Are They the Falklands or The Malvinas? :: What the British Claim Rests On.:!:.THE TRUE FACTS.

 Here are the facts concerning the Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. ”Boring !”,I hear you say ,but nonetheless they are worth a read for background information and to enable you to fully realize that the Argentinian claim is groundless and completely and utterly ludicrous. It is just a matter of Cristina Elisabet Fernández de Kirchner kicking up the dust to add impetus to her re-election campaign!……..Don’t allow that dust to cloud your judgement ,the Facts are plain and simple ,she doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

For all those of you who doubt the validity of Britain’s claim to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands ?……..READ ON—–>>

The memorial commemorates the 255 British servicemen who died in the Falklands war.

What the British claim rests on,

That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.

That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of “2 months of illegal occupation” by Argentina.

That Argentina’s attempts to colonize the islands in 1820–33 were “sporadic and ineffectual”.

That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.

That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island’s population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.

That the principle of uti possedetis “is not accepted as a general principle of international law”. 

That UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations “are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders’ right to choose their own future.”

The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.

==Does the fact Spain once controlled the islands help the Argentine claim?==

In March 1848, the delegates at the Lima Congress in Peru signed a number of agreements.

Article 7 stated – ” The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Vice-royalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided.”

This is known as the Uti Possidetis Juris principle and Article 7 was signed by Ministers from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. The doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris is therefore a useful tool to resolve sovereignty/border issues between the signatories.

Argentina did not sign. Britain did not sign. Uti Possidetis Juris does therefore not apply to the Falkland Islands.

==Do Papal Bulls help the Argentine claim?==

No, they don’t. I refer to the papal bull of 1493 and the subsequent Treaty of Tordesillas. Regrettably, it wasn’t recognized by most of the world then and by none now. Even the Papacy says it was wrong then and of no account now. By the way “self-determination” means that the people there decide. 

The treaty only affects Spain and Portugal, so it isn’t relevant to the Falklands dispute as the UK isn’t a signatory of the treaty. If the UK was a signatory then it would effect the sovereignty of all former British colonies in the Americas, including countries like Canada.

The islanders have the right to determine the sovereignty of their birthplace. In which case, the islanders should not lose their rights as a result of things that happened before they were born – such as Spain and Portugal signing a treaty in the 15th century.

==Does the Nootka Sound Convention help the Argentine claim?==

Some points about the Nootka Sound Convention. 

Article VI “It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.”

1) It is debatable that it applies to the Falklands. It refers to adjacent islands. The Falklands at 300 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to Argentina.

2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war.

3) It’s a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18th -early 19th century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention.

4) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina, by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power), rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:

Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.

(Argentine web pages on Nootka and the Falklands never mention the secret article)

5) New states do not inherit treaties without the consent of other signatories to those treaties.

6) Argentina did not inherit the Falklands so neither did she inherit any treaty Spain may have signed with any country regarding the Falklands.

==Do the Falklands belong to Argentina on the basis of geography?==

No, there are plenty of overseas territories from several different nations all over the world that are not disputed by the other closest nations. The islands are also 0 miles from the islanders who are self governing.

At their closest to Argentina, the Falklands are some two hundred and fifty miles from the tip of Tierra del Fuego, and over three hundred and fifty miles from the nearest Patagonian coast, and are not considered to be joined to South America’s continental shelf by many (not all) academics.

After recognition from Spain, Argentina began the annexation of Patagonia which was left to the native people and involved genocide. They are in no position to lecture the British on imperialism. Even though Argentina is still considerably closer to the Islands the UK, this annexation process inevitably brought the islands closer to Buenos Aires control.

It is irrelevant whether the islands are on the Argentine continental shelf anyway as international law regards various offshore distances as being of significance to territorial disputes: three miles, seven miles and twenty-one miles, with two hundred miles as an absolute limit. Territorial contiguity (via an undersea continental shelf) does not seem to have much force in international law; otherwise presumably the Canaries would belong to Morocco or the Faroe Islands to Britain.

==What about 1833?==

1833 was the Re-establishment of British rule on the Falkland Islands.

In 1765, Captain John Byron landed on Saunders Island. He then explored other islands’ coasts and claimed the group for Britain. The following year, Captain John McBride returned to Port Egmont, on Saunders, to construct a fort. The British later discovered the French colony at Port Saint Louis, and the first sovereignty dispute began.

The Spanish expelled the British colony in 1770, but it was restored in 1771 following British threats of war over the islands. However, in 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. By 1776, the British had left their settlement, leaving behind a plaque asserting British sovereignty over the islands. Although there was no British administration in the islands, British and American sealers routinely used them to hunt for seals, also taking on fresh water as well as feral cattle, pigs and even penguins for provisions. Whalers also used the islands to shelter from the South Atlantic weather and to take on fresh provisions.

Luis Vernet approached the BRITISH for permission to build a settlement at the former Spanish settlement of Puerto Soledad, initially in 1826 and again in 1828 following the failure of the earlier expedition. 

In addition, Vernet requested British protection for his settlement should the British choose to form a permanent presence on the islands. After receiving assurances from the British minister chargé d’affaires, Sir Woodbine Parish, Vernet provided regular reports to the British on the progress of his enterprise. 

Vernet’s appointment as Governor in 1829 was protested against by the British Consul Parish, in return the Government of the United Provinces of the River Plate merely acknowledged the protest. Britain protested again when Vernet announced his intentions to exercise exclusive rights over fishing and sealing in the islands. (Similar protests were received from the American representative, who protested at the curtailment of established rights and that the United States did not recognise the jurisdiction of the United Provinces over the islands.) 

Vernet continued to provide regular reports to Parish throughout this period.

The raid of the USS Lexington in December 1831 combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands.

On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the warship HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands. 

While Argentine Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the Argentine schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. The colony was set up and the islands continued under a British presence until the Falklands War.

After their return in 1833, the British began moves to begin a fully-fledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis (Argentine often claim these settlers were removed yet there is zero evidence for this). Vernet’s deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned later that year to take charge of the settlement and was encouraged to further Vernet’s business interests provided he did not seek to assert Argentine Government authority.

In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to interests in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer. Silly us eh?

==What has the UN said?==

In 1946 the UK included the Falkland Islands on the UN list of non-self-governing territories under Chapter XI of the UN charter. However, the General Assembly of the United Nations did not explicitly address the issue of the Falkland Islands until 1965, which Resolution 2065 noted:

the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over [said] Islands”, and invited those governments “to proceed without delay with the negotiations… with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands

On the 12th of November Bank Ki Moon said the UK is not violating relevant UN resolutions referred to the Falklands’ and more specifically on colonialism, he argued that a prevailing impression is that “people living under certain conditions should have a certain level of capacities so that they can decide their own future”, be it independence or some kind of government in their territories.


Britain has a legally sound claim the Falkland Islands.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s