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

[John.St]

... the islanders' right of self-determination, whatever that means. Let's bear in mind that all peoples are entitled to self-determination; what is disputed is that this right entitles the islanders to decide on the sovereignty of the islands, as it requires conditions that we have argued before.

The Falkland islanders' right to self-determination is based on the UN charter and the fact that the Falkland Islands is on the UN Special Committee on decolonization's (C-24) list of areas to be decolonised.

Thus the C-24 charter applies to the islands:

"Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - Adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960

1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.

2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

- and thus the C-24 principles also applies to the Falkland islanders rights:

"Principles which should guide member in determinating whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter.

Principle VI
A Non-Self-Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by:
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.

Principle VII
(a) Free association should be the result of a free and voluntary choice by the peoples of the territory concerned expressed through informed and democratic processes. It should be one which respects the individuality and the cultural characteristics of the territory and its peoples, and retains for the peoples of the territory which is associated with an independent State the freedom to modify the status of that territory through the expression of their will by democratic means and through constitutional processes."

Sources:

The United Nations and Decolonization - Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples:
http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960:
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/1541(XV) (.pdf file)

Charter of the United Nations
Chapter XI - Declaration Regarding Non-Self-Governing Territories
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_XI_-_Declaration_Regarding_Non-Self-Governing_Territories

 

[sleslie23]

Ouch, I need to read to the end of the thread before answering... My response was caught in the middle of a cake-in-the-face gag.

Ha ha, you guys are trying to have a serious conversation in the middle of one of the best comedy routines in years.

 

[AndyD]

The Falkland islanders' right to self-determination is based on the UN charter and the fact that the Falkland Islands is on the UN Special Committee on decolonization's (C-24) list of areas to be decolonised.

Everyone has a right to self-determination, but that right only in certain cases implies entitlement to decide the sovereignty of the land they live in. Near the beginning of this thread you answered that Chinese residents weren't entitled to secede because they weren't considered a colony, but that's not correct. They wouldn't, not because of they don't appear in some list of 'colonies', like if the right of self-determination was restricted to such list, but because they don't have an argument for that territory and they can hardly be considered a distinct 'people', essentially different from Chinese and Argentinians. These conditions are argued by Lea Brilmayer, a professor of international law at Yale, in this paper, making points to make self determination compatible with another principle enshrined by the UN Charters and decolonization doctrine, that is, the respect for territorial integrity.

The Argentine arguments against the applicability of self-determination to this case is, and have always been, that the islanders are not a distinct people but a British community living abroad, and that their territorial argument needs to be resolved first, more so considering that this population was implanted in the midst of a territorial dispute. When we talk about 'implanted populations', 'transplanted populations', 'population transfer', etc., it doesn't mean simple immigration as you suggested in a previous message, but a doctrine referred to the promotion, by force, discrimination, economic incentives or misinformation, of inbound or outbound movement of people for political purposes. One of these purposes is explicitly stated as the interference with the self-determination principle.

This quote from Lawrence Freedman is interesting as a hint of the different role that the self-determination principle has in learned communities versus the public debate, regarding the dispute. Freedman is the UK's Official Historian on the Falklands Campaign. In my opinion, he is often too generous on the British position though, unlike others who publish on the Internet, offers worthy work. He says:

Thus, a special `Falklands' issue of the journal Millenium contains, out of seven articles, three on the question of sovereignty and two on Latin America. It is of note that those on sovereignty do not give much support to the British claim to the islands, although the Argentine counter-claim is not desperately impressive either. As Dr Beck suggests towards the end of his piece, in the end power rather than legal argument appears to be decisive. However, it might also be the case that in terms of the public debate, the question of whether a claim to the Islands can be established that is watertight in international law is less important than the principle of self-determination. Jeffrey Myhre devotes only a paragraph to this principle along with the contrary principle of decolonization, because he doubts its legal validity. Yet the political importance of this principle is considerable and a thorough analysis, pointing to the inevitable limits on its application, would be welcome.

As a side note, in that message where you referred to transplanted populations, you said that almost all of the Argentine population is immigrant, but there are studies such as Corach et al.'s (commented on the web) that find that >17% of the Argentine gene pool is Amerindian. What is very small is the number of people who preserve an Amerindian way of life, not of their descendants. The difference in favor of European heritage largely owes to the fact that these lands were scarcely populated before European colonization and immigration. By mid 1800s, there were about one million Amerindians, plus some 600.000 'mestizos' (mixed populations) and a similar number of 'creoles' of pure Spanish descent. Then the 'conquest of the desert' killed about 100.000 of the first, while European immigration in numbers exceeding 6 million began. I don't say this to minimize the genocide on the Amerindians and the lack of respect they had to suffer, but to frame the issue properly, considering that it is so often distorted in discussions about Falklands/Malvinas.

 

[expatinowncountry]

Everyone has a right to self-determination, but that right only in certain cases implies entitlement to decide the sovereignty of the land they live in. Near the beginning of this thread you answered that Chinese residents weren't entitled to secede because they weren't considered a colony, but that's not correct. They wouldn't, not because of they don't appear in some list of 'colonies', like if the right of self-determination was restricted to such list, but because they don't have an argument for that territory and they can hardly be considered a distinct 'people', essentially different from Chinese and Argentinians. These conditions are argued by Lea Brilmayer, a professor of international law at Yale, in this paper, making points to make self determination compatible with another principle enshrined by the UN Charters and decolonization doctrine, that is, the respect for territorial integrity.

The Argentine arguments against the applicability of self-determination to this case is, and have always been, that the islanders are not a distinct people but a British community living abroad, and that their territorial argument needs to be resolved first, more so considering that this population was implanted in the midst of a territorial dispute. When we talk about 'implanted populations', 'transplanted populations', 'population transfer', etc., it doesn't mean simple immigration as you suggested in a previous message, but a doctrine referred to the promotion, by force, discrimination, economic incentives or misinformation, of inbound or outbound movement of people for political purposes. One of these purposes is explicitly stated as the interference with the self-determination principle.

This quote from Lawrence Freedman is interesting as a hint of the different role that the self-determination principle has in learned communities versus the public debate, regarding the dispute. Freedman is the UK's Official Historian on the Falklands Campaign. In my opinion, he is often too generous on the British position though, unlike others who publish on the Internet, offers useful facts and views. He says:

As a side note, in that message where you referred to transplanted populations, you said that almost all of the Argentine population is immigrant, but there are studies such as Corach et al.'s (commented on the web) that find that >17% of the Argentine gene pool is Amerindian. What is very small is the number of people who preserve an Amerindian way of life, not of their descendants. The difference in favor of European heritage largely owes to the fact that these lands were scarcely populated before European colonization and immigration. By mid 1800s, there were about one million Amerindians, plus some 600.000 'mestizos' (mixed populations) and a similar number of 'creoles' of pure Spanish descent. Then the 'conquest of the desert' killed about 100.000 of the first, while European immigration in numbers exceeding 6 million began. I don't say this to minimize the genocide on the Amerindians and the lack of respect they had to suffer, but to frame the issue properly, considering that it is so often distorted in discussions about Falklands/Malvinas.

Interesting reading but I am afraid you are losing your time here. Most people could not grasp the meaning of "jurisdiction" and "mandate" or understand the specificity of the Falkland/Malvinas case comparing it with a water jurisdiction dispute in Greenland. Or even worst, use Aldo Rico as their supporting evidence of the British/Kelper right of sovereignty over the Falklands.
In any case, thanks.

 

[John.St]

Interesting reading but I am afraid you are losing your time here. Most people could not grasp the meaning of "jurisdiction" and "mandate" or understand the specificity of the Falkland/Malvinas case comparing it with a water jurisdiction dispute in Greenland. Or even worst, use Aldo Rico as their supporting evidence of the British/Kelper right of sovereignty over the Falklands.
In any case, thanks.

As regards "jurisdiction" and "mandate":

I think you overlooked some words in Pauper's original post: binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction .

... That reminds me, someone was telling me the other day that a court exists in Holland specifically to adjudicate on such international disputes and to provide binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction - que loco eh?

If two (or more) countries bring their dispute before ICJ, they accept the court's jurisdiction and mandate, as stated in the UN charter.

Article 94

"1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party."

Edited:

I feel I have made it quite clear in two posts, that the dispute between Norway and Denmark was not over water jurisdiction, but over sovereignity over a large part of Eastern Greenland, some 400,000 square kilometer of land or app. 10 times the size of the Falkland Islands.

 

[John.St]

Everyone has a right to self-determination, but that right only in certain cases implies entitlement to decide the sovereignty of the land they live in. Near the beginning of this thread you answered that Chinese residents weren't entitled to secede because they weren't considered a colony, but that's not correct. They wouldn't, not because of they don't appear in some list of 'colonies', like if the right of self-determination was restricted to such list, ...

You may not think it important whether or not the Falklands appear on the list of territories to become decolonised in Committee 24's list, but obviously la presidenta does, or she wouldn't have shown up to make a speech at their meeting on 14 June.

Thereby she implies that - in the view of the Argentine government - appearance on 'a list of colonies' is crucial to the dispute, and thus the C-24 charter and principles apply to this dispute.

C-24 charter and principles in: http://baexpats.org/expat-life/22717-we-want-dialogue-no-not-here-not-now-4.html#post169873

 

[John.St]

To my mind, the only viable solution is to bring the dispute to either The International Court of Justice, thus submitting to its jurisdiction and giving it the mandate to settle it re. the UN Charter Article 94; or to submit it to another form of arbitration, where each party appoints an equal number of judges and specialists in international law plus agree to (or draw lot) a chearman of the arbritation committee.

This dispute has been the subject of endless debates over many years and I shall stop here, leaving it to whomever feel like it to have the last word(s).

 

[expatinowncountry]

As regards "jurisdiction" and "mandate":

I think you overlooked some words in Pauper's original post: binding rulings to countries that accept compulsory jurisdiction .



If two (or more) countries bring their dispute before ICJ, they accept the court's jurisdiction and mandate, as stated in the UN charter.

Article 94

"1. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party."


Which dispute over water jurisdiction dispute in Greenland are you referring to?

I feel I have made it quite clear in two posts, that the dispute between Norway and Denmark was over sovereignity over a large part of Eastern Greenland, some 400,000 square kilometer of land or app. 10 times the size of the Falkland Islands.

Boy... I do not know how you make a living but I do have to work from time to time (even on Saturdays). You still do not understand the difference between the Greenland and Falkland case (read Andy's post to get an idea where the difference come from) and regarding the concept of mandate and jurisdiction I already explained it in a long post (with other issues raised). If you are interested go back and read it, and if not, it was interesting anyway to change views on this. I am not a citizen of any of the two countries in conflict so I have far less interest in wasting my time going over and over the same issue. De facto the Islands are British and they will be for a long time. However, understanding the position of the "opponent" is always important. On the other hand, reducing the views, political stance, and aspirations of the Argentine to a pastiche of preconceptions is not very constructive, open minded or tolerant. I found that lot of people in this forum, in the issue of Falkland (and others for what counts) apply double standards. Please keep your government to the same standards (I do with mine). The world would be a much better place.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[PhilinBSAS]

Can't wait to get my copy of Migratory Birds & International Border Disputes: How to Take Over the World with Half a dozen Bar-tailed Godwits by Dra. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

Apologies if someone has already posted this.

someone tell Cristina to read up about the Manx Sheerwater .

from Wikipedia ...


Manx Shearwaters migrate over 10,000 km to South America in winter, using waters off southern Brazil and Argentina,[3] so this bird has covered a minimum of 1,000,000 km on migration alone (not counting day-to-day fishing trips). Another bird ringed in 1957 and still breeding on Bardsey Island off Wales in April 2002, was calculated by ornithologist Chris Mead to have flown over 8 million km (5 million miles) during its life.

 

[AndyD]

You may not think it important whether or not the Falklands appear on the list of territories to become decolonised in Committee 24's list, but obviously la presidenta does, or she wouldn't have shown up to make a speech at their meeting on 14 June.

Thereby she implies that - in the view of the Argentine government - appearance on 'a list of colonies' is crucial to the dispute, and thus the C-24 charter and principles apply to this dispute.

I didn't argue about the importance or unimportance of the C24. What I said is that the invalidity of a secessionist claim from the Chinese at Barrio Chino is not due to their absence in the C24 list, but to the limits of the self-determination doctrine applied to a sovereignty decision.