it's true, what's legal and what's right overrides individual wants and needs.
i'm sure the vast majority of americans or britons would like to smoke pot or cultivate hemp but the law says no, and y'should respect that.
Apart from the fact that Argentina has no legal right to the Falklands at all...
Young lady, I am an expert on humans. Now pick a mouth, open it and say "brglgrglgrrr"!
The notion of legality when it comes to international territory disputes is amusing, as they aren't bound by any real law. All that binds a state to the expressed rules of international relations is the state itself choosing to be bound by them. The fact the rules of territorial recognition might be in favour of Argentina (though as others have put before me, I doubt very much that they do) in this situation mean little, as no real arbiter with any power has the ability to enforce those rules. At this current point in time, the Falklands wish to remain an overseas territory of the UK, and that self-determination is held in much greater esteem to those that matter (ie states able to place pressure on the UK) than territorial rights, so unless Argentina can suddenly garner up support for either the establishment of an international court that has real, binding power or somehow emphasize to some major power brokers (the US for instance) that their theoretical territorial right is more important than the recent display of self-determination, then I'm afraid what's "legal" means squat.
Minister for Home Affairs of the Commonwealth v Zentai [2012] HCA 28 per Heydon J at [75]
Analysis should not be diverted by reflections upon the zeal with which the victors at the end of the Second World War punished the defeated for war crimes. The victors were animated by the ideals of the Atlantic Charter and of the United Nations. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was about to peep over the eastern horizon. But first, they wanted a little hanging.
Indeed, Argentina has no valid legal claim on the Falklands which I know of. That alone is all the argument the UK needs to defend its continued presence there, while things like referendums with only one possible outcome are just propaganda for domestic consumption.
Of course it does, the will of the people involved is of paramount importance. How is this propaganda, anyway?
The will of the individual is of paramount importance, not to mention the principle of majority rule. Anything else is tyranny. Remember the Harm Principle.
Who are you to decide what people want? WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT?
At this point the islands are not going to change hands unless the British are finished with them or Argentina somehow pushes them out, no one with any sway is going to support their claims.
There is no higher power to decide for them
Last edited by SLN445; March 20, 2013 at 07:11 AM.
Okay, let me use simple examples to guide you through why this isn't an issue for democracy.
a) Hitler holds a referendum where the Jews get to vote if they should live or go to Auschwitz. They vote to live. Democracy in action!
b) My neighbor builds a guest house in my backyard. His family moves into the guest house, and when I tell them that it's my backyard, they decide to hold a vote between themselves saying that it is actually theirs. Democracy in action!
People have the right to determine what country they live in. That is the foundation of how liberal democracies operate.
So your response is to ignore the expressed will of Falklanders and say I'm some sort of unthinking nationalist.
Let me put it this way, if the Falklanders expressed a majority wish to join, say, Brazil, they should and must be allowed to join Brazil.
Military power and economic viability tips the balance in favour of the Falklanders' wishes regarding their sovereignty of the islands.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.