We want dialogue! No, not here, not now!

[pauper]

You do live on the same planet as us, don't you?

I think he does, but I'm a bit concerned about which 'flowers' he gets his 'power' from.

 

[Crema Americana]

So what stops a country from bringing a case before a panel, losing, and then saying "forget that" and going on with what they were doing before? Because if there's a country or a president that would do such a thing, I think Argentina fits the model. Not that I don't think the UK would bring their case before a panel that didn't look upon them favorably. I find it hard to believe that any international panel or organization does not have some political bias and nobody is going to put their fate in the hands of an organization they don't trust.

 

[John.St]

Thats a huge Lie!, the Argentine Air Force its strong and could destroy any british force..

According to The Global Peace Index, Argentina has the same military capacity as Ghana or Morocco and 2/3 of e.g. Sweden or Finland.

http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi-data/#/2012/MCAP/

 

[John.St]

So what stops a country from bringing a case before a panel, losing, and then saying "forget that" and going on with what they were doing before? Because if there's a country or a president that would do such a thing, I think Argentina fits the model. Not that I don't think the UK would bring their case before a panel that didn't look upon them favorably. I find it hard to believe that any international panel or organization does not have some political bias and nobody is going to put their fate in the hands of an organization they don't trust.

Nothing to stop that.

The Court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, no two judges from one and the same country.

A State party to a case before the International Court of Justice which does not have a judge of its nationality on the Bench may choose a person to sit as judge ad hoc in that specific case.

Current judges are from Slovakia, Mexico, Japan, France, New Zealand, Morocco, Russian Federation, Brazil, Somalia, UK, China, US, Italy, Uganda and India.

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1

 

[pauper]

Just to clarify something, I am totally in favour of the self-determination of the Kelpers (or any other people for what matter). My point is different, regarding colonies, the ICJ can only provide non binding ruling and advisory on this type of issues. It does not have the mandate nor the jurisdiction to impose a solution. Countries may choose to put themselves under jurisdiction the same way that countries may accept or not the non binding resolutions of the UN. Argentine can choose to not attend the ICJ the same way the British government ignores the UN decolonization resolution to seat down and negotiate with Argentina.

Again, the ICJ per se does NOT have jurisdiction or mandate on this issue. The mandates come from the countries. The key words are once again mandate and jurisdiction.

I'm not sure anymore what point you are disputing. It seems that, through a cunning series of almost imperceptible changes in direction, you have completed a circle and arrived back to where we started - that, yes, Argentina can apply for compulsory jurisdiction on the question, has been able to since the inception of the ICJ, and has failed to do so, being content in recent years merely to misinform its people on numerous points and pull guerilla stunts as if it were a powerless actor and not a nation state with all the privileges that implies.

 

[surfing]

Does "self-determination" mean that the residents of say, Chinatown, can decide that the barrio is now part of China? I'm not saying I am for or against anything, but I don't think you can really apply "self-determination" to a very limited, transplanted population. Just my opinion.

 

[John.St]

Does "self-determination" mean that the residents of say, Chinatown, can decide that the barrio is now part of China? I'm not saying I am for or against anything, but I don't think you can really apply "self-determination" to a very limited, transplanted population. Just my opinion.

No, Chinatown cannot decide that.

One of Argentina's main problems is that it claims that the Falkland Islands is a colony, in which case the UN charter + that of C24 clearly states that the people of the colony has the right to determine whether they want to become an independent state or be part of another state - oops!

98.5 percent of the Argentine people is a transplanted population, immigrants from (mostly) Europe, according to INDEC only 1.5 percent of Argentina's population is indigenous.

 

[expatinowncountry]

I'm not sure anymore what point you are disputing. It seems that, through a cunning series of almost imperceptible changes in direction, you have completed a circle and arrived back to where we started - that, yes, Argentina can apply for compulsory jurisdiction on the question, has been able to since the inception of the ICJ, and has failed to do so, being content in recent years merely to misinform its people on numerous points and pull guerilla stunts as if it were a powerless actor and not a nation state with all the privileges that implies.

Well, the other possibilities are that (1) my English is not good enough to communicate what I am trying to say, and/or (2) that you do not understand how international affairs/diplomacy works and that semantics really matter.

Yes, Argentina can apply to ICJ the same way that the British government can accept the resolutions of the UN Decolonization Committee. I never discussed that. Without the agreement and full consent of the two countries, none of the two bodies has any jurisdiction over the issue. My POINT if you come back to my original response (and I hope it helps you understand it this time) is that the ICJ has been far LESS successful than the UN Decolonization committee dealing with issues related to Colonies. Other people responses push me to explain (unsuccessfully) other things (such as jurisdiction and mandate) but my original point still remains in place.

Now, if you want me to answer your point in this case (again, a deviation of the original point) for what I know, the Argentine strategy (except for the war) has been to try to force the UK to seat down and negotiate with an open agenda (that is, including the sovereignty issue). The British strategy has been to ignore the Argentine request. Going to the ICJ is a change of strategy the Argentine government may not want to take among other reasons because (1) they could lose (2) it will not imply a negotiation (3) they are more likely to get a better deal with the decolonization committee. You cannot blame the Argentine government for that, the same way you cannot blame the British government for ignoring the UN resolutions.

Assume for one moment Argentina goes to the ICJ and request a binding ruling regarding sovereignty over the Falklands. In that situation, the case would be Argentina vs UK. If the British government is true to its principle of self-determination, it should not accept to participate in such a dispute as the Kelpers would not be in principle represented by themselves but by the British government. If am not mistaken, when the UK proposed the ICJ many decades ago (1950s?) it was over Georgia and Sandwiches Islands that were inhabited and not over the Falklands. Argentina at that time did not want to talk about the Georgias and Sandwiches without discussing the Falklands what I think it did make sense somehow. The strategy of the British government on self-determination of the Kelpers is relatively new... it was not in the table when Chagos people were removed from their Islands. It is only recently that the British government has became "really" concern about the desires of the Kelpers. Again, I am not against that... I think (and this is a personal opinion based on my beliefs and not on international law) the Kelpers have the right to self determination. However, this does not mean that I can see (1) the opportunistic behavior of the British government and (2) that some people in this forum use different standards (to not say that they are hypocrite) when discussing the measures taken by the Argentine and British government on the Falkland/Malvinas issue.

I hope this time you can understand the difference between my main point and my responses to other issues that people raised as the conversation started to go in several directions.

 

[Amargo]

The UN charter or any other UN organism can say whatever they want. The UK has been told by the UN many times to negotiate with Argentina. The powers do what they please with such resolutions...if the resolutions suit them, they will be their biggest defenders. It they don't suit their interests, they will be the biggest offenders.
The referendum held in South Ossetia is ignored (South Ossetia's independence being backed by Russia), the one on Kosovo taken as a law.

It was written actually for Argentina, but it is actually very valid for other countries (from Martín Fierro):

La ley es tela de araña, y en mi ignorancia lo explico,
no la tema el hombre rico, no la tema el que mande,
pues la rompe el bicho grande y sólo enrieda a los chicos.

 

[sesamosinsal]

The UN charter or any other UN organism can say whatever they want. The UK has been told by the UN many times to negotiate with Argentina. The powers do what they please with such resolutions...if the resolutions suit them, they will be their biggest defenders. It they don't suit their interests, they will be the biggest offenders.

I have no dog in this fight. But Argentina scolding the UK for not giving into requests from an international organization is kind of laughable. Maybe the UK can make a deal with Argentina: You pay back your debts and return YPF to Repsol, and we'll sit down and chit-chat about the Falklands.

Argentina on respecting intergovernmental organizations? Ha.