Britain.
Printable View
Britain.
You can't, like, own an island, man! It's one of Mother Earth's creatures!
The fishing rights around the Falklands are a cash cow.
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Favius Argentum
Here's the legislatives conclusions and the voice on doctrine:(the link in spanish)
Later i'll post the british conclusions and other things. But make your questions.Quote:
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.
If there's anything that's not understandable (it could be my translation)ask me.
This is the british position:
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:Quote:
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Btw: It isn't my position, it's the position of the international community and Argentina.
Double post
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
“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
Those are some fine historical reasons why the Falklands should be Argentinian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis IV the Fat
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
Look at this link 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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Oh yes he did.Quote:
Originally Posted by barocca
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.Quote:
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.
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)Quote:
1806 Spain (STILL claiming the islands, despite ceding them by treaty to Britain in 1771) abandons its bases
Yes because we were independent and by the internacionally recognised principle of succesion of states they were ours now.Quote:
1811 Argentina (The United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata ) withdraw all spanish settlers from the islands entirely.
This doesn't mean anything the contingent occupied the lands rightfully, and signed treaties with the british that they didn't respect.Quote:
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.
Incorrect. There where a continued occupation from 1820 to 1833.Quote:
1823/4 the Argentinians abandoned the Falklands
Yes they protested without reason, because they didn't have any rights.Quote:
1826 the Argentinians land another expedition on the Falklands,
Britain protested their presence
Yes they did and later they recognised their mistake.Quote:
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"
Not the garrison killed the governor.Quote:
1832 the Argentinians sent a third expedition to the Falklands, the Sealers and Whalers ignored the expedition and killed the new "governor".
The first true asumption in all your post.Quote:
december 1832 the British take possesion of the islands and a few months later expel all Argentine government and military.
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.Quote:
1833 Argentinian settlers (gaucho's) murder the British governor and start murdering British settlers, survivors flee to the outlying islets.
I don't know why do you call them gauchos. The british seem to have a VERYYYYYY Biased vision of us.Quote:
1834 the "gaucho's" are arrested by the British
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.Quote:
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)
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.
[QUOTE=barocca]in short
Wrong they didn't have any claim. Read my post please.Quote:
Britain enforced her claim to the islands in 1832
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.Quote:
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.
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 .
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
That Papal Bull was based on the right of conquest by european colonial powers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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.
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.....
Soulforged I meant no disrespect so I will lay out why I believe the Falklands are British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesWolf
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?
Don't worry.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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
The effective occupation is interrupted by official acts of protest that Argentina did. So refuted too.Quote:
2. The right of effective occupation
The discovery is still unprooved. Anyway both parties had officially recognised that it's irrelevant to the case, so this point doesn't matter.Quote:
3. The right of discovery
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.Quote:
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.
[You said it.Quote:
B]2. The right of effective occupation[/B]
Therefore discovery without effective settlement is not sufficient for a claim of sovereignty.
Not enough time or progress and stability to claim rights.Quote:
The British clearly have had an effective settlement of the Falklands for 170+ years.
Incorrect the date is 1810.Quote:
Argentina has only existed as a nation from the year 1816.
Yes.Quote:
The occupation of the islands by Argentina was from around 1820 to 1833.
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.Quote:
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
You're right.Quote:
In this convention Britain renounced colonial ambition to South America and adjacent islands (the falklands).
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.Quote:
This is clearly held by Britain who has effectively occupied the Falklands for 170+ years.
Yes you're right, but again the discovery is considered irrelevant. It's explained a little more in detail in my posts.Quote:
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.
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.
There it's the magic word peaceful.Quote:
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.
I agree, never stated the contrary.Quote:
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.
Wich Argentina displayed, and previously Spain. I've said it before.Quote:
"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."
Again i never stated that, in fact i said the contrary.Quote:
Simply put the Right of Discovery does not compete against effective occupation by another state.
Not it isn't in anybody's favour (if you refered to the discovery).Quote:
This is clearly in Britains favour as well.
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, published by the BBC. Just another piece of evidence.Quote:
These are the reasons that I believe that Argentina has no claim, legitimate or otherwise to the Falklands.[/
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
Well Said Aenlic! althought that would mean half of the Uk's population moving back to Germany cos their Saxon