The British should be able to bill the Argentinian Government for the mine removal.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/05/05/email_scammers_hit_...
I doubt the UK is about to invade Argentina over the issue, or the UN to vote for sanctions.
Obvious troll is obvious but for the sake of facts:
a) The Islands were uninhabited when the British settled there.
b) Argentina didn't even exist as an independent country when the British claimed the Falklands.
> It's not like they're anywhere close to London, are they?
It's not like Argentina is anywhere close to Madrid, but there seems to be a lot of people of Spanish descent living there.
- Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands.
- During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government.
- If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence.
- 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it
- 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.
- 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands.
- 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands
- 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands.
Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2]
So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands?
[1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM
[2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
They claimed the Falkland Islands before Argentina even existed as an independent country, as I said in my post. They didn't have to make a new claim every time they recognized a new country.
a) anyone can claim any territory they like; that doesn't automatically make the claim legitimate or credible
b) claiming a territory is academic unless you can actually enforce your claim
c) Britain claimed the Falklands (decades) before "Argentina" even existed in any form as an independent country
d) if a "British" claim and presence on islands with no native population is illegitimate, what does that make a "Spanish" claim and presence on land taken from the native population that is now called "Argentina"?
Maybe the people of the Falklands are going home when the people of Argentina do.
> No, they did not claim it before that year.
https://www.google.com/search?q=1765+falklands+claim
https://www.google.com/search?q=argentine+independence
Even after so-called "Argentine independence" - half a century after Britain claimed the Falklands - "Argentina" didn't exist even remotely like the country we know today.
In fact even by 1865 - 100 YEARS after the British claimed the Falklands, and 15 years after "Argentina" relinquished claims in the treaty of Arana Southern - this is what "Argentina" looked like:
http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~21...
So who do the British owe the Falklands to again? Buenos Aires? United Provinces of the River Plate? Argentine Confederation? Chile? Uruguay? Araucania and Patagonia? Spain?
Tell me again the one about returning stolen land.
Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that.
The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN. That little organization where all the countries are represented. I understand from what you say that you favor the rule of the strongest instead of the actual law and common sense, but it's something real and concrete: the Argentinean sea surrounds the islands, and it's been proved to be a part of the country. The UK has absolutely NOTHING to do there, as their country is on the other hemisphere.
I'll reply to the rest of the "arguments" as you so call them, about the "claims" they did. I need to retrieve some information from the library first, so I can give you some proper references, instead of Google, as you did. Maybe that way you can learn something.
> The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN.
Do you not even understand what's written in the link you posted as "evidence" or something?
The very first sentences state (emphasis/capitalization mine):
"The Argentine Foreign Ministry announced on 28 March 2016 that it
had gained international recognition of a claim to an exceptionally
large continental shelf.
BUT THEY WERE MISTAKEN.
[...]
On 23 May 2016, the [UN] Commission made public its recommendations
and ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE ARGENTINE CLAIM WAS ENDORSED.
This paper explains the legal regime and the political process
that led the Commission to REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARGENTINE CLAIM
TO THE SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM,
AND TO A PART OF ANTARCTICA.
the Argentine Foreign Ministry knew NO PART OF THE CONTINENTAL
SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS UNDER BRITISH CONTROL WOULD BE CONSIDERED
by the sub-commission.
[...]
Indeed, the legal situation was so unambiguous that THE ARGENTINE
DELEGATION DID NOT EVEN ASK FOR THE FULL SUBMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED.
It's almost as if you didn't post this (in the 21st century) as an argument for an Argentine take over of the Falklands:
"Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that."
Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.
- Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands.
- During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government.
- If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence.
- 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it
- 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.
- 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands.
- 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands
- 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands.
Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2]
So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands?
[1] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/OP/OP14UPDT.HTM
[2] http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/SAC/IMAGES/ARG-CNSH.J...
> So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN
> all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the
> islands, BUT the islands?
Aside from that I think you're misunderstanding what this map means. There's an international convention on continental shelves but national sovereignty supersedes it. There's no rule that if your continental shelf intersects territory intersects some island you own that island.
If it did then China would own Taiwan, France / Belgium / The Netherlands & Norway would own the British isles, South Korea would own Japan etc.
</sarcasm>
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_r...
Ultimately, the important part is that there are no living people, whether on the islands or elsewhere, who are harmed by British control of the island, and there are plenty of living people who would be harmed by it being ceded to Argentine.
In any case, I was definitely talking about people, not countries - this is clearly spelled out in the comment that started this thread. I don't care about countries. They only exist to serve the people, and any such rights they claim above and beyond that are illegitimate.