Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute

Page move (reverted)
A recent editor was quite right to restore this article to its original title - Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute. This article is about the sovereignty dispute: a well understood juristic concept. Other aspects of the Falkland Islands dispute e.g. warfare have their own articles.

The rule that page moves require consensus was overlooked, probably because the editor concerned was not aware of it. Ttocserp 03:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Timeline correction
Argentina (in those years called the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata) had annexed the Falklands Islands on November 6 by David Jewett and created the Military Command of the Malvinas (Falklands) Islands, informally although none of the inhabitants of the Islands were involved. I resisted. Putting the United States as if it had controlled the Islands after the USS Lexington attack is incredibly wrong because they did not even land on the Islands. After that attack, Luis Vernet stopped being governor and became Esteban Mestivier (he was even appointed by Juan Manuel de Rosas). What is clear is not that the island belonged to 'none' but that it continued to belong to Argentina. At that time it was called the Argentine Confederation. ULIFOX 3XX (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So, you agree, Argentina did not exist in 1820, or 1826 or 1829 or 1831. Good, let's move on. Who or what authorised Jewitt to do what he did in 1820? This so-called military command - you say it was created informally, meaning it had no connection with anyone or anything in Buenos Aires. Who was in actual control on the islands, or even just in the town, after the Lexington raid? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this editor deserves a rather more principled answer than that. What the country was called can make no difference since, even if it was only the government of Buenos Aires, present-day Argentina stands in its shoes according to the usual laws of state succession.  That there is an answer to the Jewett point I have no doubt, but it should be stated. Ttocserp 00:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Really? Based on that logic Bavaria is in Prussia, because in 1871 a unified Germany was proclaimed and Berlin was the capital of Prussia. According to what you seem to be saying that means the unified Germany, with its capital as Berlin, was really an expanded Prussia, that happens to have changed its name to Germany. This isn't a question of a state expanding, it's the creation of a new state from a collection of separate parts. Anyway, this discussion is meant to be about the Falklands and Jewett. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As somebody or other said, we await your argument. Ttocserp 09:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not accepting an argument is not the same as not being given one. And we need a source for this claim. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Actually the answer to your question is almost certainly that nobody at all authorised Jewitt to take possession of the islands. Jewitt was a privateer with a letter of marque from Buenos Aires.  He claimed the islands in the name of the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of South America but - as Cawkell points out - there were in 1820 at least 24 separate governments in the United Provinces, none of them Supreme.  It is highly unlikely that any of them gave any thought at all about a few small islands several days' sail from the nearest European settlement (which at this time would have been Viedma) as they were all far too busy dealing with the anarchy at home.


 * In any case, Jewitt did make an official report to Buenos Aires at the end of his voyage. That report makes no mention any declaration or annexation or any other act of sovereignty or taking of possession over the islands.


 * Several of the claims made by the edit are false. Jewitt did not establish any kind of military command over the Falklands.  He left no settlers, no commander, nobody in control.  Jewitt was not Argentine.  He was American by birth and if it weren't for this incident he would be best known as an important early figure in the Brazilian Navy.  Moreover he could not have told the local population that they were now Argentine, because at the time the islands had no permanent population.


 * I would note that this table describes de facto control - i.e. control on the ground - rather than legal claims. Nowhere else in the table do we accept claims of legal authority (whether made at the time or later) without actual control on the ground, and there is no reason for this to be an exception. Kahastok talk 21:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)