Britain should accept a Hong Kong-style handover of the Falklands

Argentina’s claim to what its citizens call the Islas Malvinas rests on solid foundations. Upon independence from Spain in 1816, Argentina inherited sovereignty over the islands under territorial succession. Argentina arguably exercised governmental authority over the archipelago between 1820 and 1833, appointing officials and raising its flag.

The islands lie 480km (300 miles) from the Argentine mainland, while sitting 13,000km from Britain – a relic of empire sustained by military might rather than natural association.

International legal scholars Marcelo Kohen and Facundo Rodriguez have together articulated the standard legal arguments for Buenos Aires. Milei is, in fact, repeating them, especially by citing the Joint Declaration.

Their arguments invoke uti possidetis juris – asserting Argentina inherited Spanish sovereignty upon independence and characterising Britain’s 1833 expulsion of Argentine authorities as illegal usurpation. They reject self-determination for current islanders, deeming them a “transplanted” colonial population rather than indigenous people. While Britain emphasises the islanders’ overwhelming 2013 referendum supporting British sovereignty, Argentine jurists frame the dispute as territorial integrity versus colonial occupation – a fundamentally irreconcilable doctrinal clash.

Argentina’s diplomatic protests since 1833 prevent acquiescence to British rule. In January 1833, British naval forces expelled Argentine authorities and settlers by force, an act Argentina immediately protested and had never recognised as legitimate. For almost two centuries, successive Argentine governments have maintained this claim with unwavering consistency. The United Nations had recognised the dispute’s legitimacy in Resolution 2065 in 1965, inviting both parties to negotiate a peaceful settlement. That invitation remains unanswered.