• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Legal competent body? Which legal competent body has decided anything against the major western powers in the last 40 years? And what legal competent bodies existed prior to the League of Nations which was rather useless itself?


Anything done before legal competent bodies is therefore on the same principle as 'calling it' or 'dibs'?
I am asking YOU to identify the legally competent body necessary to define that British activities in regards to the Falklands Islands 150 years ago were infact a 'crime'. The allegation of 'your nation's past crimes' (that is a direct quote by yourself).

Which legally competent bodies existed prior to the League of Nations? Well my friend ... the concept of International Law has evolved over millenia, dating as far back as as Ancient Egypt. However, perhaps something more recent might put this little quarral to bed. While I am not legally trained, the 13th English legal writ of
Quo warranto determines that an accusor must show proof of 'Authority' ('By what warrant are you the sheriff?').

Therefor, to the claim of 'your nation's past crimes', I again ask you 'By what warrant are you the sheriff?' Which legally competent body has deemed that 18th and 19th century British activities in the South Pacific are in fact 'crimes'.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I am asking YOU to identify the legally competent body necessary to define that British activities in regards to the Falklands Islands 150 years ago were infact a 'crime'. The allegation of 'your nation's past crimes' (that is a direct quote by yourself).

Which legally competent bodies existed prior to the League of Nations? Well my friend ... the concept of International Law has evolved over millenia, dating as far back as as Ancient Egypt. However, perhaps something more recent might put this little quarral to bed. While I am not legally trained, the 13th English legal writ of
Quo warranto determines that an accusor must show proof of 'Authority' ('By what warrant are you the sheriff?').

Therefor, to the claim of 'your nation's past crimes', I again ask you 'By what warrant are you the sheriff?' Which legally competent body has deemed that 18th and 19th century British activities in the South Pacific are in fact 'crimes'.
No one, since the judge was the executioner of this unwritten law and the criminal at the same time.

But I guess that's fine.

Just like it's fine to bomb Belgrade and call it a "peace operation" as long as it's done by the... good guys!

I'm waiting to hear about ANY "crimes" during said period by anyone, just to see with what contemporary event we can compare this.



If you don't feel that the history of colonization and its aftermath needs to be reviewed, we don't really have anything to discuss here as you're kinda proving my point in the process.
 
No one, since the judge was the executioner of this unwritten law and the criminal at the same time.

But I guess that's fine.

Just like it's fine to bomb Belgrade and call it a "peace operation" as long as it's done by the... good guys!

I'm waiting to hear about ANY "crimes" during said period by anyone, just to see with what contemporary event we can compare this.



If you don't feel that the history of colonization and its aftermath needs to be reviewed, we don't really have anything to discuss here as you're kinda proving my point in the process.
Your first sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you are saying here ... are you trying to imply that the rules based democracies that we have in the west are the 'judge, jury and executioner'? To me that sounds a lot more like what Putin currently wants (the dude who annexed Crimea) and a lot less like what the West want.

Where does Belgrade figure into this conversation? Its gone from Falklands, to Crimea to Belgrade? Can you explain the reference as I am not sure that I see the link?

I didn't say anything about the history of colonisation? I told you why Crimea and the Falklands were not really comparable.

If you wish to start a thread on the history of colonization and its aftermath, then please do so. But you willl be doing it using a whole suite of the benefits that colonialism was either directly responsible for, or enabled. Human beings are both brilliant and flawed at the same time and the thing about history ... its full of them!
 
Your first sentence makes no sense. I have no idea what you are saying here ... are you trying to imply that the rules based democracies that we have in the west are the 'judge, jury and executioner'? To me that sounds a lot more like what Putin currently wants (the dude who annexed Crimea) and a lot less like what the West want.

Where does Belgrade figure into this conversation? Its gone from Falklands, to Crimea to Belgrade? Can you explain the reference as I am not sure that I see the link?

I didn't say anything about the history of colonisation? I told you why Crimea and the Falklands were not really comparable.

If you wish to start a thread on the history of colonization and its aftermath, then please do so. But you willl be doing it using a whole suite of the benefits that colonialism was either directly responsible for, or enabled. Human beings are both brilliant and flawed at the same time and the thing about history ... its full of them!
The discussion was about self-determination.

Asking settlers 100 years after no one else has been present to decide if they're settlers or not doesn't feel proper.
And it also doesn't make sense when some nations want to keep control of lands that are far removed from their core nation.

Crimea and Serbia are merely involved because the same powers (and a large part of their citizens) seem to be okay with their nations making these actions but are very quick to point out how unjust it is when others do it. Failing to see how it's unjust on both sides is what's highlighted here. They're both rotten apples. It's not about which part of it is rotten, it's just the fact that it is indeed rotten, both of them, yet only one gets acknowledged as such. Because apparently planting a rotten apple and enjoying the apple juice years later is all fine for one side.
 
The discussion was about self-determination.

Asking settlers 100 years after no one else has been present to decide if they're settlers or not doesn't feel proper.
And it also doesn't make sense when some nations want to keep control of lands that are far removed from their core nation.

Crimea and Serbia are merely involved because the same powers (and a large part of their citizens) seem to be okay with their nations making these actions but are very quick to point out how unjust it is when others do it. Failing to see how it's unjust on both sides is what's highlighted here. They're both rotten apples. It's not about which part of it is rotten, it's just the fact that it is indeed rotten, both of them, yet only one gets acknowledged as such. Because apparently planting a rotten apple and enjoying the apple juice years later is all fine for one side.
I agree with some of your ideas. But, by your principles we should depopulate our entire continent as most of our populations are descendants of invaders, the sons of rotten apples that commited crimes. Italy, Spain, The UK and France* should accomodate their long-lost brothers in their lands**, and pay reparations to the descendants of slaves, and of course, to the native population that has suffered 500 years or more of European imperialism***. Lets punish the grandsons¹⁰ for the crimes of their ancestors!.

*France should receive and pay reparations to the entire population of Haiti.
**we will make genetic tests, those who have at least 30% of native dna will be allowed to remain here, the rest, back to Asia, Oceanía, Europe or Africa (after paying reparations!)
*** i hope that the European Union is ready to receive at least 100 million new citizens! And the UK ready to receive millions of Americans!
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Again, while the question of "how far in the past do you have to go before time legitimizes wrongful conquest" a.k.a. "should we give the Americas back to the Amerindians and England back to the Celts" is an interesting one, it is irrelevant to the Falklands question. Before British settlement, the human population of the islands was zero plus some passing sailors, and, despite vague British, Spanish, and French claims, the islands were governed by no one. They are one of the few places on earth that don't have a tediously tragic history of conquest and depopulation (unless you count the native wildlife[1]).

Geographic proximity, incidentally, has never been recognized as granting the right to land. Much of Argentina is closer to Santiago than to Buenos Aires, but it would be ridiculous to therefore give that land to Chile in spite of historical borders and the wishes of the inhabitants.

[1] I would support both Britain and Argentina giving up their claims to the Falklands and turning them into a seal sanctuary, but I do not think that this is within the realm of the politically possible. The Falkland wolf is, alas, extinct, so cannot have the islands returned to it.
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
The problem with the Falklands is that it creates a precedent for accepting colonialism.

It's not an independent country that emerged from colonists, like most of the Americas itself and parts of the Australasia region. It still belongs to the UK. It's an act of continued colonialism.

The only reason geographic proximity isn't recognized as right to land is because the ones that have to approve it don't want to. Which is pretty much the UK and France. They're part of the rule making committee, do you think it's in their best interest to do this?

Remember how Portugal was dealt with?
I don't recall the same being done with either the UK or France.
 
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
The problem with the Falklands is that it creates a precedent for accepting colonialism.

It's not an independent country that emerged from colonists, like most of the Americas itself and parts of the Australasia region. It still belongs to the UK. It's an act of continued colonialism.

The only reason geographic proximity isn't recognized as right to land is because the ones that have to approve it don't want to. Which is pretty much the UK and France. They're part of the rule making committee, do you think it's in their best interest to do this?

Remember how Portugal was dealt with?
I don't recall the same being done with either the UK or France.

Portugal was ruling over populations that didn't want to be ruled over in India and Africa.

It's not colonialism if the population living in an area wants to be ruled over and that includes the Falklands and various other British and French etc holdings that don't want independence... no more then Canada, Australia, the United States, the Caribbean Islands etc.

Heck if Thatcher hadn't started negotiations for handing it back the the PRC, Hong Kong would be among said examples of not wanting independence or in this case returning to Chinese rule especially now given the shit those communist bastards are up to.

Honestly just stop it's clear you are anglophobic.
 
Do you know what the -phobic part means?

Yes I'm aware of what it means, it means fear or afraid.

In this context and many others however used to mean hatred eg like in the term homophobic or the term islamophobic etc. So since those terms are used in such a manner so is this, you clearly don't like or respect the UK or it's people including the Falkland Islanders of you wouldn't be so damn stubborn and pig headed about the non issue.

Definition: Anti-English sentiment or Anglophobia means opposition to, dislike of, fear of, hatred of, or the oppression of England and/or English people. Generally, the term is sometimes used more loosely as a synonym for anti-British sentiment. Its opposite is Anglophilia.
 
Anglophiliacs tend to feel that anyone saying anything about England or the British (which for some reason the English consider themselves above Scots and Welsh despite not admitting it, exhibit A*) is an "Anglophobe". Wooh, we're all scared of the Anglos....

*Anglophilia or Anglophobia is something that should concentrate on the English alone, yet I love how you're using it when it's referred to the UK or British people in general, ignoring that even the Scots and to a degree the Welsh don't even like England that much themselves, being British :D


How about you answer the questions in a polite manner rather than engage in personal attacks and pretend that someone hates an entire peoples or nation just because you cannot articulate a proper argument?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How about you answer the questions in a polite manner rather than engage in personal attacks and pretend that someone hates an entire peoples or nation just because you cannot articulate a proper argument?

I did properly refute your argument in previous post, you just ignored it because you want to insist the islands are colonialism and shouldn't be ruled by Great Britain.

You clearly have some kind of bone to pick with or otherwise a disdain for the islanders or the British as a hole so hyperbolic or not it's a valid label.
 
I did properly refute your argument in previous post, you just ignored it because you want to insist the islands are colonialism and shouldn't be ruled by Great Britain.

You clearly have some kind of bone to pick with or otherwise a disdain for the islanders or the British as a hole so hyperbolic or not it's a valid label.
I have nothing against holes.

As for your argument on Portugal, it's rather invalid. You're talking about the decolonization process, not the pressure to decolonize.


Also, Portugal lost most of its African holdings due to Soviet influence, not because the people didn't want them. The people didn't really want any Europeans ruling over them anyway. They were also weaker militarily than most and I don't recall Macau being as contested as Hong Kong was.


And apparently you're fine with eliminating locals (ie north America, Australia) and/or settling people (ie random islands anywhere) in lands far away from the base nation but ruling over locals is a big no-no. That fees like a horrid take to have, but I suppose since you're talking about "150 years ago", we can get over it..
 
I have nothing against holes.

Oh great my dyslexia slipped through! :eek:

And apparently you're fine with eliminating locals (ie north America, Australia) and/or settling people (ie random islands anywhere) in lands far away from the base nation but ruling over locals is a big no-no. That fees like a horrid take to have, but I suppose since you're talking about "150 years ago", we can get over it..

I was quite clear a few post ago that I find what happened in America and Australia during colonization regrettable and don't approve of it, and that extends to other genocides be it the holocaust, the holodomor, the assyrian, armenian and greek genocides or what happened to the tasmanians and many other people across history although that should have gone without saying!

That I also stated (albeit the wording could have been better) that I don't see what good dwelling on does anyone (more or less, I think my wording was different) any good doesn't mean I don't care or dismiss it all out of hand and think people should get over it but if that is what you take away from it I can't help that and it's your problem not mine. I'd rather focus on constructive efforts to rectify wrongs and move forward constructively rather then bitterness such as the highly successful Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty Seattlements process used here in my country to compensate and right treaty breaches and other abuses during the settlement of New Zealand or any similar comparible programs in Australia and Canada (whatever they maybe).
 
Oh great my dyslexia slipped through! :eek:

had to use anything presented to ease any perceived tension :D

I was quite clear a few post ago that I find what happened in America and Australia during colonization regrettable and don't approve of it, and that extends to other genocides be it the holocaust, the holodomor, the assyrian, armenian and greek genocides or what happened to the tasmanians and many other people across history although that should have gone without saying!

Yes, that is very welcome. But...

That I also stated (albeit the wording could have been better) that I don't see what good dwelling on does anyone (more or less, I think my wording was different) any good doesn't mean I don't care or dismiss it all out of hand and think people should get over it but if that is what you take away from it I can't help that and it's your problem not mine. I'd rather focus on constructive efforts to rectify wrongs and move forward constructively rather then bitterness such as the highly successful Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty Seattlements process used here in my country to compensate and right treaty breaches and other abuses during the settlement of New Zealand or any similar comparible programs in Australia and Canada (whatever they maybe).

What you're saying here does not really apply to our reality.
First off, 4 of those aren't even accepted by the responsible parties (Soviets/Russians and Ottomans/Turks) as "doing anything wrong". I'm not sure on the status of Tasmania but last I recall, the British/Australians claimed there was nothing of the sort either.

It's not about bitterness, it's about having double standards. I don't see these (at least the first two) scoring any negative diplomatic points over time as part of their past actions that they haven't even shown a sign of remorse, in fact we're currently in a situation of some sort of a repeat of an aggressive version of Holodomor. It feels that a lot of people are saying things but they're not backed up by actions. Which leaves open windows or even doors, for repeat actions. Or simply turning the other way.
 
Clearly, we need to do some gene manipulation to recreate the Neanderthals, so Homo Sapiens can turn this messed up world back over to them.

Nearly every square meter of land on earth (aside from some parts of the Polar regions) was once occupied by people who were forcibly driven out or marginalized. That means, practically everyone is an "invader", or the descendent of an invader. At what point do you stop trying to enforce prior rights? At what point is it insane to even attempt to rectify the past? How many hundred million people do you need to move?

My ancestors were from Hungary. After Austria-Hungary's defeat in WWI, Austria was punished by having its ethnic minority regions spun off, as well as having 100% of its coastline taken away (most of it given to Italy) to prevent it from ever becoming a naval power again. Once liberated from Austria, Hungary's situation was technically "questionable" as to whether or not they were still "at war", and whether the surrender of Austria-Hungary applied to independent Hungary, which had already disarmed according to the terms of the A-H surrender. Months later, the various commissions set up by the Allied powers decided to create new homelands for ethnic minorities, many of which had emigrated into Hungary over the previous centuries. In the ensuing Trianon Treaty, 60% of Hungary was taken away, and split up between Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia, mostly done by people with no understanding of the economic and logistical considerations on the ground, as opposed to what looked good on a map. Hungary's repeated attempts in the League of Nations to schedule plebiscites for the people in former Hungarian territory to establish which county they wanted to live in were rudely rebuffed. Czechoslovakia threatened to invade over it, claiming that requesting a plebiscite was "warmongering" by an almost completely disarmed nation. "Self-determination" wasn't the reason, otherwise plebiscites would have established the will of the people living in the disputed areas in the matter. 20 years later, when WWII broke out, Hungary was lumped in with the Axis powers for wanting its own people back, and forced to choose between siding with Germany or the Soviets. It didn't end well.

At this point in time, a century after the dismemberment of the country, those lost areas are mostly (not entirely, it seems) integrated into their respective new countries, and I consider Hungary's claims as having lapsed. Injustice was done (yes, Hungary itself had taken the land 1000+ years ago from people who had also taken it centuries earlier), but at this point, it's too late and too convoluted to correct ANY of those injustices.

One can try to prevent injustice when it happens, or in cases where it's possible, try to seek compensation or justice for those who were deprived within their own lifetimes, but anything beyond that becomes increasingly complicated and absurd. Giving reparations to the great-grandchildren of a deprived populace does nothing to help those who actually suffered, and merely stokes resentment and discrimination against those descendants.
 
@Kovax you're saying all the right things but you're also missing the point at the first part which I assume is directed at me.

It's not a matter of granting lands back to people that no longer exist. It's simply acknowledging that certain people have written logs of who they've displaced. The matter of reparations is worthwhile, but typically reparations are paid towards the winners, not the losers. Hence why Cyprus for example cannot claim reparations from Turkey although it should have every legal and moral right. Instead, Cyprus even has to fund the occupied territories!

The peoples who have "gotten away with it" are profiting/enjoying (not sure how it applies in English) a lot of these circumstances. They gain from having larger countries, they gain from having former colonies, they gain from having an additional workforce willing to migrate to their country and at the same time, the regions that were literally looted still have not recovered or developed in a way that could offer a similar lifestyle to the colonial homelands.

It's not a matter of destroying everything that was built and neutralizing everything by making every place in the world the same in terms of resources and economic tools. But can we stop pretending this is not the world that has been created by these major powers?

And I'll repeat that certain aspects of this colonial mindset exist today. In a social sense, they exist in the homelands as they still drain the resources (which we call 'human resources' nowadays) from their colonies but in a different manner (i.e not necessarily by force, but by economic might) and on top of that, you still have a bunch of islands all over the world flying British, French or even American flags.
Colonial nations are a thing, they've been a thing for 200-300 years, the first modern nation is probably the United States, a colonial nation. This is the reality we live in. But colonies themselves should not be part of our world. We've tried to eradicate those in the 60s and 70s, yet they're still around. Crying "self-determination" seems very fake here. If they really want self-determination, declare independence. Proper independence.
 
I think it's relevant to point out the injustices of the past, so hopefully they're never repeated, but once the original victims or their direct dependents have passed away, it's far too late for reparations, in my opinion. As for people who have been marginalized in the fairly recent past and are still suffering the side effects, that's a very gray area. I don't think they have a "legal right" to compensation, but morally there probably should be some form or assistance to improve their situation. Beyond that, you're punishing the descendants of the victors for the crimes or excesses of their ancestors, which would be another injustice. I have no wish to be punished for something that someone else's ancestors did, merely because I'm of the same nationality, race, or religion.

As for the Falkland Islands, the inhabitants have no wish to change their nationality, and there's no drive for independence because they're well aware that they would be unable to defend themselves against a very likely invasion. They're descendants of the original settlers of a previously uninhabited island, so there's no legal justification for Argentina to claim the island, and no previous inhabitants to return it to. Proximity does not mean ownership, so Argentina's claims have no legal or moral justification.
 
  • 5Like
  • 1
Reactions:
As for the Falkland Islands, the inhabitants have no wish to change their nationality, and there's no drive for independence because they're well aware that they would be unable to defend themselves against a very likely invasion. They're descendants of the original settlers of a previously uninhabited island, so there's no legal justification for Argentina to claim the island, and no previous inhabitants to return it to. Proximity does not mean ownership, so Argentina's claims have no legal or moral justification.

Well, apart from some bloody interactions between British, French and Spanish the first recorded inhabitants of the Islands after Argentina's independence were Spanish speakers.

They were .. removed by the Americans of all people. Then the British invaded and pretty much displaced every Argentinean (because that's what they were considering themselves at that point) by the mid1800s. And a few thousand British settlers were introduced over the next 50 years. So I'm not sure how their descendants can be considered "the original settlers", as that requires writing off a lot of history.

The issue was never resolved and the UN considered it a gray zone. Argentina did a blunder by invading the islands of course, but that doesn't mean they have no right. They do have a right, but they also made a wrong, pun intended. You can call it sour grapes or anything, but it's still inconceivable that colonies are still held around the world.