More Falklands Trouble

[Anitgrum]

I for one favour giving them a proper good spanking and twenty minutes on the naughty step!

I for one would like to see the Queen in latex

I just threw up in my mouth thanks.

[Aesthetica]

I for one would like to see the Queen in latex

I just threw up in my mouth thanks.

Just for you... A picture of Lizzy and Lady Gaga, sharing details of where to get a Scarlet latex number to match her Guard's uniforms perhaps...

[Lambrinisia]

For my tuppence, I would say that Argentina is getting stronger about making claims because Britain is being too light-handed about quashing the threat. I believe a prime example of this is in this article about the Falkland Islands official British history being too pro-Argentina.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ntina.html

If Britain for once, showed the stones it used to use, maybe there wouldn't be as much open claims about the islands being "Las Malvinas".

[Ceannairceach]

Should just fly the Union Jack and dare them to declare the UK flag an illegal one.

That wouldn't be a bad idea. I envision it going down like a "holy shit, holy shit what do I do" moment for the ports.

[Lambrinisia]

Should just fly the Union Jack and dare them to declare the UK flag an illegal one.

Unfortunately, due to international shipping laws, doing so is illegal and the vessels in question could face charges including Piracy.

[Daistallia 2104]

Incorporate the Falkland as overseas county/region/whatever of Great Britain (just as French Guiana and Réunion are overseas regions of France, you know); register those ships as British ships.

That's my favoured solution too... and we should do the same with Gibraltar as well. They could keep their current systems of local adminstration as 'devolved' legislatures under Westminster.

The Falklands already are a UK Overseas Territories, as is Gibraltar.

[Rio Cana]

US Federal Court ruled back in the 19 century that they did.

Can you post a link to that ruling? I can't seem to find it anywhere, and the two American captains involved in the Falklands' history didn't really have any sort of involvement with American law; one was a ships' captain who was marooned by the shipwrecked Britons he was attempting to rescue, and the other seems to have been a privateer who was, at that time, running missions for the Argentinians, not against them.

This will take you to it. Davison vs. Seal-Skins, 7 F. Cas. 192, 193-94. (Thompson, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. Conn. 1835) but I cannot find the second page. This was taken to appeal and below is the ruling.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... 8xbXQifceA

This was the ruling

the Federal Court of Massachusetts, with all the scientific and juridical rigor of its decisions and their political importance, also considered that the problems arisen in Malvinas’ jurisdiction were the ones that could be solved only by the Government of Buenos Aires. In that sense, the remand made by this Federal Court in favour of the judges of Buenos Aires is clearly conclusive in view of a demand presented by Captain Davison, who had been sanctioned by Governor Vernet. The remand said: “Whereas a navy officer, without any order from his government, in Malvinas Islands took possession of property claimed by the United States’ citizens- and as it was alleged that this property had been taken by a person who pretended to be the governor of the islands, it is declared that the said officer had no right, without the precise directions of his government, to enter the territory of a country which is at peace with the United States and to take possession of the property found there and claimed by United States’ citizens. The demand for the restitution should have to be presented before the judicial courts of the country”.

Which means the islands were part of Argentina.

The ruling quoted above was taken from

Source: Francis Wharton: “A Digest of the International Law of the United States, etc.”, second edition, Washington., 1887, volume I. Quoted by E. Fitte, doc. nQ

And read this. It shows Argentina did have a legal claim to those islands while the UK. claim was washy.
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=cNK ... &q&f=false

That's my favoured solution too... and we should do the same with Gibraltar as well. They could keep their current systems of local adminstration as 'devolved' legislatures under Westminster.

The Falklands already are a UK Overseas Territories, as is Gibraltar.

Spain signed over Gibraltar in the treaty of Utrecht.

Gibraltar was captured in 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). Spain formally ceded the territory in perpetuity to the British Crown in 1713, under Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. This was confirmed in later treaties signed in Paris and Seville.

Argentina has signed nothing.

[Cromarty]

Argentina has signed nothing.

Argentina has no claim to the islands, thus they don't need to sign anything.

[Risottia]

That's my favoured solution too... and we should do the same with Gibraltar as well. They could keep their current systems of local adminstration as 'devolved' legislatures under Westminster.

The Falklands already are a UK Overseas Territories, as is Gibraltar.

I know, but iirc the British overseas territories aren't considered part of the metropolitan territory - as French overseas territories instead are. The Falklands are a self-governing kingdom of their own.

[Risottia]

Should just fly the Union Jack and dare them to declare the UK flag an illegal one.

Unfortunately, due to international shipping laws, doing so is illegal and the vessels in question could face charges including Piracy.

Not if you register those ships as British, which one can do by incorporating the Falklands in the UK.

[Risottia]

Argentina has signed nothing.

Argentina has no claim to the islands, thus they don't need to sign anything.

Hey! I didn't sign anything about the Falklands, too! Hence I have a valid claim on them!

[Cromarty]

Argentina has no claim to the islands, thus they don't need to sign anything.

Hey! I didn't sign anything about the Falklands, too! Hence I have a valid claim on them!

You, and the rest of NSG, can have Sealand

[Risottia]

Hey! I didn't sign anything about the Falklands, too! Hence I have a valid claim on them!

You, and the rest of NSG, can have Sealand

No way. I want penguins.

[Cromarty]

You, and the rest of NSG, can have Sealand

No way. I want penguins.

You can have Antarctica as well then.

[Risottia]

No way. I want penguins.

You can have Antarctica as well then.

Ok, thanks. I'll have both.

[Avenio]

This will take you to it. Davison vs. Seal-Skins, 7 F. Cas. 192, 193-94. (Thompson, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. Conn. 1835) but I cannot find the second page. This was taken to appeal and below is the ruling.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... 8xbXQifceA

This was the ruling

the Federal Court of Massachusetts, with all the scientific and juridical rigor of its decisions and their political importance, also considered that the problems arisen in Malvinas’ jurisdiction were the ones that could be solved only by the Government of Buenos Aires. In that sense, the remand made by this Federal Court in favour of the judges of Buenos Aires is clearly conclusive in view of a demand presented by Captain Davison, who had been sanctioned by Governor Vernet. The remand said: “Whereas a navy officer, without any order from his government, in Malvinas Islands took possession of property claimed by the United States’ citizens- and as it was alleged that this property had been taken by a person who pretended to be the governor of the islands, it is declared that the said officer had no right, without the precise directions of his government, to enter the territory of a country which is at peace with the United States and to take possession of the property found there and claimed by United States’ citizens. The demand for the restitution should have to be presented before the judicial courts of the country”.

Which means the islands were part of Argentina.

The ruling quoted above was taken from

Source: Francis Wharton: “A Digest of the International Law of the United States, etc.”, second edition, Washington., 1887, volume I. Quoted by E. Fitte, doc. nQ

Err, that page that you provided doesn't say anything of the sort. And, given that they use the term 'Falkland Islands' in the document to refer to the islands instead of 'Malvinas', I find it a little suspicious. Do you have a better source? Furthermore, the whole situation surrounding the island was not nearly as simple as you make it out;

In 1765, Capt. John Byron, unaware of the French presence on East Falkland, explored Saunders Island, on West Falkland, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. The British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain (who had acquired the French colony), during the Falkland Crisis from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. Economic pressures led Britain to unilaterally withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774.[1] On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.[2] The Falkland Islands remained an important outpost for whalers and sealers who used the islands to shelter from the worst of the South Atlantic weather. By merit of their location, the Falkland Islands have often been the last refuge for ships damaged at sea. Most numerous among those using the islands were British and American sealers, where typically between 40 and 50 ships were engaged in exploiting fur seals.

In 1823, after its war of independence against Spain, the United Provinces granted land on East Falkland to Luis Vernet, who first travelled to the islands the following year. That first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and a second attempt, in 1826, sanctioned by the British (but delayed until winter by a Brazilian blockade), also failed after arrival in the islands. In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland, including all its resources, with exemption from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, some of them British, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. After receiving consent, Vernet agreed to provide regular reports to the British consul and expressed the desire for British protection for his settlement should they decide to re-establish their presence in the islands.[3]

On Vernet's return to the Falklands, Puerto Soledad was renamed Puerto Luis. The United Provinces proclaimed Luis Vernet as governor of the islands in 1829. British diplomatic protests at the appointment and declarations of sovereignty were ignored. The United Provinces also granted Vernet exclusive rights to seal hunting in the islands. This too was disputed by the British and American consulates at Buenos Aires but once again the diplomatic protests were ignored. Vernet continued to provide regular reports to the British consul throughout this period.

In 1831, Luis Vernet began to seize American fishing vessels hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the mainland, bringing senior officers of the American vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. On 28 December 1831, the American corvette USS Lexington destroyed the Puerto Luis settlement in response. The captain declared the islands to be free of government.[4][5]

This latter incident finally convinced the British Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a government representative in the islands. The Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new governor of the islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on 15 November 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him. The mutiny was put down by Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the United Provinces schooner Sarandí, with aid from a French ship in Puerto Luis. Order was restored just before the British arrived.[3]

And read this. It shows Argentina did have a legal claim to those islands while the UK. claim was washy.
http://books.google.com.pr/books?id=cNK ... &q&f=false

All of the colonial claims on the islands were washy. There are so many failed settlements and fishing disputes on the island it's a small wonder the Antiguans haven't invaded and declared it some lost motherland founded by some obscure Prussian lobsterman already.

[Bears Armed]

That's my favoured solution too... and we should do the same with Gibraltar as well. They could keep their current systems of local adminstration as 'devolved' legislatures under Westminster.

The Falklands already are a UK Overseas Territories, as is Gibraltar.

Yes, but "Overseas Territories" is just a more PC way of saying "Colonies": What we're actually suggesting is making them integral parts of the motherland, politically, despite the geograpgical distance. (If you're from the USA then a relevant comparison would be the difference between the current statuses of Guam and Hawaii...)

[San Remo di Tarento]

Hello, I´m argentinian, we are always claiming the islas malvinas in conferences because it´s the tradition. I have no problem if the citizens stay there with their sheeps and more... but, if you, guys, the pirates, start sending tankers we should block the islands with the maritime guard and arrest the captains for crossing our maritime border and helping in the theft of OUR resources.

Malvinas Argentinas!

[Tubbsalot]

Hello, I´m argentinian, we are always claiming the islas malvinas in conferences because it´s the tradition. I have no problem if the citizens stay there with their sheeps and more... but, if you, guys, the pirates, start sending tankers we should block the islands with the maritime guard and arrest the captains for crossing our maritime border and helping in the theft of OUR resources.

Malvinas Argentinas!

Um, I'm sorry? I'll have you know it's the tradition where I'm from to claim ownership of Argentina. I have no problem if the Argentinians stay there, but if they actually try to use the land, I say we should throw the lot of them in jail for daring to use MY resources.

Argentina: Property of Australia!

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Hey! I didn't sign anything about the Falklands, too! Hence I have a valid claim on them!

You, and the rest of NSG, can have Sealand

I recognize Sealand as independent, Argentina has no right to the Falklands and I doubt Argentina has the military potential of earlier times.

[Itanica]

Why are the tories always fucking shit up diplomatically and militarilty? Goddamn those silly twats need to get out of Government and stay out.

[Augustus Este]

Hello, I´m argentinian, we are always claiming the islas malvinas in conferences because it´s the tradition. I have no problem if the citizens stay there with their sheeps and more... but, if you, guys, the pirates, start sending tankers we should block the islands with the maritime guard and arrest the captains for crossing our maritime border and helping in the theft of OUR resources.

Malvinas Argentinas!

The main two arguments for ownership of a territory are:

a). Historical Claim(a weak argument IMO, but still a common claim)

and/or

b). Self Determination(i.e. The people of a given territory want to be part of a certain country)


Neither of these support Argentina's claim to the islands.

[Norstal]

Hello, I´m argentinian, we are always claiming the islas malvinas in conferences because it´s the tradition. I have no problem if the citizens stay there with their sheeps and more... but, if you, guys, the pirates, start sending tankers we should block the islands with the maritime guard and arrest the captains for crossing our maritime border and helping in the theft of OUR resources.

Malvinas Argentinas!

Um, I'm sorry? I'll have you know it's the tradition where I'm from to claim ownership of Argentina. I have no problem if the Argentinians stay there, but if they actually try to use the land, I say we should throw the lot of them in jail for daring to use MY resources.

Argentina: Property of Australia!

Bah, you can't even get New Zealanders from their own islands.

[San Remo di Tarento]

LOL, the problem is that we should deter the criminals who enter to our sea.

[Cromarty]

LOL, the problem is that we should deter the criminals who enter to our sea.

What criminals?