63
Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back' (www.lbc.co.uk)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/europe@feddit.de
22 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -25 points 2 years ago (6 children)

Interestingly, those islands are on argentinean sea. There're international laws that would say they are argentinean land... Even if they were occupied since maybe even before the two English invasions on Buenos Aires, a few centuries ago.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    actually, I think you'll find, Argentina falls within BRITISH seas, extending outward from the shores of the Falklands.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    Bad news, though: I just found out that large swathes of southern England are in France's territorial waters, and the entire city of Manchester is owned by Liverpool for the same reason.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    Territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles off the shore. States can claim a contiguous zone to up to 24 nautical miles, in which they can exercise some control to protect their territory and customs.

    The exclusive economic zone (EEZ), in which a state controls all economic resources, extends to 200 nautical miles off the shore. These are not territorial waters.

    All of the above have exceptions where the territorial waters and EEZs of two states would overlap.

    The Falklands are 260 nautical miles off the Argentinean coast. So even if those 'international laws' you're so vaguely citing existed, they would not apply here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent