reply to post by yorkshirelad
With respect what I hear you saying is that you do not recognized long established international law to wit;
ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND OPINIONS
THE SOVEREIGNTY ISSUE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
Legal scholars in the international community have
traditionally recognized five modes of acquiring territory.
These are: cession, occupation, accretion, subjugation, and
Cession is defined as "title derived from another state by
the transfer of sovereignty by the owner state to another
state." It may result from the outcome of war, a gift, sale, or
an exchange. It can only be effected by treaty between the
ceding and acquiring states and normally requires that the new
owner possess or occupy the territory. It is essential that
cession occur with "the full consent of the governments
Occupation is "the act of appropriation of territory which
is not at the time under the sovereignty of another state." It
requires both possession and administration, implying the need
for the presence of a settlement and a formal act of proclamation
by the occupier to confirm his intent to keep the territory under
his sovereignty. An uninhabited island not part of any state
would be an example of a territory liable for occupation by
another country. Abandonment by the occupying state would make
it vulnerable for occupation by another.
Accretion refers to "an increase in existing land masses by
new geological changes, such as the formation of a new island in
a river." This type of acquisition does not apply in the case of
Subjugation refers to firmly established conquest followed
by formal annexation. It occurs only after an end to a state of
war or hostilities.
Prescription is "the acquisition of sovereignty over a
territory through continuous and undisturbed exercise of
sovereignty over it during such period as is necessary to
create.... the general conviction that the present condition of
things is in conformity with international order." No rule
defines the length of time necessary to create title by
prescription. Uti possidetis is a principle related to
prescription which has been adopted by Spanish-American republics
to assert sovereignty over territories which at one time formed a
part of the Spanish Colonial Empire. After winning independence
from Spain, Argentina used this principle to defend her avowed
"inheritance" of the Islands.(6)
During Spanish rule of South and Central America the Falklands were administered by the Governor of Buenos Aires. IMO, and that of others much better
versed in International Law, Argentina had every right to claim the Falklands.
What I find very interesting is that I have read, possibly in the above link, that there are 2 copies of the agreement (treaty?) , possibly the in one
in which Spain allowed the British colonists to return to one Falkland port in 1771(?). The British copy allegedly makes no mention of Spain retaining
sovereignty while the Spanish copy alleged;y does. Damn scribes!
I have also read that China favors the Argentine claim. This is understandable considering their issue with Taiwan which issue, IMO, has little in
common with the Falklands dispute.