Falkland (Islas Malvinas)

[Heinrich]

I remeber this war. The magnificent Royal Navy: Her Majesty's Marines, Tornados, SAS, etc. Didn't the IRA take advantage of the distraction make some coordinated attacks?

WASP meets Argentine culture:

[Julio]

How does rebellion from Spain make Argentina aquire possession of islands Spain withdrew from 1000 miles away from rebel territory?

That would be like the USA claiming Bermuda or Jamaica after the revolutionary war.  Idiotic.

That is simply because Falkland Island or Islas Malvinas was altogether abandoned by Spain and Puerto Soledad was under the jurisdiction of the Argentinians. It was specifically under the jurisdiction of Buenos Aires Province and before 1833 when Britain took possession of Islas Malvinas the Argentine Confederation had been established and Buenos Aires Province was part of it. There was existing sovereign nation of Argentina by which Britain needed to recognize.

In the case of Jamaica, it is entirely different because the rebellion of the Americans did not include the Jamaicans or the inhabitants of Bermuda. In the case of Islas Malvinas, Puerto Soledad was taken over by Argentina through the Buenos Aires Province, but it was not sustained because Argentina had no navy or military might to repel Britain upon entering it and was named Port Louis, under the British rule since 1833. Clearly, there was an invasion. As you stated, Argentina was also having its internal conflict, but it does not mean that Britain did not violate the established jurisdiction in Islas Malvinas and took over Puerto Soledad after Spain left it because of the defeat they suffered from the Argentinian rebels. The de facto rebellion by the rebels turned unto de jure existence by assuming jurisdiction over those territories and military positions that were abandoned by Spain from whom the Argentinians derive their jurisdiction over Islas Malvinas. Clearly. Britain was an invader and is still an invader.

[trentcath]

To be clear, the Falklands war happened in 1982. The problem with Ibero-American arguments is that they always refer to something that happened centuries ago to justify their actions in the present. Please explain why Argentina can invade an island in 1982 that it had exercised no control over for approximately 150 years, and against the will of everyone living on that island. I will not address questions over who did or didn't have control over the islands in the 1700 or 1800s because I don't believe they are relevant.

In 1982 Britain is claiming that because they were there in 1833 while that island was the sovereignty of Argentina. It is not an Ibero-American argument. Show me an evidence that deny the fact that Britain took it away from Argentina in 1833.

Remember that concept of sovereignty emanated in modern history all the way from the Treaty of Westphalia. The title over the sovereignty over that island did not prescribe just because Argentina waited for such long period of time before it imposed its will over it. Those English speaking people and others who owe allegiance to a usurper did not mean that the claim of sovereignty by Argentina over that island that was surrendered by France to Spain before Argentina declared its independence has been erased by laches.

You don't believe they are relevant because your cannot change the historical fact that Argentina is a nation that obtained freedom from Spain and Islas Malvinas was part of Argentinian jurisdiction when Britain grabbed it from them. Show me historical facts that can rebut that other than baseless narratives. Give me an evidence against that. Your belief is irrelevant to historical facts.

Conclusion, no you cannot explain why what happened in the 17 or 1800s justifies an invasion in 1982.

[Julio]

Conclusion, no you cannot explain why what happened in the 17 or 1800s justifies an invasion in 1982.

The invasion in 1833 does not ripen unto validity of the intrusion for Argentina at that moment was a sovereign nation. And to provide:

Absoluteness: Sovereignty is regarded as absolute. This means that neither within the state nor outside it , is there any power which is superior to the sovereign. The will of the sovereign reigns supreme in the state. His obedience to customs of the state or international law is based on his own free will.
Permanence: The sovereignty of a state is permanent. Sovereignty lasts as long as an independent state lasts. The death of a king or president or the overthrow of the government does not mean the destruction of sovereignty as the ruler exercises sovereign power on behalf of the state and therefore, sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts.
Universality: Sovereignty is a universal, all-pervasive or all-comprehensive quality in the sense that it extends to all individuals, groups, areas and things within the state. No person or body of persons can claim exemption from it as matter of right. The immunity granted to diplomats from other countries is only a matter of international courtesy and not of compulsion.
Inalienability: Sovereignty is inalienable. It means that the state cannot part with its sovereignty. The state as a sovereign institution ceases to exist, if it transfers its sovereignty to any other state.
Indivisibility: As sovereignty is an absolute power, it cannot be divided between different sets of individuals or groups. In every state, sovereignty must be vested in a single legally competent body, to issue the final commands. Division of sovereignty is bound to give rise to conflicting and ambiguous commands.
Imprescriptibility: This implies that sovereignty can neither be destroyed nor lost if it has not been exercised for a long period. A people may not have exercised sovereignty for some time due to control by a foreign power. But non-exercise of sovereign power does not put an end to sovereignty itself. It can only shift to a new bearer.[ii]
Originality: The most important characteristic of sovereignty is its original character. Sovereignty cannot be manufactured. Dependence on another for supreme power cannot make a state a sovereign

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-sovereignty/

Ergo, what happened before cannot validate or change an act of invasion that was done by Britain over Islas Malvinas. Worst, it cannot be cured by time. Sovereignty is permanent and does not prescribe. Please show me a legal argument not just a statement or conclusion that has no leg to stand on.

[Greg]

SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT PERMANENT.

The celts don't own most of Britain.  It is owned by the ancestors of Norman invaders

Look at any map of countries over time.  Borders are shifting always and everywhere as decades pass by.

[Julio]

SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT PERMANENT.

The celts don't own most of Britain.  It is owned by the ancestors of Norman invaders

Look at any map of countries over time.  Borders are shifting always and everywhere as decades pass by.

There you are wrong. I mentioned the Treaty of Westphalia from the very start of our arguments because that was the forerunner of the concept of sovereignty, Greg. The "birth of modern nations," as it is recognized today was from that treaty. The concept of permanence of sovereignty is a legal truth. Not my invention but the truth in law. Take note that Argentina obtained its nationhood and became a sovereign nation in 1816 long after the concept of sovereignty in its modern idea was made as the Treaty of Westphalia became the law of the powers that be. Argentina derived its sovereign powers from Spain that must be respected by other nations like Britain. The invasion was illegal and cannot be validated by time.

You seem not to understand the legal implications of sovereignty, Greg, with all due respect.

[trentcath]

Conclusion, no you cannot explain why what happened in the 17 or 1800s justifies an invasion in 1982.

The invasion in 1833 does not ripen unto validity of the intrusion for Argentina at that moment was a sovereign nation. And to provide:

Absoluteness: Sovereignty is regarded as absolute. This means that neither within the state nor outside it , is there any power which is superior to the sovereign. The will of the sovereign reigns supreme in the state. His obedience to customs of the state or international law is based on his own free will.
Permanence: The sovereignty of a state is permanent. Sovereignty lasts as long as an independent state lasts. The death of a king or president or the overthrow of the government does not mean the destruction of sovereignty as the ruler exercises sovereign power on behalf of the state and therefore, sovereignty lasts as long as the state lasts.
Universality: Sovereignty is a universal, all-pervasive or all-comprehensive quality in the sense that it extends to all individuals, groups, areas and things within the state. No person or body of persons can claim exemption from it as matter of right. The immunity granted to diplomats from other countries is only a matter of international courtesy and not of compulsion.
Inalienability: Sovereignty is inalienable. It means that the state cannot part with its sovereignty. The state as a sovereign institution ceases to exist, if it transfers its sovereignty to any other state.
Indivisibility: As sovereignty is an absolute power, it cannot be divided between different sets of individuals or groups. In every state, sovereignty must be vested in a single legally competent body, to issue the final commands. Division of sovereignty is bound to give rise to conflicting and ambiguous commands.
Imprescriptibility: This implies that sovereignty can neither be destroyed nor lost if it has not been exercised for a long period. A people may not have exercised sovereignty for some time due to control by a foreign power. But non-exercise of sovereign power does not put an end to sovereignty itself. It can only shift to a new bearer.[ii]
Originality: The most important characteristic of sovereignty is its original character. Sovereignty cannot be manufactured. Dependence on another for supreme power cannot make a state a sovereign

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/doctrine-of-sovereignty/

Ergo, what happened before cannot validate or change an act of invasion that was done by Britain over Islas Malvinas. Worst, it cannot be cured by time. Sovereignty is permanent and does not prescribe. Please show me a legal argument not just a statement or conclusion that has no leg to stand on.

None of this addresses the premise of my question, which was not about sovereignity or any of the shibboleths of international law. The question is why these things justify an invasion over 150 years later? A Catholic answer to that question would be expected to address how the war was compatible with just war doctrine.

[Julio]

None of this addresses the premise of my question, which was not about sovereignity or any of the shibboleths of international law. The question is why these things justify an invasion over 150 years later? A Catholic answer to that question would be expected to address how the war was compatible with just war doctrine.

Britain was not suppose to be there in the first place. They illegally took that territory that belong to Argentina when they invaded it in 1833. That was sinful due to greed. Argentina  did not forget the act that Britain has done. It was not forgiven hence they tried to redeem it from those who dispossessed them in 1982. I do not see it to be within the paradigm of just war because it was motivated by getting even to the enemy. Revenge is a sin. It cannot be within the ambit of just war according to St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine. The bar is too high to obtain that. The last war that I know which was within that definition were those Crusades that was led by St. Pope Pius V. WW1 and WW2 are not within the ambit of just war because the motivation by all those who participated in it were about pride and greed. For sure there were victims of it.

However, it was a fact that Britain stole it from Argentina, and the legal right of the latter does not prescribe under International Law. Sovereignty does not prescribe. I cannot separate my argument from the position of sovereignty because that is a legal and factual issue.

[Greg]

Stop revising history.  The Brits established people/soldiers on those islands years before.  All sorts of people stopped there and made claims.  Various other islands were claimed and disputed and had rival colonies on them. 

If you are going to point to British injustice then try the opium wars and getting the Chinese addicted to the stuff and gun boat diplomacy.  The Falklands is a lousy example, since the Argentinians cannot claim they were there first.

We fought a war and they lost.

So now we definitely own it. Just like Americans own America.  Perhaps one day they will take it back.  They they will own it.

[Greg]

SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT PERMANENT.

The celts don't own most of Britain.  It is owned by the ancestors of Norman invaders

Look at any map of countries over time.  Borders are shifting always and everywhere as decades pass by.

There you are wrong. I mentioned the Treaty of Westphalia from the very start of our arguments because that was the forerunner of the concept of sovereignty, Greg. The "birth of modern nations," as it is recognized today was from that treaty. The concept of permanence of sovereignty is a legal truth. Not my invention but the truth in law. Take note that Argentina obtained its nationhood and became a sovereign nation in 1816 long after the concept of sovereignty in its modern idea was made as the Treaty of Westphalia became the law of the powers that be. Argentina derived its sovereign powers from Spain that must be respected by other nations like Britain. The invasion was illegal and cannot be validated by time.

You seem not to understand the legal implications of sovereignty, Greg, with all due respect.

Ha ha.  Recognised by whom?

Those it suits, when it suits them.

Lots of nations have been created and destroyed since Westphalia.  Do you think the Chinese give a monkey's for some ancient European treaty?

[trentcath]

None of this addresses the premise of my question, which was not about sovereignity or any of the shibboleths of international law. The question is why these things justify an invasion over 150 years later? A Catholic answer to that question would be expected to address how the war was compatible with just war doctrine.

Britain was not suppose to be there in the first place. They illegally took that territory that belong to Argentina when they invaded it in 1833. That was sinful due to greed. Argentina  did not forget the act that Britain has done. It was not forgiven hence they tried to redeem it from those who dispossessed them in 1982. I do not see it to be within the paradigm of just war because it was motivated by getting even to the enemy. Revenge is a sin. It cannot be within the ambit of just war according to St. Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine. The bar is too high to obtain that. The last war that I know which was within that definition were those Crusades that was led by St. Pope Pius V. WW1 and WW2 are not within the ambit of just war because the motivation by all those who participated in it were about pride and greed. For sure there were victims of it.

However, it was a fact that Britain stole it from Argentina, and the legal right of the latter does not prescribe under International Law. Sovereignty does not prescribe. I cannot separate my argument from the position of sovereignty because that is a legal and factual issue.

Conclusion, it was not a just war so this entire conversation is pointless.

[Greg]

Hardly any wars are just.

Just War theory is totally useless today, especially with nuclear weapons, and automated drones and an international media that is anything but independent.  We don't even know what happened in World War II because the victors can spin the truth into their version and paint the loser as blacker than soot.

Any nation trying to abide by Just War theory against a nation that does not abide by it might as well just surrender as soon as war is declared and avoid at lot of bloodshed.  Those belligerents who ignore just war theory would have such a massive advantage in terms of both tactics and strategy that they would win every time.

A few years after the war nobody cares how it was won.

Two nations fight.  One puts its artillery in the open so as to stick to a gentlemen's agreement suited to the 18th Century and not harm civilians.  The other puts its artillery next to schools and hospitals so that the opponent cannot shell them without killing women and children who are kept there as human shields.  If the first sticks to just war principles the battle is lost.  They are sitting ducks in the open while those firing at them from next to schools and hospitals are safe from counter-attack.

The best war and most just war is one so horrific that it is over in days or hours because the politician's children are blown to bits.

[Julio]

Stop revising history.  The Brits established people/soldiers on those islands years before.  All sorts of people stopped there and made claims.  Various other islands were claimed and disputed and had rival colonies on them. 

If you are going to point to British injustice then try the opium wars and getting the Chinese addicted to the stuff and gun boat diplomacy.  The Falklands is a lousy example, since the Argentinians cannot claim they were there first.

We fought a war and they lost.

So now we definitely own it. Just like Americans own America.  Perhaps one day they will take it back.  They they will own it.

No, I am not revising history. It is on the basis of the records of fact that Islas Malvinas was part of Argentinian territorial jurisdiction that was usurped by Britain because it was sea power of its time. Right, Opium War was another manifestation of the abuse and Britain even tried to conquer the Philippines but was halted because they were seen by Filipinos as evil Protestants. They were cordoned in Manila only.

Anyway, that is not point. The fact remains that in 1833 it was usurped by Britain and Argentina cannot claim it because they had lousy military and navy. Yes, Argentina lost and might is right. Indeed, Britain owned it as usurper and your exactly right one day, they will take it back because it was taken away from them.

I presented historical fact and I expect a counter-arguments that serves as evidence against it. I see none.

[Julio]

Hardly any wars are just.

Just War theory is totally useless today, especially with nuclear weapons, and automated drones and an international media that is anything but independent.  We don't even know what happened in World War II because the victors can spin the truth into their version and paint the loser as blacker than soot.

Any nation trying to abide by Just War theory against a nation that does not abide by it might as well just surrender as soon as war is declared and avoid at lot of bloodshed.  Those belligerents who ignore just war theory would have such a massive advantage in terms of both tactics and strategy that they would win every time.

A few years after the war nobody cares how it was won.

Two nations fight.  One puts its artillery in the open so as to stick to a gentlemen's agreement suited to the 18th Century and not harm civilians.  The other puts its artillery next to schools and hospitals so that the opponent cannot shell them without killing women and children who are kept there as human shields.  If the first sticks to just war principles the battle is lost.  They are sitting ducks in the open while those firing at them from next to schools and hospitals are safe from counter-attack.

The best war and most just war is one so horrific that it is over in days or hours because the politician's children are blown to bits.

This, I fully agree with you, Greg. Not many wars are just war.

Don't get me wrong that I am one of those with anti-British thoughts. Other than its racist and Protestant history, I have special appreciation of Britain for it was among those nations that made the world different through Industrial Revolution and certainly its laws. As a lawyer, my perceptions about justice cannot be separated from certain Common Law doctrines coming from England that was carried to the Philippines by the Americans. Of course the Civil Law jurisdiction of Spain is my foundation.

[Julio]

Ha ha.  Recognised by whom?

Those it suits, when it suits them.

Lots of nations have been created and destroyed since Westphalia.  Do you think the Chinese give a monkey's for some ancient European treaty?

Sovereignty as it is in modern history and political intercourse of nations is from the Treaty of Westphalia. Yes, International Law is the law of the powerful. It does not change however the factual matters. Like in the case herein, Islas Malvinas was surrendered by France to Spain, was taken over by Argentina and was stolen from them by Britain. Like what you said the British might obtained victory. I remember how Maradona led Argentina's football team and won against England 

Going back to my point, the Treaty of Westphalia was existent and so the concept of Sovereignty of nations was an established principle in International Law when Islas Malvinas was invaded in 1833 by Britain. Failure of any nation or party to recognized that, the way Britain did it in 1833 over Islas Malvinas to the detriment and disadvantage of Argentinian sovereign will, does not mean the legal truth was non-existent. There was just a brazen violation against it.