The Falklands/Malvinas and the different accounts
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands represent a traditional 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.[1] 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.
Although this sovereignty conflict has been and is object of study of many sciences—law, political science, 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 realized 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-centered 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 the territorial dispute over the Falklands/Malvinas are never solved because people (or their representatives) do not look for a solution.
Regardless of the fact that, in principle, a stalemate may seem negative and governments are assumed to seek for a peaceful and permanent dispute settlement, the status quo in the Falklands/Malvinas serves other purpose and, therefore, guarantees only and endless legal and political limbo. Huth explains the dynamics in a simple yet illuminating manner:
“[…] leaders were typically constrained by domestic political forces to be very cautious in moving toward a compromise settlement, since popular and elite opinion, and often the military, was opposed to such a policy. […] In most situations the leader’s position of domestic power and authority was better served by continuing confrontation […]”[2]
In tune with this, for the internal context, it is important to observe how Britons and Argentineans refer to each other when they discuss the Falkland/Malvinas Islands issue. In both cases, the views are extremely biased and polarized with positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation.
In turn, the international context plays a role in terms of prestige because great powers would opt to go to war to preserve this status even if the effects seem trivial. Unsurprisingly, politicians and governments in Argentina and the United Kingdom have not reached a settlement to the dispute since the internal, regional and international payoffs are higher by simply keeping the status quo. The direct influence over the domestic political status of the ruling power of the Falkland/Malvinas 1982 war at the time and currently the ongoing territorial dispute over the islands is unquestionable.
NOTE:
This blog series introduces, explains and assesses issues pertaining territorial disputes in the Americas including law, politics, culture, history and religion. There will be new posts every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.
PREVIOUS POST:
NEXT POST:
San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina (Colombia and Nicaragua)
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:
Friday 13th December 2024
Dr Jorge Emilio Núñez
X (formerly, Twitter): https://x.com/DrJorge_World
[1] This post is based on Jorge Emilio Núñez, Territorial Disputes and State Sovereignty: International Law and Politics London and New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2020.
[2] Paul K. Huth, Standing Your Ground. Territorial Disputes and International Conflict, The University of Michigan Press, 2001, 178-179.
_svg.png)
