Gibraltar ought in justice to be returned to Spain

For a country to legitimately hold a certain territory, it must be able to hold a just title to it. I will argue that the United Kingdom holds no such title to Gibraltar.To approach the issue one must put it in its historical context.The British presence on Gibraltar stems from the Spanish war of succession, in which two different dynastic houses (the Bourbons and the Hapsburg) were vying for the Spanish throne. England stepped in on behalf of the Hapsburg contender, the archduke Charles of Austria, and landed on Gibraltar (along with Spanish troops loyal to the archduque and others) carrying his flag rather than their own. For good or for ill, the grandson of Louis XIV, Philip of Anjou, wins the war and the treaty of Utrecht is signed.(1)As the conquest was not in the name of England, but of the pretender to the Spanish throne, it is this treaty,(2) which cedes Gibraltar to the British crown, and not the conquest itself which is pointed to as the source of the British claim to Gibraltar. This is the claim that I hope to demonstrate is illegitimate.The treaty treats of Gibraltar in its article X (the full text of which can be accessed by the link I provide as my second source) gives the crown of Great Britain "the full and entire property of the town and property of Gibraltar", the treaty goes on to specify however that "the above-named property [is] yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about". From this, and in more modern terms, one can see that the treaty does not cede sovereignty, as sovereignty cannot exist without territorial jurisdiction. The legal arrangement therefore is more akin to that of overseas bases today than a colony, and any assertion of sovereignty goes beyond the legal title it is supposedly based on.Apart from this initial problem (which is in and of itself lethal to any claim to sovereignty) there is the question of further violations of the treaty. There are, granted, parts of the treaty that have been abrogated by later agreements signed by Spain, such as the prohibition on the residence in Gibraltar "under any pretence whatsoever either [of] Jews or Moors". In international law, however, the abrogation of part of a treaty does not invalidate the whole. This means that the Crown and Government of Great Britain is still bound by the limitations and obligations of the treaty. The treaty recognized only the property of the town and the original port,(3) red in the image, whereas the British claim has been, shall we say, expansive. Not only have they repeatedly changed the border, occupying the neutral zone left by the Spanish, they are now expanding into what must by necessity be recognized as Spanish territorial waters (as the treaty recognizes none to Britain) by filling in the ocean with sand and rock.(4)Finally, if Gibraltar were to attempt to gain its independence, the property of Gibraltar would first have to be offered Spain as per the final paragraph of Utrecht's Article X: "in case it shall hereafter seem meet to the Crown of Great Britain to grant, sell or by any means to alienate therefrom the propriety of the said town of Gibraltar (...) the preference of having the sale shall always be given to the Crown of Spain..." This reinforces my claim that the treaty cedes only property and not sovereignty and precludes any arrangement other than either a British military base and town on Spanish soil or full Spanish sovereignty.Conclusion:To sum up I am proposing 3 arguments against the British claim of a just title to Gibraltar and one against Gibraltar's independence.1. The conquest of Gibraltar was not in the name of England but of a Spanish pretender to the throne (no right of conquest).2. The Treaty of Utrecht recognizes no territorial jurisdiction, which amounts to the recognition of a British military base on Spanish territory (a European Guantanamo Bay).3. The terms of the treaty have been repeatedly violated by the British.4. Gibraltar cannot be independent as it would entail a change of property from Britain to another (as of yet non-existent) nation, and the treaty states that Spain would have first rights in this case.Sources:(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://bit.ly...(4) http://bit.ly...