Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
The Treaties That Were Not Broken

The Treaties That Were Not Broken

Ratings: (0)|Views: 262|Likes:
Published by dab14763
Treaties between Great Britain and Spain that Great Britain did not break, contrary to Argentina's assertions
Treaties between Great Britain and Spain that Great Britain did not break, contrary to Argentina's assertions

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, History
Published by: dab14763 on Aug 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/14/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Argentina did not inherit the Falklands from Spain, so neither did it inherit any treaties from Spain that may refer to the Falklands. Britain never recognised Spain had any territorial rights to places that it had never had possession of, nor did it ever recognise Spain had exclusive navigation rights in the South Atlantic. First some background: The Treaty of Münster In 1648 Spain signed the Treaty of Münster recognising the independence of the Netherlands. In that treaty in article V Spain and the Netherlands mutually recognised that their territories consisted of those they held at the time. Spain did not hold the Falklands in 1648. http://www.scribd.com/doc/33633447/Treaty-of-Munster-article-V "the said Lords the King and States, respectively, shall remain in possession of and enjoy such lordships, towns, castles, fortresses, commerce and countries of the East and West Indies, as well as of Brazil, and on the coasts of Asia, Africa, and America, respectively, which the said Lords the King and States, respectively, hold and possess," The article makes no mention of discovery, of the Bull Inter Caetera of ALEXANDER VI, 1493, of the Treaty of Tordesillas, as the basis for Spanish sovereignty. In other words, by 1648 Spain had recognised that actual possession was necessary to establish sovereignty over a territory:
Judge Max Huber’s interpretation of this article in the Island of Palmas Arbitration:
 http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=5184 This article prescribes no frontiers and appoints no definite regions as belonging to one Power or the other.
On the other hand, it establishes as a criterion the principle of possession
 
(‘demeureront en possession et jouiront de telles seigneuries . . . que lesdits Seigneurs Roy et Estats tiennent et possedent’).
 
However liberal be the interpretation given, for the period in question, to the notions of ‘tenir’ (hold) and ‘posséder’ (possess), it is hardly possible to comprise within these terms the right arising
out of mere discovery; i.e. out of the fact that the island had been sighted. If title arising from discovery, well-known and already a matter of controversy at the period in question, were meant to  be recognized by the treaty, it would probably have been mentioned in express terms. The view here
taken appears to be supported by other provisions in the same article. It is stipulated therein that ‘les
Lieux & Places qu'iceux Seigneurs Estats cy-aprés sans infraction du présent traitté [sic] viendront à
conquérir et posséder’ shall be placed on the same footing as those which they possessed at the
moment the treaty was concluded. In view of the interpretation given by Spain and Portugal to the right of discovery, and to the Bull Inter Caetera of ALEXANDER VI, 1493, it seems that the regions which the Treaty of Münster does not consider as definitely acquired by the two Powers in the East and West Indies, and which may in certain circumstances be capable of subsequent acquisition by the Netherlands, cannot fail to include regions claimed as discovered, but not  possessed.
 
 The Treaty of Madrid 1667 In of the Treaty of Madrid 1667 between Britain and Spain: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f12.tableDesMatieres Spain did not hold the Falklands when it signed this treaty Article VII (page 9) each granted the other the right to trade in their respective dominions Treaty of Madrid 1670, also known as the American Treaty In the Treaty of Madrid 1670, also known as the American treaty http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f41.tableDesMatieres Spain did not hold the Falklands when it signed this treaty Article I (page 35) says treaty of 1667 still in force Article VII (page 37) Spain recognises British territories in the West Indies and elsewhere in America. There is no reciprocal recognition of Spanish territories. Article VIII (page 37) Both parties agree not to sail to or trade in each others' possessions in the West Indies Article IX (page 37) except under license Article XV (page 39) preserves liberty of navigation in American seas for both parties Peace of Utrecht of 1713 In the Peace of Utrecht of 1713 http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f47.tableDesMatieres Article VIII (page 81) again establishes freedom of navigation as it was during the reign of the Spanish King, Charles II (the treaties of 1667 and 1670 were during the reign of Charles II) and says Spanish dominions should be returned to the state they were during his rule. Spain exercised no dominion over the Falklands during his rule, nor had it established any dominion when this treaty was signed. Treaty of Madrid 1721 http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203 Article II (page 208) Reconfirms Treaty of Utrecht. Britain is required to carry out matters still  pending from the treaty of Utrecht Spain had not established any dominion over the Falklands when this treaty was signed. Treaty of Paris 1763 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1763) 
 
Various cessions of territories between Britain, France, and Spain Spain had not established any dominion over the Falklands when this treaty was signed.  Nootka Sound Convention: Full text of Nootka Sound Convention here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention
  Article 4  His Britannic Majesty engages to employ the most effective measures to prevent the navigation and  fishery of his subjects in the Pacific Ocean or in the South Seas from being made a pretext for illicit trade with the Spanish settlements; and with this in view it is moreover expressly stipulated that  British subjects shall not navigate nor carry on their fishery in the said seas within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast already occupied by Spain.  Article 6  It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
1) The refers to islands adjacent to South America. The Falklands at 260 nautical miles from Argentina are not adjacent to South America*. The UK has never recognised that it applies to the Falklands. 2) It was suspended in 1795 due to war between the two countries. It may or may not have been renewed in 1814 after the war. In any case the parties were not to form establishments on South American coasts south of those already occupied by Spain, and Spain no longer occupied any South American coasts in 1833. 3) It's a reciprocal treaty. Both countries, Spain as well as Great Britain (the respective subjects), were forbidden to form establishments on the coasts mentioned. Spain, by forming settlements late 18
th
 -early 19
th
 century in what is now San Clemente del Tuyú (directly south of the Banda Oriental -now Uruguay), was in breach of the Convention 3) If it does apply to the Falklands, Argentina by establishing a settlement on the Falklands in 1826 (subjects of any other power) rendered article 6 null and void as per the secret article:
Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->