Hello everyone and welcome to Round two of the inaugural World Online Debate Cup! I thank my opponent and fellow Edeb8rfor today's resolution and look forward to explaining why the Falkland Islands belong to Britain. Before we kick off, I'd just like to point out that for what's it worth, as the HOME side, Krit is technically supposed to be arguing this side of the resolution, however we have mutually agreed to switch. Just in case someone thought we'd made a mistake or something.
It's at this point that things get a little muddy. Within 45 years, both the British AND the Spaniards had deserted the islands, although the Brits had at least left a little plaque noted that they had just ducked out for a bit and they were in no way relinquishing their claim - they'd be back soon. Fast forward to about 1830 and it was all on. The islands had permanent residents again, and they had declared that they wanted to be British. Or Spanish. Or Argentinian. Lucky AMERICA just happened to be in the neighborhood to sort all this stuff out! In 1831 they bombed the main settlement on the Spanish island, 'evacuated' all the islanders and declared the islands "Free of Government". Everyone was super grateful.
The UN Charter recognises the right for Territories to decide for themselves who they should be governed by.
Return To Top | Posted:
“The recovery of these territories (Malvinas) and the full exercise of sovereignty constitute a permanent and unwavering goal of the Argentine people.” A Transitory Clause in the Constitution of Argentina 
Fig One: Malvinas in the view of the British
Perhaps it is of the time for us to think of this dispute in a new perspective; for that when one thinks about such issues, one thinks of a struggle of a people against the long dead claims of a nation with a revanchist populace. Often, foreign relations are much more complicated than referendums, right of determination and all the opposed. Foreign relations consist of complex webs of treaties, the ratification of treaties, and coercion.
In a long letter to the British parliament, Argentine Politician Carlos Raimundi boasted about the island’s long Argentine heritage, and revives Argentine claims on the Malvinas. “Any acceptable settlements will recognize that the islands belong to Argentina, by virtue of the principle of uti possedetis juri” These words started a long letter to British officials.“On 10 June 1829, decrees from Buenos Aires created the political and military commandery of the Malvinas islands and islands adjoining Cape Horn in the Atlantic Sea, under the commandership of Luis Vernet. The Argentinian administration was forcefully ended on 3 January 1833, by the arrival of HMS Clio…Britain uses our natural resources and deploys military forces over a territory we claim as our own, and which no country in the world denies is under legal dispute, not even the US…The planet we inhabit does not deserve hate, it deserves peace. If we ignore the feelings of hatred of the past and overcome our differences, we will soon realise we are part of the same fate.”
With these words embedded to our heads, we must take upon this issue a new outlook. Contentions must be read with a blank mind; prejudices must be dropped in order for them to be effective.
1R1NC: Nookta Sounds Convention
Firstly, one has to recognize the rights touti possedetis juri, which states that when a country achieves independence, the independent country shall be given lands as decided by their previous federal conventions.Uti possedetis juri applies for all countries in the world, although in many cases, they are ignored. However, in Argentina, this case is strikingly valid, as in many parts of the Spanish Empire.
With this said, we may now move onto the main contention of this point. The Nootka Sound Convention was signed by the Kingdom of Spain and Kingdom of Britain in 1790, as a way to regulate British and Spanish colonies. The Nootka Sound convention was ratified six weeks after it was agreed upon; the origins of this convention was when Jose Martinez, a Spanish Navigator, was sent to declare Spanish control over Nootka Sound, whose claims was then conflicted by British and American fur traders. After much conflict, the Nootka Sound convention was signed on the 29th of October, 1790.
Fig Two: A State Sponsored Spanish Map after Nootka Sounds labeling Malvinas as Spanish territory
Back to our dilemma; soon, after 1829 and the restoration of Argentine independence, an Argentine administration was soon set up on the Malvinas. Firstly a brief private venture, this went out of hand when American fishing ships were apprehended by the Island’s Argentine Governor, which soon led to the dispatching of the sloop Lexington to destroy the island’s main city and deserted the island.“This island is now without government”was what the Americans said before they left. This settlement was set up in the face British protests, but as stated, these islands were part of Argentina via the right ofutis possederetis juri. One must look carefully at the agreement relating to the Nootka Sound Convention. The Sixth Article of the Convention clearly outlines that:
“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects (The United Kingdom) shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain.”
Keep in mind that during the signing and ensuring ratification of this, a Spanish garrison was present in the Malvinas. Although a British settlement existed, they left in 1776 (leaving a puny plaque) at the British settlement of Port Egmont. However, this British settlement was forced to leave in 1780 by the Spaniards, and through the Nootka Sound Conventions, was prohibited from coming back to the island.
Apart from this, Britain effectively renounced its claims in a long term perspective by not issuing any official complaints against Spanish authority in the Malvinas for 70 years; a claim to a piece of disputed territory is often invalidated after 50 year. From the lost of Port Egmont in 1780, to the resettlement of the islands in 1829 by Argentine officials, the island remained virtually uninhabited with no de facto ruler, although it was clear that is was up until then Spanish, and after the departure of Spain, Argentine.
The Nootka Conventions states that the Falkland belongs to Argentina via the right of uti possedetis juri, as it previously belonged, for 70 unchallenged years, to Spain, and when the transfer of power became apparent, to Argentina; Britain’s 1833 settlement was settled through a desperate but successful show of power, in which two British ships forcibly expelled all Argentines from the Malvinas.
1R2NC: UN Resolution 1514, 2065 and the apparent End of Colonization
UN Resolution 2065 was adopted in an attempt to liberalize the relations between the two countries, and negotiate the end of British presence in that area. UN Resolution 2065 was much said to be an extension of 1514, which was passed on the 20th of December, 1960. The last non-operative clause of UN Resolution 1514 states:
(This assembly) Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
This last non-operative clause is then followed by conditions and declarations that seemingly put the matter in a more confusing matter; Operative Clause One states that:
The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation. 
This seems to ignore the fact that hence the Malvinas were settled via foreign settlers and the settlement was illegitimate, then the so-called “Native” Falklanders are in reality non-indigenous people. Calling for the need to bring this dispute to a speedy end, the UN did what it was best at doing; nothing. Although Operative Clause two determines that the right to self determination was applicable to the islanders, there has been evidence that the true settlers of the Malvinas were Patagonia Indians; so in reality, self-determination rights goes to them, but since discovery of the island in 1593 probably decimated the population, it would only make sense for this dispute to ignore self-determination. 
Nevertheless, this resolution calls for the end of colonization, and for the start of negotiations. These broke down in the face of stiff and stubborn British resistance; they would simply not discuss this issue, as it is clear that the “islanders” (descendants of British sailors) do not want to discuss this. Resolution 2065 was passed in 1965. This time, the pleas of the UN was clear. Calling upon both sides to negotiate, this failed again due to British stubbornness and unwillingness to hear the actual Argentine reason.
After a period of non-understanding, there were two more resolutions passed on this issue before the Malvinas Conflict. Firstly, we have to look at the situation carefully; should a country on another continent be able to claim renounced lands of another country, on another continent? This would be a violation of national integrity, as that land was renounced during the Nootka Sound Conventions. Yet at the moment of the British reassertion of power in 1833, Argentina had no ways of retaliating except via peaceful and diplomatic means.
When a tiger refuses to listen to a little bear, that little bear gains strengths and makes the tiger listens to him; Argentina submitted 27 complaints against Britain to 1945, and since then, has brought this issue up at all times during the General Assembly meetings in the UN. Thing came to a boiling point, but an understandable one (fuelled by ignorance), when Argentine Nationalist Dictator Admiral Jorge Anaya unleashed the might of the Argentine Armed Forces upon the Malvinas, with the hope of reclaiming their lands.
The lost of the Malvinas War did not mean the complete lost of hope of the recovering of Argentine lands. Until this day, Argentina deserves the right to be viewed as an equal, although aggressive; the Argentines put faith in the UN to deliver the full might of its decolonization doctrines to take effect in the Southern Atlantic. It was clear that in 1833, Argentina was at the mercy of the UK; but now, the situation has changed, and the UK is at the mercy of the UN.
The UN has a job of ending colonization; yet the Malvinas is still colonized, and the British government will not accept any negotiations via a long lost claim of self determination, which the current inhabitants do not hold.
Justice is omnipotent; one day, justice will be delivered.
Fig Three: Argentine World Cup holding up a pro-Argentine Malvinas banner
Return To Top | Posted:
I thank my opponent for his opening round. I hope it has been helpful for the judges, as he has basically covered the same timeline as I did but from an Argentine point of view.
At the time of the Nootka Convention, both Spain AND Great Britain had laid claim to the Falklands, Britain because she had discovered it and settled it, and Spain because she had brought it from the French and had also colonised a geographically adjacent* territory, Argentina.
At best, this placed the Islands into a grey area. It most certainly was not covered by the Nootka Convention. In fact this convention was repudiated by Spain in 1795.
The UN sees colonisation as a relic from the past, and since the mid 20th century has been encouraging territories to assert their independence. It would seem that the UN would favour a disputed territory like the Falklands to shed almost 200 years of its British heritage and become independent. HOWEVER, the UN does not list Independence as being the only option, in fact there are actually several alternatives:
"The decolonization agenda championed by the United Nations is not based exclusively on independence. There are three other ways in which an NSGT can exercise self-determination and reach a full measure of self-government (all of them equally legitimate): integration within the administering power, free association with the administering power, or some other mutually agreed upon option for self-rule." - Residual Colonialism in the 21st Century
- By ALL accounts, the islands were completely deserted when they were first discovered in 1592. And then again when they were first settled in 1765. And then again when they were left empty by both Spain and Britain. There is little physical evidence that the Patagonian Indians did anything more than use the Islands as a fishing stop. Remember these islands are 300 miles off the coast as well. Any serious settlement would surely leave a wealth of evidence.
- IF Argentina upholds the idea that the Falklands belong to the Patagonians, they must also address the fact most of their country is made up of PATAGONIA. So who really owns Argentina?
- The current Islanders have been living there as British citizens since 1833.
After the British asserted their sovereignty over the Falklands in 1833, Argentina lodged regular protests. Following the ratification of this convention in 1850, all such protests abruptly ceased. The next such protest did not happen until 1888, almost 40 years later.
My opponent can choose to continue to argue who the Falklands SHOULD belong to if he likes, but I remind him that this is not the resolution that he created.
Return To Top | Posted:
2R1NRC: Uti Possedetis Juri
Firstly, I would like to say that I am not here to defend Argentina, but to defend justice; justice of a country who has for so long been the victim of aggression. With this said, one must observe the opponent’s case here carefully.
Uti possedetis juri means in Latin “as you observed under law” The extension of this principle, in the case of Argentina, is very clear. Firstly, after the expulsion of the Brits from Malvinas, the consequent destruction of Port Egmont (the British settlement), and the Nootka Conventions (which will be discuss in the next case), Spain had de factocontrol over the Malvinas. The British did not protest or send a force; the settlement, and the island, did not change hands until Argentine independence and the Lexington incident. Firstly, this British renunciation is a renunciation via acquiescence. In international relations, as stated in R1, a territorial claim is often void after 50 years of not submitting a reply; by the time Argentina landed, and created its own legitimate institutionupon the Malvinas (and soon the British complaint), there has been a 60 years interval between the last official complaints sent to the Argentine/Spanish authority. So it has been stated that Spain officially held the Malvinas until Argentine independence in 1816, and henceforth the Malvinas, via the rights of uti possedetis juri always belonged to Spain.
On the issue of independence, it should be stated that as long as a country gains de factoindependence, that is that they have declared and is practicing independence now, they are indeed truly independent.
2R2NRC: On Nootka Conventions
In reply to the opponent’s secret article reference, this is the exact wording of the Secret Article:
Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.
Firstly, the effects of this article do not renounce the claims that Article 6 made; it merely states that the status quo of Article 6 will be sustained as long as no third party settled in that area. Note that article 6 states that Britain will not make any claims upon lands settled on by Spain before the treaty; this, naturally, includes the Malvinas, as a Spanish settlement still existed on the eastern island of the Malvinas. Secondly, the opponent states that “just because the land adjacent to the Malvinas belongs to the Spaniards, doesn’t mean the Malvinas belongs to them” However, the Nootka Convention explicitly states that this proposition is incorrect; that Britain will not lay claimsupon the islands adjacent to the Southern Coast and those inhabited by Spain. So even if the opponent proves that the islands were not adjacent, the island was still covered because the Malvinas were settled by Spaniards.
There are several differing accounts of the true discoverers/settlers of the Malvinas; the generally accepted version is that France landed and created on the Western Islands of the Malvinas in 1764, whilst the British came later in 1766. If the opponent was to take into account that a Dutch explorer first sighted the Malvinas in 1600, then according to his “right of discovery” logic, the Malvinas belongs to the Dutch; or one can go further and state that the Malvinas belongs to the Native South-American Indians, as archeological investigations reveal the discovery of several bows and Canoes on the Eastern Falklands. With this said, we can argue that France sold the islands to Spain, and since the British did generally acknowledge that France held the islands (as the French did allow the Brits to still have hold of Port Egmont), the island belonged to Spain.
The opponent mentions this treaty being repudiated in 1794 (ahem ahem); however, accordingly to the introduction of the “Mutual Treaty of the Abandonment of Nootka” the first few sentences state that :
Their Catholic and Britannic Majesties desiring to remove and obviate all doubt and difficulty relative to the execution of article I of the convention concluded between Their said Majesties on the 28th of October, 1790, have resolved and agreed to order that new instructions be sent to the officials
Conclusively, this shows us that the first article was repudiated only, due to difficulties in implementing it; in fact, this last convention only affected the area known as Nootka Sound, in which this convention was signed, but not the Malvinas and other areas, which was the responsibility of the First Convention.
2R3NRC: On the World’s Desire to End Colonization
“Imperialism leaves behind germs of rot which we must clinically detect and remove from our land but from our minds as well.”
Why are we defending imperialism? Let us ask ourselves; the UN desires to end,the Argentine people desire to end it, but yet it prevails. Why is this? Let us take this analogy as an example; my boss and the other boss have an agreement; the other boss agrees to abandon factory x and gives this factory to my boss, who then assures him that his workers will stop working in factory y. However, when I become the boss, my hold upon my previous boss’s concessions isn’t as stable, so when I attempt to retake factory x, the other boss takes it from me, stating that he has never relinquished it. This is exactly what has happened in regards to the Malvinas. It was only in 1829, when Argentina tried to re-establish its administration in the Malvinas, where Britain first issued a complaint.
Let us build on upon this analogy; after taking factory x away from me, the other boss brings his workers in and takes over factory x. However, these factory workers aren’t giving full pay; this is what has happened in the Malvinas. It was not until 1983 that the citizens of Malvinas were given British citizenship; albeit being British by blood, they were not officially British until the British Nationality Act of 1983.
Back to the analogy; when the inspector comes, the other boss says “look, they are my worker” He has no legitimacy to this at all, as they were deliberately brought into the mess against the previous contracts. This was precisely the case of the Falklands Island; the Nootka Sound Convention explicitly states that island adjacent to the mainland. With this said, it must be noticed that the UN has made the right of self-determination for the Malvinas question inapplicable; in 1960, the UN continued to urge both sides to negotiate, whilst ignoring all claims from the inhabitants of the Malvinas for self determination. 
Has the United Nations not see that the Malvinas was acquired via an illegitimate claim? The right of self determination is non-existent. This case will be extended in the future.
2R4NRC: Convention of Settlement
Objections must be raised; the Convention of Settlement did not settle territorial disputes in regards to the Malvinas (unlike the Nootka Sound Conventions). In fact, almost no territorial changes were stated in the Convention of Settlement. This settlement’s aims were to restore relations between both countries. The first few sentences of the Convention states :
Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, and his Excellency the Governor and Captain-General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both Governments; the Government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate, as recognized by Treaty; have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz.:
There is not a single clause that states or even ambiguously mentioning the Malvinas. Although the opponent might say that all Argentine claims against the Malvinas halted after this until 1888, the Convention only halted claims for 40 years, a tad short of the 50 years required to invalidate a territorial claim.
And I will not disprove a truism. Britain owns Falklands as of now, but this debate must be based upon the established fact that the ownership of the islands are disputed.
I return the floor back to pro.
 Source 4 R1
Return To Top | Posted:
Thanks CON for that continued argument against the resolution, that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain. As this is the final round, I will keep new information to an absolute minimum, and will mostly be recapping my side of this important issue.
In my first round I proved that the Falkland Islands are currently under the Sovereignty of Great Britain. CON has no dispute over this, in fact in his last round he says, "Britain owns Falklands as of now..." . I'm not really sure how much clearer this case can be.
He wrote the resolution. I proved the resolution. He conceded the resolution.
This point is partially critical, because if CON is correct, then when Britain reoccupied and finally kicked the Spanish out in 1833, this would have been a forcible take over. That's not a big deal, countries take territory from other countries all the time, but in this case, that's not what happened.
CON might call this plaque puny but he misses the point. The Plaque PROVES that Britain never renounced their claim. At best, the Spanish forcibly took the Falklands from Britain, before Britain forcibly took it back in 1833.
Remember this picture? This is a map CON submitted. He dated this as being sometime shortly after 1790. The text clearly states that the Falklands belong to the British. Does this look like Britain has renounced its claim to you? Me either.
- Britain still owned the Falklands in 1816. As mentioned above, they never renounced their claim. They were still listed as owning them on the map that CON submitted. Spain can't transfer the sovereignty of property that they don't own.
- Although Argentina declared Spanish independance in 1816, it was not acknowledged until 1859 more than 25 years after Britain had permanently occupied the Islands. Legally, Uti Possedetis Juri doesn't come into effect until this date. Spain can't transfer sovereignty to a nation it doesn't recognise as existing.
- Britain STILL owned the Falklands in 1790. As mentioned above, they never renounced their claim. They were still listed as owning them on the map that CON submitted, which was specifically written to clarify this kind of thing. Spain never used Nootka to claim ownership of the Falklands and neither can Argentina.
- Argentina had not had the territories belonging to Spain transferred to them at this point. That didn't happen until 1859. Nootka did not apply to them. Until that date, they are a third party as far this treaty goes.
- Nootka refers to islands "adjacent". In 1790, this term was taken from the "Freedom of the Seas" concept and was defined as a canon shot - or about 3 nautical miles. The Falklands lie almost 300 miles off the coast of Argentina. The only way they come under Nootka is if they were already owned exclusively by Spain - which they weren't.
- Secret Article. As promised, if CON continued with this assault, I would explain why this article matters. This article voids Nootka if a third party claims a territory. In 1820, the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata, (UPRP - which would eventually become Argentina in 1854) briefly occupied the Falklands by sending an American mercenary, Daniel Jewitt to warn off people who were sealing, whaling and fishing around the islands.
Firstly, if CON argues that the UPRP was an independent country at this stage, then they would constitute a third party, since Spain still claimed sovereignty over that section of South America. This activates the secret article of Nootka and voids the treaty.
Secondly, if CON argues that the UPRP was actually still Spain at this point, or had the Falklands transferred to their name, then they had no right to warn people away from the Falklands for fishing, since that right is protected under Nootka. Doing so voids the treaty.
- The UN favours self-determination. They favour the inhabitants right to decide their fate. The Falkland Islanders, living there continuously as British subjects for almost 180 years now, have voted with a 92% turnout. Aside from THREE individual votes, they have unanimously voted to remain a British Territory under British sovereignty.
- Although the UN favours full independence, the UN Charter also allows for three separate options for territories -one of which is the right for them to remain under the sovereignty of their current Nation. In the case of the Falkland Islands, this is what they've elected to do.
In short, the UN has no right, nor does it claim the right, to force a territory to take full independence.
Argentina is deafening in her silence on this issue during and after the Convention of Settlement. What happened? Did she just forget? If the islands were so important to her, why didn't she bring them to the table during these discussions?
The fact that Argentina didn't raise another whimper about the Falklands for another 40 years indicates that she knew full well that she was signing away her rights to the Islands in this treaty.
Return To Top | Posted:
- As proven via the previous contentions, the Nootka Sounds proves that Britain relinquished control over the Malvinas through Article 6
- The two conditions of article 6 provides two things; that the islands have been to adjacent and occupied by Spain; to make the islands unable to be claimed by the United Kingdom
- The Malvinas was occupied by Spain from 1774 right through to 1816, and British complaints did not emerge until 1829, 70 years after the last complaint.
- As the article was signed and ratified in 1790, which meant that Spain held control to these islands
- The Secret Article is nullified due to the right of Uti Possedetis Juri; which means that whatever belongs to Spain belongs to Argentina upon the day it received independence
- The UN has for many years made it clear that the inhabitants of the Malvinas held no power to exercise the right of self determination, as UN policy states that this right is reserved for those people who have a distinctive culture
- The UN adopted many resolutions, mainly UN resolution 2065 and 1514, which the UK has violated by refusing to do so, and has refused to negotiate with Argentina even when the UN demanded them do so
- All imperialist qualities must end, even in its most vague form; Argentina suffered under this imperialism in 1833, when Britain forced Arge.
Return To Top | Posted: