Maritime sea borders is not a legal terms, which is about 22.2 kms, from high tide point of each country. Falklands lay just beyond that, for Argentina, and much, much more for UK. A bitter war was fought over, those far away islands, because of petroleum underneath.
Neither is Scarborough islands, part of Philippines, even through World Court gave, that wrong judgement, to Chinese claims, like UK's. They lay just beyond the maritime reach of Philippines.
Convention on the Law of the Seas is a faulty piece of UN's gentleman agreement. Not real international Maritime law.
ARGENTINA stood 76 days vs the brits that's not bad but if i were General Leopoldo Galtieri i would have hold port stanly for 15 days and maybe the brits would had give up
Britain attack the islands in 1774, previously were under Spain with headquarter in Buenos Aires. Utrecht peace, signed in 1713 clarified all the south Atlantic islands were owned by Spain, but as always and all around the world the British government betrayed, deceived, and attacked.
“Britain, which had a colony there prior to 1774 withdrew willingly.” Britain never relinquished sovereignty over the Falklands. It withdrew due to temporary economic difficulties.
If the British had been victorious in the River Plate in 1807 (not to be at all confused with the 1982 war), not only would Argentina (including Uruguay) be bilingual English-Spanish (with slightly more Spanish than English) and be far better off economically and politically. There wouldn't be any Falklands dispute to begin with!!!!
Following the British victory in 1807, the British would very soon thereafter have reclaimed the Falklands for once and for all. Due to its strategic naval importance. it would have remained a separate British crown colony all the way until 1949, when it finally would have joined the then-dominion of Argentina.
By now, there would be far more than 3,700 people in the Falklands...there might be up to ten times that number, for various reasons. Due to that small population size, it would be a territory (along the lines of the Northern Territory in Australia or the Yukon, NW Territories, or Nunavut in Canada) rather than a province.
P.S. I was literally born the day of the liberation of the Falklands from the Argentines at the end of the 1982 war!
It should be noted as well, even if only as a footnote, that Britain put people on the islands in the 1830s and there has been a continuous presence there since. With continuous residence since then, there are now reportedly some 3,469 inhabitants today (2025) - there may also be as many as half a million sheep.
Maritime sea borders is not a legal terms, which is about 22.2 kms, from high tide point of each country. Falklands lay just beyond that, for Argentina, and much, much more for UK. A bitter war was fought over, those far away islands, because of petroleum underneath.
Neither is Scarborough islands, part of Philippines, even through World Court gave, that wrong judgement, to Chinese claims, like UK's. They lay just beyond the maritime reach of Philippines.
Convention on the Law of the Seas is a faulty piece of UN's gentleman agreement. Not real international Maritime law.
Hope that clarifies things.
Denis CA de Souza,
Dabolim, Goa
dennisdesouza991@gmail.com
ARGENTINA stood 76 days vs the brits that's not bad but if i were General Leopoldo Galtieri i would have hold port stanly for 15 days and maybe the brits would had give up
Britain attack the islands in 1774, previously were under Spain with headquarter in Buenos Aires. Utrecht peace, signed in 1713 clarified all the south Atlantic islands were owned by Spain, but as always and all around the world the British government betrayed, deceived, and attacked.
“Britain, which had a colony there prior to 1774 withdrew willingly.” Britain never relinquished sovereignty over the Falklands. It withdrew due to temporary economic difficulties.
If the British had been victorious in the River Plate in 1807 (not to be at all confused with the 1982 war), not only would Argentina (including Uruguay) be bilingual English-Spanish (with slightly more Spanish than English) and be far better off economically and politically. There wouldn't be any Falklands dispute to begin with!!!!
Following the British victory in 1807, the British would very soon thereafter have reclaimed the Falklands for once and for all. Due to its strategic naval importance. it would have remained a separate British crown colony all the way until 1949, when it finally would have joined the then-dominion of Argentina.
By now, there would be far more than 3,700 people in the Falklands...there might be up to ten times that number, for various reasons. Due to that small population size, it would be a territory (along the lines of the Northern Territory in Australia or the Yukon, NW Territories, or Nunavut in Canada) rather than a province.
P.S. I was literally born the day of the liberation of the Falklands from the Argentines at the end of the 1982 war!
It should be noted as well, even if only as a footnote, that Britain put people on the islands in the 1830s and there has been a continuous presence there since. With continuous residence since then, there are now reportedly some 3,469 inhabitants today (2025) - there may also be as many as half a million sheep.