Who rightfully owns the Falkland Isles?

**Duke Malcolm** · 08-31-2005, 17:48

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** · 08-31-2005, 18:08

The winner

**Stefan the Berserker** · 08-31-2005, 18:13

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** · 08-31-2005, 18:42

WE DO

(not the argentinians)

**Radier** · 08-31-2005, 18:56

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

**Viking** · 08-31-2005, 19:00

The closest nation should own it.

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

**ah_dut** · 08-31-2005, 19:07

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?

**Kaiser of Arabia** · 08-31-2005, 19:45

Me.

**Soulforged** · 09-01-2005, 02:57

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.

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.

**Duke Malcolm** · 09-01-2005, 16:22

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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

Only the formerly French base...

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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

This says that the West Falklands are continuing British Territory

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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...

Originally Posted by Soulforged

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** · 09-01-2005, 17:04

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.

**Reverend Joe** · 09-01-2005, 18:33

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

**Slyspy** · 09-01-2005, 19:12

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.