tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post4078856316888348997..comments2020-08-04T01:33:08.189-03:00Comments on History & Collections: History of the Falkland / Malvinas Islands: 1833Andrés Dj.http://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-19906418021598622132020-08-04T01:33:08.189-03:002020-08-04T01:33:08.189-03:00A more accurate account of the history of the Falk...A more accurate account of the history of the Falklands is available here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2020/03/falkland-wars-1700-1850-1.pdfRoger Lortonhttps://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-51240888989719215042015-10-05T18:16:45.174-03:002015-10-05T18:16:45.174-03:00Legality aside, it is significant that Argentina h...Legality aside, it is significant that Argentina has never stated what would happen to the present population should they actually gain sovereignty. Would they put them under permanent "house arrest" as during the invasion - or forcibly deport them from their ancestral homes - particularly should they refuse to accept Argentine citizenship, or accept that they should speak or be taught Spanish. The Argentine position has always been that the local population are irrelevant to the argument - however they are human beings and have known no home but the Falklands ( or Malvinas as you prefer).Perhaps it is a matter on which the government is afraid to pronounce.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-37312760892521759732015-05-28T06:23:57.495-03:002015-05-28T06:23:57.495-03:00Notice that Bougainville told Napoleon "No ti...Notice that Bougainville told Napoleon "No time is more suitable than now for Spain to renounce in our favour her imaginary right to these islands and for England to consent to this concession", using the word "consent" to describe Britain's role, while Spain's was to "renounce in [their] favour", meaning to cede alleged rights. This quote is in your link but there is a fuller extract in Dunmore's book on Bougainville.<br /><br />Therefore, it shouldn't surprise us that France discussed firstly with Britain when it requested "the cession" (by an indefinite subject) of an establishment at Falklands/Malvinas. However, I believe that Britain's claim on the islands did matter in this petition, because it wasn't clear at the time if this claim had been extinguished. According to Bougainville, the superior claim was French (see Dunmore's quote), although we don't know if he meant the whole archipelago. The British claim certainly hadn't expired for Port Egmont and surroundings, meaning perhaps the whole of West Falkland/Gran Malvina, and Britain hadn't explicitly renounced to the rest of the archipelago. These were additional reasons for the French to want British agreement besides Spanish one. <br /><br />To derive legal effects from this episode it has to imply a British expression of its claim or an exercise of sovereignty over the islands. But neither can be implied, particularly from that negotiation where deciding on the territory of third states was the rule rather than the exception. The parties weren't expressing their sovereignty over Malta, Egypt, etc. Likewise, the Monroe doctrine didn't mean US sovereignty over the whole Americas, the British protection of the Ottoman Empire until 1907 wasn't an act of British sovereignty in Anatolia, etc.<br /><br />Moreover, let's bear in mind that before 1833 the archipelago was not always treated as a whole (see footnote 22 and the paragraph that references it). Even if we believed that the episode had legal relevance, this would apply only to the area of influence of Port Egmont, not Port Louis's from where the Argentines would be evicted.<br /><br />That being said, I suggest that you don't trust me but rely on authoritative secondary sources instead, meaning those written by professionals and published by reputed magazines, congresses or presses (e.g., those belonging to good universities). There are links to some freely-available studies in the footnotes above. With topics like these, that stir passions, it's easy to find misleading material on the internet that poses as scholarly just by the inclusion of references. Indicating sources is important but it's far from sufficient.<br /><br />Thanks.Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-8189247629769463572015-05-28T06:23:02.790-03:002015-05-28T06:23:02.790-03:00Hi.
By saying that there was no abandonment, I...Hi.<br /><br />By saying that there was no abandonment, I'm not sure if you mean that a British permanent settlement remained, or that the evacuation of Port Egmont didn't constitute a relinquishment of sovereignty. If it's the first, then I disagree. There were temporary landings but, for legal effect, the settlements that matter are the permanent ones. Sailors sometimes stayed for months, but the Spaniards at Puerto Soledad were ordered to prevent their permanence. This is discussed in the section "Spanish Malvinas/Falklands" of the post. <br /><br />I guess you agree that the whole of Port Egmont was evacuated, and that it's dwellings were dismantled by the Spaniards few years later, around 1777 to be more precise, as this is held in scholarly literature and primary documents. If your point is that permanent settlers responding to British authority remained, I think we can confidently say that they didn't, as sources such as those given in the footnotes above either deny their presence explicitly or omit mentioning them. Such settlements would be crucial for the British case, thus they wouldn't have been omitted, as they were, in good academic studies and primary documents such as Wellington's letter, British responses to the Argentine protests after the 1833 takeover, the 1920 handbook on the subject prepared by the British FO, etc. If you can refer to scholarly sources that state that permanent British settlements remained at the islands, please do.<br /> <br />If you mean that the evacuation didn't constitute the relinquishment of Britain's claim, then I agree. As explained in the post, the argument of exhaustion of the British claim by 1829 isn't grounded on the evacuation itself, but on the prolonged absence initiated with it.<br /><br />I'm not surprised to hear that, for a few years more, the islands were presented as a colony in some administrative British registers, given that there was no formal act of abandonment that could produce immediate administrative action. On the contrary, Britain was caring to avoid manifestations that could be interpreted as a renunciation to rights. That's why the plaque was placed when the port was evacuated. If those imports records were public, then I believe they could work as a piece of evidence against the argument of British intention to abandon permanently (i.e., animus derilinquendi) for the first five years of its absence, but that wouldn't change much. On the other hand, if those records stopped after 1779, then they suggest abandonment at that point.<br /><br />This, and your other point, exemplify why it's risky business to take stuff from primary sources without the analysis and context that a scholar would provide. I enjoy examining primary sources, but good secondary sources are indispensable, unless we're professionals exploring a new subject with lots of records, time and contextual knowledge. The imports records above and the treatment of the Treaty of Amiens in the link you provided consist merely of a few brief references from primary sources that lack indispensable context. That way they may seem relevant, but authoritative studies such as Gustafson's, Reisman's, Hope's, etc. fail to mention them, and that's probably for good reason. If you have a good scholarly study that does, please refer it.<br /><br />During the peace negotiations that led to the Treaty of Amiens, France and Britain debated control over territories that they had occupied during the war, like Egypt, Malta, Naples, Cape Town, etc. This didn't mean that they interpreted that sovereignty over these territories belonged exclusively to one or the other. They were rather negotiating a balance of power among themselves, and on a later stage each conclusion was discussed with the relevant third state when there was one (like the Ottoman Empire in the case of Egypt, the order of crusaders that had controlled Malta until the French invasion, etc.).<br /><br />(Cont.)Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-17556695250559302782015-05-25T12:44:16.411-03:002015-05-25T12:44:16.411-03:00Andres - if you would learn more, perhaps even the...Andres - if you would learn more, perhaps even the truth, you should join this debate https://www.facebook.com/groups/326953933989277/Roger Lortonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12053468909633262072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-1594087999492273392015-05-25T12:27:29.723-03:002015-05-25T12:27:29.723-03:00The Falklands have been British since 1765. There ...The Falklands have been British since 1765. There was no abandonment in 1774, merely the withdraw of the garrison - indeed Britain's imports records continued show the Falklands as a colony until 1779. In 1802 France demanded access to the Falklands from Britain during the negotiations for the treaty of Amiens. Britain rejected the French demands.<br /><br />I suggest you read further - https://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/ or, with full references - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/falklands-history28.pdfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-48038834243825438342015-04-13T16:53:44.639-03:002015-04-13T16:53:44.639-03:00Hi!
I wouldn't say that there's a single...Hi! <br /><br />I wouldn't say that there's a single event that's definitive to either claim. Partly because the legal approach to solving sovereignty disputes is not to find a winning criterion but rather to compare the sum ups of the merits of each of the many arguments that each party would put on the table. <br /><br />I couldn't select two events even if you asked me to choose their best historical arguments. I guess it's more a matter of processes. For the Argentine claim the most relevant one being the sequence of acts of sovereignty on the islands, of the Spanish Empire first and of the government of Buenos Aires later, prior to 1833. Particularly during the period when Britain acquiesced to those acts and didn't perform any of its own, between its departure from Port Egmont in 1774 and its protest of 1829. The regular protests by Argentina since 1833 have also been important, because without them its claim would have prescribed. <br /><br />Although the Spanish Empire, the early independent government of Buenos Aires, and the modern Argentine republic are, strictly speaking, different actors, I'm tying their actions together because they form a chain of succession. For more on this see the ICJ judgment that I quoted in the April 2012 post.<br /><br />From the Argentine point of view, the newly-independent state of Buenos Aires (the rights of which were later inherited by modern Argentina) had sovereignty over the islands just as it had over the countryside of Buenos Aires. That nascent state could expect challenges from Spain on either one of those territories given that there was a war of independence between them. But this independence didn't enable rights for third nations. It was analogous to a secession. During the secession of the Irish Free State, that country and the modern UK were inheriting the rights of the previous United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However novel those two states were, third nations had no right to meddle with that territory.<br /><br />Britain didn't dispute this inheritance of Spanish rights in general. What its government said, at the time, was that the islands hadn't been Spanish, grounding it on the 1771 restitution of Port Egmont and other events. But I don't think the UK expects much from this argument anymore, presumably because it has two defects that have been commented often. <br /><br />Firstly, the 1771 restitution didn't imply a concession of sovereignty over the whole archipelago. Britain could at most claim that Spain had acquiesced to its sovereignty over some western part of it, which could be argued to be West Falkland (Gran Malvina) plus its adjacent islands, while by the same token it could be said that Britain was accepting Spanish title over the rest of the archipelago, a title that Buenos Aires could inherit later. Secondly, and most importantly, British abandonment plus its years of acquiescence to Spanish and Argentine acts of sovereignty implies prescription of any British claim active in the early 1770s. <br /><br />I think a better argument for Britain nowadays is acquisitive prescription, meaning the transfer of title due to a prolonged possession. If Argentina hadn't protested regularly since 1833, it would have lost its claim due to this doctrine. But awarding title in the presence of protests is quite a different thing. It's very controversial and, as far as I know, unprecedented. Yet it's not completely disavowed by the relevant literature. If lawyers had to present a British case, I think this could be their heaviest legal argument, and thus the most relevant historical process to their case would be the near-continuous occupation of the archipelago since 1833. <br /><br />Questions and comments are welcome. :) Thanks!Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-80627128433584524162015-04-12T15:57:20.168-03:002015-04-12T15:57:20.168-03:00Hi, can I ask what part of history you think is th...Hi, can I ask what part of history you think is the most relevant or definitive part to the claims of the Falklands/Malvinas?<br /><br />For example the 1771 sovereignty claim of Britain or Vernets claim of settlement in 1829.<br /><br />I am British but have taken a recent interest in the subject and would like views from all sides.<br /><br />Thanks!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-34398245035673933222014-05-08T08:50:33.774-03:002014-05-08T08:50:33.774-03:00Great collection! My hobby is to collect rare and ...Great collection! My hobby is to collect rare and precious stamps and for that this information is really useful. BTW thanks for adding some other stamps in my list which I need to collect in short time.Martin @ Buy Stampshttp://www.tonylester.co.uk/buying/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-6328239295100602222013-09-04T18:10:02.173-03:002013-09-04T18:10:02.173-03:00A quick note to add to the solution I suggest abov...A quick note to add to the solution I suggest above. There's the possibility that other South American countries request Argentina to have a stronger more-patient stance. In that case, I think it needs to listen and act with the bloc's interests in mind before pursuing any middle ground.Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-2838206597883282172013-09-04T16:58:33.812-03:002013-09-04T16:58:33.812-03:00There are other basis for a British case, namely e...There are other basis for a British case, namely external self-determination and prescription from adverse possession. But the application of either of them to this case is quite doubtful. It appears to be strong in ordinary commentary, Wikipedia articles and such, but authoritative sources (including British ones) paint a different picture. At a scholarly level, the legal arguments resume basically to an evaluation of how these weight compared to Argentina's arguments, which are mainly historical. I would like to elaborate on a future post, but first I would prefer to post one or two articles about other subjects, preferably including something from Britain's extensive proud history, to compensate for this issue which is not flattering.<br /><br />Lastly, I don't think independence would solve things. Firstly, Argentina would still argue that its territory was nicked and that the whole thing is just a simulation to retain British influence. The international community may not disregard such an argument, because secession is a concern in many places of the world. Besides, as I see it, there is a significant projection of power for Britain from its control of the islands, which London would not want to weaken. Sea and Antarctica are increasingly valuable economically speaking, and an enormous amount of these resources are claimed by Britain based on its assumed title to the islands. Also, they are a strategic post for control of Cape Horn, which is still important despite the Panama Canal, this importance being arguably on the rise. I doubt Britain would leave these pretensions at the will of an extremely-small community, although it would depend on which treaties it may obtain in exchange, but these would only strengthen the Argentine counter-argument. Moreover, although the international community has recognized micro-states, in none of those cases their emancipation went together with such a huge portion of the Earth.<br /><br />I think it is better and more viable to negotiate a creative solution: split the territory, sea and Antarctica; invite Chile to the table; leave Stanley to Britain (they need a base anyway and its population is politically dear); lay the grounds for business; welcome Britain to this extended version of South America and move forward. Don't get me wrong, I still believe in the superiority of the Argentine case and I hope no-one derives a middle-ground fallacy from this proposal. I simply think that it is an acceptable and useful solution for all.Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-87863567885060594802013-09-03T21:38:16.575-03:002013-09-03T21:38:16.575-03:00Hi! Thank you for your comment. I commented on som...Hi! Thank you for your comment. I commented on some of those issues throughout the article, but I realize it is long. :) <br /><br />Onslow probably didn't deport anyone. He simply demanded the permanent removal of Argentine signs of presence and pretension of authority. Therefore, those who had recently arrived and were under orders from Buenos Aires were left to choose between opening fire, deserting their ranks or leaving the islands, as they did with their families and a few among Vernet's settlers who decided to join them. However, portraying it as the removal of a garrison, as it is sometimes done, is not accurate and falls into the typical mistake of analyzing past events as if they had present contexts. Frontier populations of that kind were commonly used to constitute effective occupation and were accepted as such. The so-called garrison even included women and children, which was not always the case with such populations under orders. The British consul referred to them as "colonists" (including the men) when he reported the events to London. Moreover, what was most relevant was the forceful disruption of the Argentine presence at the islands, which was expressed by more than this recently-arrived population.<br /><br />We don't know why the gauchos massacred those others, though it was probably related to their payment, as you say, or an act of pillage. In the article I cite Graham-Yooll (reference 32), who argues that the murders were partly due to Onslow telling them that they could take their payment in cattle and leave if there were no news after a few months, something that the other colonists didn't allow. These unknowns enabled some chauvinistic interpretations from Argentine revisionists, which the Argentine Academy of History has discredited but are nevertheless still popular, regrettably within the current government of CFK too. <br /><br />What happened in 1833 is doubtfully irrelevant, despite colonialism. During that era, there was a rationale for colonization by European powers that made it lawful (according to them, but lawful anyway). But this case is different, because Buenos Aires had been welcomed (by Britain at least) to the family of nations, thus international law operated differently with it than with the so-called native tribes. <br /><br />You are correct to point out that there were rights of conquest in the 19th century, and these certainly applied between nations of the European sytem, but only in the context of war. For this point, Sharon Korman's doctoral dissertation at Oxford can be consulted. Oxford published it under the title "The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice". Korman makes that point referring specifically to this sovereignty dispute on pages 105 to 108, which are available on Google Books. There was no declaration of a state of war--it didn't have to be to start the war necessarily, but at some point there had to be some official declaration of there being a war. Furthermore, Britain declared and acted in ways that are not compatible with a state of war, as it promoted business and peaceful diplomacy. Therefore, Buenos Aires replied solely by requesting an evaluation of title, in response to the arguments from London, instead of considering itself to be "lawfully invaded". Other nations reacted accordingly. Besides, claiming rights of conquest would put the British case on doubtful ground in regards to decolonization doctrine. <br /><br />(Continues below)Andrés Dj.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15057586018878746840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4986134841014961418.post-16223366701129689072013-08-13T09:29:36.483-03:002013-08-13T09:29:36.483-03:00I was informed - can't find the reference now...I was informed - can't find the reference now - from Onslow's report or recollections, that he didn't deport the population from Port Louis. There were 20 settlers, who all wanted to stay, and 12 gauchos, who wanted to leave. Onslow persuaded, after much discussion, 7 of the gauchos to stay, although he noted that they were rough and wild men, and worried for the safety of the other inhabitants. <br /><br />He was right, because after a dispute where Brisbane paid them in worthless paper money, following Vernet's practice, and Dunsmore refused to accept the money in his shop, the gauchos ran amok and massacred almost all the inhabitants. The survivors took refuge with a British ship until a new governor arrived. Their descendents still live in the Falklands. <br /><br />This, while interesting, is really irrelevant after all this time. If the nature of the creation of the colony were to be grounds for its current legal status as a nation, then Argentina and most of the rest of American states would be even further from legality. As would most Arabic countries, Turkey, Spain, most of eastern Europe, and much of the rest of the world. Most states and most borders are founded ultimately on conquest: and often on ethnic cleansing and genocide. In many cases, like Patagonia, more recently than the middle of the nineteenth century. If Argentina's claim were to be accepted, the borders of much of Europe and Asia would have to be revised, and the legality of all American states would be in question.<br /><br />The decision that conquest and genocide were international crimes was not applied retroactively.<br /><br />A simple declaration of independence of the Falklands and the rest of the British and French ex-colonies would probably be a reasonable solution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com