expatinowncountry said:
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.
Your first response was to say it was a recipe for disaster (you didn't explain why or for who) along with confusing the ICC and the ICJ and seeming to suggest the ICJ is a separate entity from the UN (or were you again referring to the ICC?). You asked for an example of the ICJ successfully dealing with such a case (you were later given one) you then stated that the ICJ has been less successful than the C24 in resolving these types of disputes - you gave no evidence here, I am not aware of a case where the C24 handed a non self-governing territory over to a third party against the will of the people in that territory and against the will of the administering state. The Decolonisation Committee can not make binding resolutions nor does it deal with issues of sovereignty with third parties outside of the relationship of the non self-governing territory and the administering state.
You then stated over several posts that the ICJ's powers were limited to a non binding advisory role for disputes involving a colony. I don't doubt your sincerity but I have been unable to find any reference to this, could you post links to the relevant ICJ articles? I'd be interested to know how the court defines a colony.
expatinowncountry said:
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.
It certainly would be a change of strategy, its called being honest. Perhaps the question should be rephrased to why is Argentina making claims to a body which has no power to deal with sovereignty issues and can not enforce binding resolutions when there is an international court that was conceived especially to deal with such concerns? Is it just Argentina trying to muddy the waters of the debate so it can talk about evil English piratas and colonisers?
Here's what Ban Ki-moon said prior to the recent meeting of Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (sorry to use the full name but it is quite descriptive):
'Sixteen Non-Self-Governing Territories remain to be decolonized. Dialogue among the Special Committee, the elected representatives of the Territories and the administering Powers is essential for progress.'
Where does Argentine fit into this equation? Try this thought experiment - the Falkland Islanders through some act of delusional faith that Argentina won't annex them before sundown declare independence. Let's even assume Argentina doesn't annex them, what case does Argentina then bring to the next meeting of the Special Committee?
Such is the paucity of debate on the subject in Argentina that these stunts are certainly sufficient for the home crowd to cheer on another moral victory over the piratas. Just as an example since the recent Special Committee hullabaloo I've seen the President, the Minister for Foreign Relations and at least three well known television presenters say that its because the UK has a veto in the security council that no progress on talks has been possible. I have not seen or read one Argentine journalist point out that the only security council resolutions regarding the Falklands were for hostilities to stop and Argentina to withdraw back in 1982.
expatinowncountry said:
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.
I suspect the UK may refuse compulsory jurisdiction on the issue for various reasons, but it's something we will never know until Argentina makes the first move.
expatinowncountry said:
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.
That the British have been inconsistent and hypoctrical over the years is unquestionable, but I believe their current stance is correct (whether it is due to the reasons they have stated or not is another question) and like you this is a personal belief, I don't think there would be more than a few hundred people in the world who could give an informed opinion of the historical question as it relates to international law.
Fortunately, they are still a minority. The others, well, we just stay quiet. 
