True, changing technology could make some of the oil more accessible, but what has not changed is the knowledge that oil exists. In your comment you said it had “now… been found”. That clearly implies that oil is a new factor. It is not.

You said “Now that oil has been found in the vicinity…”. I was simply pointing out that oil was found there the best part of four decades ago, so it’s not a new factor.

It goes without saying that oil exploration (because that is happening at the moment) has ramped up because of the high oil price. You might be aware that in 1995 Argentina and the UK (on behalf of the Falklands) signed a hydrocarbons agreement to cooperate in the region. The current exploration in Falkland waters was organised in advance under this agreement. It was the Argentine government who walked away and now accuse the FIG of acting unilaterally…

Your example of one company acquiring another makes no sense. A better example would be a branch office breaking away from the “mother” company. Do you think that branch would be allowed to trade in the mother company’s name, using their logo? I don’t think so… There was no ordered and agreed acquisition of anything in the case of Argentine independence. Argentina took its independence from Spain by force, it fought for independence using guns and bullets. How could Argentina possibly “inherit” any of Spains rights and obligations? What’s more is that since the 1790s Britain had in retained rights in the Falklands under the Nootka Sound Convention – Spain’s title was not unlimited. And post 1833 Spain never once denied the Falklands were British.

You seem to think that Argentine opinion and Falklander opinion should be given equal weight. The last time I checked it was the Falkland Islanders who had the right to self determination in the Falklands, which means Argentine opinion over what happens there is irrelevant.

I know the Pascoe/Pepper document uses words like “nonsense”, but that is for the simple reason that some of what the Argentine government puts out is nothing less than nonsense. Nonsense is a polite word for some of their blatant lies.

By the way, it has been know that oil might exist around the Falklands since the 1960s and there were finds in the 1970s, so it’s nothing new.

Whatever the “utility” of the Falkland Islands, the UK has an obligation to the Falkland Islanders under international law. The only pride in this equation is Argentine pride.

Look, you make it sound like I’m siding with the Argentinians when I really do not. It’s tough in the 21st century to make such a claim, especially since they got it handed to them in 1982. Now that oil has been found in the vicinity, it may be interesting to see if Argentina tries again. I doubt they will as their people probably want none of that. Nevertheless, it may be tempting given the financial situation of the UK and other nations perhaps limiting the ability and will power of that nation to make a stand like the Iron Lady did nearly 30 years ago.

I do appreciate your adding to the discussion and the link, though.

The Argentine claim is unfounded. Yet they chose to invade causing the loss of “blood and treasure”. They ignored a UN Security Council resolution to get out. Personally I’m glad Mrs Thatcher decided to defend British territory and those “few folk” you seem to feel were not worth anything. Not because of pride, but on principle. I know her decision saved Mrs Thatchers political neck. So what? She did the right thing. The Falkland Islanders are not under some unelected Argentine dictatorship’s yoke.

My source “seems to have an anglo bias”. Perhaps then you could explain why most of his original source documents are held in the Argentine national archives. My source is simply pointing out the gaping holes in the Argentine position and claim.

Now I’d love to know how you think Argentina has anything to do with this when it was a matter between Britain and Spain, as you state in your post.

Thanx for writing

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

The islands are British because the Falkland Islanders want it to be that way. Nothing to do with pride…

Secondly, since Spain had recognised Argentine independence in 1859 it is highly unlikely, in fact impossible, that Argentina would still have had a Spanish governor in 1870. Oh and by the way, for the most part of 1870 Spain did not even have a monarch (see the Glorious revolution of 1868)!

You still have not answered my question. Since Argentina had taken her independence from Spain (and therefore what territory it could) by force, how exactly did Argentina inherit rights from Spain in the Falklands or anywhere else? Under what principle of international law could this be possible?