this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
450 points (98.3% liked)

World News

39376 readers
3094 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but surely you realize that Argentina shouldn’t expect (or want) to gain sovereignty over the Falklands

No, quite the opposite actually. I believe they have more of a claim to the islands than anyone else, via Spain's ownership of said lands that Argentina inherited when they gained their independence from Spain, as well as the proximity to Argentina, and finally to the fact that Great Britain was speaking with Argentina about turning them over, before the stupid war was started.

Now, having said that, IANAL, so don't know what the law would say about that. Really don't think we'll resolve the issue here on Lemmy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony, but perhaps you know more than I do.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I fail to see any tangible benefits of ceding islands inhabited almost exclusively by British and French people to a former Spanish colony

Considering the French had already ceeded/gave the islands to Spain (which Argentina then inherited from), your comment does not hold weight.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit. Can you even name one?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How so? That is a historical precedent, not a tangible benefit.

IANAL, but based on what I've read, my understanding that 'historical precedent' is legal and can be argued for in international court of law, when it comes to these kind of issues. It is why it is mentioned so often.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m asking for practical advantages, not an interpretation of international law.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm speaking of ownership via interpretation of International law, so our conversation is not compatible it seems.

I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So, just to be clear, you believe that whatever happens should follow the letter of some international law, even if it is disadvantageous to virtually everyone involved? I’m not, nor was I ever, arguing with your claim of legal precedent, and your argument does not make my question “incompatible”; I’m not sure how you convinced yourself of that. It’s a question, and not something you must agree to for the conversation to move forward.