Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Can we not give them to the Islamic State as a peace offering ?

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

The newly discovered natural resources and land underwater makes it possible for Argentina to expand its EEZ.

Territorial waters and the Economic Exclusion Zones are different.

[Of Danishes]

Can we not give them to the Islamic State as a peace offering ?

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

It's the EEZ

[Novus America]

Can we not give them to the Islamic State as a peace offering ?

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

Territirial is 12 nm. But your EEZ is 200. And your continental shelf can go further. EEZ you cannot keep ships from transiting freely. But you have exclusive rights to resources. And continental shelf you have exclusive rights to the sea bed.

[Geilinor]

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

The newly discovered natural resources and land underwater makes it possible for Argentina to expand its EEZ.

Territorial waters and the Economic Exclusion Zones are different.

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

[Novus America]

The newly discovered natural resources and land underwater makes it possible for Argentina to expand its EEZ.

Territorial waters and the Economic Exclusion Zones are different.

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.

[Herargon]

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

Territirial is 12 nm. But your EEZ is 200. And your continental shelf can go further. EEZ you cannot keep ships from transiting freely. But you have exclusive rights to resources. And continental self you have exclusive rights to the sea bed.

Ah, thanks. That clarifies up a lot.

[East Catalina]

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.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg/1024px-Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg
eh, not quite.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg/1024px-Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg
eh, not quite.

Even if it was, there are several conflicting claims about EEZs and Continental Shelves around the world as to where does one start and the other begins, given how obscure are the rights to claim.

[East Catalina]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg/1024px-Amerikanisches_Mittelmeer_NASA_World_Wind_Globe.jpg
eh, not quite.

Even if it was, there are several conflicting claims about EEZs and Continental Shelves around the world as to where does one start and the other begins, given how obscure are the rights to claim.

Yeah, that would seem a bit confusing to demarcate.

[Imperializt Russia]

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.

Well no, the issue - which the Falklands asked the British government to clarify and the director general of the UN had to come out and clarify - was whether or not this proposed expansion removed all of the EEZ of the Falklands and ceded it to the Argies.

[Risottia]

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

Territirial is 12 nm. But your EEZ is 200. And your continental shelf can go further. EEZ you cannot keep ships from transiting freely. But you have exclusive rights to resources. And continental shelf you have exclusive rights to the sea bed.

Now, that's exactly why the Falklands should become the Falkshire, overseas county of England. That would make a British claim to the Falklands continental shelf exactly equivalent to the Argentine one.

[Camelza]

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.

[Herargon]

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.

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.

[Aboveland]

Wow this topic is going in circles.

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?

[The balkens]

Wow this topic is going in circles.

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?

Probably not, only when the economy's bad or when they think they can take on a military power like the UK and win.

[New confederate ramenia]

Malvine Islands don't have their own sovereignty. They aren't a sovereign state, they're a disputed territory of the UK. The thread title needs to be changed.

[SD_Film Artists]

Can we not give them to the Islamic State as a peace offering ?

Nah, Somalia is more safe.

On a more serious note, aren't territorial waters around 12 nautical miles (22 km in metric units)?
Wouldn't that mean that Argentinia had no right to expand?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35914839

The ruling only effects things like fishing, and it's non-binding.

[Roski]

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.

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

The US isn't particularly interested in stepping on its neighbors. Doesn't matter where the shelf actually ends, up until fairly recently, the US was on good terms with Cuba. The 60's Revolution secured Cuba the support of a state with several thousand nuclear weapons. Noe, the US wants Cuba to be its friend again.

the US wouldn't do that, even if it were technically able.

[Rio Cana]

The newly discovered natural resources and land underwater makes it possible for Argentina to expand its EEZ.

Territorial waters and the Economic Exclusion Zones are different.

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

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

When if comes to the fish, it seems Chinese and some other nations pirate fishing fleets are very active in that area. This has resulted in overfishing which is worrying the islanders and some Argentine fishing businesses. With Argentina and the islands not talking thus not cooperating when it comes to this problem, the pirate fishing fleets are cleaning up.
Story on this from 2013 - http://news.yahoo.com/outlaw-fleet-scoo ... 18506.html

[Risottia]

Malvine Islands don't have their own sovereignty. They aren't a sovereign state, they're a disputed territory of the UK. The thread title needs to be changed.

They're not a "disputed territory of the UK". They're a British Overseas Territory, claimed by Argentina. And they're SELF-GOVERNING, as per their Constitution (the current one having been approved in 2009). They have delegated some of their competences (defense and foreign affairs) to the UK government.
If you want to pick nits, you have to be accurate.

[Risottia]

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

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

IF the EEZ claim by Argentina were to be ruled valid by an international tribunal.

[Risottia]

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.

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!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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

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.

[Herargon]

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.

22 km*

It's 12 nautical miles.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

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!

Which is more logical, because the US hasn't ratified the treaty on the law of the seas yet, the treaty all this nonsense is based on.

Ungh. The US and international law...