British oil dispute with Argentina escalates

Originally posted by Gun Totin Gerbil
They'll be an earthquake on the falkland islands now and a US military 'rescue ' will transpire . And neither the UK or Argentina will get the oil .

funny enough there was 2 in that region yesterday... i guess the harp\earthquake machine needs its targeting reset....

reply to post by Terapin


hi - i am not a student of law - nor do i play one on tv ,

but the Nootka Convention was between spain and great britain

so the fact that britain reuilquised all claim , vis a vis spain - was no longer relevant

for the simple reason - that spain no longer claimed them either

thus - thier aquisition from any one other than spain was not a violation of Nootka .

reply to post by ignorant_ape


I did not indicate that they violated the Nootka Conventions. I indicated that Britain relinquished previous sovereignty over the Falklands to Spain. That is what it means in the Nootka documents when it states that Britain "cedes sovereignty without proviso." Argentina acquired sovereignty from Spain due to the internationally recognized rule of Uti Possidetis Juris, an accepted legal principal that dates back to Roman times.

Their seizure through the use of force had nothing to do with Nootka. The acquisition of territory by force in international law was prohibited. Nations negotiated for territory, which is one reason they had the Nootka conventions in the first place. It is also why Britain entered into Trade and Friendship agreements with Argentina when it became independent.

Tell me, why did the Duke of Wellington, remember him, he was that insignificant British guy who defeated some guy named Napoleon and had no significant authority in Britain, why did he state that Britains claim on the Falklands was dubious? Tell me, why did the British courts at time state that Britain had no legal jurisdiction in the Falklands??? I did not make that up nor watch it on TV.

History, it is there if you choose to bother learning it.
[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

[edit on 27/2/10 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Terapin
I did not indicate that they violated the Nootka Conventions.

No the British did not. The British were within their rights within the addititional article of that Convention which you keep ignoring. With regards the Falklands the Spanish conceded that their claim was NOT superior to the Britsih.

Originally posted by Terapin
Their seizure through the use of force had nothing to do with Nootka.

Britain did not seize the land by force. They removed 25 Argentine solidiers placed three months before, agianst protest. Of the 25, nine were guilty of murdering their captain. British action was a reassertion of their sovereignty. If someone comes and builds a house in your garden, then you have a right to take action.

The Argentinean government gave up their claim in 1850 with the signing of the Convention of Settlement with Britain setttling "all outstanding differences'' between Britain and Argentina.

It wasn't until the British were with their backs against the wall in WW2 that the Argentinean claim was restarted. Clearly, they felt that Briatin was on her way out, so why not start the land grab early! Ever since it has become a nationalist mantra.

Stop quoting international law. Argentina gave up their claim on the basis of acquiescence i.e. failure to protest for several decades after 1850. This "acquiescence" is recognised in international law and is regularly conveniently forgotten by the Argentina.

Originally posted by Terapin
History, it is there if you choose to bother learning it.

Exactly.

Regards

Edit to correct a sentence that made no sense and to confirm context

[edit on 27/2/2010 by paraphi]

reply to post by paraphi


Paraphi, have you read the Nootka Conventions? Not a simplified online version but a full vetted copy. To "Cede without proviso" is pretty clear. It means "to give up all previous claims of sovereignty without conditions." Cant get much clearer than that. The added secret article you mention is about the establishment of permanent settlements. It stated that neither Spain nor Britain will make any attempt to do so that they will only create temporary settlements, and that if one side does indeed establish any permanent settlements then the other side may do so as well. Neither Spain nor Britain attempted to form permanent settlements there after the Conventions and prior to Argentine independence. Argentina, when it became independent was then free to negotiate new treaties and they did. Britain was one of the first nations to do so. This is why the Duke of Wellington and the English courts agreed that Britain had no legal sovereignty there. I am not going to argue with the Duke of Wellington nor the English courts who were directly involved at the time. I defer to their expert knowledge on the subject.

When Britain took the islands back, the Argentine captain on the islands at the time debated resisting, but he was faced with an overwhelming force of British ships and had no choice. The fact that he did not fire back does not mean that he did not leave at gunpoint. Even the Falklands Position Paper you referenced state this fact, that he left under orders from an overwhelming force.

reply to post by paraphi


For the sake of the discussion, lets assume that everything I have read in the documents is entirely wrong. Perhaps you could answer a few questions to enlighten me.

Why would the celebrated Duke of Wellington, titled gentry of the British crown, state that the British did not have clear sovereignty over the Falklands? He was there in the 1800s and I was not, and as he was a significant political figure I figured that his knowledge was germane to the discussion.

Why would the English courts state at the time that they had no legal jurisdiction over the Falklands. In the position paper you referred to the authors tried to make the claim that it was because the defendants were not British subjects, but that never stopped the English courts, and it is not what the courts stated, They stated that they had no authority because the crown did not have legal sovereignty. Why would they state this?

Why would Britain ask permission of Argentina to continue hunting and fishing on the Falklands as they did in the Treaty of trade and friendship I mentioned? There is a copy in the British National Archives if you can access it.

Why has the UK spent so many years negotiating for some sort of Leaseback agreement with Argentina, similar to the Honk Kong deal, if they felt that their Sovereignty was without question?

Why would the UK continue in this day and age to stack the deck with a very unusual exclusion immigration policy?

Perhaps you could clear these items up for me.

Terapin, to answer your points in turn... Hope this helps clarify and clears up a few things.

Originally posted by Terapin
Why would the celebrated Duke of Wellington, titled gentry of the British crown, state that the British did not have clear sovereignty over the Falklands? He was there in the 1800s and I was not, and as he was a significant political figure I figured that his knowledge was germane to the discussion.

The Duke did say that that it was not clear to him why Britain possessed the Falklands. One politician with an opinion does change foreign policy. An opinion is not policy. All politicians have opinions.

Originally posted by Terapin
Why would the English courts state at the time that they had no legal jurisdiction over the Falklands. In the position paper you referred to the authors tried to make the claim that it was because the defendants were not British subjects, but that never stopped the English courts, and it is not what the courts stated, They stated that they had no authority because the crown did not have legal sovereignty. Why would they state this?

The English courts (at the time) had no jurisdiction over the eight gauchos accused of murdering five members of an Argentinean commercial venture lead by Vernet in 1833 some months after Britain reasserted sovereignty. The English Court refused to try them in Britain as under the English law the time only British subjects could be tried in Britain for capital crimes committed abroad. As the criminals were not British they were sent to Montevideo.

Originally posted by Terapin
Why would Britain ask permission of Argentina to continue hunting and fishing on the Falklands as they did in the Treaty of trade and friendship I mentioned? There is a copy in the British National Archives if you can access it.

I assume you refer to the Treaty of Friendship and Navigation signed in 1825 with Britain’s recognition of Argentinean independence from Spain. This Treaty does not refer to the Falklands and does not describe the extent of Argentinean territory. Incidentally, in 1825 there was no one Argentina on the Islands.

Originally posted by Terapin
Why has the UK spent so many years negotiating for some sort of Leaseback agreement with Argentina, similar to the Honk Kong deal, if they felt that their Sovereignty was without question?

It is unquestionable that the UK Government’s did much fannying about in the 1960’s and 70’s showed indecision and a lack of clear purpose which caused miscommunication and confusion. However, this should be set in the context of an accelerated and serious attempt to withdraw from the Empire. Between 1945 and (say) the end of the 1970’s the British Empire was largely disposed of. The fact that the Islands were not “disposed of” indicates acceptance with political and social realities that the Islanders wanted to remain British. Had the Islanders wanted to become Argentinean then I am sure they would have been transferred over, like all the other ex-colonies, or given independence if that’s what they wanted.

Originally posted by Terapin
Why would the UK continue in this day and age to stack the deck with a very unusual exclusion immigration policy?

Why not? Immigration to the Islands is in the hands of the Falklands Government and they probably limit any form of immigration, even from Britain due to the limit to jobs, housing, services et al.

Regards

The English courts at the time were trying and convicting foreign citizens for capitol crimes and some of them instead of being hung, were sent to the Australian penal colonies. You can find a number of cases involving foreign citizens in British courts of the time period. In the case Riveiro and the Gauchos who were sent to London for murder, the courts sent them back not because they were foreign citizens but because they did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands where the crimes took place. That was the courts specific ruling. Here is a simple wiki excerpt with foot notes so you can cross reference.

The gang was sent for trial in London but due to a quirk of the British Legal system could not be tried as the Crown Court did not have jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands.
^ British colonies - Hutchinson encyclopedia, British colonies 1800's
^ Karsten, Peter, -Between Law and Custom, "High" and "Low" Legal Cultures in the Lands of the British Diaspora - The United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, 1600-1900

There are also a number of Historical Law libraries where you can go and see actual court cases involving foreign citizens in British courts of the time. Britain did not establish judiciary authority in the Falklands until a Royal decree in 1841 after establishing military control to the islands. Might makes right I guess.

As for the treaty in 1825.. The British wished for a "continuation" of their hunting and fishing and navigational access to the islands. They asked for this "continuation" and it was granted. As I said, there is a copy of this in the British National Archives. It is unambiguous as the Falklands are described in navigational detail as to where they were hunting and fishing etc. Asking another nation for permission clearly implies an understanding of sovereignty.

The Falklands have guest visas as they seek outside workers. There is not such a shortage that they keep all work only for themselves. They do however have an interesting policy on just who can and can not immigrate and who can and can not buy property. They try to keep it quite, but it was the UK government that established the policy, not the locals. The only other British territory that has an unusual exclusion policy is Diego Garcia, in which all the roughly 2000 locals were forced off by the British to establish a military base, part of which they lease to the US. The locals had been living there for generations. The British High Courts ruled the expulsion to be illegal. The government refused to allow them back despite a Parlaiment ruling in favor of the former residents, and this and it has been going back and forth through a number of court cases and government rulings. This is the only other British territory that I am aware of which uses special UK government imposed rulings to establish an unusual policy on who is allowed to live on British Overseas territory.

A less discriminatory policy..like the majority of Commonwealth territory has, would put the Falklands in line with the rest of the world, and would lessen any concerns regarding the UK written UN rules which deny Self Determination for the Falklands.

Originally posted by Terapin
The English courts at the time ...

Ah, the devil is in the detail. Methinks we have contradictory sources. I admit to not being an expert on English law. I hold that public Wiki’s must be treated with caution at all times! I expect the gauchos were sent to Britain for trail was because the infrastructure were not available on the Islands at the time and the English Court took a black and white approach to their jurisdiction. We are both right and in danger of over analysing an area which we are both ill qualified to analyse.

Originally posted by Terapin
As for the treaty in 1825.. The British wished for a "continuation" of their hunting and fishing and navigational access to the islands. They asked for this "continuation" and it was granted. As I said, there is a copy of this in the British National Archives. It is unambiguous as the Falklands are described in navigational detail as to where they were hunting and fishing etc. Asking another nation for permission clearly implies an understanding of sovereignty.

I maintain that from my research the Falklands are not mentioned in the 1825 Treaty (actually known as the Treaty of Commerce, Amity, and Navigation with Rio Plata Provinces), of which Argentina was a part. The “continuation” of hunting and fishing is undoubtedly a reference to the Nootka Convention which allowed British seamen (sealers et al) to build temporary settlements on Spanish “owned” land on mainland South America. The continuation of that right would have been an important aspect of the new Treaty.

On Diego Garcia...

Diego Garcia is a bit of a different situation than the Falklands so bringing it up in that context can only lead to confusion – perhaps that’s what you want. I should say that the removal of the population (decolonisation to use the phrase that some people seem to love) was an affront to the human rights of the 2,000 inhabitants. I actually think that in time the population (which were not indigenous) will be allowed to return to the atoll and their rights restored, even though at the time of their removal the atoll was uneconomic and they were dependent. The complication is that the atoll is now a significant US / UK military base of strategic importance but we live in more enlightened times (I hope) and the wrong can still be righted.

Regards

Ok, I posted this on one of the other threads and now posting it here..

lets puts some cards on the table shall we and look behind the scenes in other news as to what interconnections are playing out

The Argentine Gov appointed Barclays (a British bank and touted enemy state) to manage their $63 debt swap, Barclays also have a share of Falklands oil.

This has caused issues in Argentina where a notable human rights group are pressing a criminal complaint against the Argentine Gov.

Linky

Note they are openly human rights lawyers, but have stated they will accept the rule of law should the ruling against them and now the US is looking at disclosing evidence of previous Argentine human rights abuses.

Linky

Come on, Argentina has gone to Britain to help sort out their debt crisis using the claim of the Falklands as leverage, which some lawyers found out about and are trying to use the leverage of legal action against the Argentine Gov to get the info they seek, in return the US is willing to disclose their knowledge of human rights abuses to satiate that group.

*IF* Britain was against the Argentina then it would be easy to create the economic situation to crash the country, like similar institutions have done with Greece.. Except the leverage is the Argentine claim on the Falklands, which I am sure the British gov wants to resolve..

So both countries get what they want out of the deal, the Argentine economy does not crash, Britain maintains claim of the Falklands and I would suspect all the talk of the UN/Hilary Clinton meeting to discuss the issue will end up with Argentina accepting the original offer of a share of the oil.

Argentina also lacks the skill, cash and equipment to investigate their own oil potential, obviously with a joint Argentine/British venture this would enable Argentina to piggy back the venture to investigate their own waters..

Hence the Barclays/Desire petroleum link..

So this would be a win win win for all concerned.. Political points scoring on both sides has given both leaders the look and feel of sticking up for their country..

Edit to add:I will freely admit that I got caught up in the begining with talk of "defending" the Islanders against aggression.. And the Barclays link had me stumped for a few days until info that the US was looking into sharing info with the Argentine gov gave me an, oh I see what is going on moment..

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Interesting, but not surprising. Barclays may be a British bank, but it is a global international player and one of the banks which was largely uneffected by the recent credit crisis and received no government help. Therefore, arguably a well run institution, so Argentinean banking support is well placed on that basis.

The fact that Barclays holds shares in companies dealing with oil exploration in the Falklands area is not a surprise as they doubtlessly hold shared in any company which has a good chance of delivering a return on investment (read profit).

I do not feel that this is some stitch up. The political stakes are too high.

Regards

reply to post by Terapin


First of Terapin, you repeatedly cite the Nootka Conventions as a reason for the Argentine claim, but when I said they didn't uphold their end of the treaty (as in allowing British and USA fisherman/hunters freedom) you claim they weren't party to the treaty.

I realise it was Spain who signed the original document, but you said that the Argentine claim stems from this treaty as an inheritance of the former Spanish Empire. If that is the case, then so do the responsibilties.

If they weren't party to it, how can they have claim? You can't have it both ways and only cite the treaty to back up the territorial claim, but sidestep it when I challenge you about their side of the bargain.

Secondly, you harp on about how the "deck is stacked" with immigration.

This is not the case.

You do realise that an Argentine is as free to travel to the Falklands as a British citizen, don't you? They don't even need a visa if the trip is less than 4 weeks.

If it's over 4 weeks or if they plan to move there, they are subject to the EXACT same rules as someone from the UK.

Namely, they need a permit along with proof of a return journey if they are just visiting. If they plan to move there, they need to prove they can support themselves or have a prospective employer sponsor them (funnilly enough, the same criteria you need to emmigrate almost anywhere in the world)

The rules apply whether you are British, Argentine, an EU citizen, a Commonwealth citizen or from the USA.

There is no favouritism and all immigration is handled by the Falkland Island's Government, not the UK Government. It is entirely up to them who they let into their part of the world and, lets be honest, there isn't alot of space to just open the floodgates, is there?

So, really, your bitching and whining is quite without merit on either the Nootka Conventions supposed backing to the Argentine claim or your claims the "deck is stacked" when it comes to numbers.

reply to post by paraphi


I wasn't refering to a political stitch up, tho I am sure both leaders will benifit, my understanding is that it would be difficult for the Argentine gov to approach and British bank (regardless of it's global nature) with interests in the Falklands oil.. Which I beleive creates a constitutional issue for Argentina..

Moreover I also understand (rightly or wrongly) that Argentina does not either have the capital to explore it's own potential oil fields and the recent attitude of the Argentine gov of nationalising businesses has put off a number of investors, so they are onto a non starter exploiting their own potential oil wealth say in the same way Brazil has..

Given that the gov is facing criminal charges for appointing Barclays demonstrates the internal issues that simply working with us causes.. While they have not simply dropped Barclays in favour of another Bank demonstrates that there is more to this than meets the eye... Then the potential release of information by the US gov of information that the group seeking to criminal charges against the Argentine gov wants released just reinforces the deals that are going on behind the scenes in my opinion..

That said, I can not, will not change my position on defending the Islanders, but I personally think that something else is going on behind the scenes that will enable Argentina to drop the claim, stave off an economic debt crisis, while opening an avenue for them to exploit there own oil resources..

However as I said, I beleive the biggest hurdle is the constitutional one over the Falklands.. and I now feel all this is about getting over that hurdle..

I am sure the side effect that both leaders look good to their respective populations is only that.. a side effect

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Terapin

 

First of Terapin, you repeatedly cite the Nootka Conventions as a reason for the Argentine claim, but when I said they didn't uphold their end of the treaty (as in allowing British and USA fisherman/hunters freedom) you claim they weren't party to the treaty.

I realise it was Spain who signed the original document, but you said that the Argentine claim stems from this treaty as an inheritance of the former Spanish Empire. If that is the case, then so do the responsibilties.
.

Stu, please try to understand the contradiction you propose. Here is an example that I have mentioned to you before. When India was a British colony the Crown entered into numerous trade deals on behalf of its colony. When India became independent was it obligated to observe all of these deals? No absolutely not. It was a free and independent nation fully capable of negotiating on its own, and did just that. Even the Crown had to negotiate anew with India. Any nation wishing to do business with the newly formed nation had to negotiate new treaties and India was under no legal obligation to stick to the previous British "responsibilities"

The exact same is true with Argentina. When it became an independent nation it was under no legal obligation to allow the hunting and fishing rights negotiated by third parties as part of the Nootka Conventions. It was free to negotiate its own deals and did just that. Britain was one of the first to enter into deals with Argentina because it was now free from Britains nemesis Spain, and Britain wanted to help assist them.

Making the claim that a new nation is obligated to follow deals made by others is simply not true and history proves you incorrect. Look around and you will find that this principal holds true around the globe. New nations have the full right to negotiate new deals and foreign nations have no right to impose deals made by previous governments.

The chief point of the Nootka Conventions as they relate to the Falklands is this. 1.) both Spain and Britain agrees to cease further attempts at colonization in the area and to share limited use of the islands. 2.) Britain ceded to Spain all previous claims of sovereignty over the Falklands "without proviso"

As an independent nation Argentina was beholden to no one and was thus free to make any new deals it wished, and had no obligation to allow any hunting and fishing on the Falklands. Anyone wishing to do so was legally obligated to negotiate a new deal.

reply to post by Terapin


Soooo...

If Britian cedes claim to Spain, then Spain gives up it's claim itself, then it's a free for all. You can't use the Treaty between two countries to define a third countries claim. If Argentina wasn't party to the Convention and party A has packed up and gone home alltogether, then why should party B still have to play ball?

As it stands, Argentina relinquished any claim in 1850 (or thereabouts) I believe, so even if this Nootka Convention nonsense had any merit, they gave up all claims at a later date, only to reassert them over a century later when they realised there could be oil and when they needed a domestic approval boost.

Sorry, doesn't work like that. They be ours now and shall remain that way, no matter how much of smell these Argies make.

Care to address what I said about the immigration? Or do you cede that point?

Originally posted by Cloro
this is an interesting article.

I remember the 1982 conflict very well since I'm chilean and
the argentinians are still mad at Chile for having aided the
british with info about their movements there.

During the 1982 conflict Chile was under a far-right-wing dictatorship
and they decided to aid the british because "we" feared the argentinians
were gonna continue their campaign on to the west were we are.

the southern half of Argentina was chilean, just to provide some background,
but Chile was experiencing tensions with other neighbours (Peru & Bolivia) and the argentinians took
the oportunity and captured that territory.
Then during the 1982 conflict the chileans knew the argentinians
had the firepower to overrun them so they aided the british with intel.

Chile has now a renewed military force and I fear that the chileans
will aid the british again (thanks to the new right-wing president Piñera)
this will spark tensions and probably lead to a conflict in the "Cono Sur".

This could not only affect Great Britain but also the closest neighbours
in southamerica.

Let's hope Argentina doesn't do anything and stay home.

Chile needs to support its neighbor. Screw the UK. They will steal everything you have at the end if they get the chance. That oil belongs to South America and Argentina should do everything it can to keep the regions resources there.

Originally posted by Bahb3
Chile needs to support its neighbor. Screw the UK. They will steal everything you have at the end if they get the chance. That oil belongs to South America and Argentina should do everything it can to keep the regions resources there.

Why does it "belong" to them?

Please, elaborate your inciteful post.

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Terapin

 

Soooo...

If Britian cedes claim to Spain, then Spain gives up it's claim itself, then it's a free for all.

Actually, it is not a free for all, There are clearly defined legal and historical principals that take effect. Try looking up the definition of "Uti Possidetis Juris" it is a recognized legal principal that predates the British crown and was still internationally recognized during the time in question. By that principal, which Britain not only recognized, but had also used for their own benefit in other areas, the Falklands became the property of Argentina when it became independent from Spain.

Immigration. Sure, recent changes have allowed Argentines to visit the islands on a limited basis. Moving and living there... sure they like to pretend that they play nice and have relaxed the rules that were in effect for generations, but in actual practice, when the rules were relaxed every Argentine who applied to immigrate and buy property had been turned down despite meeting all of the requirements. Argentines and others were legally prohibited from buying property and immigrating to the Falklands for generations. While the exact rules have been relaxed recently, it has not changed a thing in actual practice.

reply to post by Terapin


What about Argentina's subsequent giving up of it's claims in the latter half of the 19th century though? Surely this puts to bed the whole "Nootka Nonsense"?

They didn't seem to care too much about the place until someone shouted "Thar be Oil!"

As for immigration, the rules are there plain to see. The census of the Falkland's even lists some people as of Argentine descent.

It is entirely up to them whether anyone moves there, be they British, Argentine or Zimbabwean. Limited space and resources also play a part, as does the availability of jobs.

I would be interested if you could furnish evidence to support your claims of Argentines applying for residency and being turned away.

reply to post by stumason


It belongs to the region, because it lays in the region. It would be like Argentina sending ships to the north sea and taking all the Cod.

And the UK has been stealing from others since it's inception! They don't hold the clout they once did, and if my Country will not support their claims then they are screwed.

Remember. in 3 decades America will be a Latino nation.