And the spanish as well, however if i got this right the falklands have been under british control the longest not 100% sure on that im gunna look it up

"Sovereignty over the islands again became an issue in the latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, in the pursuit of its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) regarding the de-colonisation of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the issue"

I dont think the falklanders will vote for argentina to be totaly honest.

"An agreement with Argentina had set the terms for exploitation of offshore resources including large oil reserves; however, in 2007 Argentina unilaterally withdrew from the agreement.[64] In response, Falklands Oil and Gas Limited has signed an agreement with BHP Billiton to investigate the potential exploitation of oil reserves.[65] Climatic conditions of the southern seas mean that exploitation will be a difficult task, though economically viable, and the continuing sovereignty dispute with Argentina is hampering progress"

Again argentina pulled out stop crying over a dumb mistake you made

:har::har::har::har::har::har:

Hold on, what was americas claim of soverignty in South East Asia?
oh yeah it didn't have any so that nonsense doesn't belong in this topic.
France had a claim there though, but you will find several pieces of paper where they signed those claims away.

The really funny thing is he says he has just started working in law, all those "meaningless" pieces of paper he will have to deal with are going to be really confusing for him.

Where is any document signed by the countries that says the issue is agreed?
Every document signed by the two countries states that both countries still claim soveriegnty.

On the surrender document the british refused to put the islands down as falklands malvinas, or any other form other than falklands, thus meaning the british have overall authority and overall sovreignty of the islands.

Argentina invaded for 6 weeks it maintained sovrignty then was booted out so that the british re took that.

Point is the islands have been british for over 120 years the people on the island hold british citizen ships and passports have voted numerous times before to stay british the islands are british end of discussion end of the day if i walked into your home and said i want half of it you wouldnt be to chuffed so why should the UK do it to thier own people on the falklands ?

Excuse my stupidity but what exactly are the international or other laws that govern wars, warfare etc.? There is the Geneva convention that even I am aware of. Are there some old UN or even League of nations treaties in the line of "Thou shalt not smiteth thy neibour with thy halbard". :)

If you for example do what the US did in the Vietnam war which is to kind of 'hop in' to a war it otherwise has no geographical stake in, then is that 'illegal', on an international or national level, somehow?

Sorry, I only have questions this time. :):salute:

I believe all bar one nation has to forfill a certain criteria before they can go to war to justify thier actions.

In order to go to war they must have a legitamate reason hence why we went into afghanistan in 2001 because of the 9/11 attacks that gave us a reason.

The UK has to forfill a requirement criteria the bill then passes to the queen and then back to parliment in the case of the falklands it was done in hours not days or weeks.

Thats my take on it though so it might not be 100% im not a politician

@Kapitan

"Best pleased to inform Her Majesty that the Union Jack once again flies over Stanley. God Save the Queen."
Major General Jeremy Moore [on capture of Port Stanley]

http://imgcash6.imageshack.us/img91/...britaincj6.gif

Nuff said

~SALUTE~

I just wanted to say that the whole way you Brits handled that war and the lead up to it impressed the hell out of me and my fellow soldiers.

Oh dear, can you tell me Kapitan exactly what that surrender document was?
Could you then tell me how insignificant the military surrender of a force is in relation to a diplomatic agreement over terriotorial claims between two states.

No, Argentina invaded and for a short term had defacto soveriegnty, britain kicked them out and now has defacto soveriegnty. The issue in question and the issue being contested is dejure soveriegnty.
If I stole your car I would have it in my possesion, I wouldn't own it under law though.
If I took your car due to a dispute over ownership I could legally own it if we came to an agreement on ownership and the agreement was that my claim on your car was valid.
Simple isn't it.

Well it ain't often anyone could call the removal of rights for the Falkland islanders and the cutsd in defense spending impressive, though sending troops off in very bad ships, a severe lack of equipment and highly inflammable uniforms is rather inmpessive....if you are impressed by how much a government can get away with when it comes to looking after its servicemen.
Though I think the most impressive thing was the mistreatment of the veterans, especially those that were really badly ****** up during the conflict.

That was wrong, Gen. Menendez only surrendered the forces under your direct command. In fact, a problem arises when some British admiral realized that Argentine Air Force (and Navy, and Army, etc) on the mainland was NOT under Menendez command.

And the problem about the island is not so simple. For starters, the British KICKED the Argentine government in the islands back in 1833...

Ah, I remember having come across some odd news about Argentine, England and the Falklands Islands: http://www.janes.com/news/security/j...0217_1_n.shtml

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Well, here is the other side of the coin:

According to the inform "by failing to mention Argentina’s claim to the islands in the Convention, he effectively dropped it."

As far as I know, the 1850 treaty didn´t have a "please fill all territorial claims here or that will be dropped" clause, so it´s a curious interpretation after all...

The rest of the inform is a piece of cheap propaganda too.

Look at the opinion of some (past) british leaders about the islands:

• Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister in 1834: "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. Is unclear that we've ever been holders of the sovereignty of these islands."

• Sidney Spicer, head of the Americas Department at the Foreign Office in 1910: "... the Argentine government's attitude is not entirely unjustified and our action has been somewhat despotic"

• R.
  R. Campbell, assistant secretary of the Foreign Office in 1911: "Who had the best right while we are attaching the islands. I think the government of Buenos Aires [...] We can not easily make a good claim and we have done a wisely effort to avoid discussing the issue in Argentina. "

• Sir Malcolm A.
  Robertson, the British ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928: "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."

• George Fitzmaurice, counsel to the British Foreign Office in 1936: "Our case has a certain fragility" and advised it finally came: "Sitting on the islands hard to avoid discussing, in a policy to drop the case."

• John Troutbeck, a senior British Foreign Office in 1936: "... our taking of the Falkland Islands in 1833 [...] was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. "

Or ask the Foreign Office about the S17111 (AS – 5728/311/2) document.

Or, for a different opinio, read this column in The Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/t...the-falklands/

Is a complex matter, after all.

August, could you tell us what jobs or qualifications Pascoe and Pepper have that give them such an insight on which to base their article?

OK - lets look at the question of who should own the Falklands....

A British chap by the name of John Strong sailed to them in 1690. At the time - the region was unpopulated. The French were the first to settle the area, in 1764 - resulting in de facto control. So initially we have a claim between the French and British.... In 1765 the British landed and claimed the region. They later found the French Colony and the first disagreement about who had claim began. However, the French basically sold their control to the Spanish in 1766 and vacated the area. So now it becomes a British claim and a Spanish claim - though the Spanish claim is now "second-hand". Then, in 1770, the Spanish expelled the British colony via "expedition" - a nice way of saying they got run off by an armed force. In 1771, over the threat of war, the Spanish backed off and the English returned to the region. However, due to the economic strains of the American War of Independance, the English left the Falklands in 1776. They left a plaque claiming the land as British at the time, but also left total defacto control to the Spanish. The Spanish then left the Falklands for good in 1811 - also leaving behind their own plaque claiming the land as Spanish. Note that during this time - one country claiming the Falklands is not mentioned..... that would be Argentina. Why would that be? Because Argentina didn't even EXIST at the time. It is interesting to note that British (and American) seal hunting ships continued to put in to the region though it now was unpopulated again. Now - in 1816 the people of what is now Argentina declared independance from Spain, and in 1820 actually realized that through conflict. They became known as the "United Provinces".

We now move forward to 1826 - and enter Luis Vernet - a German by birth. He requested the authority to colonize the islands. Who did he ask? Not the "United Provinces" - but he DID ask the British. When that attempt failed - he again asked the British in 1828 for the chance to try again. The reason this is important is because Argentina's claim rests heavily with Vernet, as we will soon see. Vernet was a merchant, and the United Provinces owed him quite substantially, so when he succeeded in seeing the area settled in 1828, they made a deal with him. They would appoint him "governor", basically giving him the region as payment. In 1828, the Argentine 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, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane, and before leaving once again sought permission first from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The British asked for a report on the islands for the British government, and Vernet asked for British protection should they return.[So, in 1829, Vernet was named Governor by the United Provinces, though its quite important to note that he continued to send "reports" back to the British Consul (which shows he continued to accept and recognize the British claim to the Falklands). In 1831 Vernet seized the American sealing ship Harriet (he had also siezed two other ships) and the US sent the sloop Lexington to the region with orders to recover the Harriet. This the American warship did, while taking Vernet into custody. The colony was evacuated - the Lexington giving the choice to the colonists to stay or leave, and offering them transport to Montevideo. The majority chose to leave, except for a few "cowboys"who remained in the interior of the islands (and not within the settlement inself). Vernet then sold most of his holdings in the Falklands to a British merchant and never returned to the Falklands.

The United Provinces - aka Argentina - tried to turn the region into a penal colony - with no success. The new leader was murdered and no control was ever established. In fact, the only "civilized" part of the area is Port Louis - and it is manned by BRITISH mercenaries who keep the riff-raff that the UP had sent over (trying to create the penal colony) at bay.

Meanwhile, events play out with Vernet and Britain makes the decision that its sovereignty over the Falklands should be asserted - else those uppity Americans might just decide to take a liking to the area. In 1833 the HMS Cleo arrives in Port Louis and the Captain makes note the settlement is flying the wrong flag - since it happened that it wasn't a British flag. He also sent the Argentinian bureacracy packing, and they left without firing a shot. Thus the first permanent settlement of the Falklands was established in 1833 - by the British. Vernet's deputy was allowed to return to the Falklands and his position under the condition that he did not traffic - as Vernet had done - with Argentina.

Its also quite interesting to note that Argentina offered to relinquish any claim to the region - in 1841 - for the cancellation of debts. Britain refused to consider the offer.

Britain has repeatedly offered (in 1947, 1948 and 1955) to let the matter be mediated by the ICoJ at the Hague - Argentina has refused all three offers.

Argentina's claim to the Islands stands on its investure with Venet - claiming his acceptance of title from them showed the leader of the colony recognizing their claim to the region. It also arises from the Nootka Sound Conventions - a treaty between Spain and Britain dating from 1789 that states that the coast of South America and its islands were Spanish Territory. However - the Spanish unilaterally repudiated those conventions in 1795, making the agreement null and void.

Thus it boils down to this....

Britain found it. France settled it. Spain then had a second-hand claim to it. Argentina then tried to claim it after becoming independant - meaning that the the Argentinian claim is now "third hand". If one were to consider their claim valid - they gave the region to a merchant in 1829 - who ultimately ended up selling the majority of it to a British citizen! As for the Nootka Bay agreement - the idea that Argentina could think a country would respect a contract with a THIRD party and the agreement was already terminated (and not by the British) is ludicrous. History shows that Argentina has tried to use the Falklands as payment for its debts - and not just once. First they used the Falklands to pay Venet - then they tried to pay of London debts with the region in 1841 - and now the Argentinian government sees economic profit once again in the Islands - and so it again tries to lay claim to them.

Finally - and to those Argentinian members of subsim - this does NOT reflect on you, but rather your government - but there were no indigenous people in the region - and the people that are there now want to remain under the British flag. Given the bloody history or Argentina (which not all of that is the fault of Argentina - and what country doesn't have blood on its hands) - its time to respect the rights of those that live there - especially since Argentina gave the Falklands to Venet and he sold them.

Haplo,

interesting history, I haven't read up much on the history of the islands. I would say that the Argentinians have a +50% claim to the islands. First through the 'inheritance' of the French-Spanish claim. It stays valid no matter what you say. If not then it's still France's or Spain's.

The Vernet-thing is trickier. I'd say that there was economic dealings to and from meaning that UK as well sold them. When Vernet came into the picture the islands were 50-50 French-Spanish - UK. So how could Vernet be anything but for a pro-Argentinian claim? That's the way I see it.

Also, you think the UK's motives for holding on to the islands is any more noble then that of the Argentinians? Aren't they the ones who are actively trying to empty the entire continental shelf out of oil as we speak.

So today UK'ers, US'ers and possibly other English language natives think the islands belong to the UK, the Argentinians and others who have Spanish as their native language think it belongs to the Argentinians. So it's a kind of a anglo-spanish head bashing bonanza. Personally I'd like there to be some kind of nature refuge, maybe governed by the UN or something.

Or to begin to think about nations for the native people of the Americas and their rights for the natural resources near them. For a European nation to go half way across the globe to rob natural resources from 'no man's land' is more of the ol' imperialistic mentality that at least to me doesn't seem just anymore.

I must agree with a lot of CaptainHaplo points, but I must disagree with the above mentioned.

Argentina gave the land to Vernet (in fact I attended University with one of the grand-grand-grand children of Mr. Louis and he had those documents), but not the sovereingty.

Is not the same, for sure...

Marcantilan - first off thank you for not just flaming me outright and instead giving a fair hearing to the data. That is to your credit! :yeah:

You bring up a very interesting point - the land was given - but not the soveriegnty. I see where your coming from - as the US did land grants during its times of expansion. It very likely is a valid point. So let me ask a few questions that will help me make up my own mind.

Naming Venet governor of land already granted to him to own - when in that time period a colonial governor was the proverbial "local king" - would one consider that like a feudal heirarchy where a knight owed loyalty to a Duke, a Duke to a King, or would it be considered a full transfer of soveriegnty? Taxation bears on this question - and history says that Argentina stated to Venet that if a colony could be established within 3 years, it would no be taxed by the UP. Now - this arguement goes 2 ways - as it shows the UP claiming the RIGHT to tax the region - but also can be viewed by the UP as saying "if you get it going in three years - we have no claim on you". I honestly don't know enough to know for sure - so perhaps you can shed some light on which one it would be?

Also - Argentina (United Provinces of the River Plate) was formed out of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. The Viceroyalty as established owed allegience to the monarchy of Spain. Argentina cast off the yoke of feudalism and pursued self-determination. What is the difference between that and the Falklands having the same right to self-determination?

My biggest problem with seeing the Argentinian side is that I don't know what other claims (other than Nootka and the fact they are "closest) Argentina may legitimately have. If there are some - please point me to some places where I can learn about them. Thanks again!

So it was a business charter, just the same as the Falkland island company.

Captain, I think your post described perfectly the chaos (Argentina not being Argentina, Spain and its alliances, the treatys, the Pope, et al), claims and counter claims that happened until 1833 and beyond.

About Argentina "official" position, is here (in English):

http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/portal/sere...s/homeing.html

Regarding your questions, Argentina abolished slavery and "titles" (King, Earl, so on) on 1813 (have ni mind that 1789 "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" was in vogue at the time), so is clear that Vernet was appointed as governor and paid in advance with land (lot of). Same thing happened with most places in the Patagonia.

I think the tax exemption was a carrot in front of Vernet.

The self determination thing is very interesting. The United Provinces at the time of independence (1816) covered not only Argentina but Uruguay, Paraguay, parts of Bolivia, etc. Not so much years later, those places asked for independence and Buenos Aires sent military expeditions to suffocate the revolution...

But I think is not the same in the Islands. The former population was evacuated by force and a new population was implanted by the UK. Of course the new ones wants to stay loyal to the King (or Queen). But, why if you ask the descendents of the 1833 emigrees?

I should say that I understand the islanders. If I belong to a prosper colony of a world major power, why on earth I would ask to be a citizen of a third world country governed by peronists!

Anyway, is not a simple matter. A pleasure to chat pacifically about it.

Regards!