Falkland Islanders to hold referendum over sovereignty

[MichaeltheGreat]

Nah, you just bribe 'em with food.

[Tupac Shakur]

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

Yes, I suppose they're really adjacent to Europe.

Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain.

Honestly, what islands along the east coast of South America is this Article referring to if not the Falklands?

[Tupac Shakur]

I also find it hilarious that I've been quoting the opinions of international law experts at Yale while you've been quoting Wikipedia editing discussions, yet apparently I'm the one in a hole.

[Alexander's Horse]

for the sheep it's a just choice between being BBQed or grilled

[Tupac Shakur]

At least the British government realizes its historical claim to the Malvinas is full of ****, even if the dimmer posters here don't.

"We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands," said Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant this week. But official papers show that, for more than a century, the Foreign Office has had qualms about the merits of Britain's claim to the Falklands.

In 1910, a 17,000-word memo was commissioned by the Foreign Office to look at the historical dispute over sovereignty. The study highlighted many weaknesses in the British case and can be seen as our equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, the leaked study of US policy in Vietnam.

The holes in the British case shocked many officials in Whitehall. The head of the Foreign Office's American department, Gerald Spicer, wrote: "From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed."

An assistant secretary in the same department wrote: "The only question is who did have the best claim at the time when we finally annexed the islands. I think undoubtedly the United Province of Buenos Aires." And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: "I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain

[Alexander's Horse]

Here is a solution - the US takes over for 50 years under a UN Trusteeship, the Argies cease and desist, Britain keeps its economic rights, The Falklands are listed for decolonisation.

I think something like that is the only shot Argentina has in the foreseeable future.

[Tupac Shakur]

I don't actually care if the Argies ever get the Falklands back; Buenos Aires has far more important things to be worried about than getting back some islands the British stole almost 200 years ago. I only wish that the British and their supporters would be honest about the fact that the Falklands were stolen from Argentina and that Argentinians have a legitimate reason to be pissed off about the colonial relic in their back yard, even if they should really just let it go.

[Alexander's Horse]

They are honest about it. Britain stole about half the planet at one time and built the largest empire the world has ever known, no-one disputes this, the Argies should stop being precious about it.

The awful truth is if Argentina had its act together they would never have lost the Falklands in the first place. Britain even wanted to give it back in modern times but the Argie generals completely stuffed it.

[Krill]

All land was stolen from someone or other at some point in the past. Why would the Falklands be any different.

[Tupac Shakur]

They are honest about it.

Most of the posters in this thread haven't been.

[MichaeltheGreat]

You've quoted one article from one expert who states an opinion. A lawyer has an opinion? News at 10. I guess we could just make him Supreme Arbiter of the World and be done with it.

As far as what islands, you like to do research, why don't you find any example of maritime law where a distance of greater than 250 miles is considered "adjacent?" That's the easy part. Since the original pseudo-Argie claimaint was the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, the appropriate distance for adjacency is the distance of their boundary to the Falklands, which is closer to 1,000 miles. The southern and central parts of modern Argentina which are closer to the Falklands weren't even within their claimed territory.

The first Nootka Convention made no distinction as to any particilar South American islands, only "with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent" - depending on whether you consider the northeasterly facing coasts of the continent counted within that, you have dozens to a few hundreds of islands adjacent to the coast, particularly from Tierra del Fuego up the Chilean coast, many of which were significant for rewatering and repair of ships sailing around the horn.

As far as the Nootka Convention of 1790 goes, no relinquishment of sovereignty claims took place or was required or agreed by the Nootka conventions. Even if the Falklands were mentioned explicitly, it is well known and undisputed that there was a "secret" clause which allowed the British to form permanent settlements and disregard terms of the conventions the moment any third party established a settlement or made a claim to such lands.

"The draft of the ultimatum had provided that the subjects of neither nation should make any establishment south of a definite line to be fixed so long as no settlement should be formed thereon by the subjects of any other power. Instead of fixing a definite line the negotiators agreed to insert the clause in such part of those coasts as are situated to the south of those parts of the same coasts and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain. They added the provision that in such places the respective subjects should have the right of landing and constructing temporary buildings for purposes connected with their fisheries. The clause so long as no establishments shall be formed thereon by the subjects of any other power was omitted from the article. This had been objected to on the ground that it would be virtually a public invitation to all nations to make settlements there and so join England in despoiling Spain of her dominions. In order to remove the Spanish objection to publicity and still assure England that she would not be compelled to keep her hands ofl while other nations should do the thing that she had bound herself not to do the stipulation was embodied in a secret article. This secret clause provided that the stipulation in the sixth article forbidding the subjects of Spain and England to make establishments in such places should remain in force only so long as no settlements should be formed there by the subjects of any other power."

Manning, William Ray. The Nootka sound controversy Govt. print. off., 1905., pp452-453

Here's a nice gem from 1770: "I have received your letters by the officer, acquainting me that these islands and coasts thereof belong to the King of Spain, your Master. In return I am to acquaint you that the said islands belong to his Brittanic Majesty, My Master, by right of discovery as well as settlement and that the subjects of no other power whatever can have any right to be settled in the said islands without leave from His Brittanic Majesty or taking oaths of allegiance and submitting themselves to His Majesty's Government as subjects of the Crown of Great Britain.'' Capt. Hunt, RN

[MichaeltheGreat]

dp

[MichaeltheGreat]

All land was stolen from someone or other at some point in the past. Why would the Falklands be any different.

It was unoccupied. When the Brits claimed it, there was nobody to steal it from.

[MichaeltheGreat]

dp forum fart

[Tupac Shakur]

See? Why is it so hard for morons like MtG to just admit the obvious fact that the UK stole the Falklands from Argentina? Maybe the Argies wouldn't be so pissed off about it if the majority of the English-speaking population of the world didn't buy into ridiculous British propaganda that attempts to make the very reasonable Argentinian claim to the islands look foolish.

It was unoccupied. When the Brits claimed it, there was nobody to steal it from.

Except the ****ing Argentinian garrison they forced to leave the islands, of course.