How about an International Sovereignty Resolution Tribunal to resolve the Falklands/Malivinas

[pampango]

dispute between the UK and Argentina and similar sovereignty disputes between countries?

Nations would be free to join or stay out, like the ICC. If they joined they would be subject to its rulings. If they stay out, they would pay a PR price (if nothing else) that would weaken the legitimacy of their territorial claims.

Of course, there are conflicting claims of territorial sovereignty in many places in the world, so ISRT rulings might create more problems than they solve. Plus you would still have the issue of what to do with the residents of a region who might not agree with a sovereignty ruling which is based on historical facts that may go back hundreds of years.

[izquierdista]

1. How about letting the locals vote?

The desires of the local population are probably the last thing on the mind of geo-political diplomats hundreds and thousands of miles away.

[pampango]

4. Could there ever be a historically-based justification for overriding the wishes of the people?

Those who favor Argentina in the Falklands/Malvinas dustup seem to put more weight on historical considerations than on the wishes of the people who live there. Even some who favor the UK side in the Falklands who contend that popular will cannot always be the deciding factor. For instance, in Palestine, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, and many places in Africa where national borders were drawn by Europeans with no regard for the wishes of different groups to associate with one another. There are many disputed borders in the world.

Is there some way to consider both the wishes of the current residents (probably paramount) and other historical considerations?

[sharp_stick]

5. They did vote on it

at least once and they wanted to stay British. The Argies thought once that Great Britain wouldn't bother sending the troops half way around the world for a bunch of shepherds and they were proven very wrong.

[AlphaCentauri]

6. It could be tricky asking people to vote on a territorial dispute

To start, the big money interest could manipulate the people to vote for something that in the future could affect them as we can see in the US elections.
Then, would the government respect the decision of the people to determine their own future? We can take a look at the montana movements that did try to get Independence from the US, have they been successful? No, because self determination only exist to justify the government not the people.

Since oil companies will be involved in Las Malvinas, the people living there will vote to stay part of the UK, why? they will be make to believe the oil is theirs but in reality the oil companies owned. Like in Alaska, oil companies give a thousand dollars check to the natives and that keeps them quite.

[vadawg]

7. lol i dont think you would need to pay the brits living on the islands to admit they are british

as someone else wrote they are as much british as the people living on the isle of wight and if the argies invade then i feel sorry for their conscripts who will end up bearing the brunt of the retaking of the islands..

[AlphaCentauri]

8. No but they can be pay for been a toy of the UK n/t

[vadawg]

9. a toy, i guess you think that long island or the keys are toys of the US

you do realise that the islands are british and dont want to be argie..

[truebrit71]

2. There is no dispute. The Falklands are British. Period.

No difference between the Falklands Islands and the Isle of Wight.

We kicked their arses once, we'll do it again if we have to.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Exactly. They voted and chose to be British. The offshore oil rights are going to be complicated. nt