Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[Archegnum]

A United Nations commission has apparently ruled in favour of expanding Argentina's territorial waters by 35% in the South Atlantic, which encompasses the British-held Falkland Islands and beyond.

The ruling was based upon the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which permits nations to extend their maritime territories across their continental shelves.

This has understandably led to concerns from the Falkland Island's Government and its people; including the question: “what, if any, decisions have been made, and what implications there may be?" to the British Government, which has yet to give an answer. The Falkland's Government also insisted that: "Our understanding has always been that the UN would not make any determination on applications for continental shelf extension in areas where there are competing claims.", which of course there is in this instance, due to the lack of Argentine recognition of the 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, which resulted in an overwhelming 99.8% majority in favour of maintaining the current status quo as a British Overseas Territory; self-governing, but with its defence and foreign affairs managed by the United Kingdom.

Is this legal? Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk? Will Argentina interfere in the budding oil exploration industry of the Islands? How will British civilian and military vessels' access to and from the islands be impacted?

These are the questions, amongst others, that must be considered.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... commission
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/656284 ... -Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_ ... ndum,_2013
http://news.sky.com/story/1668679/argen ... s-decision
http://buenosairesherald.com/article/21 ... time-space

[Old Stephania]

Does anyone know if the Falklands have their own territorial waters? One would think so, and hopefully it would create a zone of "safety" within Argentina's waters.

[Calimera II]

Great news. ¡Viva la patria!

Does anyone know if the Falklands have their own territorial waters? One would think so, and hopefully it would create a zone of "safety" within Argentina's waters.

They have, and the British expanded it several times, in breach of a very specific UN resolution (The UK is not allowed to take unilateral decisions which affect the status quo in the disputed area.) But well, the British don't really respect UN resolutions at all.

Is this legal?

Yes.

Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk?

It has always been at risk, since Great Britain has a ridiculous claim.

Will Argentina interfere in the budding oil exploration industry of the Islands?

The developments that surround oil exploration are illegal since they affect the status quo of the disputed area.

How will British civilian and military vessels' access to and from the islands be impacted?

Argentina is of no military threat.

[Old Stephania]

Does anyone know if the Falklands have their own territorial waters? One would think so, and hopefully it would create a zone of "safety" within Argentina's waters.

They have, and the British expanded it several times, in breach of a very specific UN resolution (The UK is not allowed to take unilateral decisions which affect the status quo in the disputed area.) But well, the British don't really respect UN resolutions at all.

Do you have a source for the UN resolution in question and how the British government has violated it? I am not disputing it, but as a British citizen I am interested.

How will British civilian and military vessels' access to and from the islands be impacted?

Argentina is of no military threat.

So long as the government of Argentina rattles its sabre in order to court favourable domestic public opinion, get used to us rightfully treating them like one.

[Calimera II]

They have, and the British expanded it several times, in breach of a very specific UN resolution (The UK is not allowed to take unilateral decisions which affect the status quo in the disputed area.) But well, the British don't really respect UN resolutions at all.

Do you have a source for the UN resolution in question and how the British government has violated it? I am not disputing it, but as a British citizen I am interested.

Both countries should refrain from taking unilateral decisions: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES ... penElement Argentina did not take unilateral decisions which affect the disputed zone since the Malvinas have it's own territorial waters which are, presumably, not affected by the UN decision.

Argentina is of no military threat.

So long as the government of Argentina rattles its sabre in order to court favourable domestic public opinion, get used to us rightfully treating them like one.

Argentina has always claimed it, during good and during bad times. Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

[Valaran]

So long as the government of Argentina rattles its sabre in order to court favourable domestic public opinion, get used to us rightfully treating them like one.

Argentina has always claimed it, during good and during bad times. Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

*chokes on laughter*

[Vassenor]

Do you have a source for the UN resolution in question and how the British government has violated it? I am not disputing it, but as a British citizen I am interested.

Both countries should refrain from taking unilateral decisions: https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RES ... penElement Argentina did not take unilateral decisions which affect the disputed zone since the Malvinas have it's own territorial waters which are, presumably, not affected by the UN decision.

So long as the government of Argentina rattles its sabre in order to court favourable domestic public opinion, get used to us rightfully treating them like one.

Argentina has always claimed it, during good and during bad times. Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

Which is why the rhetoric always gets dialled up when the government is trying to hide something.

[Valaran]

On the actual matter of the OP (inevitably, this will become a UK v Argentina thread), I have some faith in Macri not using this to further division.

My personal view is that we should share the oil exploration and drilling equitably with Argentina.

[Calimera II]

Argentina has always claimed it, during good and during bad times. Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

*chokes on laughter*

Yea, Argentina was doing soooo bad in 2005. The country's economic growth was just a meagre 9,2%. And 2010 was the worst year of all! The economy only grew with 9,1%. All governments use it to distract public opinion from 'more important' issues. *nods*

[Calimera II]

On the actual matter of the OP (inevitably, this will become a UK v Argentina thread), I have some faith in Macri not using this to further division.

My personal view is that we should share the oil exploration and drilling equitably with Argentina.

My persoanl view is that the Malvinas are Argentine and that Great Britain should get 0% of the revenue. Moreover, what you say is impossible because an Argentinian court ruled the drillings illegal.

[Valaran]

*chokes on laughter*

Yea, Argentina was doing soooo bad in 2005. The country's economic growth was just a meagre 9,2%. And 2010 was the worst year of all! The economy only grew with 9,1%. All governments use it to distract public opinion from 'more important' issues. *nods*

You're arguing that just because it rattles sabres normally, that it doesn't increase the frequency of doing this when the economy was tanking? Funny, I remember Kirchner really rattling that in 2012, when your GDP growth was an astounding 0.9%.

And yeah, I'd consider your dwindling currency reserves to be a more important issue.

[Valaran]

On the actual matter of the OP (inevitably, this will become a UK v Argentina thread), I have some faith in Macri not using this to further division.

My personal view is that we should share the oil exploration and drilling equitably with Argentina.

My persoanl view is that the Malvinas are Argentine and that Great Britain should get 0% of the revenue. Moreover, what you say is impossible because an Argentinian court ruled the drillings illegal.

Well, you know, whatever you say

I guess no one gets it then. Quel dommage.

[Vassenor]

On the actual matter of the OP (inevitably, this will become a UK v Argentina thread), I have some faith in Macri not using this to further division.

My personal view is that we should share the oil exploration and drilling equitably with Argentina.

My persoanl view is that the Malvinas are Argentine and that Great Britain should get 0% of the revenue. Moreover, what you say is impossible because an Argentinian court ruled the drillings illegal.

Because self determination is irrelevant.

[SD_Film Artists]

Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk?

It has always been at risk, since Great Britain has a ridiculous claim.

I don't think it's so ridiculous considering that Britain has international law on its side (right to self-determination) and that the Islands were British before Argentina even existed.

The developments that surround oil exploration are illegal since they affect the status quo of the disputed area.

It'll be interesting what Argentina thinks of the "status quo" if it gains control of those waters. Not that I expect there to be huge amounts of oil there anyway, as IIRC it was found to be commercially unviable.

Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

Are you kidding? Argentina's ruling party exploits the Falklands issue so much they should probably pay the islanders royalties in advertising rights.

[Calimera II]

Yea, Argentina was doing soooo bad in 2005. The country's economic growth was just a meagre 9,2%. And 2010 was the worst year of all! The economy only grew with 9,1%. All governments use it to distract public opinion from 'more important' issues. *nods*

You're arguing that just because it rattles sabres normally, that it doesn't increase the frequency of doing this when the economy was tanking? Funny, I remember Kirchner really rattling that in 2012, when your GDP growth was an astounding 0.9%.

And yeah, I'd consider your dwindling currency reserves to be a more important issue.

It's an unresolved sovereignty question. It's not rattling sabres. All governments have mentioned the Malvinas. Tensions rose in 2012 because Great Britain was acting in breach of UN resolutions. I am only glad Cristina raised her voice and spoke out against the actions of the British. No, the frequency does not increase when the economy is tanking.

I know you really care about the well-being of Argentina, but you really shouldn't worry. Macri solved the problems with the reserves. It was caused by the re-industrialisation process Argentina is going through. Dollars are now flowing into the Argentine economy.

My persoanl view is that the Malvinas are Argentine and that Great Britain should get 0% of the revenue. Moreover, what you say is impossible because an Argentinian court ruled the drillings illegal.

Because self determination is irrelevant.

In this case, indeed, because it is not applicable to the Malvinas. The British citizens undeniably should enjoy and should continue to enjoy extensive political and civil rights, though.

[SD_Film Artists]

On the actual matter of the OP (inevitably, this will become a UK v Argentina thread), I have some faith in Macri not using this to further division.

My personal view is that we should share the oil exploration and drilling equitably with Argentina.

It's unfortunate that the Argentine government has more to gain in using the Falklands as a victim complex than actualy cooperating with Britain.

As for the increased waters, no doubt well-intentioned westerners would see that as a reason to give it away as if the waters have always been like that.

[SD_Film Artists]

It's an unresolved sovereignty question. It's not rattling sabres. All governments have mentioned the Malvinas. Tensions rose in 2012 because Great Britain was acting in breach of UN resolutions. I am only glad Cristina raised her voice and spoke out against the actions of the British.

Funny how Kirchner was suddenly quiet when it came to talking to the islanders. It's almost as if she wants this to be an Argentina-Britian issue, as if she doesn't want to be seen to be bulling islanders.

[Calimera II]

It has always been at risk, since Great Britain has a ridiculous claim.

I don't think it's so ridiculous considering that Britain has international law on its side (right to self-determination) and that the Islands were British before Argentina even existed.

Lol no. The right of self-determination is not a right acknowledged to just any community established within a given territory, but only to peoples. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. " The inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands are not recognised as ''people'' by the United Nations. There is a difference between this case and the classical colonial case which a native people is victim of colonialism. The UK occupied the islands and expelled the state that had sovereignty over them. Even today it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory: the expelled Argentinian population was not allowed to return to the Malvinas. Absolutely no UN resolution had referred to the principle of self-determination when it comes to the Malvinas. The GA rejected including this principle in the resolutions about the Malvinas Islands. The current inhabitants are British, but the territory is not.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law a referendum doesn't change anything. It does not change the essence of the conflict and does not end the dispute or the unquestionable Argentina rights over the Malvinas.

Argentina does not use it in order to court favourable domestic public opinion. What you say is a much-said farce.

Are you kidding? Argentina's ruling party exploits the Falklands issue so much they should probably pay the islanders royalties in advertising rights.

I think you are referring to Cristina's FPV. The opposition won the elections. Mauricio is the new president.

[Hirota]

Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk?

No. This chap summarised what this means pretty thoroughly. In practical terms it means nothing and does not affect the sovereignty of the Falklands.

[Kazarstan]

The majority of the Falklands population wish to stay under the Union Jack so I dont understand all of this 'they arent recognized as people' nonsense, they are recognizes as British citizens/citizens of the Commonwealth. Further more if the UN did pass a resolution like that, pretty sure the UK would take it to the Security Council since it is an infringement of British sovereignty. Argentina may be inspired to reclaim the Falklands and thus meet the might of Her Majesty's Armed Forces once again.

Argentina should stop being salty and accept the consequences of their former military regime; they didn't get it then and they aint getting it now.

[Imperializt Russia]

Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk?

It has always been at risk, since Great Britain has a ridiculous claim.

Of the two ridiculous claims to the Falklands, the British is by far the least outlandish.

[Esceen]

I don't think it's so ridiculous considering that Britain has international law on its side (right to self-determination) and that the Islands were British before Argentina even existed.

Lol no. The right of self-determination is not a right acknowledged to just any community established within a given territory, but only to peoples. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. " The inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands are not recognised as ''people'' by the United Nations. There is a difference between this case and the classical colonial case which a native people is victim of colonialism. The UK occupied the islands and expelled the state that had sovereignty over them. Even today it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory: the expelled Argentinian population was not allowed to return to the Malvinas. Absolutely no UN resolution had referred to the principle of self-determination when it comes to the Malvinas. The GA rejected including this principle in the resolutions about the Malvinas Islands. The current inhabitants are British, but the territory is not.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law a referendum doesn't change anything. It does not change the essence of the conflict and does not end the dispute or the unquestionable Argentina rights over the Malvinas.

Top jej

The Falklands was never owned by Argentina and never will be. Argentina is welcome to try and take them by force again but it wont end well.

The whole essence of the conflict is blind Argentinean nationalism. If only you and all the other Malvinas people could see that.

[SD_Film Artists]

I don't think it's so ridiculous considering that Britain has international law on its side (right to self-determination) and that the Islands were British before Argentina even existed.

The UK occupied the islands and expelled the state that had sovereignty over them.

What state? Argentina founded a colony on the Islands after they were British.

Even today it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory

Are you talking about the Island's semi-independant government? The Argentine government prefers that people only talk about the government in London.

the expelled Argentinian population was not allowed to return to the Malvinas.

Perhaps because every time a Falklander wants Argentinian citizenship so that they can see their Argentinian wife/husband more often, the Argentinian government exploits their relationship as a political football.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law a referendum doesn't change anything. It does not change the essence of the conflict and does not end the dispute or the unquestionable Argentina rights over the Malvinas.

Argentina's claims are based on appeal to emotion and blunt nationalism.

[Calimera II]

Lol no. The right of self-determination is not a right acknowledged to just any community established within a given territory, but only to peoples. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. " The inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands are not recognised as ''people'' by the United Nations. There is a difference between this case and the classical colonial case which a native people is victim of colonialism. The UK occupied the islands and expelled the state that had sovereignty over them. Even today it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory: the expelled Argentinian population was not allowed to return to the Malvinas. Absolutely no UN resolution had referred to the principle of self-determination when it comes to the Malvinas. The GA rejected including this principle in the resolutions about the Malvinas Islands. The current inhabitants are British, but the territory is not.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law a referendum doesn't change anything. It does not change the essence of the conflict and does not end the dispute or the unquestionable Argentina rights over the Malvinas.

Top jej

The fact that you are not able to give a well structured counter-argument proves my point, in this case, it seems. For you interest (maybe you should not ignore it this time) both the UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice, have acknowledged limitations on the exercise of the right of NSGTs to self-determination, being: to be entitled to the right, the population of the NSGT concerned must be ethnically or culturally distinct from the administering power; or the existence of special circumstances, such as a sovereignty dispute, that would render a consultation or referendum unnecessary.

The Falklands was never owned by Argentina and never will be.

The Malvinas are still Argentinian. But to come back to your point, Argentina exercised sovereignty over the islands from 1810 to 1833. Britain did only start complaining in 1829 - because the Malvinas are a vital gateway to the south and Latin America - after not having claimed it for over 50 years.

Argentina is welcome to try and take them by force again but it wont end well.

Nobody wants war. That is silly.

The whole essence of the conflict is blind Argentinean nationalism. If only you and all the other Malvinas people could see that.

In fact, it is not.

[Western Pacific Territories]

Lol no. The right of self-determination is not a right acknowledged to just any community established within a given territory, but only to peoples. Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. " The inhabitants of the Malvinas Islands are not recognised as ''people'' by the United Nations. There is a difference between this case and the classical colonial case which a native people is victim of colonialism. The UK occupied the islands and expelled the state that had sovereignty over them. Even today it is the colonial government that decides the composition of the population of the territory: the expelled Argentinian population was not allowed to return to the Malvinas. Absolutely no UN resolution had referred to the principle of self-determination when it comes to the Malvinas. The GA rejected including this principle in the resolutions about the Malvinas Islands. The current inhabitants are British, but the territory is not.

Furthermore, from the perspective of international law a referendum doesn't change anything. It does not change the essence of the conflict and does not end the dispute or the unquestionable Argentina rights over the Malvinas.

Top jej

The Falklands was never owned by Argentina and never will be. Argentina is welcome to try and take them by force again but it wont end well.

The whole essence of the conflict is blind Argentinean nationalism. If only you and all the other Malvinas people could see that.

Didn't 99.9% of the Falkland Islands vote to stay with Britain, with the exception of 3 people who voted 'NO' as a joke?