Who rightfully owns the Falkland Isles?

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.

The winner

According to International Law the Falklanders.

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

WE DO

(not the argentinians)

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

The closest nation should own it.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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?

NM ~:grouphug:

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 :)

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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?

The Queen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Malcolm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

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.

Me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

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

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1pain1Duck

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax

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.

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 ?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 1pain1Duck

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).

Quote:

---

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

the Irish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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?)