Falkland Islands’ establishment are very clearly still in denial

Unfortunately, it read as confirmation of the denial by the islands’ establishment of the territorial sovereignty dispute which has existed since the forcible expulsion of Argentina by the British Government in 1833.

This event occurred well before the British formally established a settlement/colony on the islands in 1843 and before the arrival there of the family of Ms Barkman.

If this dispute is still open, it is because, for nearly a century and a half, the British Government adopted the imperial attitude of “might is right” and refused to discuss the matter with Argentina.

From the beginning of its occupation, British authorities have controlled the migratory policy of the islands, and now use the resulting population as an argument.

Such conduct, and this argument, is contrary to the proper application of the right of peoples to self-determination. A right that, unlike the United Kingdom, Argentina has always recognised.

READ MORE: Fringe show cancelled after Graham Linehan features on line-up

Our article explained why the British Government must comply with international law and negotiate a settlement of the territorial sovereignty dispute with Argentina.

We condemn the use of force by the Argentine dictatorship in 1982. The war, however, did not change the legal status of the islands or the nature of the controversy, as was recognised by the UN.

The British Government itself has never advanced such a claim. The first victim of that dictatorship was the Argentine people.

For many decades, all democratic Argentine governments have insisted that they will seek only a peaceful settlement of the dispute. Despite this commitment, the British Government maintains a costly and unjustified military base on the islands. The current inhabitants, like anyone else, enjoy human rights.

Argentina has consistently maintained that these rights will be respected.

Ms Barkman uses a now repeated propagandistic tool by arguing that Argentina seeks to impose colonialism. This argument is paradoxical as British citizens of the islands raise this argument against the victims of the colonial policy of the British Government.

READ MORE: Alba advert attacking 'vampire' Rishi Sunak rejected by Global

The fact Argentina invokes, in its constitution, its traditional position on sovereignty (and respect for the way of life of the current inhabitants) does not prevent negotiations.

Indeed, it is unrealistic to expect that any country would not advance its claim in negotiations. The same is true for the British position.

It is precisely through such negotiation that the parties must seek a settlement.

If one follows Ms Barkman’s argument, no dispute could be negotiated. Curiously enough, she uses the same argument she seems to confront since she argues that the right of self-determination of peoples is applicable to the current inhabitants and thus nothing can be negotiated.

Many disputes that at one point appeared impossible, have found a way. Notwithstanding any difficulties, Northern Ireland serves as an example.

In the past, islanders of the Falklands/Malvinas formed a part of the British delegation during negotiations with Argentina. To leave the matter open for future negotiations is not a reasonable or responsible attitude. Where there is a will, there is a way.

Marcelo G Kohen, Emeritus Professor of International Law (Geneva)

Facundo D Rodriguez, Professor of International Law (Argentina)