Quote:
Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II
|
An interesting read which IMHO seems determined to ignore the UN resolution on de-colonisation or bend it to its own ends. That's not meant to be inflamatory, its just my take on that I read on that website.
The entire question of Argentinian ownership of the Falklands is based on the initial Spanish siezure of the Islands during their colonisation of that part of the world and Argentina's succession of Spanish rights. The 1960 UN Resolution 1514 (XV) “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples” was intended to remove such colonisation in favour of the interests and wishes of the peoples living in those colonies. Britain has (had already) followed that principle in the de-colonisation of its 'Empire'.
Argentina, still claiming 'ownership' as Spain's successor, does not seem inclined to follow that principle arguing that it contravenes the protections of the UN resolution which states “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
However it is hard to argue that the Islands form part of " the territorial integrity " of Argentina when they are beyond the territorial waters of the Argentinian coast, i.e. they are not a contiguous part of the Argentinian mainland. (Territorial Water is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline, usually the mean low-water mark, of a coastal state.) The Islands therefore always formed, at best, a colony of Argentina or Britain. Also, with virtually no Argentinian presence on the island and an overwhelming presence of people preferring to be regarded as 'British' or at least linked to Britain rather than Argentina, it can't be argued that "national unity" with or of Argentina is disrupted.
It still comes down to the choice of the people living there.