Friday, 30 March 2018

Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 5) [Post 25]



Time to solve the TERRITORIAL DISPUTE over the Falkland/Malvinas islands. The last four posts introduced very briefly the background situation of this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE.




 
Territory, in principle, can be defined as an area owned and possessed by the population (in land, water, space and, perhaps, cyberspace). Like population, it may have features that could cause controversy in TERRITORIAL DISPUTES. Some of the features that constitute territory will be reviewed using the Falkland/Malvinas islands conflict as an example. Those that introduce controversy will be analysed using the model proposed here. Next time we centre the attention on borders, natural resources and defence.

 
Let us remember the way in why this series propose to deal with TERRITORIAL DISPUTES. The allocation of sovereignty will be given by: a) equal right to participate (egalitarian consensus principle); b) the nature and degree of participation depends on efficiency of accomplishing the particular objective/area/activity at issue (principle of efficiency); c) each party receives a benefit (in terms of rights and opportunities) that depends on what that party cooperates with (input-to-output ratio principle); and d) provided the party with greater ability and therefore greater initial participation rights has the obligation to bring the other two parties towards equilibrium (equilibrium proviso). I call this way of dealing with sovereignty conflicts or disputes the EGALITARIAN SHARED SOVEREIGNTY.

 

Many questions are to be expected. Amongst them: How is that translated into geographical borders between the Falkland/Malvinas islands and Argentina? What about the exploration and exploitation of natural resources? This question has two parts: a) the sea-zone surrounding the Falkland/Malvinas islands only; and b) the portion of Argentina’s sea-zone that overlaps with the Falkland/Malvinas. Finally, in the hypothetical scenario that a party alien to the original dispute decided to invade the Falkland/Malvinas islands, who would defend them?

 The next posts on this blog series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES will cover these questions.

 
NOTE: based on Chapter 7, Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701

30th March 2018




Thursday, 29 March 2018

Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 4) [Post 24]

 
The Falkland/Malvinas islands represent a classical TERRITORIAL DISPUTE in which several international agents claim sovereign rights for different reasons over the same piece of land. Argentineans, the Falkland/Malvinas islanders and Britons have an ongoing argument. The solution seems to require a mutually exclusive relation amongst them because it is assumed that the sovereignty over the third territory can be granted to only one of them. Indeed, sovereignty is often regarded as an absolute concept (that is to say, exclusive, and not shareable).



 

The Falklands/Malvinas are a clear example of a zero sum game, with many negative outcomes of different sorts (e.g. inefficient exploitation of natural resources, tension in international relations, and threat to local and international peace). Thus, while these conflicts are in principle confined to specific areas and start with negative consequences primarily for the local population, they tend quickly to expand to the regional and—even—the international level (e.g. effects on international price of oil, war). There are many issues at stake domestically and internationally.

 

 

 

Only to have a glimpse, today’s posts includes below articles from the media covering this territorial dispute. The reader will have a glimpse in relation to the dispute, natural resources, Brexit, and some other key issues pertaining the Falklands/Malvinas. The articles are all recent and and include media from Argentina, the Falkland/Malvinas islands and the United Kingdom.

In all cases, although this sovereignty conflict has been and is object of study of many sciences—law, political sciences, international relations, only to name a few—these sciences do not share their developments and both different approaches and different languages were applied. Indeed, although multi and inter-disciplinary studies are promoted in speeches everywhere, it is more a nominal aim rather than an actual reality.

I realised that the answer was very simple. Some problems are never solved because most look for more problems, problems within a problem, or just simply give up or are so self-centred they think that problem will not affect them and hence, why would they even think about it. Ergo, the answer came to me: some problems like Kashmir are never solved because people (or their representatives) do not look for a solution.
 

 

THE DISPUTE, THE 1982 WAR and ONGOING PROBLEMS SINCE THE WAR

The Telegraph


 

Clarín (in Spanish)


(The removal of mines in the Falklands)

“The British are advancing with the demining in Malvinas, and this is how it was seen last week. Tal como informó recientemente la agencia Mercopress se va terminando una fase y se reanudará la próxima en el verano austral del 2019 hasta 2020. As recently reported by the Mercopress agency, a phase is being completed and the next one will resume in the austral summer of 2019 until 2020.”

 

Jewish News


“Britain’s Falklands Islands are to be protected by the same technology behind Israel’s Iron Dome missile defence system.”

 

The Guardian


“Until they were invaded by Argentinian forces on 2 April 1982, the Falkland Islands did not loom large in the nation’s consciousness. Most Britons would have been hard-pressed to locate them on a map.”

“To go to a place in which it’s legitimate to kill and maim people, to watch your friends die in horrific ways, and then come back to a place where none of those things is acceptable is not a journey the mind can easily make.”

 

ARGENTINA and the UNITED KINGDOM

Telam (in Spanish)


(The claim over the Falklands is indeclinable)

 

MercoPress


 

MercoPress


“The release follows underlining that the Argentine presentation ratifies the competence of the UN General Assembly in issues regarding decolonization as well as the principle of territorial integrity, and likewise the obligation of holding negotiations and not taking unilateral actions contrary to the decolonization process.”

 

NATURAL RESOURCES

The Times


“Banks and big investors are showing new interest in the oil sector as prices rebound, the boss of Premier Oil has said, improving options for funding its proposed Falklands development.”

 

SMARTA


“[…] the forecast long-term financial plan surplus for 17/18 is £26.595Million. If fishing revenues all come in this year, the surplus could well be over £30Million. FIG funds Market values which include pension, insurance and growth funds that on 31 December 2017 totalled £371.3Million.”

 

MercoPress


 

BREXIT

The Independent


“It was laid bare when EU countries helped inflict a humiliating defeat on Britain over the legal status of the Chagos Islands, in a UN vote in June, he told MPs.”

“Lord Hannay said the UK had traditionally been able to influence Washington and shape EU policy at the UN, as a permanent member of the security council. “It goes without saying, I’m afraid, that – since June of last year – those two pillars of our influence at the United Nations have been shaken.”

 

The Financial Times


 

WHEN ALL PARTIES DECIDE TO COOPERATE

There are some recent very good news. Argentina, the Falkland/Malvinas islands and the United Kingdom show promising signs.

Reuters


“Scientists analyzed 122 sets of human remains in 121 anonymous graves in the Darwin Cemetery in the South Atlantic, an ICRC spokeswoman said. One of the graves, which were all marked ‘Argentine soldier only known to God,’ had two bodies.”

 

The Times


 

La Nación (in Spanish)


(In photos: the emotional ceremony in Malvinas)

 

The New York Times


“I was finally able to cry at his grave.”

 

The Times


“An RAF aircraft that was scrambled to join the search for a missing submarine touched down in Argentina last night. It is understood to be the first RAF plane to land there since the Falklands conflict.”

 

The Santiago Times


 

FINALLY, I can only agree with Summers and his comment below is a perfect way to conclude this post. I wholeheartedly share his view. The time is now.

Penguin News


The message from outgoing Member of Legislative Assembly Mike Summers, in his final Speech to the Motion for Adjournment. Speaking of the Falklands in 30 years’ time he said, “it’s not just up to them [Argentina] it’s up to all of us to fix it if we can.”
 
Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701

29th March 2018

Wednesday, 28 March 2018

Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 3) [Post 23]



The Falkland/Malvinas islands as a territorial dispute has many issues at stake. Potentially, there are many remedies that could be applied. The previous post presented an article (its abstract) which summarises the situation and the official position of all three involved parties: Argentina, the Falkland/Malvinas islands, and the United Kingdom.

Post 22: Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 2)

 
Today’s post centres the attention of one of these parties: people. What do Falklands/Malvinas islanders want?

In March 2013 the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders voted in a referendum whether they wanted (or not) to remain as British Overseas Territory. By a large majority (99.8%) they made clear their wishes to remain British.

  • The number of ballot papers issued was 1,522

  • The number of votes cast at the referendum was 1,518

  • The total number of rejected ballot papers was 1

  • The total number of votes validly cast at the referendum was 1,517

  • The percentage of turnout at the referendum was 92%

  • The number of “Yes” votes cast was 1,513 (99.8%)

  • The number of “No” votes cast was 3 (0.2%)
 
Mode details available at:



There was only one question with an explanatory preamble that read:

The current political status of the Falkland Islands is that they are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.  The Islands are internally self-governing, with the United Kingdom being responsible for matters including defence and foreign affairs.  Under the Falkland Islands Constitution the people of the Falkland Islands have the right to self-determination, which they can exercise at any time.  Given that Argentina is calling for negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, this referendum is being undertaken to consult the people regarding their views on the political status of the Falkland Islands.  Should the majority of votes cast be against the current status, the Falkland Islands Government will undertake necessary consultation and preparatory work in order to conduct a further referendum on alternative options.

Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?

YES or NO


For more information about this referendum, dates, the question and the relative leaflet see on this blog:


Lisa Watson, editor of the 'Penguin News', gave an interview a week after the referendum in the Falklands. Amongst many issues, she talked about self-determination. Interview and information available on this blog:


 
To finish today’s post, I am leaving a link to a post I published on this blog back in 2013 at the time of the referendum. I had the opportunity to have one of the Falkland’s islanders writing for us. Post available on this blog:


 

To reiterate part of what I wrote at the time “[…] to have so many people arguing about others without even including them is just... bizarre. In any case in which someone's life is going to be affected by another's decision, that someone should at least BE HEARD. Why? Simply because they count, they have moral standing. Their life is the one that is going to be affected by any decision - and that of their children. […]”
Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701
 
28th March 2018

Tuesday, 27 March 2018

Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 2) [Post 22]



There are many academic and non-academic articles in English and Spanish (at least) about the Falkland/Malvinas islands. Matthieu Grandpierron 2017, political analyst, junior researcher at Ecole Polytechnique (France) in international relations, in the abstract about his paper “Preserving ‘Great Power Status’: The Complex Case of the British Intervention in the Falklands (1982)” summarises the answers to the questions posed by our previous post (Post 21). Thereafter, the reader will find a brief reference to the three official positions in relation to this TERRITORIAL DISPUTE: Argentina, Falkland/Malvinas islands, and the United Kingdom. Links to the complete documents and references are included.

 
Post 21: Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 1)

 
“Preserving ‘Great Power Status’: The Complex Case of the British Intervention in the Falklands (1982)”

By Matthieu Grandpierron 2017
 

Abstract “This article aims to examine the importance of an often overlooked argument when it comes to explaining why great powers go to war against a weaker actor. This argument involves great power status considerations. The article argues that states care deeply about their status, especially states which are current and former great powers, and would opt to go to war to preserve this status even if the political and military consequences of such intervention are negligible to objective observers. To illustrate this argument, I will be looking at why the British decided to re-establish their sovereignty over the Falklands in 1982. The empirical part of the analysis is based on formerly secret documents declassified by the British government. This qualitative primary analysis of British documents provides new insights about the crisis and suggests that status considerations played a large role in the British decision to re-conquer the Falklands.”

Complete article available at:

 
Argentina’s official position (Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Argentine Republic:

“The Question of the Malvinas Islands, understood as being the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime spaces, originated on 3 January 1833, when the United Kingdom disrupted Argentina’s territorial integrity by illegally occupying the islands and evicting the Argentine authorities, preventing their return and the settlement of Argentines from the mainland. Since then, Argentina has consistently denounced the United Kingdom’s usurpation and, as it is provided for in the Argentine Constitution, has ratified its sovereignty over the islands and affirmed that its recovery in accordance with international law constitutes a permanent and unrelinquished goal.”

Available at:


 
The Falkland islands official position (Falkland islands government):

“[…] The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. This fundamental right is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live peacefully in our home.

We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British Overseas Territory by choice, which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain: we are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. […]”

“[…] Whilst the Argentine Government’s calls for negotiations with the UK may seem benign, and a rational way to end the dispute, it should be noted that the Argentine Constitution requires the outcome of negotiations to be nothing but full Argentine sovereignty over our home. As far as we are concerned, sovereignty is not up for discussion. […]”

Available at:



The United Kingdom position (and a brief reference to the European Union):

The Falklands are an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, but they are also claimed by Argentina, which calls them Las Malvinas." The Falkland Islands are an Associated Territory of the European Union.”


Complete document available at:


Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701

27th March 2018

Monday, 26 March 2018

Territorial disputes: Falkland/Malvinas islands (Part 1) [Post 21]




The Falkland/Malvinas Islands TERRITORIAL DISPUTE has all the elements for the type of conflict this series discusses, namely two sovereign States (Argentina and the United Kingdom) and a non-sovereign third territory (Falkland/Malvinas Islands). Indeed, it has features that are often the main cause of controversy in sovereignty conflicts. A very brief historical account will put this into context.

There is doubt about who first sighted the islands and about the first landing (Ferdinand Magellan and/or Amerigo Vespucci or the English sea captain John Davis) in the 1500s. British and Spanish settlements appear afterwards. Argentina declared its independence from Spain (1816) and then claimed rights over the islands as they were part of the region previously under Spanish dominion (1829).

The United Kingdom and Argentina have had continuous presence and/or claimed exclusive sovereign rights over the islands since then, both bilaterally and internationally with a climax in 1982 with a war between the two.

According to the 2012 census the islands had 2841 inhabitants. Most of them (59%) considered themselves ‘Falkland Islanders’ and a large percentage identified themselves as British (29%). Bilateral relations have been re-established after the war.

The sovereignty dispute over the islands continues nowadays. Commerce and trade between the islands and Argentina have been an issue. Because of the lack of negotiations, Argentina has threatened an economic blockade, an idea supported by other Latin-American States with visible immediate negative results for the islanders. In March 2013 the Falkland/Malvinas Islanders voted in a referendum whether they wanted (or not) to remain as British Overseas Territory. By a large majority (99.8%) they made clear their wishes to remain British.
 

To the reader, following two of our previous posts of this series about TERRITORIAL DISPUTES:

a)   What are the issues at stake in this a territorial dispute?

b)  Which remedy could be applied to solve this particular territorial dispute?

 

For reference to these questions see:


 

NOTE: This post is based on Chapter 7 in Núñez, Jorge Emilio. 2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
 
Jorge Emilio Nunez

Twitter: @London1701

26th March 2018

Disputas Territoriales: islas Falkland/Malvinas (Parte 1) [Post 21]

 
La DISPUTA TERRITORIAL sobre las Islas Falkland/Malvinas ofrece todos los elementos para el tipo de conflicto que esta serie analiza, es decir, dos Estados soberanos (Argentina y el Reino Unido) y un tercer territorio no soberano (Islas Falkland/Malvinas).  De hecho, tiene características que a menudo son la principal causa de controversia en los conflictos de soberanía. Una cronología histórica muy breve situará la cuestión en contexto.

Existen dudas sobre el primer avistamiento de las islas y sobre el primer desembarco (Fernando de Magallanes y/o Américo Vespucio o el capitán inglés John Davis) en el año 1500. Los asentamientos británicos y españoles aparecen después. Argentina declaró su independencia de España (1816) y luego reclamó derechos sobre las islas, ya que eran parte de la región anteriormente bajo el dominio español (1829).

El Reino Unido y Argentina han tenido presencia continua y/o reclamado derechos exclusivos de soberanía sobre las islas desde entonces, tanto a nivel bilateral como a nivel internacional con un punto culminante en 1982 con una guerra entre ambos.

Según el censo de 2012 las islas tenían 2841 habitantes. La mayoría de ellos (59%) se consideraban identificados como “isleños de las Falklands” y un gran porcentaje se veía a sí mismos como británicos (29%). Las relaciones bilaterales se han restablecido después de la guerra.

La disputa de soberanía sobre las islas continúa en la actualidad. El comercio entre las islas y Argentina ha sido un problema. Debido a la falta de negociaciones, Argentina ha amenazado con bloqueo económico, una idea apoyada por otros Estados de América Latina con resultados negativos inmediatos visibles para los isleños. En marzo de 2013 los isleños votaron en un referéndum si deseaban (o no) a permanecer como territorio de ultramar británico. Por una amplia mayoría (99,8%) dejaron en claro su deseo de seguir siendo británicos.

 

Para el lector, después de dos de nuestros post anteriores de esta serie sobre DISPUTAS TERRITORIALES:

a) ¿Cuáles son los problemas en juego en esta disputa territorial?
b) ¿Qué remedio se podría aplicar para resolver esta disputa territorial particular?

Para referencia a estas preguntas, véase (en inglés):





NOTA: Esta publicación se basa en el Capítulo 7 en Núñez, Jorge Emilio.
2017. Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue. London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.


Jorge Emilio Nunez


Twitter: @London1701

26 de marzo de 2018