Falkland Islanders to hold referendum over sovereignty

[MichaeltheGreat]

Legally, with respect to the doctrine of terra nullius, it is. The Brits didn't abandon the islands nearly that long - they simply didn't see the need for permanent settlment. The Spanish removal of the plaque is an acknowledgement of its legal significance. If the Brits never contested challenges to their sovereignty, you'd have a claim for implicit abandonment, but alas, the Royal Navy always showed up and asked politely. The doctrine of terra nullius never had a time limit under either Roman law or admiralty law for a sovereign to contest an unauthorized occupation or claim against the sovereign. So the Argie claim only exists de jure if the Brits said "that's ok, we don't give a ****"

[Tupac Shakur]

Legally, with respect to the doctrine of terra nullius, it is.

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Why Britain is in the wrong over the Falklands

The whole underpinning of Reisman's law review article is that terra nullius applied. Tossing the plaque into the sea doesn't mean it was never there.

As far as the UN general assembly goes, these are the idiots that have had Libya, Syria and Sudan as members of the UN Commission on Human Rights. All you've got from the general assembly is a collection of third world goat****ers, water buffalo****ers and sheep****ers whining about "colonialism."

[MichaeltheGreat]

I don't think you actually know what you're talking about.

So what's the time limit in which an existing sovereignty claim has to be reasserted, as applied in the period from 1690 to 1833? The modern treaty definitions of terra nullius don't apply. And obviously Roman law doesn't apply.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh, and quoting your own article:

"In 1833, Britain expelled the islands' inhabitants. Argentina's Foreign Minister Don Manuel Moreno was told by Prime Minister Palmerston that Argentina "could not reasonably have anticipated that the British Government would permit any other state to exercise a right as derived from Spain which Great Britain had denied to Spain itself."

Sounds like there was no implicit surrender of sovereignty from 1690 on.

[Tupac Shakur]

FYI, Britain acknowledged Spain's control over the Falklands in the First Nootka Convention of 1790. Abandoning a territory for five decades, allowing another country to exercise de facto control of said territory for three decades, and acknowledging that country's control of said territory through treaty sure as **** seems like an implicit surrender of sovereignty to me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

That Convention was subsequently repealed by the 180+-year Convention of Come And Have A Go If You Think You're Hard Enough.

[Tupac Shakur]

Honesty

Fact: Britain stole the Falklands, keeps them through force of arms, and there's not much the Argies can do about since they blew their chance in '82 and have spent **** all on their military since.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well, the Argentinians could always start showering the Islanders with concessions and subsidies and sway them into favouring power-sharing or Argentinian sovereignty in a referendum. Not sure pursuing sanctions against the Islands would help that....

[Alexander's Horse]

give the sheep a vote

[kentonio]

Honesty

Fact: Britain stole the Falklands, keeps them through force of arms, and there's not much the Argies can do about since they blew their chance in '82 and have spent **** all on their military since.

Yeah, you should really cry about it some more.

[MichaeltheGreat]

FYI, Britain acknowledged Spain's control over the Falklands in the First Nootka Convention of 1790. Abandoning a territory for five decades, allowing another country to exercise de facto control of said territory for three decades, and acknowledging that country's control of said territory through treaty sure as **** seems like an implicit surrender of sovereignty to me.

You mean the one that started like this: "The first Convention was signed on October 28, 1790.[2] and was purposefully vague. Its preamble contained the statement, "...setting aside all retrospective discussions of the rights and pretensions of the two parties...?"

Follow a linkipoo from your wikipedia link, and you get this:

Relation to Falkland Islands dispute

I noticed some back and forth reverting here recently about the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands (explicit or implied), and thought I'd try to improve the wording on the topic. Researching the issue quickly shows that it is complicated and controversial (go figure!). The relationship of the Nootka Convention to the Falklands dispute is mentioned in a great many sources which make a great many claims--some of which blatantly contradict each other, others make definitive, but dubious statements. For an in-depth look at the mess, check out Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-11 Falkland Islands/Mediation. Apparently there was a Wikipedia mediation case on the topic. After reading that page I decided not to try to write something brief about how the Nootka Convention is argued to apply, or not, to the Falklands--instead just pointing out that they "play a role" and that their applicability "is controversial and complicated." Anyone wanting to know more can read the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute page now linked (esp. the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Current claims section). I kept the source already used (the one in Spanish), which seemed a decent but somewhat biased toward the Argentine position, if I read the Spanish right. I added another source, which seems to be trying to be neutral but is probably somewhat biased toward the British position. Both are used on the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands page. Pfly (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC) most in

Looks fine to me now. "Controversial and complicated" seems fair - there are several issues that are unclear and it seems logical to expect people to go to the article on the dispute for detail. The Spanish-language source does take a pro-Argentine line. Pfainuk talk 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither Britain nor Spain the signatories of the treaty ever applied Nootka to the Falklands. The claim referred to was first advanced by Paul Groussac in the mid 1880s, nearly a century after the fact. It is also worth noting under the secret article, even were it applicable Britain was freed of any obligation upon the intervention of a 3rd party ie Argentina. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 11:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Nootka was about the Pacific, and Britain's desire to get a foothold on the North Pacific; this section needs more content about the reasons the Second Convention was necessary re the Northwest Coast; it's sorely missing.

Nootka, shmootka.

Keep diggin', though, the hole is almost deep enough to bury yourself.

edit - BTW, if you look at the actual language, you get this:

ARTICLE VI

It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.

The Falklands are hardly "adjacent" to the South American coast.

[MichaeltheGreat]

give the sheep a vote

When you look at it, they should really change their flag. Something about a picture of a large sheep atop the words "desire the right" tends to make one think that PETA should have a look around.

[Dinner]

I, personally, wouldn't trust any country which has a sheep on its flag.

[Alexander's Horse]

sheep are so stupid they would probably vote for Argentina