The Rights and Wrongs of the Historic Claims to the Falkland Islands

From 'Tempest in a Teapot' by Reginald & Elliot, 1983

The American academics Reginald & Elliot in their 1983 study of the Falklands War entitled 'Tempest in a Teapot' state, "In looking at the historic claims made by Argentina and Britain for sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas, one is struck by the obvious sincerity of both sides, and by the absolute impossibility of reaching a fair and impartial decision based upon existing evidence."

They pose the question 'Who really owns or should own the Falklands?' and review the claims put forward by each side.

"If we regard the first sighting of the islands as a basis for sovereignty, Spain would seem to have the stronger case, based upon Francisco Camargo's apparent description of the Falklands in 1540. It should be emphasised, however, that none of the early supposed sightings are certain; determining the actual discoverer of the Falklands with any degree of assurance may be impossible at this late date, due to lack of supporting documentation.

If we regard actual occupation of the islands as a basis for claiming sovereignty, the Spanish again have the stronger case, based upon succession to the French colony of 1764, which France sold to Spain three years later; the French colony existed a year before the British settled Port Egmont. However, both the British and the Spanish withdrew their colonies, thereby leaving themselves open to charges of abandonment, and perhaps negating their original claims.

If we regard proximity to the Argentine mainland as a basis for sovereignty, Argentina would seem to have little case, since the Falklands lie beyond the 200-mile territorial limit claimed by Argentina and generally recognised by most countries around the world.

If we regard Argentine succession to Spanish claims as a basis for sovereignty, Argentina has at best a dubious case, since (1) Spain abandoned its colony on the Falklands; (2) although Spain administered the Falklands through Buenos Aires, such arrangements are and were common for the sake of expediency, and by no means necessarily indicated that the Falklands were considered part of the South American mainland - the Falklands always had their own governor; and (3) Argentina did not succeed to any part of the Spanish Empire except southeastern South America, which may or may not have included the Falklands.

…. Argentina did occupy the Falklands in 1820, and maintained a tenuous colony until the British displaced them. It is upon this fact that Argentina's strongest claim is based. But even this claim includes its share of deficiencies, the chief being that Argentina never controlled more than a small section of the Falklands, that part near Puerto Soledad, during its twelve years of occupancy. The sealers and whalers who used the islands as a way station did not acknowledge Argentine sovereignty or control, and generally refused to pay taxes for their catches. Argentina's half-hearted attempts to impose its authority over these transients failed. Further, the Argentine colony never consisted of more than fifty or a hundred settlers, and these few colonists made few attempts to farm, raise livestock, or otherwise conduct themselves as permanent residents.

Still, there is no doubt the acting Argentine governor was forcibly ousted from the islands by the British, and that this displacement was protested by the government of Argentina as a breach of its sovereignty. The grounds cited by the British for imposing control are dubious at best. In fact, the Argentine assertion that the British were seeking to control the seas near Cape Horn is probably correct.

….. Given the justice of the Argentine protest over what was probably an illegal seizure of the islands by Great Britain, what justice is there in the British position? In fact, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the British occupation of the islands in 1833, the British have physically governed the islands longer than all of the previous owners combined. Further, neither Argentina nor Spain had made any attempts to develop the islands, beyond Vernet's grandiose schemes, and no private individuals owned any expanse of land under Spanish or Argentine rule except for Vernet and his grantees. Under British government, perhaps 2,000 permanent settlers have developed the land, half of which was privately owned, the rest being owned by the Falkland Islands Company. Moreover, it is clear from recent events that the Falkland Islanders are at least partially self-governing, having thwarted various proposals made by both sides to end the struggle through negotiations. The fact that most of the islanders are descended from five or six generations of a continuously resident population is not, as the Argentines have claimed, irrelevant to the issue. The Argentine refusal to consider the islanders' wishes when addressing the issue of sovereignty was and is foolishly shortsighted, since it makes the issue one of human rather than legal rights, thereby diminishing the stature of their case in the eyes of the democratically governed world."

Reginald & Elliot conclude by suggesting that the real causes of the Falklands War "have more to do with governmental blunders than with historical or actual claims", blunders which are examined in detail in their short and eminently readable volume, which is recommended reading for anyone interested in the politics of war rather than military manoeuvres.

Source: R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', (1983), The Borgo Press, San Bernardino, California, USA

Introduction, Brief History, Timeline, 1982 Articles, 1982 Timeline, 1982 Documents, Articles, Agreements, UN Resolutions
HOME, FACT FILE, BACKGROUND, HISTORY, NOTICE BOARD, BOOKS, LINKS

Site Designed and Maintained by eb-host.com