The Borders We Share: A New Way to Fix a Broken World
Section 3—Islands and Waters (Posts 13–18)
Post #13: Ruritania’s Crown, Falklands/Malvinas’ Winds
A parade of figures
The fog clung to Baker Street, swirling around the gas lamps like a restless spirit. Inside 221B, the fire crackled, casting dancing shadows on walls lined with maps and relics from Sherlock Holmes’s many exploits. I, Dr. John Watson, sat in my armchair, pen poised over my notebook, ready to record another of Holmes’s remarkable discussions. Tonight’s gathering was extraordinary, blending the real and the imagined: the enduring sovereignty dispute over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the fictional case of Ruritania’s Crown, a contested jewel from Anthony Hope’s novels, now reimagined as a territorial dispute for our series, The Borders We Share. Our guest, Dr. Jorge Emilio Núñez, had promised a debate that would weave fact and fiction into a single thread.
Holmes lounged in his chair, fingers steepled, his sharp eyes fixed on the flames. “Dr. Jorge,” he began, “you’ve presented us with a dual enigma: the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, a real-world puzzle rooted in colonial ambition, and Ruritania’s Crown, a fictional dispute that mirrors its complexities. Let us unravel both. But I sense we are not alone.”
As if summoned by his words, the door creaked open, and a parade of figures stepped into the room, their presence as vivid as the London mist outside. For Argentina, Eva Perón—Evita—entered with commanding grace, her eyes burning with passion, followed by Martín Fierro, the gaucho poet of José Hernández’s epic, his weathered face etched with the trials of the pampas. For the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher strode in, her resolve unyielding, accompanied by King Arthur, clad in mythic armor, Excalibur glinting faintly. From the fictional realm of Ruritania, Prince Rudolf, the dashing hero of The Prisoner of Zenda, appeared, his regal bearing tempered by urgency, joined by Princess Flavia, her elegance masking a fierce determination to protect Ruritania’s heritage.
The discussions start
Dr. Jorge, seated near the hearth, adjusted his glasses and smiled. “Ladies and gentlemen, real and imagined, welcome. The Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Ruritania’s Crown are microcosms of territorial disputes, rooted in history, identity, and power. Both reveal why such conflicts endure, trapped in legal and political limbo. Let us explore their origins, their persistence, and their possible futures.”
Holmes nodded, his gaze sweeping the room. “Two disputes, one real, one fictional, yet both illuminate the human struggle over land and legacy. Watson, note the key elements: historical claims, legal arguments, and the voices of those who inhabit or desire the contested spaces. Dr. Jorge, set the stage.”
Dr. Jorge leaned forward, his voice steady but fervent. “The Falkland/Malvinas Islands, 300 miles east of Argentina, have been contested since the 17th century. Britain claims sovereignty from 1690, with a permanent settlement since 1833, while Argentina asserts inheritance from Spanish colonial rights, briefly controlling the islands before 1833. The 1982 war, costing 649 Argentine and 255 British lives, plus three islanders, left the islands a British Overseas Territory, yet Argentina’s 1994 Constitution demands their peaceful recovery. Similarly, Ruritania’s Crown, in our reimagined tale, is a disputed island in the Baltic, claimed by Ruritania based on medieval charters and by the fictional Duchy of Strelsau, which occupies it, citing continuous settlement since the 16th century. Both cases hinge on colonial legacies, national pride, and the question of who truly belongs to the land.”
Evita’s voice sliced through the air, sharp and emotive. “Las Malvinas son argentinas! They are our soul, stolen by British imperialism. When we gained independence in 1816, the islands were ours, part of Spain’s legacy. The British expulsion of our people in 1833 was theft. Our children read Pipino the Penguin, learning the islands are Argentine, not British. This is no mere dispute—it’s a wound.”
Martín Fierro, leaning against the wall, strummed a soft chord on his guitar. “The gaucho knows the land’s pulse, Dr. Jorge. The Malvinas are our horizon, 300 miles from Patagonia. When Colonel Jewett raised our flag in 1820, he spoke for a free nation. The British came with force—how is that just? It’s like Ruritania’s Crown, where Strelsau’s settlers claim an island that’s Ruritanian by right.”
Prince Rudolf, his hand resting on his sword, nodded gravely. “Ruritania’s Crown is ours by ancient decree, granted by King Rudolf III in 1327. Strelsau’s occupation, like Britain’s in the Falklands/Malvinas, relies on force and time. Our people sing of the Crown’s cliffs, its sapphire waters, as part of our identity. Yet Strelsau’s settlers, like the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders, claim self-determination. It’s a knot of history and will.”
Thatcher’s eyes flashed, her tone resolute. “The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders are British, their right to self-determination inviolable. The 2013 referendum—99.8% voting to remain a British Overseas Territory, 1,513 yes, three no—settles it. The UN Charter supports their choice. Argentina’s 1982 invasion was aggression, met with necessary force. As for Ruritania’s Crown, Strelsau’s settlers have lived there for centuries, building a society. Their voice, like the islanders’, must prevail.”
Princess Flavia’s voice, clear and measured, rose. “But, Lady Thatcher, what of the dispossessed? Ruritania’s Crown was wrested from us during the Hentzau Rebellion of 1589. Strelsau’s settlers may live there, but our claim is rooted in law and lore. The 1895 Treaty of Zenda, though contested, recognized by neutral powers, affirms Ruritania’s sovereignty. Like Argentina, we seek dialogue, not conquest, but the settlers’ presence complicates justice.”
King Arthur, his sword resting against his knee, spoke with solemnity. “Sovereignty is not merely flags or battles, but of justice. In my time, we sought harmony through shared purpose. The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders and Strelsau’s settlers have built lives on their lands—must their will be ignored? Yet Argentina and Ruritania bear historical claims that echo through generations. Dr. Jorge, can there be a path where honor and peace coexist?”
Holmes’s lips curled into a faint smile. “A noble question, Arthur. Dr. Jorge, your work—Sovereignty Conflicts (2017), Territorial Disputes in the Americas (2020), and your forthcoming book—highlights the colonial roots of such disputes. How do they shape the stalemate in both cases?”
Dr. Jorge nodded, gesturing as if tracing invisible borders. “The Falkland/Malvinas dispute stems from colonial ambiguities. Spain and Britain claimed the islands in the 18th century, with Spain’s Puerto de la Soledad in 1766. Argentina, upon independence, invoked uti possidetis juris, claiming former Spanish territories. Britain’s 1833 reassertion expelled Argentine officials. The 1965 UN Resolution 2065 urged negotiations, yet none have succeeded, fueled by oil reserves and strategic location. Ruritania’s Crown mirrors this: Ruritania cites medieval charters, while Strelsau claims effective occupation since the Hentzau era. Both disputes persist because historical claims clash with modern realities—settler populations and geopolitical stakes.”
Watson scribbled furiously, then paused. “Holmes, why do these disputes endure? The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders want British rule, and Strelsau’s settlers presumably want autonomy. If international law calls for talks, what prevents resolution?”
Holmes’s eyes gleamed. “An astute query, Watson. Dr. Jorge calls these disputes ‘multi-faceted, multi-layered,’ driven by domestic politics, regional dynamics, and international prestige. In the Falklands/Malvinas, Argentina’s leaders, as Evita’s legacy shows, rally national pride, while Britain, as Lady Thatcher proved, defends self-determination and global influence. In Ruritania’s Crown, Prince Rudolf’s court gains legitimacy by championing the cause, while Strelsau’s leaders bolster their rule by resisting. Compromise is politically costly.”
Evita’s expression softened, but her resolve held. “The Malvinas are justice, not pride, Sherlock. British bases in the South Atlantic are neo-colonialism, a wound from centuries past. In 2023, Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero ended the Foradori-Duncan pact to press for sovereignty talks. The UN, CELAC, and MERCOSUR support us. Ruritania’s Crown is similar—Strelsau’s control mocks Ruritania’s heritage. Why cling to stolen lands?”
Thatcher countered, her voice like iron. “The Falklands/Malvinas are a thriving community, not a relic. In 2024, Lord Cameron reaffirmed our commitment—sovereignty is non-negotiable. Argentina’s President Milei called this no provocation, a shift from past rhetoric. The islanders’ economy—fisheries, tourism—prospers. Strelsau’s settlers, like the islanders, are self-sufficient. Why should they bow to distant capitals?”
Martín Fierro strummed a defiant note. “The Malvinas are 300 miles from us, not 8,000 from London. Proximity matters. Our veterans, like Daniel Guzman, bear the war’s scars. Milei’s ‘roadmap’ for talks is slow, but ours. Ruritania’s Crown, too, lies near Ruritania’s shores—Strelsau’s claim feels like usurpation.”
Prince Rudolf’s voice was firm. “The Crown is Ruritania’s heart. Its cliffs are in our anthems, its loss a daily grief. Strelsau’s settlers may farm its fields, but the 1895 Treaty, though disputed, binds us. Like Argentina, we seek negotiation, but Strelsau’s refusal mirrors Britain’s intransigence.”
Princess Flavia added, “The settlers’ lives matter, but so does our history. The Crown’s sapphire mines, like the Falklands/Malvinas’ oil, draw foreign eyes. Without talks, we risk conflict, as in 1982 or Ruritania’s 1896 skirmish with Strelsau.”
King Arthur frowned, his voice resonant. “Proximity, pride, but not peace. The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders, fewer than 3,500, and Strelsau’s settlers are the heart of these disputes. Leona Roberts, a Falklands/Malvinas representative, calls her people a ‘modern society’ of 60 nations, not a colony. Strelsau’s council, I wager, speaks similarly. Dr. Jorge, you propose a Latin American bloc for the Falklands/Malvinas—could a Baltic coalition aid Ruritania?”
Dr. Jorge’s eyes lit up. “Precisely, Your Majesty. For the Falklands/Malvinas, a Latin American coalition—CELAC, MERCOSUR—could strengthen Argentina’s hand. The 2024 Chagos Islands transfer to Mauritius, with Britain retaining a base lease, fueled Argentina’s resolve. Foreign Minister Diana Mondino called it a step against ‘outdated practices,’ vowing ‘concrete action.’ In Ruritania’s Crown, a Baltic alliance—perhaps with fictional neighbors like Graustark—could press Strelsau. Regional unity amplifies weaker states against entrenched powers.”
Holmes tapped his pipe, thoughtful. “A shrewd parallel, Dr. Jorge. The Chagos case stirred the Falklands/Malvinas debate, though Governor Alison Blake insists the contexts differ—self-governance versus displacement. The UN’s 2023 and 2024 resolutions back talks, supported by Latin America. Argentina’s Vice President in 2025 criticized a flight and humanitarian agreement as ‘crumbs.’ For Ruritania’s Crown, imagine a 2025 Baltic Accord urging dialogue, yet Strelsau resists, citing settler rights. Paul Huth’s insight applies: leaders fear domestic backlash more than external pressure.”
Watson frowned, his pen hovering. “But Holmes, what of the people? The Falkland/Malvinas Islanders and Strelsau’s settlers aren’t pawns. If they choose their path, can Argentina or Ruritania claim them?”
Evita’s voice rose, fervent. “The Malvinas’ land is Argentine, its people a product of occupation. The UN calls this a colonial issue, not pure self-determination. Our Constitution respects their way of life, but the islands are ours. Ruritania’s Crown is the same—Strelsau’s settlers live on stolen soil.”
Thatcher’s gaze was unyielding. “The islanders are the Falklands. Their 2012 census shows 59% as Falkland/Malvinas Islanders, 29% British. Their referendum is their voice. Lord Shackleton’s 1976 report proved their viability. Strelsau’s settlers, I’d wager, are similar—rooted, not transient. Ruritania’s claim ignores their humanity.”
Princess Flavia’s tone was plaintive. “Yet, Lady Thatcher, Ruritania’s claim is no mere story. The Crown’s people may thrive, but our charters are clear. Like the Raizal in San Andrés, caught between Colombia and Nicaragua, Strelsau’s settlers face a larger struggle. Their will matters, but so does our right.”
King Arthur’s voice sought balance. “Both sides champion rights, yet neither yields. Dr. Jorge, you discuss indigenous rights in the Americas—could their lens apply? The Falklands/Malvinas had no native people, nor Ruritania’s Crown, but self-determination clashes with decolonization. Is there a third way?”
Dr. Jorge paused, choosing his words. “The absence of indigenous peoples complicates both cases, but the tension between self-determination and territorial integrity is universal. The UN’s 2007 and 2016 Declarations on Indigenous Rights suggest evolving norms, inapplicable here but illustrative. For the Falklands/Malvinas, shared sovereignty—joint administration, resource-sharing—might work. For Ruritania’s Crown, a co-governance model, with Baltic mediation, could balance claims. Yet, as Huth notes, leaders prioritize domestic gains.”
Holmes leaned forward, his voice low. “A third way is logical, yet elusive. Consider Antarctica, where Argentina and the UK freeze claims under the Antarctic Treaty. Could a similar model—neutralizing exclusive claims—suit the Falklands/Malvinas or Ruritania’s Crown? Or do the settlers’ preferences preclude it?”
Martín Fierro shook his head. “The Malvinas are not ice—they’re our home’s edge. Sharing dilutes our claim. Milei’s ‘long-term negotiation’ is cautious, but the people demand sovereignty.”
Prince Rudolf echoed him. “Ruritania’s Crown is our birthright, not a bargaining chip. Co-governance sounds fair, but Strelsau’s settlers reject it, as their 1897 vote showed. We need a treaty, not a truce.”
Thatcher nodded. “The islanders reject shared rule. The UK’s 2024 stance, post-Chagos, is firm. Strelsau’s settlers, like the islanders, choose their path. The Antarctic model ignores their will.”
Evita’s eyes blazed. “Then we remain in limbo, a wound unhealed. Latin America—Chile, Uruguay, MERCOSUR—stands with us. The UK defies the UN. Ruritania faces the same—Strelsau scorns Baltic calls for talks. Dr. Jorge, what hope is there?”
Dr. Jorge sighed, resolute. “Hope lies in dialogue, however slow. In 2025, X posts show Argentina’s push for talks, citing Chagos. A Latin American bloc could shift the Falklands/Malvinas balance. For Ruritania’s Crown, a Baltic coalition might press Strelsau. Both teach us that borders are stories—of people, power, and past promises. Compromise requires seeing the other’s tale as valid.”
Holmes rose, his silhouette sharp against the firelight. “A tale without an end, yet. The Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Ruritania’s Crown are paradoxes: enclaves of identity in contested seas, colonial legacies in a decolonizing world. Dr. Jorge, your work shows why such disputes endure—they serve purposes beyond resolution. Watson, close your notebook. These cases, real and imagined, will outlive us all.”
As the figures faded into the fog, I felt their words linger. The Falkland/Malvinas Islands and Ruritania’s Crown, like all borders we share, are mirrors of our histories, ambitions, and unyielding dreams.
References
- Núñez, J.E. (2017). Sovereignty Conflicts (Ch. 7).
- Núñez, J.E. (2018). Sovereign Game: A Tale of Three Peoples (Ch. 1–5).
- Núñez, J.E. (2020). Territorial Disputes (Ch. 6).
- Núñez, J.E. (2023). Cosmopolitanism and State Sovereignty (Ch. 1, 6).
- Núñez, J.E. (2025). Territorial Disputes in the Americas (Ch. 5).
NOTE:
New posts every Tuesday.
PREVIOUS POSTS:
Section 2 Recap Post: Taming the Sands—Six Tales of Oil, Dust, and Dignity
NEXT POSTS:
Post #14: Atlantis’ Waves, Spratly Reefs
AUTHOR’S SAMPLE PEER-REVIEWED ACADEMIC RESEARCH (FREE OPEN ACCESS):
State Sovereignty: Concept and Conceptions (OPEN ACCESS) (IJSL 2024)
AUTHOR’S PUBLISHED WORK AVAILABLE TO PURCHASE VIA:
Tuesday 10th June 2025
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
No comments:
Post a Comment