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.
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.
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.
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.
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.
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.
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.
Considering the French had already ceeded/gave the islands to Spain (which Argentina then inherited from), your comment does not hold weight.
How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?
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.
I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.
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.
So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.