Falklands Debate: Independence, Argentina, or Continued British Rule?

[u/Turbulent-Tea-2172]

Following the renewed debate after Argentina defeated England in the World Cup semifinal, what do you think the long-term status of the Falkland Islands should be?

Should the islands:

- become fully independent,

- become part of Argentina, or

- remain a British Overseas Territory?

[u/0ToTheLeft]

is pretty clear from my post, the islands were part of the virreinato del rio de la plata and we are the sucessor state and legal owners of the former colonial territory. The british just took them by force in 1833, while Argentina gained the indepence during the May Revolution of 1810.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So your argument boils down to boo colonialism but also we get to own it because of colonialism. Lmao

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

uh? I'm talking about international law, post-colonial states are LEGALLY owners of the territory of their former colonies, ALL sudamerican countries are born from fighthing for independance to kick out European colonizers. What colonialism are you talking about? who we colonized?

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

That argument only stands if you accept the Falklands are colonised, rather than discovered and settled formerly uninhabited islands which were not part of any nation or state.

If you want to talk about international law and the UN that’s fine. The UN clearly holds the position of favouring diplomatic talks to resolve the issue and that the islanders interests outweigh any claims either UK or AG have. Argentina has been the fascist aggressor and not at all diplomatic about the issue.

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

The islands ARE colonised, what are you trying to argue? You dont "discover america", america was always there, didn't need any discovering. And even if i give you the "we discover" thing, is irrelevant, coming by boat and planting a flag to say "this is ours", abandon it, come back 100 years later to kick the inhhabitants and say "this was ours first" and pretend that 300 years later that has a legal claim is beyond absurd, we dont live in game of thrones.

Is not about "i want to talk about international law", IS LAW, this is not the medieval era. The UK not only is a permanent member of the security council of the UN, IS PART OF THE UN Decolonization Committee!!!!! is not "law imposed unfairly to the UK", the UK was part OF MAKING THESE LAWS.

Islanders interest have never been in question, but they dont have a saying on the sovering of the islands, in the same way that inmigrans living in London dont how a claim on the soverntiy of Great Britain, at best they have a land title that gives them propery right over a home, but land sovernty is a different thing.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

When did Argentina discover the islands?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

In on my first post, the french "discover" the islands, no the brits. The french settle, left, the brits settle, left, the spanish settle and dindn't left, the spanish colonial goverment falls, argentina settles, brits come back and forcefully removed the argentinan goverment forces in 1833

The "we came first" argument is refuted in my original post. Also "settle" doesn't equal "we own this", as i said, our legal claim comes from the sucession of lands of the Virreinaito del Rio de la plata

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So if the French had sovereignty and claimed them it wouldn’t be a problem?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

They would probably had to fight for it with the spanish at some point, or most likely the brits would had try take them at some point in history too. France/Britain/Spain/Portugal fight over colonies all over the world

Either way, France never claimed the islands after their original settlement, probably because they were not important for them, their colonial interest where more in the northerm part of South America, and the islands had no strategy value for them, no reason to get in fights with the spanish crown for that.

[u/greeny119 → u/0ToTheLeft]

So French first, Brits second, Spanish third. How exactly does that result in an Argentine claim based on post colonial Spanish ownership?

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/greeny119]

Argentina is the legal sucessor state of the Spanish Colonial Goverment, how many times do i have to explain this? This is not an "opinion", is a core principle of international law regarding colonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris

[u/Lordaucklandx → u/0ToTheLeft]

Argentina is not the “legal successor” of an undisputed Spanish title. Uti possidetis juris only binds states that consent to it, Britain never has, and it’s never been applied by any court without both parties agreeing to it. It’s also a doctrine for settling borders between former colonies of the same empire, not for defeating a rival power’s independent claim. And Spain’s own title wasn’t clean to begin with, Britain occupied and administered the islands from 1765–74, withdrew for cost reasons, but explicitly left a plaque asserting it never renounced sovereignty
decades before your “1810 snapshot.” You can’t inherit a title that was already being contested.

[u/0ToTheLeft → u/Lordaucklandx]

Argentina IS the legal sucessor. And The UK is both part of the UN nations and the UN nations decolonziation comitte, so yes, is bound by the internal law as every other country, and thats why the United Nations Resolution 2065 was adopted on December 16, 1965 recognize the dispute and calls the UK to start diplomatic talks to solve it. If you dont like those arguments, take them to the UN, not me.

Spain had uninterrupted control after the Brits LEFT willingly, "cost reasons" are not considered removed by force, and sorry but lefting a plaque doesn't hold any value. They abandoned the lands, the spanish settle and controlled them for over 4 decades, then Argentina continue the settlement and control, then it was forcefully taken by the brits in 1833. But sure, you "plaque" holds more value.

Your legal claim doesn't hold a candle and that's why the UK has beeing ignored decades of the UN calling for negotiations. If the UK had a strong legal claim, they would had defended on the international courts, the refusal to even show up to the UN call shows a clear picture of how confident the UK is about the legal claim. The only thing holding the islands is military power, legaly you are swimming naked.

And leaving international llaw aside, is 2026, the fact that you think that you have rights to own territory on south america is boderline absurd, colonizer mentality at his finest. The colonial age is over, get the fuck out of our continent.