Does Argentina have a good legal case in the Falklands?

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,462
Japan
No.

Britain has even offered to take the case to the UN... Argentina won’t though, because it knows it has no legal stand point.

Falklands was populated before Argentina existed.
France and Spain have stronger claims than Argentina...

Argentina itself has recognised British sovereignty twice officially... and only turned into a nationalistic quest in the 1930s.

France discovered them.
Spain and Britain both recognised their respective rights to it. Until 1832 when Britain took full control.
No Spanish or South American civilians were evicted.. they were begged to stay, and their decendents are still on the island.

Argentina’s only other line of argument is “proximity”. Which is flimsy nonsense. Ireland and Faero Islands are closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina... and that means nothing. Argentina is very close to Uraguay and Chile ... but doesn’t belong to them.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,764
SoCal
No.

Britain has even offered to take the case to the UN... Argentina won’t though, because it knows it has no legal stand point.

Falklands was populated before Argentina existed.
France and Spain have stronger claims than Argentina...

Argentina itself has recognised British sovereignty twice officially... and only turned into a nationalistic quest in the 1930s.

France discovered them.
Spain and Britain both recognised their respective rights to it. Until 1832 when Britain took full control.
No Spanish or South American civilians were evicted.. they were begged to stay, and their decendents are still on the island.

Argentina’s only other line of argument is “proximity”. Which is flimsy nonsense. Ireland and Faero Islands are closer to the UK than the Falklands are to Argentina... and that means nothing. Argentina is very close to Uraguay and Chile ... but doesn’t belong to them.
I think that Argentina's argument is that it inherited the Spanish claim to these islands after it acquired independence from Spain.
 
Feb 2019
853
Serbia
The Argentinian argument is that they inherited the provinces of the Viceroyalty of Rio de La Plata and have the old Spanish claim which makes no sense at all. The islands were uninhabited at first and not some ancestral Spanish-Argentinian province. The vast majority of the inhabitants are British, before the islands were British they were Spanish and before that French. France has a stronger claim to them than Argentina. Argentina has no historical or ethnic claim to the islands but many anti-imperialists say that the islands should be Argentinian. The supporters of Argentina sometimes use the arguments of ''they were Spanish so Argentina was the inheritor'' and ''why should something thousands of kilometers away from Britain be British?'' Both of these make no logical sense, what makes me wonder is why did Argentina push so much nationalism and even went to war for a tiny, barely inhabited archipelago that they know they have no claim for.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,466
Dispargum
The strongest legal argument either way is self-determination. The people of the Falkland Islands wish to remain part of the British Empire and have no interest in becoming Argentine citizens.
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,550
Republika Srpska
Both of these make no logical sense, what makes me wonder is why did Argentina push so much nationalism and even went to war for a tiny, barely inhabited archipelago that they know they have no claim for.
The Argentine junta wanted to increase its popularity by using nationalism and reclaiming lost ground.