Falkland Islands lie in Argentinian waters, UN commission rules - Polidicks

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/4QN4aRy.png[/IMG] [url]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission?CMP=fb_gu[/url] [media]https://twitter.com/SusanaMalcorra/status/714509220448747521[/media] [quote] Argentina’s government is celebrating a decision by a UN commission to expand its maritime territory in the South Atlantic Ocean by 35% to include the disputed Falkland islands and beyond. The Argentine foreign ministry said its waters had increased by 1.7 million square km (0.66 million square miles) and the decision will be key in its dispute with Britain over the islands. [URL="http://www.theguardian.com/world/argentina"]Argentina[/URL] lost a brief, bloody 1982 war with Britain after Argentinian troops seized the South Atlantic archipelago that Latin Americans call the Malvinas. [URL="http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm"]The UN commission on the limits of the continental shelf[/URL] sided with Argentina, ratifying [URL="http://www.un.org/depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_arg_25_2009.htm"]the country’s 2009 report[/URL] fixing the limit of its territory at 200 to 350 miles from its coast. “This is a historic occasion for Argentina because we’ve made a huge leap in the demarcation of the exterior limit of our continental shelf,” foreign minister Susana Malcorra said. “This reaffirms our sovereignty rights over the resources of our continental shelf.” .... The UN commission’s finding included the caveat that there is an unresolved diplomatic dispute between Argentina and Britain over the islands. The Falklands are internally self-governing, but Britain is responsible for its defence and foreign affairs. The British government says islanders cannot be forced to accept Argentinian sovereignty against their will. The Falkland Islands government said on Monday it was seeking clarification from the British government on “what, if any, decisions have been made, and what implications there may be” for the territory in relation to the UN ruling. [/quote] [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] Just says the waters belongs to them — not the Falkland Islands.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025362] Just says the waters belongs to them — not the Falkland Islands.[/QUOTE] If only things were that easy to fix, the Argies are not going to stop 'till they get the actual islands At least those who actually do give a damn about the whole thing

Haven't the islanders themselves said they'd rather stay with the british government than joining Argentina?

[QUOTE=Sunkite;50025421]Haven't the islanders themselves said they'd rather stay with the british government than joining Argentina?[/QUOTE] Yeah. The people of a land have a sovereign right to dictate how their government should work. They want to be British-ruled; so they get to be British-ruled — its international law 101. But the ruling doesn't address that. Just that the waters are Argentinean.

Calling it now. In the next few months, Britain will give this island to Argentinian as a sign of good will and their entire war will of been for nothing.

[QUOTE=Passing;50025450]Calling it now. In the next few months, Britain will give this island to Argentinian as a sign of good will and their entire war will of been for nothing.[/QUOTE] That would be stupid. The people do not want to be ruled by Argentina. Why subjugate the people?

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025454]That would be stupid. The people do not want to be ruled by Argentina. Why subjugate the people?[/QUOTE] Also. Didn't margaret thatcher after their war say something about giving the islands back even if it takes 20 years? Because i know the war was just to prove a point but i'm fairly sure after everything was done she said that, but as i haven't lived in the UK for sometime i'm not up to update with current events there.

[QUOTE=Passing;50025450]Calling it now. In the next few months, Britain will give this island to Argentinian as a sign of good will and their entire war will of been for nothing.[/QUOTE] Corbin isn't Prime Minister.

If Britain decides to relinquish control of the Falklands — they should have the people a referendum. Let the Falklands be 100% autonomous in governance or be ruled by Argentina. Though, if they chose autonomy — Argentina would surely wage war on the now-defenseless Falkland government. The UK would always have to maintain defense guarantees for the Falkland Islands regardless.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025439]Yeah. The people of a land have a sovereign right to dictate how their government should work. They want to be British-ruled; so they get to be British-ruled — its international law 101. But the ruling doesn't address that. Just that the waters are Argentinean.[/QUOTE] Like Argentina care about that. They probably take this as the first step toward "reclaiming" the islands.

[QUOTE=Passing;50025468]Also. Didn't margaret thatcher after their war say something about giving the islands back even if it takes 20 years?[/QUOTE] Good god no. First she takes away free milk and then she offers the islands to the Argentinians?

This seems pretty screwed up to me. Why does the UN have this power?

[QUOTE=Shadow801;50025492]This seems pretty screwed up to me. Why does the UN have this power?[/QUOTE] Again, it's just the waters, not the islands themselves. And it makes sense, sorta. But if they use this to pull some blockade shit then it's screwed up.

The Argentine EEZ being extended up to the edge of the continental shelf doesn't affect the Falklands EEZ, it just surrounds it to the north and south a bit more. I would also expect that the Falklands could dispute that in this case, the eastern edge of their EEZ extends up to the continental shelf for the same reasons that Argentina have given. [editline]29th March 2016[/editline] To clarify, the UN is granting unclaimed international waters to Argentina. They can't give away the waters around the Falklands.

[QUOTE=Limed00d;50025495]Again, it's just the waters, not the islands themselves. And it makes sense, sorta. But if they use this to pull some blockade shit then it's screwed up.[/QUOTE] Blockades have been seen as an act of war. Pulling a blockade on the Falklands is not going to be seen as some "loophole" — if they do one surrounding the Falklands — it would be casus belli for war given the sheer geographical nature of the Falklands. Nations in the past century have waged war over similar blockades.

How would they even pull off a blockade lmao With the navy that's been rusting in port due to lack of funding to operate more than 15 ships out of 40? The same navy that got one of their ships seized by fucking Ghana because they couldn't pay their debts, the navy that managed to sink their own destroyer in a harbor?

it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] Said population is also almost entirely British, and it was a near unanimous decision to remain under control of Britain.

I'll go with this as I go along everywhere else, if the citizens chose to stay, then they should stay until enough complaints from islanders are risen to constitute a referendum.

Plus personally if I had the choice of being ruled over by Britain or Argentina I'd choose Britain every time.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] Oh shut the fuck up. It has nothing to do with the UK's influence via settler colonies and everything to do with the fact that the stupid Argies waged war over an island with predominantly British islanders. It's rather obvious if they didn't want to be ruled by the British we would have given it away. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming / Rude" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Shadow801;50025492]This seems pretty screwed up to me. Why does the UN have this power?[/QUOTE] This doesn't support Argentina's claim on the islands, all it really does is make the islands an enclave. They're still British territory, inhabited by British citizens.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025506]Blockades have been seen as an act of war. Pulling a blockade on the Falklands is not going to be seen as some "loophole" — if they do one surrounding the Falklands — it would be casus belli for war given the sheer geographical nature of the Falklands. Nations in the past century have waged war over similar blockades.[/QUOTE] I've seen star wars okay I know how blockades work

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] Cuba is closer to America than the Falklands are to Argentina. Should Cuba be forced to join the United States, regardless of the will of the people of Cuba? Also, you realise you're basically advocating that Argentina be given the islands, the population deported, and Argentine settlers are brought in?

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] You have no idea

[QUOTE=Shadow801;50025492]This seems pretty screwed up to me. Why does the UN have this power?[/QUOTE] the UN has a department dedicated to dealing with shit like this. That and there are plenty of treaties about similar stuff that have been signed by both Argentina and the UK. They're the go to body basically.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png[/img] Considering the UK has held it for the longest, the people of the island are of UK descent and have voted to stay a part of the UK, and also fought a recent(ish) war against the Argentinians over the islands and won, I think the islands fair and squarely belong to the UK.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] The Argentinian's themselves are settlers so guess we should send them all back

Luckily for everyone involved, I don't think the Argentinian government is interested in the Islands right now. Besides, the RN is going through a jump in capability and there's very little point in them trying anything. If the political situation had been more tense, I think this would have been a very irresponsible move from the UN Commission.

[QUOTE=Kommodore;50025529]it's an island immediately off the coast of argentina, in immediate logical proximity to argentina, with the population of my high school. it's not the 19th century anymore, the UK's global mission of using settler colonies to enwrap the world in its influence is over, get over it. christ.[/QUOTE] Tierra Del Fuego is bordered by more of Chile than Argentina so it should be theirs and then the Falklands are off their coast. So by your reasoning the Falklands are really Chilean. Can't wait for your scathing attacks on Spain and France for having "colonies" around the globe. Anti-Falklanders never seem to touch on those situations.