Comments on: Why the Falklands Dispute Will (Probably) Never Go to Court

By: Marcos

Marcos — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 04:50:30 +0000

Hi im from Argentina, let me put a light into your propagandistic facts:
Argentina was officially born in 1816, it was known as the united province of the river plate, with is a legally accepted name for our republic now and then.
In 1816 Argentina formally claim its independence and claim sovereignty over malvinas taking posession of the islands Continuing the spanish rule there. In 1825 England recognize the argentine independence in a treaty of friendship and commerce without mention the total control of the islands by Argentina.
So the fact of the spanish recognition of Argentine independence in 1859 has no relevance.

“”"”the UK’s offered to Argentina to settle the dispute before the ICJ back in the late 1940s and the early 1950s.”"”"
That is not true at all, In 1947,1948 the United Kingdom offered to Chile and Argentina to submit to the ICJ the malvinas dependencies and the antartic territory. And in 1955 they submited the matter to the Icj , having Argentina and Chile denied any jurisdiction of the court.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/26/9069.pdf
This link is the official website of the ICJ, in this link you can check the map of the disputed territorie showed in page 35 and read the case presented in 1955 (the only case made by britain against Argentina and Chile). Feel free to go to the ICJ webpage and search for cases related.

Its really incredible to read that british people consider that Argentina have colonials ambitions and that the Uk gave the islands freedom and democracy.
I should remind you that 10 from 16 remaining colonies in the UN list are colonies of the UK. And malvinas islands are included in that list. No matter that you say they govern themself or that they enjoy self-determination.

By: J. A. Roberts

J. A. Roberts — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 12:21:49 +0000

It’s not the UK who made the “decision to allow oil exploration in the waters of the Islands”. That was the Falkland Islands Government’s decision. And any revenues will accrue to the FIG and not the UK.

And no Argentine population was expelled in 1833. They were settlers from Buenos Aires, of mixed nationality, none of them born in the Falklands. The British expelled the Buenos Aires garrison. The civilians were encouraged to stay and most of them did.

Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain. It took its independence and any territory it could by force. Please stop repeating the nonsense that Argentina somehow inherited rights in the Falklands because they formerly belonged to Spain. Spain did not even recognize Argentina until 1859…

By: paul

paul — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 17:16:25 +0000

Certainly. This is only one of the reports of the statement (sorry but I dont have time to trawl the web for the original).

http://www.speroforum.com/a/33140/Remaining-nonselfgoverning-territories-must-have-full-freedom-of-choice-Ban-says

‘The world”s 16 remaining territories that still do not govern themselves must have complete freedom in deciding their future status, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told a forum on decolonization today.’

16 territories on the list, that includes the Falklands, must have complete freedom! Ergo they have the full right of self determination.

By: harrier61

harrier61 — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:48:32 +0000

Is there a link to this statement by the UN Secretary General?

By: paul

paul — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:17:05 +0000

‘Likewise, the Islanders’ claim to self-determination is dubious for various reasons, and UN practice with regard to the Falklands does not support it.’

Recently the UN General Secretary said that yes they DO have the full rights of self determination. Just a minor point there.

By: ijm

ijm — Wed, 19 May 2010 13:42:00 +0000

Agree that there can rationally be two opinions on whether or not Spain owned the Falklands.

By: HJ

HJ — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:16:10 +0000

As you must surely know, the UK disputes that Spain ever owned the Falkland islands, through treaty or otherwise.

You might think that there is an opposing argument, but you state it as a fact that Spain “owned the Falklands through treaty”. The UK has never been a party to any such treaty, although, of course, Argentina was a party to the 1850 so-called “Treaty of Convention” which explicitly abandoned any claims to the Falklands. It is interesting to note that following this treaty, Argentina did not claim sovereignty and, indeed, accepted British sovereignty (as evidenced the existence of various maps) for the best part of 100 years.

By: ijm

ijm — Tue, 18 May 2010 15:03:38 +0000

I’ve read that study. It’s a bit mad, though it has so nice picture of the Falklands.
The ownership through treaty argument is in Laver, which Marko mentions above. Argentina’s claim would trump Uruguay’s, because of geography.

By: ijm

ijm — Tue, 18 May 2010 14:51:46 +0000

sorry that’s resolution 1514, not 1541. I’m always making that mistake!

By: HJ

HJ — Tue, 18 May 2010 14:49:56 +0000

Interesting to hear that Spain “owned the Falklands through treaty”. From where did you get this idea?

Also, if Argentina inherited Spain’s rights, then Uruguay has an equal claim to the Falklands as they were part of the same province at the time.

Perhaps you should read this:

http://en.mercopress.com/2008/05/14/new-british-research-dismisses-argentina-s-falklands-claim

No, The Guardian is read by left wing public sector workers.