the government also stated specially that they'll not make another formal protest because of the intransigence of Britain (as stated before), therefore one of the elements needed for the prescription fails, and this principle is also useless for the britanic argumentation.

Objectives juridic situations:
-This relates the continued occupation and relationship with third nations with the creation of rights over lands. But this kind of relationships and rights derives from the international convention and not by the unilateral acts of a nation. Likewise the objective situations create a relationship with that nation that didn't recognize the cristalization of the new sovereingnity. Therfore this is also unacceptable.

Lack of recognisment:
The britanic doctrine tries to apply this principle in any case of conquered and occupied lands, stating that the mere occupation, wheter it's pacific (in the sense already noticed) or not, creates perfect rights. But obviously this right is adquiered erga omnes (against all the international community), wich includes the affected state. Therefore also inadmissible.

The professor George Schwarzemberger takes a similar possition to the one of the "objectives juridic situations" to create a prescription effect, also adds the principle of lack of recognisment. But he goes farer and sais that all origin of the occupation is has no entail with the actual objective situation. This way he can surpase the others refutations. But this position is only admissible when both states have an equal right to the possetion of a land (or there's uncertainties and doubts), this way making acceptable the fact that the recognition or not by the affected isn't relevant. This didn't happened, like it was demonstrated Argentina always had better rights over the lands, making this principle inadmissible. Also the certainty of the original titles can be prooved. Like it was in this short resume.

The main argument continues to be the unacceptable one, given by Lord Palmerston. Thus the british still alegate ownership of the island based on unproved, irrelevant and false statements.

Later, when the new system of free determination of states (achieved after the WWII), Britain included the Malvinas as an non-Autonomous Territory, wich following the statutes of the UN will not be considered as a trustee (like other colonized states of Europe were). But the free determination has turned into the real identity of the new century, so to surpase this obstacle Britain named the Malvinas as non-Autonomous Territory, thus, with a technisim, making impossible to reclaim it by any means before the UN.

The process wich begins in 1965 with the UN resolution number 1514 (XX), creates an unstopable descolonization. This applies to all territories wich are trustee (not non-autonomous territories). Even so in 1964 and in response to a challenge given by Britain (wich stated that the situation on Malvinas depended of the will of the people habitating it, again free determination), Argentina presents before the International Court (Subcomitee III of the Special Comitee of the UN for the cases created by the resolution 1514). The document, knew as "Alegato Ruda" remembers that the right of the unity of the nations is a right granted to the colonized nations for the International Community, to remain as unity after an emancipation or recovery of a territory. For instance this cannot be invocated by those who in first place coloniced the lands, it would be contradictory.

By the resolutions 2065 and 3160 of the same subcomitee, the UN urges both parties to finish the conflict with pacific means, and without unilateral determinations, as Britain pretended many times, and still pretends, the end would have to be the descolonization of the Islands. But Britain remains intransigent to the resolution until 1980, when they decide to put an end. The Legislative Council of the Falklands gives three options, that decide unilaterally without any respect to the resolutions. The options were:a- freezing of the process through 25 years b-Give the sovereingnity to Argentina (but with a determined period of executive actions over the lands) c- Make an united excersice between the two nations on the island. They decide for the first, with no reason an with the intention of making the papers get cover of dust in some desk. Argentina tries to put a definitive end to the situation presenting a defined agenda. The british didn't react well to this and again taking unilateral desitions took the determination of submiting the case to an undetermined period of time (wich obviously could mean forever), this way keeping the status quo.

The question here is that if this situation creates a right for the affected party to take agressive actions. Though it didn't function to us it function pretty well to the United Kingdom in the cases of "self help". One case on Albania, where the United Kingdom forced them to clean the field of mines (in the channel of Corfu). The International Court determined this as illegal (1949), because it violated the sovereingnity of the state of Albania, and extended with out reason the one of UK. But the Court also admited the proof of the mines like a proof to UK!! Thus UK was favoured by an illecit action, motivated by force with the justification of "self help". The same happened on the intervention of UK in Oman, justificating it on the unity of the territory of Muscat. It also helped India to take Goa (portuguese colony) in 1961, founded on the principle of selfdetermination of the people. Now why we couldn't alegate the same? Perhaps the explanation is in the corruption of the Court, who acts partially, and not impartially like it should.

About the determination of the people. In some cases the International Court and also Britain didn't recognize this principle, the first in the resolutions of the conflict in the Sahara (2354 and 2428) where the Court granted the territory of Ifni, descolonising it, to Marruecos, putting first the principle of unity of national territory. In this case they didn't consult the public opinion. The same could be applied to Malvinas. UK did it with Mauricio. They possesed the territories of Chagos, wich includes the island Diego García, still kept as colony by UK government, even when they agreed with the policy of the UN. Alegating the determination of the population they kept it for various reasons (being one that USA needed them with defense purposes) and then between 1966 and 1973 UK evacuated the population of Diego García reubicating them in the territory of Mauricio without consulting them (this is called hipocrasy from where i come from). The UK has no right over the islands, no now, no never. But given the intrasingence of them and the UN respect this conflict, our only hope is that the global opinion changes an see the facts for what they are.

Well for those that readed and understood, it will be noticiable why the island are ours and not british. For those that didn't read it well make further opinions on the subject. Those that want to acknowledge some writing mistake, please do, because i'm sure i've some. Thanks. ~:grouphug:

[Ja'chyra]

Sounds like your basing all your arguments on events that happened 200-300 years ago? So how far back do you go? Are you absolutely certain there weren't people there before the French and if there were doesn't the land belong to them?

I would say that what happened 300 years ago doesn't matter a damn, the fact remains that the people there consider themselves British, the people here consider them British and we have already shown that we are quite willing to defend them as our lands. Therefore, they're ours.

[Soulforged]

Sounds like your basing all your arguments on events that happened 200-300 years ago? So how far back do you go? Are you absolutely certain there weren't people there before the French and if there were doesn't the land belong to them?

I would say that what happened 300 years ago doesn't matter a damn, the fact remains that the people there consider themselves British, the people here consider them British and we have already shown that we are quite willing to defend them as our lands. Therefore, they're ours.

You're just making a rant without reading all my two posts. And those events that you talk about can be by legal means applied on the future as i stated. You've a rant and the actual situation, i've proof, doctrine and some little investigation on my behalf. Stop using common sense and read something of what i said, you'll see that there's some exceptions to what you seem to call your only justification (because your country didn't have any rights, ever they created it by illegal means).

Btw: It isn't my position, it's the position of the international community and Argentina.

[Ja'chyra]

Double post

[Ja'chyra]

You're just making a rant without reading all my two posts. And those events that you talk about can be by legal means applied on the future as i stated. You've a rant and the actual situation, i've proof, doctrine and some little investigation on my behalf. Stop using common sense and read something of what i said, you'll see that there's some exceptions to what you seem to call your only justification (because your country didn't have any rights, ever they created it by illegal means).

Btw: It isn't my position, it's the position of the international community and Argentina.

I read your two posts and to be perfectly honest it all seems slightly biased to me, I'm sure the British opinion would be totally different.

You say stop using common sense, but the fact remains that we took the islands by force and then forcibly defended them when you tried to take them back. Now that you have realised that you can't defeat us in battle for them you are trying to fall back on 300 year old treaties.

The same common sense that you say that I haven't to use, dictates that the blood of our soldiers that we left on the islands determines that they are now and will remain British until such times as you can either take them fromus or we give them to you.

[Brenus]

“Spain ceded sovereignty of Gibraltar to us in a Treaty, slightly different from the Falklands situation. Britain has as much claim as any other over the islands” Yep, but England agreed to give it back by the Treaty of Amiens with Napoleon…

Just a short point: Argentina has no right on the Malvinas/Falklands under the pretext they are on the South American Continental Plateau… They are around 800 km from the coast, and all inhabitants speak English, eat English, are English. The Anglo-Norman Islands are around 5 km from France (even less), and they are English (and a fiscal paradise). With kind of arguments, France could claim the Orkneys Islands… ~:)
With historical points like the one I read, France could claim the return of Louisiana illegally sold by a usurpator /dictator Napoleon the First (perhaps not a good idea today, but Louisiana was from the Canadian borders to the actual Louisiana). ~D

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well for those that read and understood, it will be noticiable why the island are ours and not british. Those are some fine historical reasons why the Falklands should be Argentinian.

Maybe you can strike a deal with the British:
Britain will return the Falklands to Argentina, the rightfull historic owner, and you in turn abandon Argentina and return it to the Indians. :balloon2:

[Soulforged]

Those are some fine historical reasons why the Falklands should be Argentinian.

Maybe you can strike a deal with the British:
Britain will return the Falklands to Argentina, the rightfull historic owner, and you in turn abandon Argentina and return it to the Indians. :balloon2:

Jajaja...you return it to the barbarians ~;) or the romans. In any way, the treaties are signed by the parties and supported by facts, that is what gives them value, if there's no facts, only formalities, they've no value at all, and that's the difference of the situation between the indians and the british. Besides as i posted conquest is a good way to take lands but their has to be some conditions, that didn't existed in the Malvinas situation.


I read your two posts and to be perfectly honest it all seems slightly biased to me, I'm sure the British opinion would be totally different.

Well then express the judiridic and scientific opinion of your people. Let's see more than just biased thoughts towards Argentina and a war that could be justified, though i'll never justify any war.


You say stop using common sense, but the fact remains that we took the islands by force and then forcibly defended them when you tried to take them back. Now that you have realised that you can't defeat us in battle for them you are trying to fall back on 300 year old treaties.

Yes but you readed all the doctrine that i resumed. Even some british scientist are in our favour in those points, common sense doesn't have a place in court or in international relationships ruled by the custom on the sentences and the laws. And you're wrong those opinions on the 300 years arguments that seems to be your only point, are expressed by eminent voices (like lawyers, jurists, judges, etc) and they can be used, as it has been used. Again read the part of the conquest and adquisitive prescription, and then read the part of what England did by force and what UN did. You'll notice that there's a lot of hypocresy. The principle of the free determination of the people not always applies, as the resolution of the UN and the actions of Britain respecting Mauricio shows. Also our soldiers also died there forced by a military government, when many of them didn't wanted to do so, if you paid attention ot some recent news you'll notice that you received much more help than us in the war including a traitor from Chile that acted in favour of the Crown.


The same common sense that you say that I haven't to use, dictates that the blood of our soldiers that we left on the islands determines that they are now and will remain British until such times as you can either take them fromus or we give them to you.

Look at this link (http:////news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm) and you'll see interesting facts. If you want to deny everything it's ok, it's the same policies that the countries with power do always. The fact is that you don't have historical rights over the land and neither the conquest or the prescription has created some, maybe the free determination of the people, as you sited, but this can be overruled in cases like this. So the resolutions of the UN still applies over the situation, is in the hands of the international community and principally in the hands of Britain to do the right thing. But read the link please it's pretty interesting.

[barocca]

The Orginal Poster of this thread quoted from wikipedia,
the article quoted from is not reliable, is overlooking a few vital facts
and indeed left some events and incident out of the "timeline"


the first two proven sightings of the island were both in 1520(ish),
Esteben (a spanish deserter) and Piri Reis (a turkish admiral)

there are many "possibles" either side of that date, most of the maps and charts from that era indicate the position of the islands at the location reported by Esteben (49deg south)

in 1540 Alonso de Camargo in the "la incognita" possibly sighted/sailed through the islands,
Quite likely he did so, as from then on the islands appeared on charts in their correct location, 51deg south

1675 Antonio de la Roche sighted South Georgia

the first recording LANDING on the islands is in 1690 by Captain John Strong of HMS Welfare (Britain).

1767 france sold their rights to their base/colony to spain, BUT the french gave the impression that they had left, in actual fact they stayed!
8 months later the british discover the french are still there and order them to leave, the french get a spanish governor and stay put.

1806 Spain (STILL claiming the islands, despite ceding them by treaty to Britain in 1771) abandons its bases

1811 Argentina (The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata ) withdraw all spanish settlers from the islands entirely.

in 1820 when the Heroina arrived they found over 50 ships from many nationalitites operating from bases and stations in the Falklands, mostly Sealers and Whalers.

1823/4 the Argentinians abandoned the Falklands

1826 the Argentinians land another expedition on the Falklands,
Britain protested their presence

1831 the Argentinians "arrested" three American ships, The USA responded with force, destroyed Argentinian bases and stations, expelled the Argentinians from the islands, arrested the governor and took him back to the USA in chains.
The USA declared the islands" free of all governance"

1832 the Argentinians sent a third expedition to the Falklands, the Sealers and Whalers ignored the expedition and killed the new "governor".

december 1832 the British take possesion of the islands and a few months later expel all Argentine government and military.

1833 Argentinian settlers (gaucho's) murder the British governor and start murdering British settlers, survivors flee to the outlying islets.

1834 the "gaucho's" are arrested by the British

1834 to 1982 Britian maintains and defends the islands
(1914 and 1939 naval battles occur between british and german forces at or near the Falklands)


The Falklands are British.

B.

[barocca]

in short


Britain enforced her claim to the islands in 1832

170 years ago

seeing that Argentina has not been in a continual state of war with Britain From 1832 To the present day,
Argentina has lost all rights to their claim.

[Soulforged]

The Orginal Poster of this thread quoted from wikipedia,
the article quoted from is not reliable, is overlooking a few vital facts
and indeed left some events and incident out of the "timeline"

Oh yes he did.


the first two proven sightings of the island were both in 1520(ish),
Esteben (a spanish deserter) and Piri Reis (a turkish admiral)

there are many "possibles" either side of that date, most of the maps and charts from that era indicate the position of the islands at the location reported by Esteben (49deg south)

in 1540 Alonso de Camargo in the "la incognita" possibly sighted/sailed through the islands,
Quite likely he did so, as from then on the islands appeared on charts in their correct location, 51deg south

1675 Antonio de la Roche sighted South Georgia

the first recording LANDING on the islands is in 1690 by Captain John Strong of HMS Welfare (Britain).

1767 france sold their rights to their base/colony to spain, BUT the french gave the impression that they had left, in actual fact they stayed!
8 months later the british discover the french are still there and order them to leave, the french get a spanish governor and stay put.

The discovery has been refuted, by the UN, by Argentina and by some british others headstrong british still keep that unproved and irrelevant argument. The French really left the island, i don't know from where did you get this but in fact this is what the british people said over and over with no reason. In anyway this has no relevance, the british were spelled before the principle of occupation could apply.


1806 Spain (STILL claiming the islands, despite ceding them by treaty to Britain in 1771) abandons its bases

Read again what i said about the treaty. In fact what the international doctrine thinks is that the treaty was the contrary: reparation of the damages without decreasing the rights of Spain over the lands, and later expulsion of the british, a returning to the status quo after the initial conflict. I think that somebody didn't read my tedious post (tedious for me to translate)


1811 Argentina (The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata ) withdraw all spanish settlers from the islands entirely.

Yes because we were independent and by the internacionally recognised principle of succesion of states they were ours now.


in 1820 when the Heroina arrived they found over 50 ships from many nationalitites operating from bases and stations in the Falklands, mostly Sealers and Whalers.

This doesn't mean anything the contingent occupied the lands rightfully, and signed treaties with the british that they didn't respect.


1823/4 the Argentinians abandoned the Falklands

Incorrect. There where a continued occupation from 1820 to 1833.


1826 the Argentinians land another expedition on the Falklands,
Britain protested their presence

Yes they protested without reason, because they didn't have any rights.


1831 the Argentinians "arrested" three American ships, The USA responded with force, destroyed Argentinian bases and stations, expelled the Argentinians from the islands, arrested the governor and took him back to the USA in chains.
The USA declared the islands" free of all governance"

Yes they did and later they recognised their mistake.


1832 the Argentinians sent a third expedition to the Falklands, the Sealers and Whalers ignored the expedition and killed the new "governor".

Not the garrison killed the governor.


december 1832 the British take possesion of the islands and a few months later expel all Argentine government and military.

The first true asumption in all your post.


1833 Argentinian settlers (gaucho's) murder the British governor and start murdering British settlers, survivors flee to the outlying islets.

Oh british moaning. I see, i repeat the british didn't have any rights over the lands read my two post and say your conclusions instead of taking broad asumptions like your final sentence.


1834 the "gaucho's" are arrested by the British

I don't know why do you call them gauchos. The british seem to have a VERYYYYYY Biased vision of us.


1834 to 1982 Britian maintains and defends the islands
(1914 and 1939 naval battles occur between british and german forces at or near the Falklands)

Right, with out any right. This was recognised by the UN, for instance the international community, only the british and their allies seem to mantain other position. Read my two previous post before making this false assumptions again. I relate there many british hypocrecies and contradictory acts.

PS: I clearly said that those who didn't read my two post didn't bother to post their 99% wrong assumptions. All your views are biased,specially the word gauchos LOL.

[Soulforged]

in short


[QUOTE]Britain enforced her claim to the islands in 1832

Wrong they didn't have any claim. Read my post please.



seeing that Argentina has not been in a continual state of war with Britain From 1832 To the present day,
Argentina has lost all rights to their claim.

Did you read anything of what i said? That doesn't create adquisitive prescription. The state who has better rights can make a formal protest to keep the state of conflict there's no reason for a continued state of war.

[Tribesman]

Are you absolutely certain there weren't people there before the French and if there were doesn't the land belong to them?
Recent archealogical finds on the islands suggest that the islands were inhabited prior to European exploration discovered them.

The fishing rights around the Falklands are a cash cow.
Not really Pape , not for Britain anyway , the logistics are too immense . The same goes for the mineral exploraion rights , which is why they are selling them to Argentina .
So maybe a cash Mare instead of a cash Heifer , you can milk it , but is it worth the effort .

[Soulforged]

Are you absolutely certain there weren't people there before the French and if there were doesn't the land belong to them?
Recent archealogical finds on the islands suggest that the islands were inhabited prior to European exploration discovered them.


Thanks for that information. But really to the topic it has no importance at all. The papacy bull (that's not recognised any more as a proof but i mention it anyway, and also the treaty of Tordesillas between Portugal and Spain) sais that the lands belong to Spain. France recognised this rights and retired from the lands, thus the lands belong to Spain since then.

[sharrukin]

Thanks for that information. But really to the topic it has no importance at all. The papacy bull (that's not recognised any more as a proof but i mention it anyway, and also the treaty of Tordesillas between Portugal and Spain) sais that the lands belong to Spain. France recognised this rights and retired from the lands, thus the lands belong to Spain since then.

That Papal Bull was based on the right of conquest by european colonial powers.

The British hold the islands by right of military conquest. Therefore they are British, aren't they?

[Soulforged]

That Papal Bull was based on the right of conquest by european colonial powers.

The British hold the islands by right of military conquest. Therefore they are British, aren't they?

Sharrukin i commited the error of insulting you in the communism subject. Don't make the same mistake, read my two post, specially the one concerning the british. That'll prove you wrong. And again the papal bull is not in discussion they didn't create any true rights in the period, so they cannot be used now, the arguments are a little different from our side.

Seriously until now i didn't see any refutation, only false assumptions and common sense. The topic is about stablishing the best right, not about creating a resolution to expell the british people from the islands. Btw the better rights had already been recognised by the UN, so this discussion is pointless, except because Argentina used force and now the british have certain rights to claim it. But if you read the final part of my second big post (the one about british position) you'll see that some countries are justificated to use force, ironically one of them is Britain. Also Britain could ignore the principle of free determination of the people in the case of Mauricio. So nothing is black & white, and the resolutions of the UN can still be applied, or new ones in favour of the true owners can come up.

[ShadesWolf]

This is a dispute that will never be settled.

The only way to give it back to Argentina would be to resettle the current people living on the island. These people would never accept Argentinas rule. They all consider themselve to be british. Hence the Islands belong to Britain.

I dont see any point in talking about who found it first, etc.....

[sharrukin]

Sharrukin i commited the error of insulting you in the communism subject. Don't make the same mistake, read my two post, specially the one concerning the british. That'll prove you wrong. And again the papal bull is not in discussion they didn't create any true rights in the period, so they cannot be used now, the arguments are a little different from our side.


Soulforged I meant no disrespect so I will lay out why I believe the Falklands are British.

The right of conquest;
That is to say, a national entity that wields coercive power.
This is the ability of a nation to force another to do what it otherwise would not do.
This is clearly held by Britain.

The right of sovereignty, or rather legitimate sovereignty derives from a body of laws recognized by both parties.

There are several ways to claim legitimate sovereignty.
In the order of precedence that the international community holds them.
1. The right to self-determination
2. The right of effective occupation
3. The right of discovery

1. The right to self-determination;
The right to self-determination is a cornerstone of the UN Charter which in Chapter 1, Article 1 (2) states: "The purposes of the United Nations are: ...To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

In 1970, the UN General Assembly passed a declaration, which elaborates on the right to self-determination (Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cupertino among States in Accordance with the Charter of the UN) as follows:

"... All peoples have the right to freely determine, without external interference, their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with provisions of the Charter".

This is clearly held by Britain. Or rather by the people of the Falklands who hold Britain to be their sovereign.

2. The right of effective occupation

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has used "effective occupation" and discovery as primary considerations in evaluating the legitimacy of island territorial claims, although a feature's location, its history, and whether other claimants have a record of protesting illegal occupation may be considered in determining the legitimacy of sovereignty claims to particular features. Therefore discovery without effective settlement is not sufficient for a claim of sovereignty. The British clearly have had an effective settlement of the Falklands for 170+ years. Argentina has only existed as a nation from the year 1816. The occupation of the islands by Argentina was from around 1820 to 1833. The British settlement of 1764-5 doesn't IMO count, as the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention signed with Spain would legally invalidate this prior claim. In this convention Britain renounced colonial ambition to South America and adjacent islands (the falklands).

This is clearly held by Britain who has effectively occupied the Falklands for 170+ years.

3. The right of discovery

In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex. This directed that most Christian of kings, Alfonso to "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put them into perpetual slavery," and "to take all their possessions and property." This established the 'Right of Discovery' by european powers and led to Pope Alexander VI dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. By this, the locals who had previously been unaware that they had been lost, were discovered and claimed by the european powers. The native peoples lost their rights to sovereignty, retaining only a right of occupancy (very generous of us, IMO ~D ).

One problem of course is that Argentina didn't discover the Falkland islands, Spain did. However, Argentina would have rights as a successor state.


A similar case has come up before.

The United States claimed the Island of Palmas in dispute with The Netherlands. The United States based its title to Palmas on discovery and Spain’s subsequent cession of the Philippines to the US pursuant to the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the Spanish-American War. Spain had sovereign rights over the Philippines until the war, thus enabling the cession. This made the United States a successor state.

The Netherlands, based its claim on the colonization of Palmas by the Dutch East India Company and on its subsequent uninterrupted and peaceful exercise of sovereignty over Palmas.

In the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision, rendered by Justice Max Huber, the court stressed the importance of continuous and peaceful displays of sovereignty. Rejecting the United States’ claims of discovery, the court awarded Palmas to the Netherlands; concluding that discovery alone is insufficient to establish sovereignty.

"If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title – cession, conquest, occupation, etc. – superior to that which the other state might possibly bring forward against it. However, if the contestation is based on the fact that the other party has actually displayed sovereignty, it cannot be sufficient to establish the title by which territorial sovereignty was validly acquired at a certain moment; it must also be show that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist at the moment which for the decision of the dispute must be considered as critical. This demonstration consists in the actual display of State activities, such as belongs only to the territorial sovereign."

Simply put the Right of Discovery does not compete against effective occupation by another state.

This is clearly in Britains favour as well.

These are the reasons that I believe that Argentina has no claim, legitimate or otherwise to the Falklands.

[Soulforged]

This is a dispute that will never be settled.

The only way to give it back to Argentina would be to resettle the current people living on the island. These people would never accept Argentinas rule. They all consider themselve to be british. Hence the Islands belong to Britain.

I dont see any point in talking about who found it first, etc.....

Another one that didn't read my post. Is not matter of who found it, is a matter of determining better title. We've have you not. But what you're saying is in part true. Anyway Britain don't seem to respect this very much (the powerful contruies do of the world what they want :no: and then they protest against terrorism and war). In the case of Mauricio for example (as i've bothered to translate before) Britain kept the colony even when they compromised to give away all their colonies, and in some point they just evacuated the persons living there and ubicated them in Mauricio's territory, without consulting them if they wanted to live under british rule. But sure the Malvinas are a different case not? :dizzy2: . Look i'm really tired of the british that only enter here without informing themselves and say "Falkland are ours, bla, bla, bla", not they aren't yours, you just occupate them. When UN proposed to finish with this hypocresy pacifically Britain delayed the process and made unilateral unjust and disrespectful decisions against what they had signed and to Argentina. So there's no single piece of evidence/argument that can make the islands yours, nothing, nada.

[Aenlic]

Besides, it would set a bad precedent. Imagine the arguments over who owned what first. In the U.S., Europeans would be forced back to less than half of the land east of the Adirondacks; and that's just from actually living up to various treaties signed with native peoples which are on record and in writing. Australia would be in worse shape. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of native peoples left in the high mountains who would love to have Argentina back from the Europeans who took it from their ancestors. There are plenty of people in southern and western Ireland who wouldn't mind having Ulster given back.

Why stop there? It could get worse. Should all Indo-European speaking peoples be shoved into a tiny spit of land around the Black Sea? Spain for the Basques? Can we use genetics to find someone with a remnant of Etruscan blood to give them back Italy?

[Soulforged]

Soulforged I meant no disrespect so I will lay out why I believe the Falklands are British.

Don't worry.


The right of conquest;
That is to say, a national entity that wields coercive power.
This is the ability of a nation to force another to do what it otherwise would not do.
This is clearly held by Britain.

Refuted, see my post. The conquest is only rightful when there's no protest that keeps the conflict on, or when there's no peace treaty.


The right of sovereignty, or rather legitimate sovereignty derives from a body of laws recognized by both parties.

There are several ways to claim legitimate sovereignty.
In the order of precedence that the international community holds them.
1. The right to self-determination This is the only one that Britain could claim after doing one illegal action above the other, but it's discussable, again see my post to the end.

2. The right of effective occupation
The effective occupation is interrupted by official acts of protest that Argentina did. So refuted too.

3. The right of discovery
The discovery is still unprooved. Anyway both parties had officially recognised that it's irrelevant to the case, so this point doesn't matter.



1. The right to self-determination;

This is clearly held by Britain. Or rather by the people of the Falklands who hold Britain to be their sovereign.

Yes ok but Britain acted contradictorily in the case of Mauricio. And forced the Albanians and an enter to Oman. There's nothing black & white in this matter, and in sometimes the right to keep national unity is more important that the right of selfdetermination, like the sentence sitted before of the case of the Sahara zone.

[
B]2. The right of effective occupation[/B]

Therefore discovery without effective settlement is not sufficient for a claim of sovereignty.

You said it.


The British clearly have had an effective settlement of the Falklands for 170+ years. Not enough time or progress and stability to claim rights.
Argentina has only existed as a nation from the year 1816. Incorrect the date is 1810.
The occupation of the islands by Argentina was from around 1820 to 1833. Yes.
The British settlement of 1764-5 doesn't IMO count, as the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention signed with Spain would legally invalidate this prior claim I don't understand what the abreviation "IMO" means, but the treaty of Nootka Sound works perfectly to determine the continued violation to the treaties that the british themselves signed.
In this convention Britain renounced colonial ambition to South America and adjacent islands (the falklands). You're right.


This is clearly held by Britain who has effectively occupied the Falklands for 170+ years.

You're talking about since 1833, right? Then you're wrong because the effective occupation only creates adquisitive prescription and perfect rights when there's not a single act of protest by the other part who can proove and claim rights over the lands, things that Argentina did. So there's no pacific occupation that is needed when a nation occupates other's nation territory without any rights, what happened on the date of 1833.


3. The right of discovery


One problem of course is that Argentina didn't discover the Falkland islands, Spain did. However, Argentina would have rights as a successor state.

Yes you're right, but again the discovery is considered irrelevant. It's explained a little more in detail in my posts.


A similar case has come up before.

The United States claimed the Island of Palmas in dispute with The Netherlands. The United States based its title to Palmas on discovery and Spain’s subsequent cession of the Philippines to the US pursuant to the Treaty of Paris, which concluded the Spanish-American War. Spain had sovereign rights over the Philippines until the war, thus enabling the cession. This made the United States a successor state.


The Netherlands, based its claim on the colonization of Palmas by the Dutch East India Company and on its subsequent uninterrupted and peaceful exercise of sovereignty over Palmas. There it's the magic word peaceful.


In the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s decision, rendered by Justice Max Huber, the court stressed the importance of continuous and peaceful displays of sovereignty. Rejecting the United States’ claims of discovery, the court awarded Palmas to the Netherlands; concluding that discovery alone is insufficient to establish sovereignty. I agree, never stated the contrary.


"If a dispute arises as to the sovereignty over a portion of territory, it is customary to examine which of the States claiming sovereignty possesses a title – cession, conquest, occupation, etc. – superior to that which the other state might possibly bring forward against it. However, if the contestation is based on the fact that the other party has actually displayed sovereignty, it cannot be sufficient to establish the title by which territorial sovereignty was validly acquired at a certain moment; it must also be show that the territorial sovereignty has continued to exist and did exist at the moment which for the decision of the dispute must be considered as critical. This demonstration consists in the actual display of State activities, such as belongs only to the territorial sovereign."

Wich Argentina displayed, and previously Spain. I've said it before.


Simply put the Right of Discovery does not compete against effective occupation by another state.

Again i never stated that, in fact i said the contrary.


This is clearly in Britains favour as well.

Not it isn't in anybody's favour (if you refered to the discovery).


These are the reasons that I believe that Argentina has no claim, legitimate or otherwise to the Falklands.[/

Well that's what you believe, here and in my previous to big post i give evidence, prooves and tedious facts that say the contrary. Even british proove in my favour. So i will refer to those post to make this simple and not repost all that again. All that you've stated i published in my two posts and refuted it. Also i posted a link to an interesting recognising of the rights of Argentina over the Malvinas from the side of the british government (well they did this many times, but it seems that they've the right to erase it from history), here it's if everybody wants to know it: Falklands: the Secret History (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm), published by the BBC. Just another piece of evidence.

[Soulforged]

Besides, it would set a bad precedent. Imagine the arguments over who owned what first. In the U.S., Europeans would be forced back to less than half of the land east of the Adirondacks; and that's just from actually living up to various treaties signed with native peoples which are on record and in writing. Australia would be in worse shape. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of native peoples left in the high mountains who would love to have Argentina back from the Europeans who took it from their ancestors. There are plenty of people in southern and western Ireland who wouldn't mind having Ulster given back.

Why stop there? It could get worse. Should all Indo-European speaking peoples be shoved into a tiny spit of land around the Black Sea? Spain for the Basques? Can we use genetics to find someone with a remnant of Etruscan blood to give them back Italy?

You're taking this to far, keep it in the crucial moment of the born of rights. First the colonization of England, second the end of the WWII, wich "creates" the idea of free determination of the peoples. While it's rational and founded on law it can be discussed and returned to it's previous owner, pacifically. England did this with many colonies but the ones they kept were the ones with strategical and economic avantages, like the island of Diego García and the Malvinas. If they did the same with their colonies, then what keeps them form doing the same with Malvinas? Well strategy and excuses. A process of descolonization is needed. But don't mistake the facts, another principle surged in the same time with the UN, called unity of national territory (at least that's how i translate it) that goes against your chaotical idea.

[Aenlic]

I'm not defending the British. I'm just saying that the argument has no right side. You claim that the Malvinas should belong to Argentina. But Argentina is an artificial creation, a state founded by Europeans at the expense of the local peoples who were already there. If we can relocate the British population of the Malvinas back to England and give the islands to Argentina, then why can't we relocate the Europeans back to Europe from Argentina and give it back to the native tribes? Follow your logic to it's conclusion. Don't pick an arbitrary stopping point and proclaim the matter ended. ~:) What is the logical difference between the British claiming the Malvinas and Juan de Solis claiming Argentina? Maybe we should ask the Matacos, Choroti, Toba, Mocovi, Pilaga, Guaraní, Diaguita, Mapuche, Teleulche, and Teleulche Mapuchizados their opinion on the matter? ~D

[Ianofsmeg16]

Well Said Aenlic! althought that would mean half of the Uk's population moving back to Germany cos their Saxon

[ShadesPanther]

Well Said Aenlic! althought that would mean half of the Uk's population moving back to Germany cos their Saxon
Lets make it easier and move everyone to Africa. ~;)


The Fact is the People consider themselves Britiash and want to be "occupied" by them, Britain has the power to do this. That really is the end of the matter until the situation changes.

[Marcellus]

The Fact is the People consider themselves Britiash and want to be "occupied" by them, Britain has the power to do this. That really is the end of the matter until the situation changes.

Well put. ~:)

[Slyspy]

What happened centuries ago really doesn't matter to us Brits, and thats the truth. We hold the Islands and the populace is happy with that. This is the situation at the moment and this is why the islands belong to us. I suspect that much of the international community would support us in the event of a new Argentine invasion since the principle of self-detirmination is especially popular at the moment. Semi-legal quibbles over long-defunct treaties and temporary settlements matter only to the those Argentines who see a blow to their national pride everytime they see the word Malvinas.

[ShadesWolf]

Another one that didn't read my post. Is not matter of who found it, is a matter of determining better title.........

Im sorry but I disagree.
the only way the Island will stop being British is

- Either the people decide they dont want to be part of UK
- Its is taken away by force.
- The government give it away.

End of story....

[Ianofsmeg16]

Lets make it easier and move everyone to Africa.


The Fact is the People consider themselves Britiash and want to be "occupied" by them, Britain has the power to do this. That really is the end of the matter until the situation changes.
I was only joking around when i said that, in fact i think exactly the same as you, if they want to be British, let them!
i was just saying everybody was making a big fus about what people a couintry belongs to, when in all truth times have changed, we live in a more democratic world and people have the right to choose their government.
shouldn't the Falklanders have the right to choose whether or not they're British?

[ShadesPanther]

I was only joking around when i said that, in fact i think exactly the same as you, if they want to be British, let them!
i was just saying everybody was making a big fus about what people a couintry belongs to, when in all truth times have changed, we live in a more democratic world and people have the right to choose their government.
shouldn't the Falklanders have the right to choose whether or not they're British?

I was joking too. Shoulda put a smiley on the end of it.

There

[Ianofsmeg16]

Same here, ah well
we won the falklands, we want the falklands, we have the falklands

[Kagemusha]

is there a peace treaty between Britain and Argentina after the Falkland war?Because if there is Argentina doesnt have any claims on the islands.It would be the same if Finland would start to claim back Karelian Peninsula from Russia which was lost in WWII.

[Soulforged]

To everybody: i'm not taking an arbitrary point the treaties creates real relationships and real rights that are respected in general by third parties, this things didn't existed before, so that argument that the english should give their lands back to the saxons is stupid, besides the saxons, the jotos (how do you call the others?) and the angles are all lost in the gene mixture this tribes don't exist anymore. In Argentina all precautions were taken before just wipe away the indians, like for example unite their territory with ours. They didn't accepted so Roca sent them to hell. Justified or not he created perfect right by conquest. Britain didn't. Treaties and third parties recognisements made the island ours, there's one single excuse that the british can use, the Malvinas War in 1982, though this was almost forced by britain like i prooved in my last big post. But please it appears that anybody readed the article that i posted it would show you how things should have been and the hypocresy of the british government before the principle of selfdetermination. Look: BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm)

[sharrukin]

But please it appears that anybody readed the article that i posted it would show you how things should have been and the hypocresy of the british government before the principle of selfdetermination. Look: BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm)

Soulforged, all this proves is that Lord Chalfont is a sleazy scumbag willing to cut a political deal to get out of doing the right thing. You are correct that the British government was being hypocritical in doing this. The British people would not let that happen and the Falkland islanders clearly wanted to be British.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged, all this proves is that Lord Chalfont is a sleazy scumbag willing to cut a political deal to get out of doing the right thing. You are correct that the British government was being hypocritical in doing this. The British people would not let that happen and the Falkland islanders clearly wanted to be British.

Yes you're right, but this also prooves that the principle of free determination is not so absoloute.

[sharrukin]

Yes you're right, but this also prooves that the principle of free determination is not so absoloute.

Only for sleazy scumbag hypocrites like Lord Chalfont!

[Soulforged]

Only for sleazy scumbag hypocrites like Lord Chalfont!

Wow you seem to hate really much this guy! But not, not only for him. Read the case of Mauricio in my post or in any source, the government of Britain did something like this. The government of Britain also used justified force (following the setence of the UN) in the case of the channel of Corfú, forcing the albanians to lift the mines, and in it's intervention in the territory of Oman. Again not all is black and white.

[King Henry V]

Soulforged, all this proves is that Lord Chalfont is a sleazy scumbag willing to cut a political deal to get out of doing the right thing. You are correct that the British government was being hypocritical in doing this. The British people would not let that happen and the Falkland islanders clearly wanted to be British.
Well what do you expect from a Labour government?

[QwertyMIDX]

The people living there.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged, all this proves is that Lord Chalfont is a sleazy scumbag willing to cut a political deal to get out of doing the right thing. You are correct that the British government was being hypocritical in doing this. The British people would not let that happen and the Falkland islanders clearly wanted to be British.

Also i noticed that this has an error of perception. We don't want the people of Britain habitating the land we want them out, they'll stay british and we'll kept the islands. That's called a process of descolonization, and an interesting case happened not to long ago in Israel, it fits my description of disrespect to the right of selfdetermination. Though it seems to work arbitrarily is some occassions and in others not.

[sharrukin]

Wow you seem to hate really much this guy! But not, not only for him. Read the case of Mauricio in my post or in any source, the government of Britain did something like this. The government of Britain also used justified force (following the setence of the UN) in the case of the channel of Corfú, forcing the albanians to lift the mines, and in it's intervention in the territory of Oman. Again not all is black and white.

Soulforged, I am well aware that government, ALL governments are essentially (to borrow a phrase) wretched hives of scum and villainy. This does not prove Argentina's case regarding the Falklands.

[sharrukin]

Also i noticed that this has an error of perception. We don't want the people of Britain habitating the land we want them out, they'll stay british and we'll kept the islands. That's called a process of descolonization, and an interesting case happened not to long ago in Israel, it fits my description of disrespect to the right of selfdetermination. Though it seems to work arbitrarily is some occassions and in others not.

Its also called ethnic cleansing.

[King Henry V]

Since there are no Argentinians living in the Flaklands to my knowledge, they have no say into who lives there. It isn't colonialisation as there aren't any people being colonized. So that, in your perspective, means that the rocks, the grass and the earth fo the Falklands must be free of the iron boot of British colonialism? Lets face it, your arguments are battered and sinking and you are just clutching at every last glimmer of hope in a desperate attempt to prove that you're right.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged, I am well aware that government, ALL governments are essentially (to borrow a phrase) wretched hives of scum and villainy. This does not prove Argentina's case regarding the Falklands.

No this doesn't proove it but my two big post yes, this is only to make my point concerning the false absolute caracter of the principle of selfdetermination of the people. This means that Britain could (and must) begin a process of descolonization in Malvinas doens't matter what the people think, like they did in Mauricio. We've proven best title and a protest elevated to the UN.

[Soulforged]

Since there are no Argentinians living in the Flaklands to my knowledge, they have no say into who lives there. It isn't colonialisation as there aren't any people being colonized. So that, in your perspective, means that the rocks, the grass and the earth fo the Falklands must be free of the iron boot of British colonialism? Lets face it, your arguments are battered and sinking and you are just clutching at every last glimmer of hope in a desperate attempt to prove that you're right.

No they're not battered the arguments of the british were always battered from the begining. About the colonization, yes you colonizate a territory and the people. So the british are still colonizating it, and they must give it back. Period. Besides you didn't give me any juridic or historic argument besides of the selfdetermination, that i already refuted. So who is the one that haves to admit things?

[King Henry V]

The first recorded, i.e the first with PROOF, landing took place in 1690 when Captain Strong landed there in 1690 and wrote that there were no know people living there. He also claims the Islands for the English Crown. In 1764, the French establish the first permanent settlement on East Falkland. A year later the Britsh establish a settlement on West Falkland. You do not even have the claim fo first settlement on the Islands. In 1767 Spain buys the French share. Three years later, a Spanish flottilla demands that the Britsh abandon West Falkland. The commander of the garrison refuses and the Spaniards sail aways. However they return with a stronger force which "persuades" the Britsh soldiers to evacuate the island. There are two views on this. Either you fully accept the right of conquest, in which case anyone who military holds the island has the right to it, or you view this as illegal, in which case, no matter what Britain still has the right ot at least one of the islands. However, a British force resumes control of West Falkland afer threatening Spain with war a year later, in 1771. In 1774, they withdraw for economic reasons, but leave a plaque behind asserting continued authority. In 1816 Argentina gains independance. Now the cornerstone of your objective is this: Argentina, as a succesor state to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, inherits the rights of Spain over the Island. However, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia were also part of the afore said Viceroyalty. Does that mean they have a claim to it too? In 1828, Argentinia sends colonists to colonize both islands. This is illegal as West Falkland is still under British sovereignty. It may be true that Britain did not protest, but since it did not have a settlement on any of the islands it would have been hard to find out without having been told by any of the whalers stopping there, and whose reports were probably not the first prority of His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies. In 1831 the American ship destroys the settlement on East Falkland after three ships were arrested. This most certainly reported, and the Britsh reoccupy the Islands and expel the Argentinians without any bloodshed. The Argentinian physical involvement in the Isalnds lasted only a mere five years. Since 1833 there has been a continued presence of the British on the Falklands.
When, in 1964, the situation was discussed at the U.N, where Argentina pressed its claims. These were as follows:
The Treaty of Tordesillas whereby the Pope declared that the new World to be shared between Spain and Portugal. However, Spain still exists therefore only it would have claim to only East Falkland.
Geographic location. This is a very shaky claim, nto only because Chile would also have the right ot the Falklands, but this would set a precedent fro many oither places, such as Greenland mentioned before, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Greek Islands of the coast of Asia Minor....the list goes on.
To end colonialisation. And the occupation or expulsion of people without their wish is not colonialisation?
As to the reference to Mauritius, your idea is that because Britain did some thing wrong forty years ago, they should do it agian just to suit Argentina. I've seen more sense coming out of a bull's arse! :dizzy2:
As far as I am concerned, Soulforged, I have torn up your arguments, bunrt it and pissed on the embers.

[ShadesPanther]

BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/01/99/1968_secret_history/244319.stm)

That link only proves that the British Government likes to backstab areas where people want to be British. Northern Ireland in 1940 or Gibraltar more recently are two examples. In all cases it was rejected so at least post WWII they ask the opinions of the people.

[Soulforged]

The first recorded, i.e the first with PROOF, landing took place in 1690 when Captain Strong landed there in 1690 and wrote that there were no know people living there. He also claims the Islands for the English Crown. In 1764, the French establish the first permanent settlement on East Falkland. A year later the Britsh establish a settlement on West Falkland. You do not even have the claim fo first settlement on the Islands. Ok, i already refuted this position. The discovery is uncertain an irrelevant, there're many positions and the discovery alone does not create perfect right. Occupation for a given time (analized exclusively for each case), when it's pacific and stable (things that didn't happen to the british because Spain act against them interrupting the time of effective occupation) creates perfect rights, i already refuted this position from the side of the English, that occupation never existed.
In 1767 Spain buys the French share. Three years later, a Spanish flottilla demands that the Britsh abandon West Falkland. The commander of the garrison refuses and the Spaniards sail aways. However they return with a stronger force which "persuades" the Britsh soldiers to evacuate the island. There are two views on this. Either you fully accept the right of conquest, in which case anyone who military holds the island has the right to it, or you view this as illegal, in which case, no matter what Britain still has the right ot at least one of the islands. Incorrect the French retire recognising the rights of Spain over all the lands. The british assume (with no reason) that the french settlement decreases the rights of Spain over the islands and occupate an island to the South, with a poor settlement and for little time, no pacific, nor lasting, and then the spanish take over them, appling their rights over the lands. They sign a treaty in wich they persuade the british to accept a returning to the status quo after the incident, the british accept, later they abandon the island, wich is presumed like a decrease on their intend to occupate them, thus renuncing to all rights they could have created if they stayed there. It's not a case of conquer, the island were spanish, Britain presumed incorrectly that they were occuping res nullius lands.
However, a British force resumes control of West Falkland afer threatening Spain with war a year later, in 1771. In 1774, they withdraw for economic reasons, but leave a plaque behind asserting continued authority. The british reasume control by a treaty of restitution and reparation (but not of granting a title) with Spain, both parts accept that the treaty does not decrease the better rights of Spain over the two islands. About the "symbols" it doesn't matter the objective situations are interpreted like a lack of intend to occupate the land, the posterior lack of protest confirms it. Besides the british doctrine sais that this "symbols" are inssuficient to materialize the intend of occupation, and even less effective occupation as someones presume.
In 1816 Argentina gains independance. ufff, again is not 1816, is 1810, one year lates Spain withdraws by order of the governor of Montevideo from the islands, and grants the rights to the succesor.
Now the cornerstone of your objective is this: Argentina, as a succesor state to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, inherits the rights of Spain over the Island. However, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia were also part of the afore said Viceroyalty. Does that mean they have a claim to it too? :furious3: read my post!! Not the principle of uti possidetis accepted by the international custom sais that the jurisdictions are inherated like the antecesor leaves them, so not.
In 1828, Argentinia sends colonists to colonize both islands. Again incorrect, it's 1820, but them make acts of jurisdiction over them since 1811 until that date, and following the law that's considered as claiming of rights, confirmation and as a replace for effective occupation.
This is illegal as West Falkland is still under British sovereignty. Is not illegal...illegal under what view?!!! Argentina had all the rights to them being the succesor to that jurisdiction, Britain accepted it and even signed treaties without protesting in any way!!! read the :furious3: posts.
It may be true that Britain did not protest, but since it did not have a settlement on any of the islands it would have been hard to find out without having been told by any of the whalers stopping there, and whose reports were probably not the first prority of His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies No it's truth, and confirmed many times. And i did say that british protested but not officially, the consul acting here protested (Woodbine Parish) but, first he allegated false proof and rights, and second the actitude of the official government was the contrary so it's irrelevant..
In 1831 the American ship destroys the settlement on East Falkland after three ships were arrested. This most certainly reported, and the Britsh reoccupy the Islands and expel the Argentinians without any bloodshed. The Argentinian physical involvement in the Isalnds lasted only a mere five years. Since 1833 there has been a continued presence of the British on the Falklands. Ok but you miss the fact that Argentina protested allegating better rights (with reason) thus keeping the conflict on, and breaking the political peace of the illegal domination of the british in the island. This protest has a caracter of undetermined lasting following the international juridic custom, so Argentina didn't need to involve in physical hostilities or protest over and over, just one formal official protest was enough.

When, in 1964, the situation was discussed at the U.N, where Argentina pressed its claims. These were as follows:
The Treaty of Tordesillas whereby the Pope declared that the new World to be shared between Spain and Portugal. However, Spain still exists therefore only it would have claim to only East Falkland. Again this is only a metion it had no juridic effects on the period and for instance it has no relevance for the discussion. Neither of the parts allegated them, and the did not based it's conclussion over them.
Geographic location. This is a very shaky claim, nto only because Chile would also have the right ot the Falklands, but this would set a precedent fro many oither places, such as Greenland mentioned before, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Greek Islands of the coast of Asia Minor....the list goes on. The geographic location is another mention, but this does have effects because it helps to stablish better rights over the lands, always considering the other arguments.
To end colonialisation. And the occupation or expulsion of people without their wish is not colonialisation? Yes what Britain did. And not is not colonization it's returning the land to it's rightful owner. This has been done even but Britain. But sure Britain can do it don't....ufff :dizzy2: .
As to the reference to Mauritius, your idea is that because Britain did some thing wrong forty years ago, they should do it agian just to suit Argentina. I've seen more sense coming out of a bull's arse! No. First Britain was about to give the lands to us as i showed it in the link in my previous post. Second this prooves only that the rights of selfdetermination of people loses terrain before the rights of national unity.

As for what i'm concerned you didn't read my previous posts. Allegated false statements and created rights where there aren't...well in short, the typical british imperial actitud. Maybe someday your country will evolve from barbarity. And maybe some day you'll present actual evidence that i didn't mention...god i even mentioned better evidence that the british could use and refuted them too. But please don't leave the disucussion let's see what more you can say. :dizzy2:

[econ21]

Maybe someday your country will evolve from barbarity.

I don't think insulting a country is an appropriate way of debating an issue, however strongly felt your views.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

So, just to clarify Soulforged-

-You don't believe that the islanders have the right to self-determination.
-You think the present inhabitants of the Falklands should be deported, and the islands given to Argentina.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just looking to clarify your perspective in my own head.

[Strike For The South]

Soul am i sensing some nationlism ~D

[Marcellus]

We don't want the people of Britain habitating the land we want them out, they'll stay british and we'll kept the islands. That's called a process of descolonization

Soulforged,

There are people living on the Falklands whose family has lived on the islands for five generations. They are no longer colonialists. They are inhabitants. To force them from the islands would not be ending imperialism. It would be imperialism: forcing people from their home for territorial gain.

Who do you think has a greater claim to the Falklands? The people who have lived there for five generations, or the people whose great-great grandparents were forced out of the islands well over a century ago and who have lived in Argentina ever since?

[Soulforged]

So, just to clarify Soulforged-

-You don't believe that the islanders have the right to self-determination.
-You think the present inhabitants of the Falklands should be deported, and the islands given to Argentina.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just looking to clarify your perspective in my own head.

Yes you're right. From a moral point of view i don't like the position, but it's the only one possible after all that Britain did. As the UN stated the government and the people of Britain cannot shield themselves behind the principle of selfdetermination when they were who colonizated the lands. So the principle don't applies. Besides it's not logic, you take a territory by force, don't create rights by conquest (because of what i've already stated), nor by adquisitive prescription, then you fill that territory with your own people, colonize it and deny all the rights to their rightful owners, take a position of intransicenge before the signed pacts and the better rights of the other part, make unilateral desicitions taking the higher ground that you cannot allegate, and then of course those people that colonized the lands say that they want to be british is understandable, but it's not right, those lands are part of our territory, we posses better rights, there's justificated precedents of descolonization even when there was no consulting to the wishes of the people, then for instance Britain should do what they promised to de UN in the resolutions and descolonize the lands forever, the violence must stop at some point also the states of illicitud, we wont take any hostile position any more, but Britain must recognize our best position and give bakc our lands like they did it with other lands.

Btw: Is not only me is the accorded by both state parts and the judge (the UN). This should have been solved by pacific means but two things occured: first the british made those unilateral decisions and took an intrasigent position on this matter, second our government by fact made another unilateral decision and send argentinians to die in those lands for internal political reasons. This has empoverish the sitution, and perhaps the matter will never be solved, but i hope that it's.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged,

There are people living on the Falklands whose family has lived on the islands for five generations. They are no longer colonialists. They are inhabitants. To force them from the islands would not be ending imperialism. It would be imperialism: forcing people from their home for territorial gain.

Who do you think has a greater claim to the Falklands? The people who have lived there for five generations, or the people whose great-great grandparents were forced out of the islands well over a century ago and who have lived in Argentina ever since?

Yes that right exists, i'm not denying it, but precedents exist in favour of Britain, so it could be the same with us. As i've stated the case of the Sahara zone and the case of Mauricio is a perfect example of what i'm talking about.

[Marcellus]

those lands are part of our territory,

Err...they're not. And they haven't been part of your territory for well over a century.

By the way, what UN resolution are you referring to? Just asking.

And could you just fill me in with a few of the basics of the cases you are talking about (Mauricio/sahara zone)

[King Henry V]

Ok, i already refuted this position. The discovery is uncertain an irrelevant, there're many positions and the discovery alone does not create perfect right. Occupation for a given time (analized exclusively for each case), when it's pacific and stable (things that didn't happen to the british because Spain act against them interrupting the time of effective occupation) creates perfect rights, i already refuted this position from the side of the English, that occupation never existed.
I was talking about Strong physically landing on the Island and claiming the Islands for the Crown, not discovering, which is still disputed. Since the rules of the time were if you first claimed a land, that land was yours, this means that England had the orignial rights over the Falklands.


Incorrect the French retire recognising the rights of Spain over all the lands. The british assume (with no reason) that the french settlement decreases the rights of Spain over the islands and occupate an island to the South, with a poor settlement and for little time, no pacific, nor lasting, and then the spanish take over them, appling their rights over the lands. They sign a treaty in wich they persuade the british to accept a returning to the status quo after the incident, the british accept, later they abandon the island, wich is presumed like a decrease on their intend to occupate them, thus renuncing to all rights they could have created if they stayed there. It's not a case of conquer, the island were spanish, Britain presumed incorrectly that they were occuping res nullius lands.
From four sources I have read that France sold its fishing station to Spain. Somehow you have declared yourself all-knowing and freely declare things to be untrue or simply come out with things I have never heard of before. As I said before, the Islands were English as they were the ones to first claim it, therefore the legal owners of both isles.


ufff, again is not 1816, is 1810, one year lates Spain withdraws by order of the governor of Montevideo from the islands, and grants the rights to the succesor.
Again, from several sources I have read that Argentinia formally gained independance in 1816.


Not the principle of uti possidetis accepted by the international custom sais that the jurisdictions are inherated like the antecesor leaves them, so not.
So that means that America has the rights over Canada, because they were the first "succesor state" in that region when they became independant.


Again incorrect, it's 1820, but them make acts of jurisdiction over them since 1811 until that date, and following the law that's considered as claiming of rights, confirmation and as a replace for effective occupation.
Argentina first proclaims sovereingty over the Islands in 1820(only in 1828 does it send a governor and real people), four years after it becomes independant. That means it was not being governed from Buenos Aires at the time of independance, and therefore loses the "right" as a succesor state.


Is not illegal...illegal under what view?!!! Argentina had all the rights to them being the succesor to that jurisdiction, Britain accepted it and even signed treaties without protesting in any way!!!
It did not have all the rights because as I said before, England first claimed the Islands.


Yes what Britain did. And not is not colonization it's returning the land to it's rightful owner. This has been done even but Britain. But sure Britain can do it don't....ufff .
Governing a people without their agreement IS colonialisation.


No. First Britain was about to give the lands to us as i showed it in the link in my previous post. Second this prooves only that the rights of selfdetermination of people loses terrain before the rights of national unity.
Certain politicians in the British government of the time had plans to hand over the Islands to Argentina. However, they stopped when they saw the hostility of the islanders to the plans and the huge political consequences it would entail. I cannot see how this prooves that selfdetermination is less important than national unity.



As for what i'm concerned you didn't read my previous posts. Allegated false statements and created rights where there aren't...well in short, the typical british imperial actitud. Maybe someday your country will evolve from barbarity. And maybe some day you'll present actual evidence that i didn't mention...god i even mentioned better evidence that the british could use and refuted them too. But please don't leave the disucussion let's see what more you can say.
I did in fact labour through your previous posts and thought exactly what you said they were: doctrine, or official body of teachings propogated by the State. These I consider to be inherintely biased, therefore discountable.
You say that maybe I will come up with some real evidence. What sheer hypocracy! In the all the posts you have made, you have proclaimed certain rules, such as successor states and national unity taking precendence over self determination (which is especial carp as they are no Argentinians in the Falklands, and it is not physically part of Argentina, so it is not part of the Argintinian nation) and only certain conditions of occupation gives rights to a country which I have never in my entire life heard before anywhere, and you also proclaim things to be false simply because you do not agree with them.
Your case is extremely weak. Your saying that people who have lived on the islands for 172 years be removed from their homes just because some Argentinians lived there fro FIVE YEARS (1828-1833).
Let's face it. Your going on about this because the Argentinian soldiers weren't good enoguh to do their job properly.

[Slyspy]

If it were not for French missiles and barely adequate air defence then the whole thing would have been alot less bloody.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

If we'd had a proper fleet carrier it wouldn't have happened in the first place.

[Slyspy]

Nice to see we still haven't learnt. Further good news - the ever dependable Harriers are to be phased out. What joy. In fact we have two carriers sat here in Portsmouth right now. At least one of them is being decommisioned.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

the ever dependable Harriers are to be phased out.

Aren't they being replaced with the CTVL version of the Joint Strike Fighter? I thought we were buying them from the US.

I think we're actually getting some decent sized carriers too, though knowing the MoD that'll go tits up too, with spiralling costs and either the carrier or its air wing arriving 2 years late.

[sharrukin]

If it were not for French missiles and barely adequate air defence then the whole thing would have been alot less bloody.

Not to mention the Argentinians having Blowpipe and Tigercat SAM's, the British type 42 destroyers and a British aircraft carrier by way of the Netherlands.

[ShadesPanther]

Yes but they aren't going to be ready in time as they are too heavy. So The carriers will have Air Force Ground support Harriers instead

and BKS I think I read that the carriers are going to be late and it looks like the air wing will be later. You just gotta love the unofficial British ethos. "Always the hard way" ~;)

[Slyspy]

Not to mention the Argentinians having Blowpipe and Tigercat SAM's, the British type 42 destroyers and a British aircraft carrier by way of the Netherlands.

Thats no big deal - it was the Argentine planes that did the damage to the British ships. Anyway after the Belgrano incident the Argentine navy became very, very cautious.

As for our new ships and planes don't get me started. They will be late, overbudget and barely functional just like anything made under contract to the MoD. They certainly will not be ready to fill the gaps left by the decommisioning of the old hardware.

[Soulforged]

Err...they're not. And they haven't been part of your territory for well over a century.

It doesn't matter the better tiltle is not lost by this, as i already said.


By the way, what UN resolution are you referring to? Just asking.

And could you just fill me in with a few of the basics of the cases you are talking about (Mauricio/sahara zone)

Look at my two big previous posts. The one about british position has all you're asking for. Though the case of Mauricio you'll have to investigate a little by yourself.


I was talking about Strong physically landing on the Island and claiming the Islands for the Crown, not discovering, which is still disputed. Since the rules of the time were if you first claimed a land, that land was yours, this means that England had the orignial rights over the Falklands.

Again is irrelevant it never created perfect rights. You say that readed my post, i think that you didn't or you didn't understand it.


From four sources I have read that France sold its fishing station to Spain. Somehow you have declared yourself all-knowing and freely declare things to be untrue or simply come out with things I have never heard of before. As I said before, the Islands were English as they were the ones to first claim it, therefore the legal owners of both isles.

I've not declared myself all knowing. The british government challenged the argentinian government to present a better title before the international community. They did presenting those arguments (of course with more detail) in the International Court, the allegate was called "Alegato Ruda". And the UN accepted, you seem very headstrong. The claim was refuted in my previous posts that you continue to ignore in every response you give, my arguments were based on science, your arguments in ignorance.


Again, from several sources I have read that Argentinia formally gained independance in 1816.

Formally some countries recognised us as independent and emancipated later and others sooner, but the date to us is 1810 with the May Revolution to the formal date with the declaration on 9 of july of 1816. So the material emancipation was on the 25 of may of 1810, one year later all spanish dominion was erased. UK recognised us as independent in 1823, formally. You've to consider the material emancipation for law effects and territory emancipation.


So that means that America has the rights over Canada, because they were the first "succesor state" in that region when they became independant.

I don't know why don't you ask them? Anyway, i'll not answer this again. I took my time writing my arguments in full before, take your time for read them.


Argentina first proclaims sovereingty over the Islands in 1820(only in 1828 does it send a governor and real people), four years after it becomes independant. That means it was not being governed from Buenos Aires at the time of independance, and therefore loses the "right" as a succesor state.

Yes you didn't read my post. I'll repeat this one more time, let's hope you understand it. The jurisprudence (part of the law conformed by the custom on the sentences) admits jurisdictional acts as a substitute of efective occupation to create perfect rights Argentina did it since 1820, and in 1828 it named a governor. This creates rights because England didn't exercised nothing in that period too, so for a time the island may have become res nullius (without king, without owner), but that will be a way to see it. Wheter you see it as res nullius or not, it's irrelevant. And the UPRP never loses the right to seccesor state, they may lose the rights over certain lands but not that right, though they didn't lose any rights.


It did not have all the rights because as I said before, England first claimed the Islands.

Of what you said before!!! Read my :furious3: post your people didn't have any rights OKKKKK.... you're creating them from facts that didn't exist, others that are unprooved and others that are irrelevant (AND BOTH PARTS CONSIDERED THEM IRRELEVANT).


Governing a people without their agreement IS colonialisation.

You're trying to state this as something wrong. Ok then why don't you speek of the case of Mauricio or the many others colonizated islands that Britain had for so many time. God don't you see that the Malvinas were colonizated!! This point is not even logic.


Certain politicians in the British government of the time had plans to hand over the Islands to Argentina. However, they stopped when they saw the hostility of the islanders to the plans and the huge political consequences it would entail. I cannot see how this prooves that selfdetermination is less important than national unity.

Of course that this prooves, it prooves that they're willing to pass over the selfdetermination. But please if you consider that the british are superior, or you didn't read about the case of Mauricio, then do it.


I did in fact labour through your previous posts and thought exactly what you said they were: doctrine, or official body of teachings propogated by the State. These I consider to be inherintely biased, therefore discountable. Ohhh... i see now you're the all knowing, how can you say that they're inherentely biased if you didn't look for other sources, your arguments are pure delirant and blanket statements.
You say that maybe I will come up with some real evidence. What sheer hypocracy! In the all the posts you have made, you have proclaimed certain rules, such as successor states and national unity taking precendence over self determination (which is especial carp as they are no Argentinians in the Falklands, and it is not physically part of Argentina, so it is not part of the Argintinian nation) and only certain conditions of occupation gives rights to a country which I have never in my entire life heard before anywhere, and you also proclaim things to be false simply because you do not agree with them. The succesor state is a principle aplicated all along before the decolonization of America, existing in the time of the events, the principle of united nationality applies to any nation that can claim better rights over other territories, as Argentina prooved to the UN in 1964. Is you want to investigate on it, then do it, please don't let me stop you. I'm not believing they're false, they're false for certain and i've stated and prooved it in my previous to big post that you didn't read.

Your case is extremely weak. Your saying that people who have lived on the islands for 172 years be removed from their homes just because some Argentinians lived there fro FIVE YEARS (1828-1833). Not because we've better rights tha ironically your own government didn't respect, this is a question of rights not of morality. Further more the resolution number 1514 of the UN was created to stablish the principle of selfdetermination of the people, but hear this is really funny (i think you will laugh): The principle was created to defend the rights of those people living in colonizated lands, so it would not be right to let the colonizer take advantege of it (LOL- This was said by the same UN that you enforce), so where is your selfdetermination now.
Let's face it. Your going on about this because the Argentinian soldiers weren't good enoguh to do their job properly. As this was an insult i'll try to respond with coherence. The war was forced upon us by our despotic government. But you received the help of Chile and USA, we were alone, with not logistic or armamentistic support, come here and say to our soldiers that they weren't good enough or go to one of the tombs in the islands. Please if you don't have arguments then simply don't post anything. This final post shows me that many of your people are really imperialist, you reduce all to war and colonization, but i understand you, it must be really difficult when you don't have a single argument to claim better rights on your side.

[Ser Clegane]

:stop:

At all participants in this thread:

I noted that this debate is becoming incresaingly personal.

Please keep the debate civilized.

Thanks for your attention :bow:

[Marcellus]

OK I looked at some of the resolutions you referred to.

Firstly, you referred to a 1965 resolution, number 1514 (XX). I couldn't find this, I assume you're talking about the 1960 resolution 1514 (XV), calling for the end of 'the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation', stating that 'all peoples have a right to self-determination'. Clearly this resolution rests with Britain, not Argentina. It states that the people of the Falklands islands have a right to self-determination, which they do: they choose to remain British. If Argentina were to own the islands, then this would clearly be against the self-determination the UN resolution called for.

Also, it's important to remember that much of the running of the islands is done by Falkland Islanders. Britain only controls defence (providing the people with protection) and foreign reprsentation.


On to the cases of the Sahara zone and Mauricio. 'Sahara Zone' isn't too specific: do you mean the country/area of western sahara?

When I searched for 'Mauricio' I found things about music, a Brazilian official and cycling: did you mean Mauritius, the island in the Indian ocean that was granted independence from Britain in 1968, because its people wanted to be independent?

Finally, I think you mentioned the case of Diego Garcia. What Britain did in Diego Garcia was appalling, and I am very disappointed in my Government for what happpened. Britain went against the principle of self-determination, which was wrong. However, this does not really affect the principle of self-determination in the Falkland islands: the islanders want to be British, so they are.



God don't you see that the Malvinas were colonizated!!

The key word here is were. They were colonised centuries ago. But as I have already stated, they are no longer colonialists: they are inhabitants; residents. They have lived there all their life. Whether it was right for their great-great grandparents to have moved to the islands is now irrelevant: these people are Falklanders.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The war was forced upon us by our despotic government. But you received the help of Chile and USA, we were alone, with not logistic or armamentistic support, come here and say to our soldiers that they weren't good enough or go to one of the tombs in the islands. This final post shows me that many of your people are really imperialist, you reduce all to war and colonization, but i understand you, it must be really difficult when you don't have a single argument to claim better rights on your side.Oh, but they do have an argument.
To quote a classic, the Falklands were granted to Britain in 1982 by 'the hand of God...' :rolleyes:

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]OK I looked at some of the resolutions you referred to.

Firstly, you referred to a 1965 resolution, number 1514 (XX). I couldn't find this, I assume you're talking about the 1960 resolution 1514 (XV), calling for the end of 'the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation', stating that 'all peoples have a right to self-determination'. Clearly this resolution rests with Britain, not Argentina. It states that the people of the Falklands islands have a right to self-determination, which they do: they choose to remain British. If Argentina were to own the islands, then this would clearly be against the self-determination the UN resolution called for.

Incorrect see the sentence on the case "Ruda Allegate" presented before the International Court in 1964.


Also, it's important to remember that much of the running of the islands is done by Falkland Islanders. Britain only controls defence (providing the people with protection) and foreign reprsentation.

No it's not important because we're talking about juridic arguments and this are considered juridictions of Britain.


On to the cases of the Sahara zone and Mauricio. 'Sahara Zone' isn't too specific: do you mean the country/area of western sahara?
I mean the case when the UN fails in favour of Marroco and grants them the power over the territory of Ifny.


When I searched for 'Mauricio' I found things about music, a Brazilian official and cycling: did you mean Mauritius, the island in the Indian ocean that was granted independence from Britain in 1968, because its people wanted to be independent?
Of course they wanted to be independent that's the whole point. First Britain doesn't do what they promised, descolonizate, second they borrow the island for fifty years to USA, and then they just evacuate the population with out asking "for selfdetermination of the people".


Finally, I think you mentioned the case of Diego Garcia. What Britain did in Diego Garcia was appalling, and I am very disappointed in my Government for what happpened. Britain went against the principle of self-determination, which was wrong. However, this does not really affect the principle of self-determination in the Falkland islands: the islanders want to be British, so they are.
Ohhh...but it affects it. It's another precedent (besides the case of Sahara) that shows that principle is not absolute and must detract before the principle of national unity. Also i've corrected you in your first statement in this point. If you real the sentence you'll notice that the UN fails in favour of Argentina because they consider that the principle of free determination was created to help achieve unity and freedom to the colonizated lands, like Malvianas. So they cannot let Britain apply it to one of their colonizated lands, it wouldn't be logic. But Britain never respected it even when they started all and begun the challenge to present arguments before the international community, now they shield themselves behind a principle that doesn't apply.


The key word here is were. They were colonised centuries ago. But as I have already stated, they are no longer colonialists: they are inhabitants; residents. They have lived there all their life. Whether it was right for their great-great grandparents to have moved to the islands is now irrelevant: these people are Falklanders.
The principle doesn't apply sentence of the UN. Besides what is colonizated is the land, it doesn't matter who occupates them.

[Marcellus]

Incorrect see the sentence on the case "Ruda Allegate" presented before the International Court in 1964.

Hmm. First I searched for 'Ruda Allegate' on Google but I found no relevant English-language webpages. Then I checked on the International Court of Justice's website (Link (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm)) (I assume this is the international court you are talking about), but I couldn't find this case (there weren't any cases at all in 1964 actually). In fact, the only case between Argentina and the UK I could find was concerning Antarctica. Could you post a link to any information you have about this supposed case?


No it's not important because we're talking about juridic arguments and this are considered juridictions of Britain.

I'm simply pointing out the fact that not only can the islanders choose which country they want belong to, but they can also self-determine a lot of domestic decisions as well: they currently have a great deal of self-determination.



I mean the case when the UN fails in favour of Marroco and grants them the power over the territory of Ifny.

Could you give me the resolution number? It's just that it's rather hard to track down a specific resolution out of several thousand.


Of course they wanted to be independent that's the whole point. First Britain doesn't do what they promised, descolonizate, second they borrow the island for fifty years to USA, and then they just evacuate the population with out asking "for selfdetermination of the people".

OK, Mauritius was granted independence in 1968 when it became clear that this is what the people wanted (and it was granted home rule in 1947). I assume here that you are talking about Diego Garcia, in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian ocean. See below.


Ohhh...but it affects it. It's another precedent (besides the case of Sahara) that shows that principle is not absolute and must detract before the principle of national unity. Also i've corrected you in your first statement in this point.

The principle of self-determination still stands. In the case of Diego Garcia the British Government ignored this principle, and were, as I have stated, very wrong to do so. As for 'national unity' - which I assume means the preservation of a nation's territory - Britain has held the Falklands for around 170 years - they are Britain's territory (although the principle of self-determination is still more important).


If you real the sentence you'll notice that the UN fails in favour of Argentina because they consider that the principle of free determination was created to help achieve unity and freedom to the colonizated lands, like Malvianas.

Just how would Argentina owning a state that did want to be owned by Argentina and that would resist Argentinian culture create 'Unity and freedom' exactly?

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Hmm. First I searched for 'Ruda Allegate' on Google but I found no relevant English-language webpages. Then I checked on the International Court of Justice's website (Link (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm)) (I assume this is the international court you are talking about), but I couldn't find this case (there weren't any cases at all in 1964 actually). In fact, the only case between Argentina and the UK I could find was concerning Antarctica. Could you post a link to any information you have about this supposed case?

The link is in one of my big posts (but in spanish). The case was treated by the Sub Comitee III of the UN in 1964, this Sub Comitee was created only for control of the aplication of the resolution 1514.The result was the resolution 2065 (XX) on 1965, wich restablish the conflict between both parts, the UN declared that both parts resolved the conflict pacifically. But before you answer me, if you read my final part on the second big post you'll notice that Britain disrespected this resolution taking unilateral decisions, that authorizes the other part to take means of force.


Could you give me the resolution number? It's just that it's rather hard to track down a specific resolution out of several thousand.
The consultative opinion on the matter of the Sahara was petitioned on 1975 before the General Asambly by the resolution 3292 (XXIX). There's no mention of the resolution as a result, but you can find the sentence.


OK, Mauritius was granted independence in 1968 when it became clear that this is what the people wanted (and it was granted home rule in 1947). I assume here that you are talking about Diego Garcia, in the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian ocean. See below.

Yes when i readed your post i noticed that you were refering later to the case.


The principle of self-determination still stands. In the case of Diego Garcia the British Government ignored this principle, and were, as I have stated, very wrong to do so. As for 'national unity' - which I assume means the preservation of a nation's territory - Britain has held the Falklands for around 170 years - they are Britain's territory (although the principle of self-determination is still more important). Again wrong. We're trying to stablish better rights: more prooves more rights. Until now Britain didn't proove anything, that's why the UN failed in our favour in 1964. You may occupate a territory but a single protest from an official source with rights to reclaim the territory interrupts the pacific occupation wich creates perfect rights over the lands, things that didn't happened on the case of Britain.


Just how would Argentina owning a state that did want to be owned by Argentina and that would resist Argentinian culture create 'Unity and freedom' exactly? You must understand first that the discussion about rights is related with laws not sentimentalism or morality. Second this is a matter of territory, like Britain did in the case of Mauritius they can do here, evacuate the land and give it to us, simple (of course simple in matters of law, the people will still feel sick), it's not a matter of the people occupating them, specially because the principle of selfdetermination doesn't applies. Third as Argentina haves better title/rights over the islands, giving them to us will complete our national territory, that's unity. Fourth the word freedom refers specifically to the colonizated lands still inhabitated for people that should be independent, it's not our case, but it's irrelevant because Britain cannot hold those lands under that principle.

[Marcellus]

The link is in one of my big posts (but in spanish). The case was treated by the Sub Comitee III of the UN in 1964, this Sub Comitee was created only for control of the aplication of the resolution 1514.The result was the resolution 2065 (XX) on 1965, wich restablish the conflict between both parts, the UN declared that both parts resolved the conflict pacifically. But before you answer me, if you read my final part on the second big post you'll notice that Britain disrespected this resolution taking unilateral decisions, that authorizes the other part to take means of force.

Resolution 2065 simply called for negotiations. It did not call for power sharing. The fact that Britain still decided to make decisions regarding the Falklands hardly gives Argentina the right to invade.


The consultative opinion on the matter of the Sahara was petitioned on 1975 before the General Asambly by the resolution 3292 (XXIX). There's no mention of the resolution as a result, but you can find the sentence.

Here's a summary of the verdict:


The materials and information presented to the Court show the existence, at the time of Spanish colonization, of legal ties of allegiance between the Sultan of Morocco and some of the tribes living in the territory of Western Sahara. They equally show the existence of rights, including some rights relating to the land, which constituted legal ties between the Mauritanian entity, as understood by the Court, and the territory of Western Sahara. On the other hand, the Court's conclusion is that the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity. Thus the Court has not found legal ties of such a nature as might affect the application of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in the decolonization of Western Sahara and, in particular, of the principle of self-determination through the free and genuine expression of the will of the peoples of the Territory.

This says that the people of Western Sahara have the right to self-determination as provided under resolution 1514. Applying this to the Falklands, the islanders have the right to decide how they want to be governed (and they choose to be a British Overseas territory).


You must understand first that the discussion about rights is related with laws not sentimentalism or morality. Second this is a matter of territory, like Britain did in the case of Mauritius they can do here, evacuate the land and give it to us, simple (of course simple in matters of law, the people will still feel sick), it's not a matter of the people occupating them, specially because the principle of selfdetermination doesn't applies. Third as Argentina haves better title/rights over the islands, giving them to us will complete our national territory, that's unity. Fourth the word freedom refers specifically to the colonizated lands still inhabitated for people that should be independent, it's not our case, but it's irrelevant because Britain cannot hold those lands under that principle.

OK, firstly, laws are based on morals. And one moral (and indeed law) is that of the self-determination of people.

Secondly, you mean Diego Garcia. Again I repeat, what happened in Diego Garcia was wrong. We should have not removed the people of the islands.

Thirdly, the Falklands have been our territory for 170 years. Before that we had various rights over the islands, along with Argentina. This period is so long that the Falklands are regarded as part of our territory. To give the Falklands away would be damaging our national unity.

Fourthly, the people of the Falklands should have the right to be independent: to choose who they are governed by: wholly themselves, Argentina or Britain. They choose Britain.

[Soulforged]

Resolution 2065 simply called for negotiations. It did not call for power sharing. The fact that Britain still decided to make decisions regarding the Falklands hardly gives Argentina the right to invade.

Yes it does. Later in the same resolution and in the 3160 (XXVIII) the UN sais to the parts that the conflict must be resolved quickly, with Britain never does, and both of the parts must no take unilateral decisions. Britain took two registered unilateral decissions: on 1975 and on 1979 until 1980, Argentina did not, in fact before the war we gave an ultimatum because the british disrespected the resolutions and opted for freezing the case for 25 years!!



This says that the people of Western Sahara have the right to self-determination as provided under resolution 1514. Applying this to the Falklands, the islanders have the right to decide how they want to be governed (and they choose to be a British Overseas territory).

The principle cannot be applied, again it has been determinated to the use of colonizated lands. And yes it applied the free determination in that case but also they granted the territory of Ifny to Marroco, thus failing in that case against the Sahara. Look at the resolutions 2354 (XXII) and 2428 (XXIII) of the General Assambly, since that moment the territory of Ifny never was never mentioned again as possesion of Sahara or Mauritania, but like a territory of Marroco.



OK, firstly, laws are based on morals. And one moral (and indeed law) is that of the self-determination of people.

Your system perhaps, but study it, the moral is a different thing from rights, they're related but only in exceptional cases the moral has effects on juridic opinions. I admit it this can be one of them, but for the analisys it's best to keep them separated.


Secondly, you mean Diego Garcia. Again I repeat, what happened in Diego Garcia was wrong. We should have not removed the people of the islands.
Yes but your governement did, that sets a precedent that could be applied again.

Thirdly, the Falklands have been our territory for 170 years. Before that we had various rights over the islands, along with Argentina. This period is so long that the Falklands are regarded as part of our territory. To give the Falklands away would be damaging our national unity. You've no rights over the lands, again nothing has been prooved, the british occupation of them is still illegal. And it's not national unity because it's colonizated territory.


Fourthly, the people of the Falklands should have the right to be independent: to choose who they are governed by: wholly themselves, Argentina or Britain. They choose Britain.
Wrong the people occupating the lands are already british the UN cannot apply that principle over them because the territory is colonizated, so they don't have any rights.

[Slyspy]

Here is the final analysis: The Falklands have been in British hands for about 170 years. Its population would rather be British than anything else, especially Argentinian. Britain won the Falklands War. Despite what the Argentines may say there is no international pressure on Britain to hand the Islands over to Argentina, especially when it would be counter to the principle of self-detirmination. We have already dishonoured that once but are not going to let it happen again in the Falklands (anyway the Government that did would be out on its ear and have no friends in the Armed Forces). To take over the Falklands and displace the British population would make Argentinia a pariah and show that mis-governance continues to be the rule in South America.

I should add a note to say that to the British the issue is not about the land, which we care little about really, but the people. To view this only as a legal and geographical issue is ammoral.

[Soulforged]

Here is the final analysis: The Falklands have been in British hands for about 170 years. Its population would rather be British than anything else, especially Argentinian. Britain won the Falklands War. Despite what the Argentines may say there is no international pressure on Britain to hand the Islands over to Argentina, especially when it would be counter to the principle of self-detirmination. We have already dishonoured that once but are not going to let it happen again in the Falklands (anyway the Government that did would be out on its ear and have no friends in the Armed Forces). To take over the Falklands and displace the British population would make Argentinia a pariah and show that mis-governance continues to be the rule in South America.

I should add a note to say that to the British the issue is not about the land, which we care little about really, but the people. To view this only as a legal and geographical issue is ammoral.

All that you said is wrong, but anyway very little of what i said in my posts has been readed by the ones like you. You've no idea of what you're talking about, the principle of selfdetermination of the people doesn't apply, and if the war was justificated confirmed in some sentences of the UN, then this doesn't change anything. Britain must do what they promised to the international community and specially to us and deliver the lands, doesn't matter what are the means. And you insulted my country: how do you know that the people doesn't want to belong to Argentina specially? I prefer to live here and not in a country where i've to bow before a queen or be all the time paranoic because i can be attacked by some terrorist. Any way that expression is stupid by itself i don't have to justify it. For what i'm concerned the powerful countries have showed a higher standard of corruption that those of the third world. Anyway Argentina has better rights, that's why before the International Community we're the owners. Period, if the land will be occupated by us sometime or not, i can't say but that's the right thing to do.

I should add another note: see what's the definition of morality, because you're a little confused. The relationship between people (society in general and of course between nations) are ruled for the law, the way that you may carry your personal life is morality, it doesn't create rights and has exceptional effects on reality.

[Papewaio]

If you had better claims to it then the UN would have done more then ask the parties to talk about it.

Also when Argentina attacked the Falklands the International Community supported the British.

Argentina lost that war of aggression.

The last time Argentinan's had people on the Falkland Islands was over 170 years ago in a time period when colonial lands went back and forth between the European powers.

Britian cannot now say who owns Australia any better then Spain can say who owns the Falklands.

The final say is with the people of the Falklands.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

how do you know that the people doesn't want to belong to Argentina specially?

Well, the islanders hardly seen thrilled when they were forcibly occupied by said country...

I really can't quite understand why you can't accept self-determination. The policy you are advocating-forcible removal of Falklanders who were born on the islands, and whose families have lived there for generations-seems to be no different to the imperialism you decry.

Surely the same logic would dictate Argentina being given back to Spain?

[Soulforged]

No you all are missing the problem here. The selfdermiantion of the people is protected by a principle. The UN declared on their review of the 1514 resolution, before the Allegate Ruda, presented by Argentina, that this principle shouldn't be applied in favour of the colonists, because it was created in favour of the colonizated!! If the principle don't applies then there's no excuse to freeze the case for 25 years, there's no excuse to shield behind.

[Papewaio]

How can the UN make a ruling based on a situation that happen over a hundred years before its inception?

Most rules of law are not retroactive, nor does the UN even count as a legal body in the sense of making laws that can be enforced. They are a negotiating body, if the parties do not agree then it would require armed intervention by the UN to force the issue.

[Soulforged]

How can the UN make a ruling based on a situation that happen over a hundred years before its inception?

Most rules of law are not retroactive, nor does the UN even count as a legal body in the sense of making laws that can be enforced. They are a negotiating body, if the parties do not agree then it would require armed intervention by the UN to force the issue.

Right but there's something called International Law (here called "Derecho Internacional Público") wich colects all the custom and stablish statutes and importance of the statutes. This is what the UN applies. And for this custom and statutes, surged by science and real relationships, somethings are recognised, like for example the doctrine or the juridic custom stating that the principle only applies in cases of lands in course of emancipation from colonization, that's where it comes from. The International Court functions like all courts and it has the power to coerce as any given Court, of course this power is disrespected by the powerful, but others have to bow.

[Papewaio]

Resolution 2065 called upon Britain and Argentina to "proceed without delay with negotiations ... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem ... bearing in mind ... the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).

Bearing in mind the interests of the population... so don't they get the final say?

[Papewaio]

In the United Nations itself, it is recognized that such disputes are best handled by direct
negotiations by the principal disputants under the auspices of the Secretary-General. When such a
process is under way, the Committee of 24 generally takes no substantive action.
In the case of Falklands (Malvinas) in 1994 the Committee of 24 adopted a decision
reiterating that "the way to put an end to the special and particular colonial situation" is "negotiated
settlement of the dispute over sovereignty". It also reiterated its support for the good offices of the
Secretary-General (A/49/23 (Part VIII)). In the case of the Falklands (Malvinas), the General
Assembly has not passed a resolution since 1988 (resolution 43/25). That resolution contained no
direction to States not to deal with the United Kingdom. In the absence of such direction, States deal
with the relevant administration in control, including in relation to its resources. And this is the
case, whatever the eventual resolution of the sovereignty dispute may turn out to be.


A/RES/43/25
54th plenary meeting
7 November 1988

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

The General Assembly,

Having considered the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and
having received the report of the Secretary-General,

Aware of the interest of the international community in the peaceful and
definitive settlement by the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of all their differences, in accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations,

Taking note of the interest repeatedly expressed by both parties in
normalizing their relations,

Convinced that such purpose would be facilitated by a global negotiation
between both Governments that will allow them to rebuild mutual confidence on
a solid basis and to resolve the pending problems, including all aspects on
the future of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

1. Reiterates its request to the Governments of Argentina and the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to initiate negotiations
with a view to finding the means to resolve peacefully and definitively the
problems pending between both countries, including all aspects on the future
of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), in accordance with the Charter of the
United Nations;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his renewed mission of
good offices in order to assist the parties in complying with the request made
in paragraph 1 above, and to take the necessary measures to that end;

3. Requests the Secretary-General to submit to the General Assembly at
its forty-fourth session a report on the progress made in the implementation
of the present resolution;

4. Decides to include in the provisional agenda of its forty-fourth
session the item entitled "Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)".


All the UN and ICJ have done is said that Argentina and the UK should talk about sovereignty of the Islands, they do not say who has ownership of them.

[Soulforged]

All the UN and ICJ have done is said that Argentina and the UK should talk about sovereignty of the Islands, they do not say who has ownership of them.

Let's see if we understand each other: the UN failed in favour of Argentina..why? Because until 1964 the international community very rarely recognised the rights of Argentina over the islands. Argentina presented the arguments, the british too (and i posted a refutation of each one of their points that until now, nobody has counter refuted), but the UN made the state of conflict arise again, that was the victory of us. The better rights should have moved the british from the islands, but they denied all. The victory is implicit on the resolution, the best part is when they deny the british all rights to shield themselves behind the selfdetermination, and as all the other possible arguments were refuted, then only Argentina has better rights to the islands. So just to begin the conflict again an state to both parts that this should be resolved it quickly it's sufficient to make the british go away, but they didn't, ever...They contemplated this possibility (the right one) but decided finally to freeze the case for another 25 years, and then probably they'll do the same for another 50...

[Duke of Gloucester]

Soulforged, aren't you confusing the International Court which makes rulings on international law with the General Assembly of the United Nations, which passes resolutions based on the opinions of the nations of the world?

As I see it, you can argue that previous decisions of the International Court can be taken to indicate that Argtentina has a strong case for owner ship of the Falklands/Malvinas, but you cannot claim that according to international law Argentina owns the Islands because the Court has not come to a decision on the Falklands case. None of the cases where a desision has been made is exactly parallel.

I also do not follow the logic that says a GA resolution requesting both sides to come to an agreement means that one side has a stronger claim. Surely if one side obviously has a stronger claim the resolution would indicate that. Neither does it make sense to blame one side for the failure to come to an agreement. To state that Britain caused the invasion is perverse.

[Soulforged]

Soulforged, aren't you confusing the International Court which makes rulings on international law with the General Assembly of the United Nations, which passes resolutions based on the opinions of the nations of the world?
Not i'm not confusing them, though in many of my posts it may seem like it.


As I see it, you can argue that previous decisions of the International Court can be taken to indicate that Argtentina has a strong case for owner ship of the Falklands/Malvinas, but you cannot claim that according to international law Argentina owns the Islands because the Court has not come to a decision on the Falklands case. None of the cases where a desision has been made is exactly parallel.
Well Argentina has an strong case, that's why the conflict was lighted again. Nor the International Court has come to a decision, but as i see you understood it, it's like this: you've stablished precedents that can be applied to the case, the Sub Comitee III had turn down the argument of the selfdetermination of the people in the case of Britain, and the statutes and principles that i already sitted (succession of states, res nullius, uti possidetis) are in our favour.

I also do not follow the logic that says a GA resolution requesting both sides to come to an agreement means that one side has a stronger claim. Surely if one side obviously has a stronger claim the resolution would indicate that. Neither does it make sense to blame one side for the failure to come to an agreement. To state that Britain caused the invasion is perverse.
That's my whole point Argentina has best claim to the islands, so the reset of the conflict had put all in our favour. And it's not perverse Duke, look i'm not justifing the damn war, but what other thing should have the government do? Stay and wait another 25 years, and maybe then expect for the mercy of Britain, specially when they didn't respected our position and the signed treaties, and took unilateral decisions...please. In the case nobody has the hands without blood. Finally i apolagize for any offense towards Great Britain, though i still consider them imperialist, seeing that no one readed my two big post that so much work meant to me turned me furious, but some of the british people entering the discussion also insulted my opinions without arguments and insulted my land and the soldiers that fought on the war.

[Marcellus]

Let's see if we understand each other: the UN failed in favour of Argentina

No it didn't. The UN has never said who should own the Falkland Islands. All the UN has asked the UK and Argentina to do was to hold negotiatians over an issue. It's what they do: when there is a dispute, they ask the sides to talk. But you can sort of imagine how the negotiatians went:

Argentina: Give us the Falklands.

Britain: No.

With such opposing positions, it's not surprising that the negotiaitons didn't go so well.


You seem to be basing your arguments on the fact that Britain took the Falklands from Argentina by force 170 years ago. Today (and in 1982) we would consider this a very bad action.

But we didn't take the Falklands today. We took them 170 years ago. 170 years ago there were not international laws banning such invasions. Invasion was what powerful countries did. The people who had a right to the land were the people who had the strength to take it. We may not like invasion for territory today, but then it was fine.

Since we won the Falklands, we have held them for 170 years: they are our territory now.


This, combined with the will of the Falkland islanders, means that the Falklands are Britain's.

[ShadesPanther]

one thing though. As far as I know (I've looked) There are only colonists' decendants on those Islands. So once they get "Decolonised" they will have to be colonised or else you will have empty islands which would be pretty pointless

[Slyspy]

All that you said is wrong, but anyway very little of what i said in my posts has been readed by the ones like you. You've no idea of what you're talking about, the principle of selfdetermination of the people doesn't apply, and if the war was justificated confirmed in some sentences of the UN, then this doesn't change anything. Britain must do what they promised to the international community and specially to us and deliver the lands, doesn't matter what are the means. And you insulted my country: how do you know that the people doesn't want to belong to Argentina specially? I prefer to live here and not in a country where i've to bow before a queen or be all the time paranoic because i can be attacked by some terrorist. Any way that expression is stupid by itself i don't have to justify it. For what i'm concerned the powerful countries have showed a higher standard of corruption that those of the third world. Anyway Argentina has better rights, that's why before the International Community we're the owners. Period, if the land will be occupated by us sometime or not, i can't say but that's the right thing to do.

I should add another note: see what's the definition of morality, because you're a little confused. The relationship between people (society in general and of course between nations) are ruled for the law, the way that you may carry your personal life is morality, it doesn't create rights and has exceptional effects on reality.

Well there we have it. You've convinced me. And if I happen to see any of my old schoolmates who lost their fathers to Argentine aggression in '82 then I be sure to pass this argument on.

[Soulforged]

Well there we have it. You've convinced me. And if I happen to see any of my old schoolmates who lost their fathers to Argentine aggression in '82 then I be sure to pass this argument on.

Oh please i just insulted back, don't come here with moaning, i'm not moaning for the islands, but someone put the question and i answered, that's all.

Marcellus: You're wrong they colonized our lands, after WWII was over they compromised to return colonized lands, and the principle of selfdetermination of the people is not for colonicers.

[Papewaio]

Marcellus: You're wrong they colonized our lands, after WWII was over they compromised to return colonized lands, and the principle of selfdetermination of the people is not for colonicers.

So who can determine self determination? The Aztecs?

[King Henry V]

So let me get this straight self-determination can only be used when the decision is not in favour of the "Mother Country". What's the point in having self-determination if no matter the outcome, they land will be "decolonized"? ~:confused: You might as well just order their independance without having to bother with these silly votes.

I wonder what would be the case if the Islanders just decided say, that they wanted to be Argentinian after all. I bet you and everyone in Argentina would be screaming "Self-determination! Self-determination!" until you're blue in the face. If Britain would say, "No, these islands have been part of our territory for almost two hundred years, we demand to keep them in the interests of national unity" you would say "What is this rubbish claim? It's a load of nonsense!"

[Marcellus]

Oh please i just insulted back

Which is offensive and counterproductive.


Marcellus: You're wrong they colonized our lands, after WWII was over they compromised to return colonized lands, and the principle of selfdetermination of the people is not for colonicers.

We captured Argentinan lands. After WWII we returned sovereignty of colonies to the local people of the colonies, because we realised that oppressing the will of the people living in the land and ruling over them was wrong. This does not apply to the Falklands, where the local people want to stay British.