Argentina pulls out of pact with UK over Falkland Islands

[Neroneau 1,017]

The inhabitants are called Falklanders, not Argentinian. They are glad to be part of the UK. Visit the falklands  and the chilean and Argentina Patagonia before spitting crap . What happened there didn’t happen in the South American mainland 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Midnights Mayhem said:

The Falkland Island inhabitants do not want dual citizenship. Only 3 people, in 2013 voted against staying British. It’s the will of the people, until the tides have turned they will not be any appetite to forcing a citizenship into the people of the Falkland Islands that they voted against only 10 years ago. 

And as I stated in another post the UN ratified that the inahbitants of the islands have no self determination in the sovereignity dispute.

Do I agree with that ? Not fully, but it's also not my decision to make.

The thing is there's not an easy solution to the conflict.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Neroneau said:

The inhabitants are called Falklanders, not Argentinian. They are glad to be part of the UK. Visit the falklands  and the chilean and Argentina Patagonia before spitting crap . What happened there didn’t happen in the South American mainland 

No one's spitting crap, we're disucssing the historical and political context of the sovereignity of the islands. 

Which shouldn't be a point of discussion in this topic since, again, the pact Argentina pulled out from doesn't concern the territorial dispute at all.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Bat said:

But it's not colonialism if it's rightfully theirs and the will of the people that have been living there..

a summary of the Argentine claims:

That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1816, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.

That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of peaceful and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.

That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.

That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.

That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below). 

That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.

That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514.

That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.

That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.

That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in the Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.

It's also up for debate wether or not the UK violated The Nookta Sound convention they signed with Spain.

The topic of the islands being rightfully British is up for discusion .

[Better Day 5,766]

32 minutes ago, Lukas96 said:

And as I stated in another post the UN ratified that the inahbitants of the islands have no self determination in the sovereignity dispute.

Do I agree with that ? Not fully, but it's also not my decision to make.

The thing is there's not an easy solution to the conflict.

 

They are, Argentina backs off and accepts its British land inhabited by British people. It’s them that is causing all the issues. 

[Benji 20,113]

12 minutes ago, Midnights Mayhem said:

They are, Argentina backs off and accepts its British land inhabited by British people. It’s them that is causing all the issues. 

This is the main argument for me.  It’s about what the inhabitants want.

If we play the game of “it was our land once” then we can trace ourselves back to Vikings all over Europe, or back to Africa/Pangea and get to claim that… where is the line drawn.  It’s about the modern day and what those inhabiting the land want.

[Better Day 5,766]

15 minutes ago, Benji said:

This is the main argument for me.  It’s about what the inhabitants want.

If we play the game of “it was our land once” then we can trace ourselves back to Vikings all over Europe, or back to Africa/Pangea and get to claim that… where is the line drawn.  It’s about the modern day and what those inhabiting the land want.

I totally agree, I would understand if the referendum was close in 2013, Argentina open negotiations but only 3 people voted against staying a part of the United Kingdom. I remember reading somewhere, that they did it for a laugh or something. 

[Fuffy 1,049]

12 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

tbh, I don't see that happening. Imo joint administration of the islands is the way to go, but we all know that's never gonna happen.

also, I would love to see the same empathy the current inhabitants get with the ones the UK displaced in the first place.

The problem with the joint administration is that Argentina is likely to exploit this as a foot in the door for ownership. It wouldn't be surprising if Argentina attempted to transplant their own population there under a joint administration and call a referendum. Unless they would be open to eternal joint ownership with the UK, which I highly doubt.

There's naturally less empathy for the Argentine residents because they were merchant traders there for an extremely limited time. There was no harm done when they asked residents to leave.

There is more empathy for current inhabitants because they're living there now and have developed a genuine culture on the island, many of them know family or friends who were injured or killed in the conflict. 

[Natalia Kills 415]

3 hours ago, Lukas96 said:

a summary of the Argentine claims:

That sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence in 1816, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.

That the British dropped their claim by acquiescence by not protesting the many years of peaceful and effective Spanish occupation, after the abandonment of Port Egmont.

That, in addition to uti possidetis juris, sovereignty was obtained when the islands were formally claimed in Argentina's name in 1820, followed by Argentina's confirmation and effective occupation from 1826 to 1833.

That the establishment of British de facto rule on the Falklands in 1833 (referred to as an "act of force" by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina on 17 June 1833 and repeated in 1841, 1849, 1884, 1888, 1908, 1927, 1933, 1946, and yearly thereafter in the UN.

That the principle of self-determination is not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population (see below). 

That the principle of self-determination does not apply to this sovereignty question because, as Argentina argues, the current inhabitants are a "transplanted population", of British character and nationality, not a distinct "people" as required by external self-determination doctrine.

That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514.

That the UN ratified this inapplicability of self-determination when the Assembly rejected proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders.

That the islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.

That Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in the Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.

It's also up for debate wether or not the UK violated The Nookta Sound convention they signed with Spain.

The topic of the islands being rightfully British is up for discusion .

Let's unpack this:

The principle of uti possidetis juris:

This principle applies to the transfer of sovereignty between colonies and their mother countries upon independence. It does not apply to the transfer of sovereignty between two independent nations. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Spain ever exercised effective control over the Falkland Islands, and therefore it could not have transferred sovereignty to Argentina.

Acquiescence:

The fact that the British did not protest the Spanish presence on the Falklands does not imply that they recognized Spanish sovereignty over the islands.

Formal claim and effective occupation:

Argentina's formal claim in 1820 did not constitute effective occupation. In fact, there is no evidence that Argentina ever exercised effective control over the Falkland Islands until the establishment of the military garrison in 1826, which was subsequently abandoned.

"Act of force":

The British did not use force to establish their de facto rule over the Falkland Islands. The Argentine authorities were peacefully asked to leave, and they complied. The subsequent protests by Argentina do not change the fact that the British established effective control over the islands.

Self-determination:

The principle of self-determination applies to all peoples, regardless of their origin. The fact that the current inhabitants of the Falkland Islands are of British descent does not invalidate their right to self-determination. Furthermore, the inhabitants have expressed their desire to remain British in several referendums, which is a clear exercise of their right to self-determination.

Territorial integrity:

The territorial integrity of Argentina is not affected by the Falkland Islands, which are located more than 300 miles from the Argentine coast. The principle of territorial integrity does not apply to disputed territories, such as the Falkland Islands.

UN resolutions:

The UN General Assembly has repeatedly recognized the right of the Falkland Islanders to self-determination. The fact that some proposals to condition sovereignty on the wishes of the islanders have been rejected does not imply that the principle of self-determination is inapplicable.

Continental shelf:

The fact that the Falkland Islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina does not give Argentina a claim to sovereignty over the islands. The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea recognizes the rights of coastal states over their continental shelf, but it does not affect sovereignty over islands.

British expansionism:

The fact that the British carried out invasions of the Río de la Plata does not imply that they had expansionist ambitions in the South Atlantic. The Falkland Islands were not a British possession at the time of those invasions, and there is no evidence that they were a target of British expansionism.

In summary, the Argentine claims regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands are not supported by historical or legal evidence. 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Fuffy said:

There is more empathy for current inhabitants because they're living there now and have developed a genuine culture on the island, many of them know family or friends who were injured or killed in the conflict. 

Like everyone in Argentina... and I'm sorry but I find it hard to empathize with people who vandalize the memorial to the fallen soldiers whose  remains (some still unidentified) still remain on the islands.

I do empathize with soldiers on both sides and commend their joint effort for reconciliation between people.