The majority of academic literature written in English on the Falklands/Malvinas War focusesalmost exclusively on the UK. Argentina is pushed to the periphery
and there is a “certain lack of
regard for the interactive nature of the conflict.
(For notable exceptions see: Benwell 2011;Freedmen and Gamba 1990; Makin 1983) Much of the literature examines the domestic causes of the conflict
especially how the UK misread A
signals. (See: Beck 1983; Calvert 1984;Danchev in Danchev ed. 1992; Dillon 1989; Dunnett 1983; Freedman 1988; Freedman and Gamba1990; Makin 1983.) Many authors have examined both sovereignty claims but there is no academicconsensus over
which sides’ claim is true
. (For literature supporting the Argentine case, see: Bluth1987; Chehabi 1985; Honeywell and Pearce, 1982. For literature supporting the UK case, see: Calvert1983; Dunnett 1983; Freedman 1988) There is also widespread disagreement about how the conflictwill play out in the future. The disagreement appears to be caused by how much emphasis is put onArgentina. Pieces which focus entirely on Argentina (See: Beck 1985; Benwell 2011) tend to predict areturn to violence, while those which look at the UK (See: Beck in Danchev ed. 1992; Calvert 1984;Dodds 2010; Little in Hennesy and Kings eds. 1992) often foresee a peaceful outcome. This essayadds to this debate by looking at both sides of the conflict and bringing the Argentine perspectiveback into the debate.
One of the ideas which reappears across the literature is that the Falklands/Malvinas War isnot explained by traditional International Relations (IR) theories. The war in 1982 did not seem toconform to realist or liberal theoretical ideals,
as neither state survival nor economic security was
Alistair Hennessey and John King, eds.,
The Land that England Lost: Argentina and Britain, a Special Relationship
(London: British Academic Press, 1992),
Alex Danchev in Alex Danchev ed.,
International Perspectives on the Falklands Conflict
(London: St Martin’s
David M. McCourt, “Role
Playing and Identity Affirmation in International Politics: Britain’s Reinvasion of the
Review of International Studies
37, no.4, (2011), 1601. DOI: 10.1017/S026021051000104X.