Douglas C. Johnson
Abstract: The Falkland Island conflict is a prime example of what happens when two major powers fight over land that has a historically ambiguous past. This article analyzes the legitimacy of the claims made by both the United Kingdom and Argentina to the Falkland Islands in the run up to the 1982 invasion of the islands by the Argentine government. The United Kingdom holds two historical claims to the islands, the first being an attempt by the crown to establish a colony on the islands in 1765 at Port Egmont, and the second being the establishment of a permanent colony in 1833 at the end of Spanish colonial rule in Argentina. Argentina lays claim to the islands on the basis that they were part of Spanish Argentina, and therefore would continue to be part of independent Argentina. The British claim is based on the concept of terra nullis, meaning that once Spanish colonial rule ended, the islands were to be considered unclaimed land, and the British port at Egmont constituted a British claim to the land, while the Argentine claim was based on the concept of uti possidetis, or respect for former colonial boundaries. Most countries, including the United Nations, supported Argentina’s claim to the islands, but the Argentine government gravely miscalculated their international support when it decided to invade the then-British controlled islands in 1982. Overestimating American willingness to stay out of Latin American affairs and underestimating British willingness to go to war over the islands, Argentina drove themselves into a corner where the only acceptable way out was to avoid a humiliating defeat to the overwhelming British military power.
Keywords: United Kingdom, Argentina, Falkland Islands
