MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brexit tariffs, not the EU’s Malvinas blunder, are the real issue worrying Falkland Islanders
Boris Johnson’s deal made no provision for exports from the UK overseas territories
By Teslyn Barkman (*) – In July, a joint communiqué signed in Brussels by 60 European Union and Latin American nations referred to the Falkland Islands as the “Islas Malvinas” despite last-minute attempts by UK foreign secretary James Cleverly to persuade them to drop the reference. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesReality check.
Sep 04th, 2023 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The EU has been, and gone.
I do not see any great will in the UK for going back.
Perhaps better to sell licences, and let the purchasers worry about tariffs.
I do not understand. The Islanders want the bonuses (if any) of being a UK Colony, but vehemently reject the burdens.
Sep 04th, 2023 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just wanted to say that heaven doesn't exist on this planet yet. Every choice we make has consequences, and these days, most of those consequences have a negative impact on our societies.
With regard to the article, there is very little information about the taxation of products by the EU (quantity exported, seasonality, revenue, implementation period, etc, etc) and much about the sovereignty of the Falklands Islands (although in all history there is no record from some colony that managed to be sovereign)
Bras, they are not a colony, they are a self governing overseas territory, what burdens are they rejecting, what are you talking about, they are too small to be an independent country at the moment but as the population grows in time independence will come, they just want to live the life they choose and to not be bullied by anyone, they are no less South American than you. their are always issues on trade with different countries or trade blocks each one wanting what is best for them, Boris Johnson screwed the UK and all of the BOTs with his half baked deals, you have to learn to deal with it, the islanders have nothing to worry about, life will go on as normal, trade deals will be agreed.
Sep 04th, 2023 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse -2Trade solution between the Falklands and Spain will be found - the Calamari business is probably MORE financially important to the onshore fisheries processing in Spain than the Fishing part of it around the Falklands.
Sep 04th, 2023 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brasileiro
Sep 04th, 2023 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair all your posts could and should begin “I do not understand”.
Monkeymagic
Sep 04th, 2023 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's just like that, the more I observe the less I know.
Timlander1...
Sep 04th, 2023 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1You say...:
- “ Trade solution between the Falklands and Spain will be found - the Calamari business is probably MORE financially important to........ etc..., blah..., etc...
I say...:
- Do ya' haughty, self-centered British Anglos never learn...?
Your above argument has been repeated ”ad nauseum“ by ya' people since ”Le Brexit“ started...
- ”Visa solution between the UK and Spain/France/EU will be found - our Tourist & Ex-Pats business is probably MORE financially important for them..., etc..., blah..., etc...“ ya' Engrish luuuved to say...
- ”Health insurance solution between the UK and Spain/France/EU will be found - our Tourist & Ex-Pats business is probably MORE financially important for them..., etc..., blah..., etc...“ ya' Engrish luuuved to say...
- ”A solution between the UK and Spain/France/EU for our silly cars with their steering on the wrong side will be found - our Tourist & Ex-Pats business is probably MORE financially important for them..., etc..., blah..., etc...“ ya' Engrish luuuved to say...
- Well..., ya'were wrong..., mate..., quite, quite wrong...
- Just last week..., the French Government levied a property tax increase of 60%..., yes..., sixty percent..., to all non-resident Brit real estate property owners in ”La Belle France“...
That's how ”Financially Important” ya' Engrish are for Europe...
Capisce...?
Think
Sep 04th, 2023 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I appreciate English is your second language, indeed you once claimed you primary objective for visiting this site was to improve your English, sadly, I have to tell you that you are failing...
Where you think you are writing in some form of “jaunty English prose” with clever use of slang and vernacular, you actually come across as a bit thick.
That's even before addressing the factually incorrect nature of your spewing.
Whilst I happily concede your English is better than my Spanish or Swedish, your pathetic attempts at “trying to appear clever” with pseudo-English slang actually betrays your poor understanding of the language.
My advice is stick to “classroom English” as your attempts at an alternative style make you sound like an imbecile, even before the content of your posts confirm it.
Stinky winky immature troll down voting me again. i take that as a badge of honour.
Sep 04th, 2023 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Teslyn,
Sep 04th, 2023 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands people can trace our society back 10 generations and we are the only people or authority our country has ever had, and we cannot be traded.
I say: Your nose will grow like a character in a popular Italian tale called Pinocchio.
What you mention is false.
Before the British meddling there existed a village and 32 governors.
Also an Argentine village and governors, such as Guillermo Mason, Pablo Areguati, Luis Vernet, Juan Mestivier etc.
Some descendants of that shameful act perpetrated by England live today: example Marcelo Vernet
former deputy Federico Pinedo.
Miss Teslyn you are very pretty but a liar.
Capisce....?
Malvi
Sep 04th, 2023 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When did Luis Vernet leave the islands? Did anyone ever stop him returning? Who did Vernet ask for compensation from due to the Lexington raid?
How many days was Mestevier on the islands before his crew murdered him and raped his wife? More or less than one week?
Really….that’s your evidence?
Marv- still sticking to the Argie propaganda? That set of supposed 'facts' that Argentina declines to put before the ICJ? Your government appears not to have the courage of its supposed convictions, although I see some members of that government have their own convictions ;-)
Sep 05th, 2023 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go learn some history, Marv. This is as simple as I can make it. A simple history for simpletons.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/simple-list-english.pdf
Think,
Sep 05th, 2023 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0What the French do to Brit expats who had NOT taken out French nationality- bothers me not a jot! Serves them right for hoping to get it both ways.
But re the Calamari Trade- actually things are progressing and a lot of Falklands calamare found its a way into Vigo last season with zero import taxes - Fact.
Otherwise the jointly owned Spanish & Falklands Companies would have sold it elsewhere and several thousand Spanish inshore processing workers would have lost their jobs- Fact.
Timlander1...
Sep 05th, 2023 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I Tænk it is a “BIT RICH” hearing a Kelper saying that it “SERVES SOMEBODY RIGHT” to get in troubles for hoping to “GET IT BOTH WAYS”....
- You Kelpers being almost “WORLD CHAMPIONS” in that particular category...!
- But re the Calamari Trade..., actually things are getting quite complicated... A lot of Patagonian Squid did indeed find its way into Vigo last season with zero import taxes... Thanks to a “TIME LIMITED TARIFF DISPENSATION” graciously otorgued by the EU to the Gallegos last year an being already rewieved at the end of this one... - FACT...
On the other hand..., the jointly owned Spanish & Falklands Companies are facing other small *challenges like warmer waters..., shifting oceanic current flows and critical bio-mass reduction in their area of operation... - FACT...:
https://en.mercopress.com/2023/08/31/consistent-decline-of-biomass-forces-falklands-early-closure-of-loligo-season
*(And don't get me started 'bout “Japanese Squid Farming”...,“Yankee Laboratory-Grown Calamari Meat” and such other beauties...)
BTW..., you being a person that doesn' like people hoping to “GET IT BOTH WAYS”...,are you one of them trying to destroy sweet & honourable MLA Ms Barkman..., author of this article..., for hoping to “GET IT THREE WAYS”*...?
*(Full Belonger Status..., Full British Nationality..., Full New Zealand Naionality..., all under one and same man..., HRH KING CHARLES III... ;-)
What a load of babbling gibbering nonsense stink. trying to be clever and failed, trying to be sarcastic and failed, trying to be funny and failed, trying to be annoying and failed, seriously what a sad little man you are ,
Sep 05th, 2023 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Monkeymagic
Sep 05th, 2023 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The answer is in your own questions. The length of stay, the events that occurred on the islands show that the islands were inhabited, under Argentine sovereignty.
For my part, I cannot ask similar questions to you for the simple fact that there was nothing English there. Village? No. Presidio? No. Military garrison? No. Governor? No.
Capisce...?
Malvi
Sep 05th, 2023 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep up this charade.
Areguati...visited the islands for a few months, left because he couldn't develop a settlement
Vernet....set up a business on the islands for 3 years, left his British deputy in charge, chose to leave and not return, recognised British sovereignty and sought compensation from Britain for not protecting him from the 1831 Lexington raid
Mestevier...sadly was only on the islands alive for a few days
Pinedo....was never an island resident, was the Captain of the ship that delivered Mestevier with the mission to patrol the islands and return to Argentina
Marcelo Vernet has claimed at the UN that his ancestors were evicted by the British, a blatant lie, nobody called Vernet was on the Sarandi or the Rapid, they had all left 2 years earlier.
I am sorry but a 200 year old set of myths, half-truths and down-right lies will not convince anyone other than the already decided....
The legal scope of the attitude of the United States is to ignore Argentine sovereignty without implying recognition of the sovereignty of the other State claiming it The American interests at stake do not prove that this amounted to a lack of recognition of Argentine sovereignty at the international level The American government did not hesitate to implicitly remind the British government of the existence of the AngloArgentine dispute when its ships that were carrying out their activities in the waters near the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were captured by the British in 1854 as we shall see As is well known, the United States is neutral concerning the question of sovereignty. This is what Secretary of State Daniel Webster told the Argentine Minister in Washington, Carlos María del Alvear, when the latter insisted on Argentina´s protest over the acts of the “Lexington” The destruction and partial depopulation caused by the Lexington at Puerto Soledad did not turn the islands into a terra nullius. In his reply to the question asked by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons “Does the disbandment by force of the Argentine settlement by Captain Duncan of USS Lexington in December establish terra nullius status?” the Foreign and Commonwealth Office answered that ”In and of itself, this action would not have been sufficient to establish terra nullius status” Claiming the opposite would reward the wrongful act and punish its victims. What counts to arrive at a conclusion regarding the question of sovereignty in such circumstances is the attitude of the State towards these acts The Argentine government reacted quickly both at the diplomatic and the factual level. From the diplomatic point of view it protested vigorously and demanded compensation for the wrongdoings against it. On the practical level the Argentine government arranged for an interim civilian and military Commander to be appointed who happened to be a member of the of the Army and sent a war ship
Sep 05th, 2023 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Now that is a better try Malvi....
Sep 05th, 2023 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Your argument must be based on the assumption of the absence of a population results in terra nullius other wise the British had West Falkland first, and never gave it up. If you can maintain full sovereignty rights in abstention then Britain always kept West Falkland.
This is why all the talk of inheritance, Jewitt, Areguati etc cannot be relevant, otherwise Britain's much older claim must be equally relevant.
So, your new argument supposes that the Lexington raid caused the failure of the Vernet business. That without the Lexington raid the business would have flourished, and the business would have become recognised internationally as an Argentine civilian population.
If this were true, then all your other Malvinas lies fall over.
Britain couldn't have evicted a population as the American Lexington raid had in fact destroyed the Vernet business
Maria Vernet was blatantly lying in the UN when she said her ancestors were evicted by the British
The fact was it was over two years between the Lexington raid, the majority of Vernet's business Party leaving and Argentina sending Mestevier...
So if we accept your new premise that the failure of the Vernet business was in fact due to Lexington raid and NOT Britain re-establishing its rights in 1833, the debate is finished.
P.S.
If Vernet was only offered East Falkland and West Falkland was British and you cant lose sovereignty in absentia, why does Argentina claim all the Falklands, Sough Georgia and the South Sandwich islands and all surrounding maritime spaces?
Game set and match to Monkeymagic. 6-0 6-0 6-0.
Sep 05th, 2023 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The final blow to Vernet's failing cattle business fell when a mob led by a gaucho murdered Vernet's managers over an unpaid debt.
Sep 05th, 2023 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A witness -
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/helsby-account-1833.pdf
It is historic fact that the first settlement of West Falkland was British and on the threat of war Spain recognised this settlement.
Sep 06th, 2023 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina argues that Britain lost this sovereignty due to absentia.
It must therefore be possible to lose sovereignty due to absentia or Argentina loses its claim to “all the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands and surrounding maritime spaces.
So, how long is absentia
1811-1816 when Spain returned to Spain from the Falklands before Argentine independence
1811-1820 until Jewitt possibly made a claim and then left
1811-1824 until Areguati arrived and then left
1811-1828 until Vernet set up his business.
It has to be at least 17 years of absentia between Spain leaving and returning to Spain and the first settlement of any timeframe and scale. That is significant absentia and must be viewed the same as Argentina is viewing British absentia.
Vernet and the majority of the settlement left voluntarily in 1831, potentially as a result of the Lexington raid. Malvi now wants us to believe that because the Lexington raid was ”wrong”...the injured party was not Vernet (who claimed recompense from Britain as sovereignty owner!!!) but the Argentina state....who lost their settlement and therefore entered a new period of absentia 1831-32.
This is a new angle...it completely destroys the usurpation argument, and the expulsion argument and the inheritance argument....and lays the blame for Argentina losing the Falklands to the US not Britain.
oh well....
So Britain did not evict a civilian population
Britain did not violently seize the islands
Britain did not usurp anything
What happened is that Britain re-established its historic claim on all-but-empty islands, possibly due to the Lexington raid 2 years earlier, if you accept Vernets business was an “Argentine civilian population” which is dubious.
That is a far more accurate recounting of history than normally put forward by our Malvinista friends.
@Monkey There is a mistake that you make and that is to separate the Malvinas Islands from the mainland. Also to separate Spain from Argentina.
Sep 07th, 2023 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata is one and was considered a Spanish province. That said, I quote:
Even if uti possidetis is set aside, being considered the applicable customary rule unless otherwise agreed by the parties involved, the same conclusion can be reached, in a different manner. On example is the analysis of the consequences flowing from the status of belligerent and the fact that the South American provinces eventually separated from the Spanish Empire. Due to the state of rebellion in the South American provinces, the international legal situation in Spanish America was comparable to that of a civil war. The rebels could not invoke a right of independence from Spain: they had to gain independence. Third States had to adopt a policy of neutrality –which they did. This means that they could not take advantage of the situation to take possession of the territories of the rebel provinces. The existence of a civil war or rebellion did not turn the territories of the States involved into vast terrae nullius, requiring occupation by one side or the other to avoid foreign occupation.
Credits Kohen-Rodriguez.
Marv- convoluted nonsense, AKA lawyerspeak. If such was the case, Argentina could not possibly fail at the ICJ. No?
Sep 07th, 2023 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But then, Argentina is not the Viceroyalty. What is now Argentina was only a part of the Viceroyalty. IF what these lawyers says is correct, then Uruguay, Paraguay and (part of) Bolivia must also have a similar claim to the Islands. No?
Of course, if Argentina actually had a claim, based on serious legal principles, then it would go to the ICJ. Until such time as it does, the matter is settled.
@lordton
Sep 08th, 2023 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0During colonial times, the Falkland/Malvinas Islands were under the direct authority of the Captaincy- General of Buenos Aires and subsequently, upon its creation by virtue of the Royal Charter dated August 1st, 1776, under the authority of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata,.The seat of the Viceroy was Buenos Aires. The other existing administrative divisions, (audiencias, governorates, intendencias) had a limited autonomy and depended on the authority of the Viceroy. According to the Royal Ordnance of Intendentes dated 1782, the Superintendence of Buenos Aires comprised the district of the Buenos Aires Bishopric, which included the coastal cities and their respective jurisdictions, the Governorate of Montevideo, the Governorate of Malvinas, the eastern area of Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and other territories which formed part of the old Governorate of the Rio de la Plata, with the exception of the thirteen missions founded along the Parana river, which had been incorporated in the diocese of Asunción. Consequently, none of the administrative divisions that subsequently became independent States (Paraguay in 1811, Bolivia and Uruguay in 1825) had jurisdiction over the Falklands/Malvinas in 1810. Furthermore, their independence is an instance of separation from the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.
Credits Kohen-Rodríguez
Malv
Sep 08th, 2023 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse -1By 1776 the Falklands/Malvinas were already established British territory, with the British having taken possession of the territory in 1765 having landed on it and claimed it in 1690.
British claims are very old Argentinian claims are very new, you need to explain how and when the territory stopped being British before you can talk about it being Argentinian.
And anyway in the 1700s there was only Spain and no Argentina, Argentina is not Spain.
You don’t have a valid claim when you include Spanish history, never mind without it.
Marv - the last seat of the Viceroyalty was in Montevideo 1811 - 1814.
Sep 08th, 2023 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1775-to-1815.pdf
Credits Kohen-Rodríguez? Seriously? Too funny. Too ridiculous.
Take it to the ICJ
@Ton
Sep 08th, 2023 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1810 the patriots established a new government and executed administrative acts in relation to the islands. The Spanish withdrew to Montevideo as a result of the struggles for independence.
Please read above my response to Monkey on what the law says regarding civil war.
Inconvenient truths of the Islas Malvinas # 22
Sep 08th, 2023 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ms Taslyn: the British descendants of those that usurped the Islas Malvinas are still British, whether there are 10 or 100 generations born in our Malvinas’ soil.
The world’s condemning the UK usurpation of the Islas Malvinas, & Europe decided to call them by its real name. The only countries refusing to give back their former colonies, illegally obtained in this case, are the so called ‘beacons of democracy’ Britain & USA.
There is a misconception (I’m being too polite to say lie) that the British Citizens inhabiting our Islas Malvinas are ‘original people’, it’s laughable they are trying to sell this as a fact.
The other ‘misconception’ is to consider the Islas Malvinas British descendants inhabitants’ decision of self-determination as valid. Here is why:
1. You are not original inhabitants.
2. According to Britain, and the UN the Malvinas are a ’foreign UK territory’, and therefore, still a colony of British Citizens.
3. Your referendum of self-determination has null effect, because:
a. They were born in foreign soil is a consequence of an illegal act.
b. Actions & decisions taken over a sovereignty disputed area are inconsequential until its legal status is resolved.
c. The British descendants of the usurpers keep the country birth of their ancestors, same as military’s families overseas.
Argentina always protested the usurpation of our Islas Malvinas. Your rights as British citizens usurping our soil are not more important than the rights of the millions of Argentinians that want our Malvinas back.
The only campaign to discredit Argentina’s rights, and the valiant effort of our soldiers to recover them in 1982, a recovery celebrated by the whole country, (even if they opposed the Junta Militar) was the British one.
It’s time to correct this anachronism & return this vestige of the British Empire in the XXI century in the South Atlantic to Argentina.
Marv, thank you for confirming that the seat of the Viceroyalty moved to Montevideo, taking with it all of Spain's claims including that for the Island of Soledad.
Sep 08th, 2023 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Your quote from Kohen is entirely irrelevant. Remember, Kohen was the man who advised the Argentine government NOT to go to the ICJ. Presumably not because he feared that they would win. His convoluted arguments have no meaning unless accepted by a court.
MA H&G
Sep 09th, 2023 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0‘Usurped’ is not a word any Argentinian should use, firstly because it is simply not true about the Islanders and secondly because it is true about Argentinians.
Argentinians who stole the whole country that is today called Argentina from the native inhabitants, who they quite deliberately all but exterminated.
Also following the signing of the Convention of Settlement 1850 Argentina did drop its claim to the territory, which it did not resurrect until 1941.
This coupled with the British having the prior claim, dating from 1690, facts which there is no way round and which seriously undermine Argentina’s case.
This is why Argentina will never go to the ICJ, or ever accept any form of independent arbitration, they know they don’t have a case.
And this is before you get to today and the Inhabitants right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter and Decolonisation Declaration UNGA resolution 1514.
You are as we say in English, Pissing in the wind.
Inconvenient truths of the Islas Malvinas # 23
Sep 10th, 2023 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The term usurp is properly applied in this case. Here is the definition:
‘Usurp: to seize and hold (place, or powers) in possession by force or without right.’
As an Argentinian from Spanish and original inhabitants of the country, I can and I am using the term usurp to refer to the usurpation of the Islas Malvinas by the British Empire in 1833.
The British pirates expelled Mr Pinedo, the Governor of the Islas Malvinas, appointed by the newly born nation of the Provinces of the South. He was accompanied by a small military garrison, and the civilians. Since then, Argentina never has stopped claiming its rights on the sovereignty of the Islas Malvinas.
Argentina has asked the British to resolve this question at the ICJ early, with the usual response of NO.
Argentina has refused to discuss the Islas Malvinas’ sovereignty with the current inhabitants of the islands, as they are the descendant of British citizens, but they are not the British government. Their supposed self-government is not recognized by anyone, neither Argentina.
It's funny to read the preoccupation for my ancestors, when the British didn’t hesitate to kill, enslave and use and abuse other human beings in their long checkered history.
Buenos Aires was trespassing in the 1820s.
Sep 11th, 2023 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Given 2 written warnings (1829 and 1832) and then legally expelled in January, 1833.
Buenos Aires was acting independently, and did not represent Argentina in the 1820s, as confirmed by his own Senate in 1882.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/senadoargentina-sesion18820729.pdf
Argentina has never suggested going to the ICJ and has refused British suggestion that a case is taken there on two occasions - 1968 & 1982.
The Falklands government is recognised by many national governments, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and your neighbour Uruguay.
MA H&G
Sep 11th, 2023 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1833 the British RECOVERED the Islands, expelled the illegal garrison but not the civilian population, they had permission from the British to be there.
Remember 1690, 1765 and 1771 all long before Argentina ever existed in any form, or ever attempted to claim and occupy the Islands.
When Argentina did exist it accepted British sovereignty over the territory in 1850 and dropped its claim until 1941.
The uncomfortable truths you continue to ignore, or rather try and pretend do not exist.
But then the only way Argentina has a claim to any territory in the S. Atlantic/Antarctic is for the British claims not to exist.
Whatever may or may not have happened in Britain’s long and admittedly chequered history, it doesn’t change what happened in Argentina, for an Argentinian to call anyone a ‘usurper’ or ‘Squatter’ is laughable, just ask your S. American neighbours.
By your logic you are not Argentinians, you are Spanish and Italian citizens living in illegally occupied native land.
Unfortunately for you, unlike Atahualpa or the Mapuche, the British have more than just sticks and stone with which to defend their territory.
Argentina is a S. American country and the MP base keeps it that way, which is how we like it.
The UK after two diplomatic protests, moved to effect the only legal remedy open to it. Which was Argentina's eviction. They can point to at least two Anglo-Spanish treaties that exclude any possibility of an Argentinean legal claim. So in addition the UK has a peace treaty that legally recognises that Argentina has no claim, moreover also a right of conquest that was lawful at that time.
Sep 12th, 2023 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In the 19c international law allowed states to acquire territory by conquest ...
It is therefore not surprising that the General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modern prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law.”
Akehurst's Modern Introduction To International Law Seventh Revised Edition, Peter Malanczuk
There was a peace treaty, which was acknowledged as such in both the Argentine and the UK in their own archives, the Convention of Settlement, 1850. This is how legal scholars of the day and therefore nations viewed the effects of such a peace treaty to wit:
LAWS OF WAR By H. W. HALLECK, 1866, CHAPTER XXXIV, TREATIES OF PEACE.
§ 12. Principle of uti possidetes. A treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it finds it, unless there be some express stipulations to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained, except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places, they remain with the possessor, and his title cannot afterward be called in question. ... ...Treaties of peace, made by the competent authorities of such governments, are obligatory upon the whole nation, and, consequently, upon all succeeding governments, whatever may be their character.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!