You know what they say, possession is 9/10 tenths of the law!
Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.
Nop, you're just mudding the discussion. Here are the facts:
- Spain named several governors for those islands from 1774 to 1810. Sovereignity was clearly stated by Spain over those islands.
- During that time, those islands depended of Buenos Aires government.
- If Spain owned Argentina plus the Malvinas, then once Argentina got its independence from Spain, the Malvinas were included as part of that independence.
- 1820, frigate La Heroína sailed to Malvinas to take possesion of it
- 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.
- 1828, Buenos Aires government granted Port Soledad to Luis Vernet, for building up a colony. For this purpose, he shipped 100 inhabitants to the islands.
- 1829, Vernet was named as governor of the islands
- 1833, Great Britain took the Malvinas, and expelled the inhabitants from the islands.
Not to mention other facts like geology, and that the UN approved the new map for Argentina, which expands the continental shelf all around the islands.[1][2]
So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the islands, BUT the islands?
> So, care to tell me how can Argentina OWN
> all the argentinean sea shelf AROUND the
> islands, BUT the islands?
The map you're linking to shows Argentina claiming much of the Antarctic. Leaving the Falklands aside, it should be obvious that a map like this is rather one sided and certainly doesn't have any international recognition given that no sovereign claim over the Antarctic is recognized by the UN or anyone else.
Aside from that I think you're misunderstanding what this map means. There's an international convention on continental shelves but national sovereignty supersedes it. There's no rule that if your continental shelf intersects territory intersects some island you own that island.
If it did then China would own Taiwan, France / Belgium / The Netherlands & Norway would own the British isles, South Korea would own Japan etc.
Besides, it is kind of difficult to decide who really owns any land when you look back through the long and complicated history of just about any modern country. Who should own Argentina? It used force to separate itself from Spain, so should Spain still have a claim over it? Should they demand it back again? How did Spain get it in the first place? By conquering the place, which means it was stolen from the natives. Should the descendants of the natives claim it back? But then the natives no doubt were made up of tribes/groups that used force to change ownership. So are you going to work that out backwards to the first tribe to arrive in the area many thousands of years ago? Where do you draw the line? Given the complexity you pretty much end up with the fairest method being to ask the actual inhabitants who they want to govern them. They said they want the British.