Uti Possidetis Juris Does Not Apply to the Falkland Islands

Posted in the Falkland Islands Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of44
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Aug 11

Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 17, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

In March 1848, the delegates at the Lima Congress in Peru signed a number of agreements.

Article 7 stated - " The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided."

This is known as the Uti Possidetis Juris principle and Article 7 was signed by Ministers from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.

The doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris is therefore a useful tool to resolve sovereignty/border issues between the signatories.

Argentina did not sign.

Britain did not sign.

Uti Possidetis Juris does not apply therefore to the Falkland Islands !!
malvinense

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lord Ton wrote:
In March 1848, the delegates at the Lima Congress in Peru signed a number of agreements.
Article 7 stated - " The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided."
This is known as the Uti Possidetis Juris principle and Article 7 was signed by Ministers from Colombia, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru.
The doctrine of Uti Possidetis Juris is therefore a useful tool to resolve sovereignty/border issues between the signatories.
Argentina did not sign.
Britain did not sign.
Uti Possidetis Juris does not apply therefore to the Falkland Islands !!
Lord tonto: These topics had been discussed,between Dr Shadow,a the brit LIAR david:http://www.topix.com/for um/world/falkland-islands/TR0K I67QOU0O96MB3/p4
BTW: Follows the argument between Mr Argerich and the brits LIARS and Imperialist about the legal issue and the renouncement in the Nootka sound http://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/27/argentina...
We are tired of the brits LIARS!!

NOoooo Body wants the brits in SA!!
brits out of SA!!!

Since: Aug 11

Pichit, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

No! Uti possidetis Juris does not apply to the falklands Islands ... prove me wrong!

Go to the ICJ.

Do you have the cojones ??
malvinense

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lord Ton wrote:
No! Uti possidetis Juris does not apply to the falklands Islands ... prove me wrong!
Go to the ICJ.
Do you have the cojones ??
ICJ?/ Why you did not go in 1884,when Argentina invited uk?
LIAR,lord tonto!!

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

The ICJ did not exist in 1884, you idiot !
malvinense1

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lord Ton wrote:
The ICJ did not exist in 1884, you idiot !
And you SUPER IDIOT,existed arbitration court!!IMBECIL!!!!
Treaty of limits,between Argentina and Chile,1881.
The arbitrator was an American,Buchanan.
The brits king,Edward VII,delivered the sentence of the arbitration?
Did not existed?IGNORANT!!!
En Septiembre de 1898 se firmaron las actas que proponían dejar de lado chileno los canales de la Patagonia, al fijar los limites de esta, también dejar de lado el problema de la Puna, e intervenir mediante arbitraje británico frente al problema de la línea divisoria entre los paralelos 26 y 52.Para resolver cualquier controversia se designó a un diplomático extranjero, en este caso la labor de estudiar, analizar y determinar los limites cayo en noviembre de 1898 sobre William G. Buchanan(Norteamericano). Los acuerdos de paz fueron públicamente celebrados para demostrar a la población chileno argentina los deseos de reconciliación entre estas dos repúblicas vecinas, en lo que se llamo “El abrazo del Estrecho”(15 de Febrero 1899).

Tomó veinte días para que el designado norteamericano Buchanan trazar la línea divisoria definitiva quien fue imparcial en el momento de tomar la decisión 60.000 kms 2 para Argentina y 20.000 kms 2 para Chile, la división fue recalcada como de carácter relevante para las dos naciones por Carlos Mora Vicuña Ministro de Chile en Washington, pero finalmente como fue acordado en el acta de 1898 el Rey de

Inglaterra “Eduardo VII” dicto su sentencia arbitral el 20 de Noviembre de 1902 basándose en ambas tesis (Hidrográfica y Orográficas) para dirimir los territorios;

De un total de 94.140 kms 2, repartió 54.225 kms 2 para chile y para Argentina 39.915 kms 2 y los mejores valles pera el cultivo.

“El buen entendimiento entre los dos pueblos culminó en 1910con la inauguración del ferrocarril transandino (5 de Abril)y las fiestas del centenario.” 2*

Puedo finalizar concluyendo que aunque cedimos en la Patagonia una basta extensión de valles, quebradas y planicies tanto cultivables como explotables en términos experimentales u/o turísticos, obtuvimos la disputada Puna de Atacama que paso a ser una parte importante de nuestro patrimonio cultural nacional, además una gran extensión de territorio, y creo yo o mas relevante, que evitamos la guerra que tanto a Chile como a Argentina habría perjudicado demográfica, económica, política y geográficamente de nuestro patrimonio cultural nacional y obtuvimos al igual que nuestro país hermano la anhelada paz y con ella la estabilidad política y geográfica que tanto nos preocupo.

2*“Conociendo mi tierra y mi gente II”(Raúl Cheix y Jorge Gutiérrez)Pag .107

BIBLIOGRAFIA

•“Conociendo mi tierra y mi gente II”(Raúl Cheix y Jorge Gutiérrez)

•“Breve Historia de las Fronteras de Chile”(Jaime Eizaguirre) Segunda edición.

CITAS

•“Conociendo mi tierra y mi gente II”(Raúl Cheix y Jorge Gutiérrez)

Primera cita extraída de Pág. 105(2.2 “Un difícil acuerdo”)

Segunda cita extraída de Pág.107(2.2“Un difícil acuerdo”)

http://html.rincondelvago.com/tratado-de-limi...

Sure the ICJ did not existed....is part of the UN.C24 is part of the UN...IDIOT!!

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You said - " ... ICJ?/ Why you did not go in 1884,when Argentina invited uk?.."

And there was no ICJ in 1884 !

Yes, there were possibilities of arbitration, usually under a King or Pope.

So tell me - which King or Pope was approached to deal with Argentina's desire for arbitration?

Chile approached the Queen of England over the Beagle Channel dispute, and then it was proposed to Argentina.

Not that Argentina is willing to abide by arbitration when it doesn't go Argentina's way. The Beagle Channel case is very illuminating.

http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1960-1...
malvinense1

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lord Ton wrote:
You said - " ... ICJ?/ Why you did not go in 1884,when Argentina invited uk?.."
And there was no ICJ in 1884 !
Yes, there were possibilities of arbitration, usually under a King or Pope.
So tell me - which King or Pope was approached to deal with Argentina's desire for arbitration?
Chile approached the Queen of England over the Beagle Channel dispute, and then it was proposed to Argentina.
Not that Argentina is willing to abide by arbitration when it doesn't go Argentina's way. The Beagle Channel case is very illuminating.
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1960-1...
What is illuminating about the Beagle?
Juridical arguments of Argentina over Malvinas:
Situación jurídico-político de la Soberanía Argentina sobre las Islas
Abogado: Martín Julio Ferullo
Títulos jurídicos esgrimidos por Argentina
Hablar de títulos es hacer lo propio de legitimidad. Argentina reclama sus derechos soberanos sobre las Islas Malvinas, y ese reclamo se torna en justo y legítimo, a la luz de las causas jurídicas que sustentan y avalan su posición.
Para continuar manteniendo un lenguaje simple, no técnico, y en miras a desarrollar analíticamente la cuestión, voy a definir a un título como todo sustento jurídico-político-social que acredita la titularidad de un derecho.
Así, por ejemplo, recurrirán a la Escritura de Compra-Venta que demuestra la adquisición de ese inmueble, o a la Inscripción de la Declaratoria de Herederos, que corrobora que se heredó ese mismo territorio. Estos son precisamente los títulos.
El ejemplo transcripto, pertenece al Derecho Privado, que es el que rige las relaciones entre los particulares, pero que se aplica idénticamente en su dimensión conceptual al Derecho Público.
Hecha esta introducción, a mi juicio necesaria para la acabada comprensión de la problemática para el lector no jurista, paso a continuación a detallar los principales títulos que dan clara razón a la soberanía argentina sobre las Islas Malvinas:
1. Sucesión de los derechos de España: Suceder es continuar el derecho cuya titularidad le pertenecía a otro. En el Derecho Privado, hay dos grandes grupos de sucesiones.
La denominada mortis-causa, o por causa de muerte (ej. el hijo hereda el inmueble a causa de la muerte de su padre) y la segunda de ellas es por acto entre vivos (ej. el comprador que adquiere un inmueble a quien legítimamente era el dueño, lo sucede en ese derecho).
En el Derecho Público hay un abanico de alternativas por las cuales se puede suceder en determinados territorios. Así y a sólo título ejemplificativo, voy a mencionar algunos; se puede suceder por compraventa (EEUU adquiere Alaska a los rusos en 1897), por desmembramiento (los distintos países surgidos como consecuencia de la caída del régimen comunista en la ex Unión de Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas a partir de 1989), por independencia de los pueblos (territorios pertenecientes al ex virreinato del Río de la Plata, que una vez adquirida su independencia, sucede en dichos territorios; en el caso argentino, en 1816).
Es decir, Argentina sucede los derechos sobre las Islas Malvinas, porque dichos territorios pertenecían a España. Una vez producida la independencia y reconocida ésta por la propia España, la soberanía argentina sobre Malvinas se torna claramente legítima y justa. Ahora bien, cabe señalar las razones por las cuales España tenía en su momento legítimos derechos sobre las Islas.
Y los mismos surgen de las concesiones papales dadas por las Bulas Inter Ce Tera y Dudum, por las cuales el papa Alejandro VI (1453) en la primera asigna a España las tierras descubiertas, dejando a salvo los derechos adquiridos por Portugal.
La segunda bula es escrita en pro de evitar conflictos entre españoles y portugueses, ya sean por las tierras descubiertas o a descubrirse. Se traza una línea imaginaria de polo a polo pasando a http://www.caletao.com.ar/cola/marferu/02/mal...

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 19, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Sorry, but the Beagle Channel case highlighted the problems with Uti Possidetis Juris and identified it as a 'political' tenet rather than a legal one. Five ICJ judges beats your author hands down. So no, no inheritance for Argentina!

In fact your quoted author is so daft as to think that the Papal Bull was in some way 'international law'. It was not and the Treaty of Tordessilas merely bound the two signatories. Had no effect on anyone else.

After all, the Pope could not give, what he hadn't got.

Much the same goes for spain when it finally got around to recognising Argentina in the 1850's (3 times).

The Beagle Channel case is also enlightening because it amply demonstrated Argentina's attitude. Argentina had signed up for the arbitration and the decision was binding. Argentina didn't like losing so it refused to accept the decision. Took a referendum before the Argentine government would accept the Pope's decision too.

Very illuminating :-)
malvinense1

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Aug 20, 2011
 
Lord Ton wrote:
Sorry, but the Beagle Channel case highlighted the problems with Uti Possidetis Juris and identified it as a 'political' tenet rather than a legal one. Five ICJ judges beats your author hands down. So no, no inheritance for Argentina!
In fact your quoted author is so daft as to think that the Papal Bull was in some way 'international law'. It was not and the Treaty of Tordessilas merely bound the two signatories. Had no effect on anyone else.
After all, the Pope could not give, what he hadn't got.
Much the same goes for spain when it finally got around to recognising Argentina in the 1850's (3 times).
The Beagle Channel case is also enlightening because it amply demonstrated Argentina's attitude. Argentina had signed up for the arbitration and the decision was binding. Argentina didn't like losing so it refused to accept the decision. Took a referendum before the Argentine government would accept the Pope's decision too.
Very illuminating :-)
I undestand that the Argentine case,was not put forward corrctly.And anyway uti posidetis,is also applicable to Chile...
Different case is with the uk...

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The two sides presented their cases after agreeing to accept the court's decision. Argentina did not accept the courts decision, but made excuses and declared it null and void. That was in 1979.

In 1980 Argentina agreed for the Pope to act as mediator but then didn't like his opinion either and refused to accept.

In 1982 some of Argentina's best troops were kept on the border with Chile so that once the Falkland Islands were secure, they could impose a military soution on the Beagle Channel.

In 1984 the Argentina government put the issue tp the people in a referendum and the people voted to accept the Popes decision.

Just a case of being bad losers by the look of it !

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Aug 20, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

" ... The judgment of the arbitration panel considering the Beagle Channel Case gives its decision. On the issue of Uti Possidetis Juris, the panel says,” the Parties were agreed in principle that their rights in the matter of claims or title to territory were governed prima facie (and if no recognized basis of derogation existed) by the doctrine of the uti possidetis juris of 1810, This doctrine—possibly, at least at first, a political tenet rather than a true rule of law—is peculiar to the field of the Spanish-American States whose territories were formerly under the rule of the Spanish Crown,—and even if both the scope and applicability of the doctrine were somewhat uncertain, particularly in such far-distant regions of the continent as are those in issue in the present case, it undoubtedly constituted an important element in the inter-relationships of the continent.“

The inter-relationships of the continent. Britain is not in the continent, so Uti possidetis juris does not apply in the case of the Falkland Islands.

Since: Aug 11

Songkhla, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 25, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Failing to put your case properly is your problem.

Ignoring legally binding arbitration however, taints your reputation in the eyes of the world !
Argie

Salta, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 26, 2011
 
Argentina heredó los derechos españoles de acuerdo al principio "uti possidetis juris", según el cual a las emancipadas Provincias Unidas del Sud les corresponderían los mismos límites que al extinto Virreinato del Río de la Plata.

Pero uno de los argumentos esgrimidos por los británicos es que, suponiéndose el derecho previo de España al archipiélago como parte del Virreinato del Río de la Plata, al descomponerse éste en cuatro estados ninguno de ellos puede invocar la aplicación del uti possidetis para el caso de Malvinas.

El razonamiento me es viciado de nulidad y he aquí una posible respuesta:

Según el artículo 35 de nuestra Constitución el nombre "Provincias Unidas" tiene la misma validez legal que el de República Argentina. O sea, legalmente son sinónimos. En cuanto a las escisiones de Paraguay (1811); del Alto Perú(1825) y de la Banda Oriental (1828), son desprendimientos de una autoridad central, del mismo modo que lo son la República de Irlanda y el resto de las ex colonias que conforman el Commonwealth con respecto a Gran Bretaña. Si la posición argentina quedase invalidada por la escisión de Paraguay, de manera análoga quedaría invalidada la británica por la independencia irlandesa en los años '20 y por el desmembramiento del imperio británico, dado que el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda técnicamente ya no existe como hace 170 años.

Valgan las siguientes consideraciones:

Las tres provincias altoperuanas suscribieron la independencia como parte de las Provincias Unidas en el Congreso de Tucumán, la misma afectaba jurídicamente a la Banda Oriental y la secesión de este territorio se produce como fruto de la política británica a través de Lord Ponsonby de crear un "estado tapón" con el objetivo de que el Río de la Plata sea internacional. Sin embargo, el principio de Uti Possidetis se mantiene en tanto que la República Argentina (o Provincias Unidas) es la continuidad histórica y jurídica del Virreinato del Río de la Plata.

Conclusión

Argentina heredó los derechos españoles de acuerdo al principio "uti possidetis juris", según el cual a las emancipadas Provincias Unidas del Sud les corresponderían los mismos límites que al extinto Virreinato del Río de la Plata, por ser su continuidad histórica y jurídica. Y las Provincias Unidas ya son la Argentina, como dice el artículo 35° de la Constitución Nacional.

Since: Aug 11

Songkhla, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Aug 26, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You are missing the point. The argument is not that Argentina inherited from the United Provinces, the argument is that uti possidetis juris is purely an intra-South American political tenet declared as a rule of South American law.

The Falkland Islands are not affected because Britain was not a signatory to the political agreement proclaimed in 1848 and backdated to 1810.

So, regardless of your cut and paste, Uti does not apply to the Falkland Islands.

http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/a...
MAlvinense1

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 30, 2011
 
Sure lortonto
Go next year to the UN,loosing of course....

Since: Jul 11

Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MAlvinense1 wrote:
Sure lortonto
Go next year to the UN,loosing of course....
You just dont get it do you ? The UK doesnt have to do a damn thing, the islands have always been British and the inhabitants wish to remain so. Its up to Argentina to put forward a case so really it should be you asked the question - Why dont you go to the ICJ as soon as possible if your case is so strong ?
francisco

Cordoba, Argentina

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Volvio el troll!!!!!!!

Se ve que van mal aqui....

Since: Aug 11

Bangkok, Thailand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 31, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Are you making a point fransisco ??

It is not clear :-)
MAlvinense1

Thornhill, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 31, 2011
 
leanmeanmachine wrote:
<quoted text>
You just dont get it do you ? The UK doesnt have to do a damn thing, the islands have always been British and the inhabitants wish to remain so. Its up to Argentina to put forward a case so really it should be you asked the question - Why dont you go to the ICJ as soon as possible if your case is so strong ?
really,Argentina invited to settle the dispute,several times.The foreign office replays,no way!!!
Look uk more and more like a pirat to me!!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of44
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Falkland Islands Discussions

Search the Falkland Islands Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Why Do People Hate Argentina (Mar '12) 10 min BritBob 1,579
If Argentina does collapse? 6 hr Ace McCloud 128
CONGRAT to the english team:A brilliant defeat! 7 hr Ace McCloud 11
Argentina’s lies at the United Nations (Apr '11) 10 hr pablo 28,654
EEZ of Argentina.MAlvinas falls within (Apr '12) 17 hr Deanstreet 80
The Argentine problem (Mar '12) Tue Biguggy 1,879
80% of Uruguayans Consider Montivideo Should Ke... Tue Biguggy 705
•••
•••