How long do you need to occupy a country for to claim it?

[Pendaric]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2010/feb/27/falklands-oil-dispute-ian-jack

The Falkland Islands is becoming topical again here.

Bit of history for those not familiar with it. The Falkland Islands are small islands about 700 miles from the coast of Argentina, which have been a British possession since 1833. The inhabitants have been there since then and consider themselves to be British. They want to stay British, and are extremely hostile to any suggestion of Argentinian sovereignty.

They were uninhabited prior to discovery by European explorers in the 1500s, and since then have been fought over at various times for various reasons, with sovereignty being claimed by France, Spain, Britain and Argentina.

They last hit the headlines in 1982, when Argentina landed troops on the islands to try and claim them. Britain sent a taskforce of ships to reclaim them and there was a short war, with approximately 800 Argentinian casualties and 150 British casualties.

Recently it appears that there may be rich oil reserves in the waters surrounding them. This is prompting Argentina to again try and make noises to reclaim them.

My question - it seems a bit daft to me that we can lay claim to land which is obviously a very long way away Britain. Does the fact that we have had people on there for several generations give us a legitimate right to ownership, or should the fact of proximity to Argentina give them a stronger claim?

Looking at different countries, what about places like Israel? It's ownership is disputed by the Arab world, but it has been the home to the Jews for 60 years now. How long would need to pass before there was no question of Jewish right to the land just by virtue of the length of time they have been there? Does the fact that they were there 2,000 years ago give them any claim to it now?

If any country invades another country, how long does the occupation have to last before the people who settle can legitimately say it is their land? Is it after one generation is born there? Is it after all the people who remember the previous ownership have died? Is it never?

I'm personally not sure myself how I feel about this. I can understand why someone who is born and bred in an area can view it as home and consider it theirs. I can also understand how the descendants of the people forced off the land can consider it theirs as well, and I'm not sure where the line should be.

[Haswell]

We are not laying claim to it because it was part of our Empire. It is being protected because the Falkland Islanders wish self determination as a democracy.

Personally, I cannot see how we can logistically defend them again, unless we move more squadrons there (which will be more than enough to take care of the Argies) for they cannot attack without air superiority. Until we vote the Falklands out of protectorate, we are bound to offer protection. Beefing up the RAF and Fleet Air Arm commitment until this blows over, is an achievable goal.

[rog]

If any country invades another country, how long does the occupation have to last before the people who settle can legitimately say it is their land? Is it after one generation is born there? Is it after all the people who remember the previous ownership have died? Is it never?

On a similar note, say the Nazi's had been able to occupy France, without allied intervention - at what point might the underground resistance have become illegitimate?

[EricK]

Because of the proximity of Argentina to the Falkland Islands, I believe that the Falkland Islanders have a legitimate claim to sovereignty over Argentina.

[BioBeing]

Should proximity be a better claim than occupation? Maybe, as England is close to France, the French should have England back. Or Alaska should be given to the Canadians.

Bottom line I guess is that the Falklands belong to the UK now, and will as long as the English are prepared to defend them.

IIRC, the Maggie's war was all about driulling/exploration rights the UK gets from the Falklands that extend down into Antarctica as much as the sheep that lived on the Island. So oil in the area seems an extension of that.

[Haswell]

The oil question is the only thing to bear in mind here. I don't see why any British soldiers should die over a bunch of sheep shaggers, but I suppose we have to take the rough with the smooth.

Why would England belong to France? it never has, other than some Plantagenet Kings being Kings of England and (part of) what is now France?

On a similar note, say the Nazi's had been able to occupy France, without allied intervention - at what point might the underground resistance have become illegitimate?
They would never be illegitimate as long as France was an occupied country.

[munnki]

It's about power rather than legitimacy. Legitimacy is the window-dressing put over the decisions made in the interest of power. This seems pretty generally true. A powerful country has an economic interest in a less powerful country then the legitimacy can be seen as the 'paperwork' involved in carrying out the task. It's important that these things seem legitimate but they're not going to stop doing them just because they suddenly aren't... The laws of legitimacy itself will merely change to adapt to the situation desired by the powerful. This goes for most occupations/colonizations/call them what you will I can think of from Israel, Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, ....

[DMB]

What about all the black and white people in North America. Shouldn't they clear off and return the land to the dispossessed American Indians?

[rog]

It's about power rather than legitimacy. Legitimacy is the window-dressing put over the decisions made in the interest of power. This seems pretty generally true. A powerful country has an economic interest in a less powerful country then the legitimacy can be seen as the 'paperwork' involved in carrying out the task. It's important that these things seem legitimate but they're not going to stop doing them just because they suddenly aren't... The laws of legitimacy itself will merely change to adapt to the situation desired by the powerful. This goes for most occupations/colonizations/call them what you will I can think of from Israel, Northern Ireland, The Falklands, Iraq, ....

Religious intervention has historically been quite handy for that sort of thing.

[rog]

What about all the black and white people in North America. Shouldn't they clear off and return the land to the dispossessed American Indians?

No flag, No country

uEx5G-GOS1k

[columbus]

What about all the black and white people in North America. Shouldn't they clear off and return the land to the dispossessed American Indians?The first thing that popped into my head upon reading:Looking at different countries, what about places like Israel? was "What gives the Argentinians of Euro descent sovereignity over the original inhabitants?"

But I am curious. Does anyone have an Argentinian take on this Falkland thing? Do they think they have a stronger claim over the islands than the people who live there? Since they apparently do, does anybody know what it is? I don't get it. The Falklands are 700 miles from Argentina. Everybody who has ever lived there is British. Am I missing something?

Tom

[rog]

The Falklands are 700 miles from Argentina. Everybody who has ever lived there is British. Am I missing something?



As I understand it, we invaded the place a couple of hundred years ago.

[cape_royds]

Looking at the wikipedia article on the Falklands' history, it seems to me that even leaving the issue of military might, the UK has certainly no weaker a legal claim to the islands than Argentina.

But once we start talking about offshore zones, seabed rights, etc, then things get complicated.

Hopefully we'll see negotiations rather than sabre-rattling. However, maybe Brown needs some sort of tonic to invigorate the British and help them forget all their red ink.

[rog]

Hopefully we'll see negotiations rather than sabre-rattling. However, maybe Brown needs some sort of tonic to invigorate the British and help them forget all their red ink.

Yes, nothing cheers people up more than an easy war....

[Berthold]

Thatcher's Falkland war did give the coup de grace to the military junta that was then ruling Argentina.

[dancer_rnb]

I'm not sure the US should tolerate European interference in the Western hemisphere.
Monroe Doctrine and alll that.:evil:

[Ray Moscow]

Because of the proximity of Argentina to the Falkland Islands, I believe that the Falkland Islanders have a legitimate claim to sovereignty over Argentina.

It's about 400 miles offshore, isn't it? Not that close.

[BioBeing]

The oil question is the only thing to bear in mind here. I don't see why any British soldiers should die over a bunch of sheep shaggers, but I suppose we have to take the rough with the smooth.

Well, tbh, I think about the only reason British soldiers should die is defending other British people. Blood for oil is not a fair exchange.

Why would England belong to France? it never has, other than some Plantagenet Kings being Kings of England and (part of) what is now France?

So proximity not a very useful guide for ownership then, I guess.

On a similar note, say the Nazi's had been able to occupy France, without allied intervention - at what point might the underground resistance have become illegitimate?
They would never be illegitimate as long as France was an occupied country.

Well, I think the question here was if the Nazis occupied France long enough, would they be able to claim it for themselves, thereby making the "resistance" fighters terrorists? If the Allies had not stepped in, France would probably now be part of Germany.

[cape_royds]

Thatcher's Falkland war did give the coup de grace to the military junta that was then ruling Argentina.

You certainly can't use that sort of logic to prospectively justify a war.

The Argentine junta was ailing anyway; that's a major reason why they invaded the Falklands in the first place.

[columbus]

Well, nothing like reading the whole Wikipedia article and actually getting enough information to ruin your certainty.:rolleyes:

I now see why Argentina still sees the islands as stolen and the inhabitants interlopers. They had estabished a community on an uninhabited island off the coast of their country and were forced out at gunpoint by stronger navies, the US and Britain. Even today there are barely 3000 residents. They weren't even British citizens until after the war in 1982.

It's looking more like an anachronistic hold-over from the bad old days of colonialism, when anybody with a powerful warship could stick a flag in anything and claim it. Maybe the real question is "How long after you steal something is it yours?"

Tom

[EricK]

Because of the proximity of Argentina to the Falkland Islands, I believe that the Falkland Islanders have a legitimate claim to sovereignty over Argentina.

It's about 400 miles offshore, isn't it? Not that close.

My point was that if A's proximity to B is good reason for A to claim sovereignty over B (as Argentina claims with regard to the Falklands), then B has an equally good claim for sovereignty over A (since proximity is a symmetric relationship).

[Ray Moscow]

EricK, did you work for the Dubya administration?

"How did our oil get under their sand, anyway?"

[Haswell]

Of course they were not British citizens. The Falklands has been merely a British protectorate and the sheep shaggers there have a right to self determination.

The Falkland's is and never was, within Argentinian territorial waters. it now has a 15 mile exclusion zone and lies within international waters. So the Argentinian claim is just as tentative and land grabbing as the British/ American claim was.

The Argies don't seem to understand that their claim is just as imperial as ours was and they are the de facto dispossessed, in a time when all was fair and up for grabs. They do understand this; its the same reasons they expanded the Argentinian mainland.

[Matty]

Or Alaska should be given to the Canadians.


Only if you premise to remove the retards like Palin that live there.

[rog]

EricK, did you work for the Dubya administration?

"How did our oil get under their sand, anyway?"

I'm reminded of Donald Rumsfeld's attempt to paraphrase Socrates. known unknowns, etc.

[Berthold]

You certainly can't use that sort of logic to prospectively justify a war.
I don't like wars.

On the other hand, my love for military juntas is somwhat limited. ;)

[rcscwc]

If occupation is the final word, then the British empire was dissolved in an unjust manner. India should revert back as a colony!!

In 1947 France, Holland and Portugal had possession of a few Indian territories. All except Portugal vacated them honorably till Portugal was forcibly evicted from Goa. Portugal, of course, complained to the UNSC, where "champions" of democracy supported it but undemocratic [sic] Soviet Union vetoed the resolution. Nobody reminded UK of that episode.

PS: The Portuguese occupied Goa about 1498. So their claim has more legitimacy than that of UK over Malvinas.

You certainly can't use that sort of logic to prospectively justify a war.
I don't like wars.

On the other hand, my love for military juntas is somwhat limited. ;)
You certainly can't use that sort of logic to prospectively justify a war.
I don't like wars.

On the other hand, my love for military juntas is somwhat limited. ;)

Sure. I too don't like wars, PROVIDED I am left alone.

In order of dislike for war, which do you dislike most?

1. Hitler's Invasion of W. Europe.
2. Resistance in Europe
3. D day invasion. Mind you it resulted in the bloodiest war in history.
4. Nuking of Japan!

Mind you, I will not launch a war, but if it is imposed (I SHALL fight it [though I am 61].

[rcscwc]

<snip>

[Rie]

It depends entirely on what is meant by 'occupy'.

[HinduWoman]

It is not a question of how long as it is a question of how long can the invaders defend themselves from the natives and persuade the natives to accept them as their rulers/compatriots.
I am sure the Saxons of 10th century would have been horrified if they had known their descendants no longer thought of throwing out the invaders (in fact they had entirely forgotten the invasion).

[Berthold]

In order of dislike for war, which do you dislike most?

1. Hitler's Invasion of W. Europe.
That one is easy among these alternatives.

[rog]

It is not a question of how long as it is a question of how long can the invaders defend themselves from the natives and persuade the natives to accept them as their rulers/compatriots.
I am sure the Saxons of 10th century would have been horrified if they had known their descendants no longer thought of throwing out the invaders (in fact they had entirely forgotten the invasion).

Bloody immigrants, coming over here and taking our monarchy ;)