Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[Imperializt Russia]

But it does give them the right to take all the fish and oil.

Not within the 22 mile stretch of territorial waters still clinging to the Falklands.

Which would be a colossal dick move if the Argentine Navy tried enforcing this with their decrepit fleet.
Might bring about a repeat of 1833 and have a foreign warship come along to ask what's all this then.

[Ifreann]

Not within the 22 mile stretch of territorial waters still clinging to the Falklands.

Which would be a colossal dick move if the Argentine Navy tried enforcing this with their decrepit fleet.
Might bring about a repeat of 1833 and have a foreign warship come along to ask what's all this then.

"Ahoy, ahoy, ahoy, what's all this then?"

[North Arkana]

Which would be a colossal dick move if the Argentine Navy tried enforcing this with their decrepit fleet.
Might bring about a repeat of 1833 and have a foreign warship come along to ask what's all this then.

"Ahoy, ahoy, ahoy, what's all this then?"

"I say, I say, I say, my wife has gone to the West Indies."
"Jamaica?"
"No, she went of her own accord."

---

"I say, my wife has gone to Saint Petersburg."
"Is she Russian?"
"No, she's taking her time."

[Aboveland]

"Ahoy, ahoy, ahoy, what's all this then?"

"I say, I say, I say, my wife has gone to the West Indies."
"Jamaica?"
"No, she went of her own accord."

---

"I say, my wife has gone to Saint Petersburg."
"Is she Russian?"
"No, she's taking her time."

Oh my I love you

[North Arkana]

"I say, I say, I say, my wife has gone to the West Indies."
"Jamaica?"
"No, she went of her own accord."

---

"I say, my wife has gone to Saint Petersburg."
"Is she Russian?"
"No, she's taking her time."

Oh my I love you

I can take no credit. A true Brit with wit set forth these words before I did.

[Laederland]

Oh crap, I better prepare for an all out British-Argentinian war.

*hides in bunker*

[North Arkana]

Oh crap, I better prepare for an all out British-Argentinian war.

*hides in bunker*

*snorts sufficiently derisively*
It would be like kicking over a steel drum. Once it was over there'd be lots of noise, but nothing it can actually do.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Interesting. I'm pretty sure Cuba is located on the United States' continental shelf...

Or maybe 'Murica is located on the Cuban continental shelf.

GIB CLAY! REMOVE HAMBURGER!

I'm only removing hamburger to my belly. *increases likelihood of cardiovascular disease*

[Godular]

Or maybe 'Murica is located on the Cuban continental shelf.

GIB CLAY! REMOVE HAMBURGER!

I'm only removing hamburger to my belly. *increases likelihood of cardiovascular disease*

I bet your arteries crinkle with delight.

[Setgavarius]

I'm only removing hamburger to my belly. *increases likelihood of cardiovascular disease*

I bet your arteries crinkle with delight.

that they do
why must humans be designed to gorge ourselves on fat?

[Autumn Wind]

The Sky god was consumed with a great passion for the mermaid daughter of the Sea queen. So the Sky god slew a great sea turtle named Malvino and formed the islands from it's shell. The Sky god made love to the mermaid and the product of their union was the demigod Arjento. Arjento built his kingdom on the islands, but yearning for a mate, settled on the mainland, and the Argentinian people are the fruit of his loins.

Clearly, Las Malvinas are the ancestral homeland of the Argentinian people, where as the British claim is a product of European imperialism.

The notion that Argentina is a product of Spanish imperialism, or that a majority of Argentina's population are late 19th and early 20th century European immigrants is a lie.

[Novus America]

Oh crap, I better prepare for an all out British-Argentinian war.

*hides in bunker*

Why? It is not that scary a idea, especially considering the shape of the Argentine military. If you were to be directly involved sure. But unless you are serving in either military you have little to worry about.

Though Argentina learned its lesson anyway. They just talk.

[Geilinor]

The Sky god was consumed with a great passion for the mermaid daughter of the Sea queen. So the Sky god slew a great sea turtle named Malvino and formed the islands from it's shell. The Sky god made love to the mermaid and the product of their union was the demigod Arjento. Arjento built his kingdom on the islands, but yearning for a mate, settled on the mainland, and the Argentinian people are the fruit of his loins.

Clearly, Las Malvinas are the ancestral homeland of the Argentinian people, where as the British claim is a product of European imperialism.

The notion that Argentina is a product of Spanish imperialism, or that a majority of Argentina's population are late 19th and early 20th century European immigrants is a lie.

Are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentines_of_European_descent

[Autumn Wind]

Are you serious?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentines_of_European_descent

Are you serious?

See: cartoonish parody

[Laederland]

Oh crap, I better prepare for an all out British-Argentinian war.

*hides in bunker*

Why? It is not that scary a idea, especially considering the shape of the Argentine military. If you were to be directly involved sure. But unless you are serving in either military you have little to worry about.

Though Argentina learned its lesson anyway. They just talk.

It is a joke mien Freund.

[Godular]

Why? It is not that scary a idea, especially considering the shape of the Argentine military. If you were to be directly involved sure. But unless you are serving in either military you have little to worry about.

Though Argentina learned its lesson anyway. They just talk.

It is a joke mien Freund.

*twitch

'mein'

ei = i
ie = e

I have no idea why seeing german misspellings makes me twitch more than seeing such in english. Strange.

[Of Danishes]

It is a joke mien Freund.

*twitch

'mein'

ei = i
ie = e

I have no idea why seeing german misspellings makes me twitch more than seeing such in english. Strange.

Cause is grammar nazi not grammar British first

[Laederland]

It is a joke mien Freund.

*twitch

'mein'

ei = i
ie = e

I have no idea why seeing german misspellings makes me twitch more than seeing such in english. Strange.

We all make mistakes, now, let's get back to ze topic at hand shall we?

[Godular]

*twitch

'mein'

ei = i
ie = e

I have no idea why seeing german misspellings makes me twitch more than seeing such in english. Strange.

We all make mistakes, now, let's get back to ze topic at hand shall we?

I think we've just been thoroughly pulverizing an equine corpse at this juncture.

[Cymrea]

"Ahoy, ahoy, ahoy, what's all this then?"

"I say, I say, I say, my wife has gone to the West Indies."
"Jamaica?"
"No, she went of her own accord."

---

"I say, my wife has gone to Saint Petersburg."
"Is she Russian?"
"No, she's taking her time."

"I say, my wife has gone to Helsinki."
"Is she Finnish?"
"No, not yet."

[Rio Cana]

Oh crap, I better prepare for an all out British-Argentinian war.

*hides in bunker*

*snorts sufficiently derisively*
It would be like kicking over a steel drum. Once it was over there'd be lots of noise, but nothing it can actually do.

Seems you never saw this movie unless you forgot about the following part. Fast Forward to 3 hours 28 minutes 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAOdbwaQtA

[North Arkana]

*snorts sufficiently derisively*
It would be like kicking over a steel drum. Once it was over there'd be lots of noise, but nothing it can actually do.

Seems you never saw this movie unless you forgot about the following part. Fast Forward to 3 hours 28 minutes 30 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OAOdbwaQtA

Seeing as I have no desire to try to load a massive video file on limited data, how about you use words?

[Calimera II]

Economic Exclusion Zones cover water, it wouldn't give Argentina the right to control the Falklands.

Yes. Of course. Which is why this thread is pretty pointless.

That is not entirely true. The United Nations' commission reaffirms Argentina's sovereignty in the South Atlantic and moreover acknowledges the existence of a sovereignty dispute (which has been acknowledge various times by the UN) between the Argentine nation and Great Britain. The decision by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf basically fuelled tensions between Argentina and Great Britain. The British do not like the fact that Argentina gained territory in the South Atlantic by 35%, something which is celebrated in Argentina.

Also, the fact that under the dictatorship of Jorge, the claim was used only to change public Argentinian focus away from its poor economics, towards the UK.

Jorge Videla did not invade the Malvinas, it was Leopoldo Galtieri. It is true that Leopoldo used the claim to distract the general public in Argentina from pressing issues back at home, such as economic difficulties and severe human rights abuses. Fortunately, the democratically elected governments after the military junta have taken important steps to end with impunity: especially Alfonsin, Néstor and Cristina Fernandez have taken massive steps.

Claiming something you think is rightfully yours is human, fundamental and of course just.

Even more so if that something is the land you were born in.
You must understand Argentina's claim on the Falklands is trivial in front of the fact that the islands have a native population that was born, works and lives in the Islands and also has been given self-determination as a people by the UK, which they have used to express their will regarding the fate of their islands and themselves. This means -as I explained in an earlier post of mine towards you that you propably missed(even though it was quite hard to miss considering its length)- that once a people is given self-determination it is irreversible, this is why your claim that Falklanders don't qualify as a 'people' is annuled ever since the Falklands adopted an autonomous democratic government ...later on, their right to self-determination and their status as a people was cemented by a referendum which we cannot deny the existence thereof.

So Falklanders are prefectly justified and in accordnance with international law to Desire the Right.

Sorry for responding so late, I have been super busy this week and had no time to respond to any long post. But don't worry, I actually read it and studied it in great detail, and now, I finally have time to write a response to defend my stance when it comes to self-determination in this explicit case. I would like to make fully clear that I see what you mean, but I do not agree with you. It is important to mention that the UN calls to settle te disputed between GB and Argentina by negotiation, while taking (this is important:) the interests and aspirations (and not the wishes) of the population into account. The right of peoples to self-determination is in political discourse often highlighted. As we all now there have always been debates about its relevance and applicability to particular cases; as we have seen in the many Malvinas threads (or Falklands, whatever you like to call it) the debate may reach elevated levels of frustration or emotions. When it comes to the Malvinas dispute claims of self-determination and territorial integrity (and many more arguments) are pretty much opposed to each other. You claim that the right of self-determination is vested in the population. It is important to look at whether your claim that self-determination is applicable is true or not, and afterwards we can look at whether the argument of self-determination can be limited by the argument of territorial integrity.

The UN declaration I already explained that the right of self-determination is, under international law, not applicable to this specific case. On the surface it may indeed seem that the principle of self-determination may be applied in this case. Self-determination is a right applicable to three 'categories' of peoples: 1) Peoples of mandated and trusteeship territories; 2) peoples of NSGTs; and 3), peoples under alien domination, subjugation or exploitation. As you probably know, the Malvinas are on the list of NSGT, therefore, it would seems that the Kelpers enjoy the right of self-determination. There are however acknowledged limitations on the exercise of NSGTs to self-determination. To be entitled to the aforementioned right, i) the population must be ethnically or culturally distinct from the administering power; ii) or the existence of special circumstances such as a sovereingty dispute that would render a referendum unnecessary ( ii: Advisory opinion of the ICJ on Western Saharah). When looking at ii) we can directly discard the use of self-determination in this dispute. When looking at i) it gets slightly trickier. According to the last census 47% was born on the Falklands, 28% in the UK, 10% in St. Helena, 6% in Chile and 8% somewhere else. The website of the Falklands states that the community is predominantly of British descent. The UK's government reconfirms this: ''The majority of the population of the Falkland Islands are British by birth or descent and many can trace their family origins in the Islands back to the early nineteenth century. English is the national language and 99 per cent of the population speak English as their mother tongue. There are Anglican, Roman Catholic and nonconformist churches on the Falklands.'' So also based on that we can say that self-determination is not applicable. Moreover, the applicability of self-determination could also be questioned when considering the fact that the Malvinas had a strict immigration policy, preventing Argentinians from settling on the Malvinas after the invasion of 1833.

Even if the population had the right of self-determination, the exercise of the right would be subject to legal limitations.

The sources of international Law are treaties; international custom, as a kind of evidence of general practice accepted as law; general principles of law; and judicial decisions and teachings of the most highly qualified publicists as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
State sovereignty is the most important principle of international law upon which even the United Nations is built, and from this principle other fundamental principles of international law are derived , such as the principle of territorial integrity. State practive and international documents show that, in the exercise of the right to self-determination, territorial integrity is to be respected instead of curtailed. Paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 declares that ''Any attempt at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompartible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.'' The same resolution also mentions self-determination as being an important factor, but as it only applies to peoples and is in breach with the fundamental principle of territorial integrity. Furthermore, the limitation of the right of peoples to self-determination can also be backed by simply looking at the work of the UNSC when it comes to the Kurdish question and the attitude of the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the International Court of Justice, in the case of the western Sahara, argued that territorial sovereignty prevails over the right of self-determinaton.

We don't disregard it. Interests are not the same as wishes.

Except we do. Wishes and interests are different things that go hand in hand. The Kelpers wish to remain British as much as Argentines wish to own the Falklands.

When it comes to the Malvinas dispute, resolution 2065 underscores the existence of a sovereignty dispute between GB and Argentina. Moreover, it urges both States to find a solution, while keeping in mind UN Charter, resolution 1514 (which states that territorial integrity > self-determination), and the ''interests of the population.'' The right of self-determination is not mentioned. The United Nations Generally Assembly carefully worded the resolution, using the term 'interests' while avoiding the term 'wishes.' Self-determination is not included in the text of the resolution nor does 'interests' refer to self-determination. When the UNGA refers to self-determination the word 'wishes' or 'desires' is employed and not the word 'interests.' An example is resolution 2230 on the Question of Equatorial Guinea.

Anyways, question to Calimera and any other Argentines here: I'm far too young to answer this for myself, so did Argentines really care about the Falklands before the war?

Yes. Some people claim that Argentinians did not care about the Malvinas before the war, but that is not true. The Argentinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has always had departments dealing with issues such as the South Atlantic, the Malvinas and regional integrity. Moreover, the reason why the military junta invaded the Malvinas was because people also cared about the Malvinas Islands back then.

[Costa Fierro]

When it comes to the Malvinas dispute claims of self-determination and territorial integrity (and many more arguments) are pretty much opposed to each other.

What do you mean? Self determination is the people of the Falkland Islands getting to determine which country they want to be a part of. And that because the inhabitants chose to be a part of the United Kingdom, or at least a self-governing dependency, that any future maneuvers against the Falkland Islands by Argentina threaten the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. That's not a hard to understand.

The UN declaration I already explained that the right of self-determination is, under international law, not applicable to this specific case.

And do you have the specific quote where it says that the principle of self determination does not apply to the Falklands?

On the surface it may indeed seem that the principle of self-determination may be applied in this case.

Because the islanders have a right to chose which country they are a part of and neither Argentina or the United Kingdom can dictate otherwise.

Self-determination is a right applicable to three 'categories' of peoples: 1) Peoples of mandated and trusteeship territories; 2) peoples of NSGTs; and 3), peoples under alien domination, subjugation or exploitation. As you probably know, the Malvinas are on the list of NSGT, therefore, it would seems that the Kelpers enjoy the right of self-determination.

And they do. That is not hard to understand.

When looking at ii) we can directly discard the use of self-determination in this dispute.

Why? Western Sahara is different to the Falklands in that it is a country occupied by a foreign power where the native inhabitants (the Sahrawis) are fighting for independence. The Falklands are an island group that is part of a country that happens to have their territory claimed by a sometimes belligerent neighbor. Two totally different kettles of fish.

Moreover, the applicability of self-determination could also be questioned when considering the fact that the Malvinas had a strict immigration policy, preventing Argentinians from settling on the Malvinas after the invasion of 1833.

Mhm. Somehow I don't believe that a strict immigration policy exists and there was no invasion of the Falklands in 1833. That, again, was a propaganda piece written by the government for an Argentine audience.

Even if the population had the right of self-determination, the exercise of the right would be subject to legal limitations.

Furthermore, the limitation of the right of peoples to self-determination can also be backed by simply looking at the work of the UNSC when it comes to the Kurdish question and the attitude of the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the International Court of Justice, in the case of the western Sahara, argued that territorial sovereignty prevails over the right of self-determinaton.

Again, these two are completely different cases. For one thing, Kurdistan is largely populated by an ethnic group that is different to the Turks or the Arabs or the Persians that border Kurdish lands. Self determination as you mentioned earlier should apply to the Kurdish people simply because of these differences. It isn't, largely because the Kurdish people have acquired autonomy within Iraq but are not united in that they are spread over four different countries, with each country largely reluctant to have a new state carved out of them.

Western Sahara is a different case too. Firstly, because Morocco currently occupies 90% of the country and refuses to let any UN personnel into the region and secondly, because the majority of the ethnic Sahrawis live within large refugee camps in Algeria. Thirdly, and this is where it's complicated, Spain is sort of partially still responsible for Western Sahara for a few technical reasons.

None of these cases are similar to the Falkland Islands in any sense of the imagination. The right to self determination would not infringe on the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and not on Argentina, because the islands are not occupied by or controlled by Argentina. Therefore there is absolutely no reason why self determination cannot apply to the Falklands, especially if they are on a UN list that is continually used to push said principles onto these territories (New Zealand currently has a territory listed on that list also).

Now if you weren't linking random irrelevant United Nations resolutions, you might have had an argument but so far, all you've said is a large number of unsubstantiated claims that the UN does not recognize the principle of self determination in a list of territories where it pushes said principle all the time.

[HMS Vanguard]

What he is not telling you is that Argentina's claim to legal sovereignty is also incredibly weak, and much weaker than that of the UK. Not quite as weak as any claim based on self-determination, but his (broadly correct) argument that sovereignty trumps self-determination does not rescue his ultimate claim that the Falklands ought to belong to Argentina. Self-determination is just yet another reason why Argentina should go home, and dropping it does not put them in the right.