These emails [all preceding emails are reenclosed herewith] remain available under February 2012 at: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=int-boundaries&T=0
Dear IBRU colleagues,
Regarding quid pro quo explanation of Marcelo Kohen, please kindly note:
United Kingdom v. Argentina and United Kingdom v. Chile Antarctica Orders, ICJ Rep. 1956, 12 and 15, President G.H. Hackworth -- UK v. Chile at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ukc&case=27&k=94 and UK v. Argentina at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=uka&case=26&k=cc via: 1955 at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3
The two parallel cases instituted by British Applications against Argentina and against Chile concerned territorial sovereignty over islands and lands forming part of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Dependencies lying in the Antarctica and sub-Antarctica, referred to presently as the Southern Ocean. They included with respect to Argentina the then all Dependencies, i.e., the South Georgia, South Orkney, South Shetland and South Sandwich Islands and the Graham Land (Palmer Peninsula and Palmer Archipelago), and with respect to Chile - the South Shetlands and Graham Land. The important stimulus for exercise of "the long-continued and peaceful display of British sovereignty" in these Dependencies was provided by the development of whaling, sealing and scientific exploration from 1892 onwards. See Antarctica Pleadings, 13-21, 24, 27, 45-47, 53-60, 62-66, 68 [UK Applications].
The two Antarctica cases were but a diplomatic phase in a longstanding dispute [Sir Humphrey Waldock, Falklands Dispute, 25 British YIL 311-353 (1948) at: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/series/BritishYearbookofInternationalLa/?view=usa ]. Previously, the United Kingdom proposed in its two Notes of 17 December 1947 to submit the dispute to the Court, but in their Notes of 28 and 31 January 1948, Argentina and Chile declined to do so [Antarctica Pleadings, 35, 72]. Nor did the two states accept the offer made to this effect in the next British Notes of 1948, 1951 and 1953 [id. 35, 73], or that made in two British Notes of 21 December 1954 proposing a referral of the dispute to an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal [id.]. In view of the present confirmation by both Argentina and Chile, in their Letters of 1 and 2 August 1955, of their refusal to refer the dispute to the ICJ [id. 89-93, 94-96], as regretted in a Letter of British Agent Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice of 31 August 1955 [id. 97-98; ICJ Rep. 1956, 13-14, 16-17], the Court ordered that both Antarctica cases be removed from its General List. The conflicting claims to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands, have continued (as was anticipated in Sir Gerald's Letter referring to "future acts"), with a varied intensity, during over five decades since the Applications were filed, against the background of the opening of the Antarctic Treaty System, evolution of modern concepts of the law of the sea, and other developments in the region.
Kind regards, Barbara
________________________________
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marcelo Kohen [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 15:30
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
Dear All,
Barbara put at your disposal many British sources. To complete the picture, you can also have a look at the Argentine position in the website of the Argentine Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://www.mrecic.gov.ar<http://www.mrecic.gov.ar/> There is a link to a page on the "Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas", in which you find an English version.
With regard to Barbara's reference to the British applications against Argentina and Chile in the Antarctica cases before the ICJ, they do not concern the dispute about the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) themselves at all. The British application against Argentina was very careful in order to exclude any acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the sovereignty dispute about the Falklands/Malvinas themselves. It only concerned what the British called the "Falkland Islands Dependencies" at that time (Antarctica, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands). Here are the two relevant footnotes of the British application:
"It results from the present Application that the United Kingdom Government
accepts the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of the questions hereby submitted to it, and in particular that of the title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. The present Application does not constitute a submission to the jurisdiction of the Court in any other respect, or as regards the title to sovereignty over any territory outside the Dependencies."
"It will be understood that although, for reason of convenience, the territories to
which the present Application relates were constituted Dependencies of the Falkland Islands for administrative purposes. The British title to them is a separate and independent one, which in no way derives from or depends on the title to the Falkland Islands themselves."
One of the reasons Argentina invoked for not accepting the invitation made by the UK through the application to accept the jurisdiction of the Court was that the British government had excluded the Falkland Islands (Malvinas) themselves.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a press article on the current situation under the title "Quién bloquea en la cuestión Malvinas?" in:
http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-185293-2012-01-12.html
Best regards,
Marcelo
Marcelo G. Kohen
Professeur de droit international/Professor of International Law
Institut de hautes études internationales et du développement
The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies
P.O. Box 136
CH - 1211 Geneva 21- Switzerland
e-mail : [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Voice : ++ 41 22 908 58 40
Fax : ++ 41 22 908 62 71
Personal web site :
http://graduateinstitute.ch/law/law/faculty/page8544.html
________________________________
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jeffress, Gary [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 15:39
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
Dear Maurice,
For we non-legal types; is there any international equivalent of adverse posession without force?
Most jurisdictions have statutes that allow adverse posession leading to title with the exception that adverse posession cannot be claimed against the state or sovereign. I dare say Argentina has an adverse posession statute. So I am wondering if there is an international legal precedence for adverse posession between sovereign states?
Regards,
Gary
Dr. Gary Jeffress, RPLS
Professor of Geographic Information Science
School of Engineering and Computing Sciences
Director, Conrad Blucher Institute for Surveying and Science
Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi
6300 Ocean Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412-5868
Phone 361-825-2720
Mobile 361-438-6584
Fax 361-825-5848
________________________________
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maurizio Morabito [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:52
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
Chagossians notwithstanding...
saluti/regards
maurizio
On 9 Feb 2012 12:41, "Maurice Mendelson QC" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
________________________________
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Maurice Mendelson QC [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:41
To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
It is a while since I looked at the materials in any depth, but both sides advance claims to sovereignty based on various historic acts which may or may not amount to annexation, cession or conquest. But in a way more importantly, the current problem is this. The islands have been colonised by British people since the nineteenth century, and the current inhabitants (about 3,000 in number) are bitterly opposed to any kind of deal with Argentina, the more so since Argentina's unsuccessful attempt in 1982 to resolve the matter by military means. Various compromises have been canvassed, but at present the inhabitants are unwilling to accept any kind of cession or lease to Argentina. (Cf. Gibraltar.) Quite apart from any international law issues about self-determination in this context, the brutal fact is that it would, in the immediate future anyway, be politically impossible for the current British government to cut any deal which the inhabitants do not consent to.
I hope this helps.
Maurice Mendelson, Q.C.
Blackstone Chambers Barristers
Blackstone House
Temple
London EC4Y 9BW
England.
Tel. +44 20 7583 1770; fax +4420 7822 7350; email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and legally privileged. This e-mail is intended to be read only by the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review, dissemination or copying of this e-mail is prohibited and that privilege has not been waived. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying by email or by telephone and then delete the e-mail.
________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: JISCMAIL LISTSERV Server (16.0) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:31
To: Kwiatkowska, B. (Barbara)
Subject: Your message dated Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:55 +0000 with...
Your message dated Thu, 9 Feb 2012 12:30:55 +0000 with subject "Re: FALKLAND
ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE" has been successfully distributed to the
INT-BOUNDARIES list (524 recipients).
________________________________
From: Kwiatkowska, B. (Barbara)
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 13:31
To: 'Bashir Galadunchi' [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>; [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Subject: RE: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
These emails remain available under February 2012 at: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=int-boundaries&T=0
Dear Bashir,
Regarding "the fundamental truth about the ownership over these Islands" you asked about, please kindly read:
Analysis by Sir Humphrey Waldock, Falklands Dispute, 25 British YIL 311-353 (1948) at: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/series/BritishYearbookofInternationalLa/?view=usa
UK v. Chile at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=ukc&case=27&k=94 and UK v. Argentina at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=uka&case=26&k=cc via: 1955 at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3
[[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands & http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/ and Map at www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/south_atlantic<http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/south_atlantic> and UK FC0 Profile at: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands/ and Falklands at: http://www.falklands.gov.fk//Media_Centre.html<http://www.falklands.gov.fk/Media_Centre.html> ]]
Kind regards, Barbara http://catalogue.ppl.nl/DB=1/SET=5/TTL=1/CMD?ACT=SRCHA&IKT=1016&SRT=YOP&TRM=Kwiatkowska & http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/full/bsb8-1_kwiatkowska.pdf & & http://www.uu.nl/nilos/onlinepapers & http://www.brill.nl/decisions-world-court-relevant-un-convention-law-sea http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/gwilr39&div=26&g_sent=1&collection=journals & http://www.allbusiness.com/government/government-bodies-offices-law-courts/8896208-1.html & http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=d79b5870-37d0-486f-a711-fe2a2622ad47%40sessionmgr4&vid=1&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=afh&AN=10626522
________________________________
From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bashir Galadunchi [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Sent: donderdag 9 februari 2012 11:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] FALKLAND ISLANDS BREWING DISPUTE
Dear All,
Of lately, there seem to be a brewing tension over the ownership of the disputed Falkland Islands between Argentina and the United Kingdom again, can anyone please explain to me the fundamental truth about the ownership over these Islands? And can we at this forum as Learned people proffer an amicable solution to this lingering problem, copying the Nigeria Cameroon example? i mean at this age does it realy worth it anymore fighting over territories? Cant we sit down and talk? I strongly believe dialogue can do the magic in solving this dispute that has been lingering on, for the past 30 years i.e. from 2nd April 1982 to date. Pls lets talk! Dr Oduntan and Prof.. Martin Pratt i would realy cherish your contributions in this regards.
Thank you.
Bashir Abubakar Galadunchi
Nigeria's National Boundary Commission,
Abuja.
[Bakassi_Peninsula_source_Stratfor]
