Argentina and the United Kingdom have been in conflict over the Falkland Islands (or the Malvinas as they are known to the Argentinians) for decades. The 14th of June marked the thirtieth anniversary of the end of the Falkland Wars, in which the UK ended Argentinian occupation of the islands. However, the end of the war marked the beginning of a small ‘cold war’ between the two countries. Ever since that time, Argentina and the United Kingdom have disputed the territory in the international diplomatic and legal communities, with little progress made on either side.

In examining the claims made by both countries it is difficult to say who has the most legitimate right to the islands. On the part of Argentina, they claim that the Spanish crown took possession of the Malvinas in 1767. Although there was an earlier English settlement on the land, it was abandoned in 1774. They also state that the English only returned to the Malvinas in the 1820s because there was Argentinian interest in the islands. In addition, proximity has always been an argument used by Argentinian politicians to bolster their claims.

On the part of the British, the argument centers around their long administration of the Falklands as well as the principle of self-determination. Since the majority of the population is British (with fewer than 30 Argentinian passport holders residing on the islands) the Foreign Ministry states that the people who are most affected should be making the decision on their sovereignty, with a referendum set to take place in 2013.

Argentina’s claim is contingent on the legitimacy of the succession of the territorial title from France to Spain and finally, to Argentina upon its independence. However, the United Kingdom claims that Spain does not have any legal ownership of the islands because it abandoned its posts there. To complicate matters further, international law recognizes more than one form of territorial acquisition, making it difficult to determine whose claim is more legitimate. For example, acquiring a title without protest from another state after a long passage of time is recognized by the international community, making the UK have a decent claim for the territory. Nevertheless, neither country has an overwhelmingly strong case to make, which explains why neither one of them have submitted the case for international review, choosing to debate matters between themselves.

To an objective observer, it would seem most prudent to simply allow the residents of the Falkland Islands to make the decision- after all, it affects them the most. However, even this measure is contended by the Argentinian side, stating that the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands cannot legally be called a ‘people.’ They state that a national minority, such as the populations of the Falkland Islands, Jersey, Ibiza, or any other fragment of a nation, are not a separate ‘people’ under international law.

For more information on the issue of the Falkland Islands, here are some resources:

Falkland Islands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Falklands War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War

Statement on the Falkland Islands Referendum: http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2012/june/statement-on-the-falkland-islands-referendum/