448
submitted 11 months ago by thehatfox@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] mykl@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

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

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

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.)

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago

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.

this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
448 points (98.5% liked)

World News

38977 readers
2688 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS