I'm not sure that this link really helps your case, given these key points from the description:
The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons
demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces
Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom's favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence
I’m not sure that this link really helps your case
The parts you quoted were about self-defense and stopping the fighting, not about the ownership of the islands.
I quote it because it also talks about negotiations that should be begun when it comes to the ownership of the islands, in lieu of continuing the fighting.
I'm already on record about stating that the fighting was wrong, though I don't know how long anyone would expect a nation to wait for a diplomatic solution.
but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands
No, quite the opposite actually. I believe they have more of a claim to the islands than anyone else, via Spain's ownership of said lands that Argentina inherited when they gained their independence from Spain, as well as the proximity to Argentina, and finally to the fact that Great Britain was speaking with Argentina about turning them over, before the stupid war was started.
Now, having said that, IANAL, so don't know what the law would say about that. Really don't think we'll resolve the issue here on Lemmy.
I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony, but perhaps you know more than I do.
I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony
Considering the French had already ceeded/gave the islands to Spain (which Argentina then inherited from), your comment does not hold weight.
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit.
IANAL, but based on what I've read, my understanding that 'historical precedent' is legal and can be argued for in international court of law, when it comes to these kind of issues. It is why it is mentioned so often.
I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.
I'm speaking of ownership via interpretation of International law, so our conversation is not compatible it seems.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.
It also talked about the starting negotiations to discuss the future of the Islands, aka return them (because I doubt they would have gone with a timeshare/co-op plan.
I'm not sure that this link really helps your case, given these key points from the description:
The parts you quoted were about self-defense and stopping the fighting, not about the ownership of the islands.
I quote it because it also talks about negotiations that should be begun when it comes to the ownership of the islands, in lieu of continuing the fighting.
I'm already on record about stating that the fighting was wrong, though I don't know how long anyone would expect a nation to wait for a diplomatic solution.
This press release from the UN goes into more detail on the basic structure of what I'm arguing about: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
(I really shouldn't bother with attempting nuanced conversation on the Internet, it never ends well.)
Negotiations are great, but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands?
No, quite the opposite actually. I believe they have more of a claim to the islands than anyone else, via Spain's ownership of said lands that Argentina inherited when they gained their independence from Spain, as well as the proximity to Argentina, and finally to the fact that Great Britain was speaking with Argentina about turning them over, before the stupid war was started.
Now, having said that, IANAL, so don't know what the law would say about that. Really don't think we'll resolve the issue here on Lemmy.
I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony, but perhaps you know more than I do.
Considering the French had already ceeded/gave the islands to Spain (which Argentina then inherited from), your comment does not hold weight.
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?
IANAL, but based on what I've read, my understanding that 'historical precedent' is legal and can be argued for in international court of law, when it comes to these kind of issues. It is why it is mentioned so often.
I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.
I'm speaking of ownership via interpretation of International law, so our conversation is not compatible it seems.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.
It also talked about the starting negotiations to discuss the future of the Islands, aka return them (because I doubt they would have gone with a timeshare/co-op plan.
There's been other UN discussions on the matter as well: https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
Why return or timeshare/coop, why not sovereignty under British support which is happening right now. And which the people staying there demand.