On June 21 2011 05:51 chgh wrote:
Sanctimonius :
(I know it's a little long, but I not only wrote details about the claims of Argentina, I also wrote other issues that are very important to understand our point of view). by the way, Thanks for ask!
Why Argentines make an endless fuss about Las Malvinas/Falklands?
The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. It's what every international law that you can read says.
They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain.
Anyone who "really" studies the history and law of the Falklands will know that Argentina's claim to the islands was certainly strong. On Treaty of Utrecht Great Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty and this led to 40 years of Spanish occupation of the islands, which was reasserted in 1823 by Buenos Aires after its independence from Spain.
Ten years later the islands were seized by force by Britain, and settlers sent out in a act of imperial aggression.
The Argentine Claim
Legal Rights:
- Both Spain and Argentina did the actual occupation of the islands, the principle that the UK and major European countries then recognized as essential title for the acquisition of territorial sovereignty.
- The British occupation of Port Egmont (1765-1774) is considered negative by his attributes:
Unlawful, as a violation of existing treaties;
Underground, to remain hidden until its discovery by the Spanish;
Late, because it happened after the French occupation;
Answered, because Spain resisted and reserved their rights;
Partly, because it reduced to Port Egmont, while Spain had Puerto Soledad;
Brief, because it only lasted eight years;
Precarious, abandoned in 1774;
- Spain when return Port Egmont in 1771 did so as an act of reparation and made explicit reservation of his rights.
- Argentina after independence, inherited Spain's rights under the doctrine of "uti possidetis iuris" and the succession of states, so exercised eminent domain since 1810.
- Spain Recognizing the independence of Argentina, effective possession of the islands on November 6, 1820, the United Kingdom did not make any protest. Nor did the December 15, 1823 when he recognized the United Provinces, or when they signed the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of February 2, 1825. His first protest took place only on November 19, 1831.
- The United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833, expelling the population and not allowing their return, thus violating the territorial integrity and national Argentina unity. Which is contrary to Resolution 1514 (XV) of the United Nations concerning the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states in its sixth paragraph that any attempt aimed at partial or total disruption of the unit national and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
- Britain abandoned its settlement in 1774 and renounced its sovereignty by signing a treaty. While Argentina has always claimed sovereignty and has never renounced it.
- The invasion of 1833 was illegal by the law of nations and violated Article 4 of the First Convention of Nootka signed on October 28, 1790.
- Also violated treaties signed by Great Britain to recognize their rights to Spain in South America and the exclusive right to sail in the South Atlantic: American Treaty of 1670 and the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 with subsequent treaties ratified.
- The Falklands were seized for Britain in January 1833 during an era of colonial expansion. What is evidenced by his two attempts of invasion to Buenos Aires (1806-1807) and the Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata in 1845.
Geographical Rights:
- Geographical continuity: the Falkland Islands are a short distance from the Argentine mainland (about 480 km), emerging with geological continuity of the continental shelf of Argentina.(1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf).
Jurisdictional Waters:
- The Republic of Argentina, based on international maritime law, claims sovereignty over the seas adjacent to the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and Shag Rocks, Black and Clerke.
- The Argentina exercised its sovereignty in the exclusive economic zone around the Falklands from the 12 nautical miles to 200 nautical miles without Great Britain claimed those waters until 1982.
About Inhabitants:
- Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population.
- Argentina recognizes the British citizenship of the Falkland Islanders.
- The Argentine Nation ratifies in his National Constitution his legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory. The recovery of these territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respecting the way of life for its inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.
About the claim:
Although the restitution of the Falkland Islands is the base of the Argentine claim. Argentina openly expresses its intention to recover the Falkland Islands by diplomatic means and not by using force. Argentina call to enforce the UN resolution 2065 and to start negotiations to find a diplomatic solution. Not being for Argentina a mandatory condition the withdrawal of Britain from the islands.
Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away.
Some argue that Britain's physical possession of the islands, and its declared intention to hold them against all, makes its claim superior to Argentina's. Others believe that the Argentine invasion of the islands in 1982, and their subsequent forced retreat, in some way invalidates Argentine original claim.
But Argentina's defeat in the war of 1982 neither change his rights of sovereignty in the Falkland Islands nor the basis of his claim. By law, military conquest does not establish legal title.
The Falklands were seized for Britain during an era of colonial expansion, that is an undeniable fact.
To understand the Falklands War, it is also necessary to understand who was Lopoldo Fortunato Galtieri, leader of Argentina's military junta and his intimate relationship with Washington. It is also necessary to understand how the Falklands War is directly related to the economic and political situation in the UK in times of Margaret Thatcher and her deliberate attempts to not stop the war.
Argentina was a dictatorship then. Britain had no problem relating to it, or sell weapons to Argentina until 1982. Nor had trouble befriending another dictatorship like Chile. Nor did anything against the repeated alarms sent for months by the inhabitants of the islands and Chilean intelligence about Argentine military movements near the islands. Britain had detailed documentation of the Argentine intention to invade Falklands, including the date at which this would happen. Thatcher administration did nothing to stop the war an also sabotaged any negotiation that would include a ceasefire as an option.
The reasons are well known.
Margaret Thatcher, an ardent advocate of the liberal model promoted by the International Trade Organization, was particularly interested in a war in the south Atlantic to distract attention from the disastrous consequences of his privatization and economic model.
How far negotiations between Argentina's military junta with Washington and the visit of the Argentine Military Junta leader Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri to the United States in 1981 relate to the war, it is impossible to know.
Until the sinking of the battleship General Belgrano outside the waters imposed by Britain around the islands, the Argentine military were convinced that there would be no war with Britain and the United States would remain neutral. This explains many decisions that urged by imminence of the battle would be disastrous for Argentina in combat, but of course this not justify the Argentine desicion of invade the islands.
From that time until today there are many questions we asked ourselves as Argentines. We look to our recent past and try to correct our mistakes.
Maybe It's time to British begin to do the same, to ask:
Why 2,500 colonists, 8,000 miles away from London, in their fishing and farming British way of life enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy?
Why you spend £69m to maintain a military presence on the Falklands Islands with an incredible display of weapons and and almost as many troops (1,200), as there were islanders at the time of the invasion to face a country that has shown no sign of rearming since 1982?
Why the insistence on showing the inhabitants of the islands as a threatened and defenseless population, when in fact they are probably the most and well fortified inhabitants of the entire planet? (You and I are much more in danger when we go grocery shopping).
Because they are British who have the right to be British? It's absurd! Of course they has the right be British, that's just rhetoric. No one denies their right to be British, or to maintain their lifestyle, or live on the islands.
The problem lies elsewhere, they do not want to lose their privileges and the money they receive from the crown. I like the Islanders, but they are nice rogues who have learned to live from the British crown. They know you're not going to live there and of course they prevent the Argentines do.
How realistic are the chances of finding oil in Falklands waters?
It sounds more like a artificial financial market bubble in times when Europe faces major problems and where the British fleet is being dismantled as before 1982. People in the Navy of course put their outcry arguing they need to defend the Falkland Islands because the evil Argentina is always ready to take them by force.
But, none of this is really true today, the British and the Argentines could collaborate and find a definitive solution in many forms, including the Islanders could receive a good profit in taxes and continue to live there. But it's easier to convince British public opinion that war is always present. I think it reminds them of when they were a great empire that dominated the seas and the world was an open buffet.
That war took nine weeks, £3bn spent, 1,000 deaths (almost the same number of Falklands inhabitants at that time), many veterans from both sides have committed suicide and was a catastrophic failure of diplomacy.
I have no doubts about the sovereign rights of Argentina, is what the law says. But I can't deny reality. Finding a solution is the right thing.
My opinion as Argentine is that it is time for both, Britain and Argentina, to Grow Up!
Greetings!
I hope, although this does not change your position, can at least help you understand what's the point of view of the Argentineans.
Juan
hello juan,i will expain why i believe the falklands are british and the argentinian claim to las malvinas is not legiitamate
Here I examine the Argentine case for possession of the Falklands, in the context of international law, and show it to be invalid. Most important to disputes of this kind, is the basic and universal tenet of international law, which states that all disputes are validated or invalidated by the international law and prevailing norms of the time, and not by retroactive application of current laws. It is by this principle that much of the dialogue in this debate has been framed, a schema from which I will not diverge.
.firstly a very brief history of the islands
Before we inspect Argentine claim, it is necessary to appreciate the key events in the history of the Falkland islands, leading up to the contested British take over of the islands in 1833 and beyond. Although it makes for a lengthy and convoluted catalogue of events, here is an abbreviated timeline of the most significant incidents.
1690 - First landing on the islands by British Captain John Strong, named after Viscount Falkland, Treasurer of the Royal Navy
1764 - Louis Antoine de Bougainville takes formal possession of East Falkland by order of Louis XV.
1764 - British prepare an expedition to colonise the islands before word of the French colonisation had reached Europe.
1765 - Commodore John Byron of HMS Dolphin, having seen no signs of habitation, takes formal possession of the islands in the name of King George III and founds Port Egmont off West Falkland.
1766 - More permanent occupation is established by the British at Port Egmont (still unaware of the French settlement).
1767 - French transfer their claim to the islands to the Spanish for £24,000 after Spanish protests. The Spanish protest the presence of a British settlement on the islands.
1770 - A Spanish force arrives at Port Egmont and orders the settlers to leave.
1771 - After sustained British protest and increasing friction between the two nations, the Spanish return Port Egmont to Britain and agree "to restore all things precisely to the state in which they were before 10th June 1770".
1774 - British withdraw from Port Egmont, leaving a plaque behind decreeing the islands the property of King George III.
1810 - Buenos Aires creates its own government.
1811 - Spanish garrison at Port Louis is withdrawn and the islands are left uninhabited.
1820 - Colonel Daniel Jewitt arrives at the Falklands and claims possession of the islands in the name of the government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.
1826 - Government at Buenos Aires hires French Merchant, Luis Vernet, to establish a settlement on the islands.
1828 - Luis Vernet named governor of the islands.
1829 - Government at Buenos Aires decrees it had succeeded to the claims of Spain in 1810.
1831 - After seizure of two US ships by Vernet, US warships destroy Vernet's settlement on the island, deports settlers, and declares the islands free of all government.
1833 - British government reasserts its claim to the islands and dispatches a force which arrives at the island and raises the Union flag on the shore the next day. British maintain peaceful control of the islands until the Falklands war in 1982.
With a clear understanding of the history of the islands in mind, we can now examine the Argentine case.Sovereignty of the Falklands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon its independence (uti possidetis)
This is perhaps the strongest leg of the Argentine case but it is also the one surrounded by most confusion and ambiguity. The argument is based on uti possidetis juris , a principle in international law which states that newly independent states occupy the borders in which the antecedent province resided prior to sovereignty. Argentine apologists therefore claim that, upon Argentina's independence, it naturally assumes control of the Falklands from Spain.
If this is to succeed, one must first show that Britain's possession of the island expired from 1774 to 1810. This is not at all clear, and there are strong arguments to the contrary, including the ineffective control of the islands by the French, Spain's renouncement of its deportation of British settler's and the plaque left behind by British settlers after their departure. In the interest of brevity I will not flesh out this case and urge readers to look into the arguments. More importantly, I am omitting this line of argument because, even if we concede that the islands belonged to Spain in 1810, the Argentine case fails.
The problem for the Argentine case is that, in 1810, there did not exist a generally accepted right for new nation states to come into existence. Spain certainly had not recognised the independence of any of its American territories at this point. The Spanish abandonment of the Falklands in 1811 was merely out of a need to divert resources elsewhere; there was no explicit or implicit intention of handing control over to 'Argentina' (which did not formally declare independence until 1816). In fact, Argentina was not recognised by Spain until 1859, a whole 26 years after the Falklands had come under British control. Spain could not transfer sovereignty to a state it did not recognise.Argentina acquired sovereignty over the islands in 1820 by formal possession
Perhaps then, Argentina acquired sovereignty over the Falklands directly through Jewitt's arrival on the island in 1820. This would contradict the claim that the islands were transferred to Argentina from Spain. Nevertheless, occupation was a legitimate mode for acquiring territory according to the prevailing rules of the time. Given that the period of post-1820 Argentinian occupation of the islands is too short for title by prescription, it must be demonstrated that the islands were res nullius (without an owner) at the time of Argentinian colonisation. In practical terms then, one must not only show that the British had relinquished control of the islands when they withdrew in 1774 - an impossible feat since the plaque, British insistence on their claims, and British reassertion of their claim in 1833 all fly in the face of this hypothesis - but also that Spain had at some point abandoned their possession of the island. There is no evidence for the latter either. In fact, Spain's refusal to recognise independence in the Americas and its attempt to reconquer Rio de la Plata in the 1820s point to the contrary. Therefore, if Spain was the sovereign power in the Falklands in 1811, then it would still have been the sovereign power in 1820 when Argentina formally took over the islands, and in 1833 when Britain regained the islands.
Argentina succeeded its parent state's possession of Falklands by controlling the islands successfully
There is an argument, presented by Goebel's compelling paper on the topic, that has gained some traction. He argues that Argentina succeeded its parent state's possession of the Falklands by successfully controlling the islands upon its independence. The principle presented by Goebel states that, upon the independence of a nation, if there is no explicit treaty delineating the borders of this nation between the new state and its parent state, then its borders are decided by power, such that whatever land the new state is able to successfully take and control belongs to it. Again there are several problems with this, as outlined in Peter Calvert's excellent 1983 paper Sovereignty and the Falklands crisis. Firstly, the application of this principle is an anachronism. It developed as a result of the emergence of independent states in the Americas, near the end of the 19th century, not antecedent to it. Therefore, under the contemporary rules and norms in 1810 and 1820, Spain was the sovereign authority in the Americas. Furthermore, 'Argentina' as we know it today simply did not exist in 1820. Colonel Jewitt acted on behalf of the government of Buenos Aires, which was independent of the United Provinces (comprising modern day Argentina), and did not join the rest of the provinces of 'Argentina' until the late 19th century. Consequently, it is impossible to regard Jewitt's act as a valid incorporation of the Falklands into an Argentina that did not exist.The islands belong to Argentina by virtue of their proximity to the Argentine mainland
This we can dismiss fairly swiftly. For a start, this is not an valid principle in contemporary international law. It also holds no water in the 18th century, since no Spanish settlements existed on the mainland of Patagonia until well into the 19th century. Even had there been, the claim of geographical proximity to the continent would most probably have been rejected by Europe at the time given the distance of the islands from the continent.
Argentine claims to the Falklands do not stand up to scrutiny when judged by the laws, rules and precedents set at the time. The British claim to the islands was reasserted in 1833, and gives stronger evidence, if any more were needed, that there was no act of dereliction by Britain in 1774. A century and a half of peaceful administration of the islands by Britain, subsequent to 1833, only strengthens the British claim to the islands by the accepted principle of prescription of the time. This is then at least one chapter of our colonial past that we need not feel ashamed about.
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png)
