Falkland Islanders have the right to Self-determination

Rebuttal 1: Defining peoples My opponent agrees that the UN has outlined self-determination as a right given to "all peoples", yet he argues that in this situation the UN has not exactly defined what a "people" constitutes; or at least if the Falkland islanders can be defined as one in this situation anyway.My rebuttal is that my opponent's claim of the UN (in this situation) not defining what a "people" constitutes is in fact false. UN General Assembly Resolution 51/84 that reaffirms “universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination” states that it welcomes:"The progressive exercise of the right to self-determination by peoples under colonial, foreign or alien occupation and their emergence into sovereign statehood and independence". [1]This verifies that in this situation, the UN considers the overall inhabitants of colonial Territories to constitute "peoples" and affirms their right to self-determination and independence. This is also backed up by a report of the international conference organised by the UNESCO Division of Human Rights, Democracy and Peace, which stated: "The plain meaning of the term “all peoples” includes peoples under Colonial or alien subjugation or domination, those under occupation, Indigenous peoples". [2]So a "people" in this situation would be the whole population under a particular Colonial status, or in this case, a "Non-Self-Governing Territory". I would like to refer back to United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514, which is the “Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples". And also "assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories". [3]If the Falkland Islanders are not a people (or even a country) then why are they listed as a "Non-Self-Governing Territory" by the United Nations?Then recall the first and second declarations of UN General Assembly resolution 1514 that affirm all peoples have the right to self-determination. [3] Concluding that the Falkland islanders as the entire population of a non-self-governing territory have this right under International Law.Rebuttal 2: Self-determination as an unconditional right and Will of peoples during conflictsThe United Nations is necessary to have an open floor for representatives of all nations to address global issues and create communication. Thanks to the UN we have a solid international community, with set rules, which means countries can be more open and less suspicious of each other. It has allowed us to move into the post-World War period with a more unified world.My opponent is attempting to denounce self-determination as an unconditional and unalienable right by referring to hypocrisies of UN members like that of the USA in particular. While it is true that a lot of nations have contradicted UN Law, it is important to remember that these countries individually are not the ones that give out the right to self-determination, the UN Charter does. Certain countries may think they can get away with breaking UN law sometimes, probably because they are part of the Security Council, or are countries more powerful than they think the UN will confront. However great strengths like this are not ones Argentina really has anyway. For this debate in particular I think my opponent should explain with evidence what makes Argentina comparable to countries like the USA in this case. In 1982 the UN Security Council issued Resolution 502, which demanded that Argentina withdraw. Argentina did not do so but no UN sanctions were applied. This representing the different political positions within the UN where Argentina had some support, particularly from the other South American nations and Russia. The UK however, was very successful in organising sanctions from the EU and a number of other nations all of which hurt Argentina. In particular the financial restrictions applied by the City of London brought Argentina very close to another default. [4]This would be no better for Argentina today as it is currently in an economic mess suffering high inflation rates and uncontrollable debt so the threat of sanctions is not something Argentina can afford to stand up to. [5]Despite Argentina not getting UN sanctions in 1982, today it would be a very different story since 1995 as the ICJ made it clear that the right of people’s to self-determination is today a right of "erga omnes". I will now refer to a judgment made by the International Court of Justice's 1995 ruling in East Timor (Portugal v Australia): "In the Court's view, Portugal's assertion that the right of peoples to self-determination, as it evolved from the Charter and United Nations practices, has an erga omnes character is irreproachable. The principle of self-determination of peoples has been recognised by the United Nations Charter and in the jurisprudence of the Court; it is one of the essential principles of contemporary international law." [6]The ICJ made it clear that the right of people’s to self-determination is today a right of "erga omnes". Erga omnes is a Latin phrase, which literally means "towards all" and is also used in legal terminology. Self-determination is a universal right, Con is wrong. [7]Now I will explain what makes erga omnes so strong…The Institute of International Law adopted the following resolution in respect of obligations “erga omnes” in international law:"a) an obligation under General international law that a State owes in any given case to the international community, in view of its common values and its concern for compliance, so that a breach of the obligation enables all States to take action". [8]The right to self-determination is an obligation (erga omnes) so the international community could punish Argentina for not respecting it. Particularly sanctions imposed on Argentina by the UK/EU for not carrying out their erga omnes obligations. This is why it won’t really matter if the Falklands are “military-less” someday. Ultimately Argentina should worry about violating self-determination in this case because it can be legally hit by sanctions (or even military action) suffering a lack of trade, allies etc. Something of which Argentina could not handle. Additionally my opponent argued about why Quebec has not managed to secede from Canada if self-determination is paramount. This relates back to what I argued in Rebuttal 1. Quebec is not a Non-Self-Governing Territory. [3]Sources: [1] http://www.un.org... [2] http://au.tamilnet.com... (page 54)[3] http://www.un.org... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://www.businessinsider.com... [6] http://www.icj-cij.org... (Paragraph 29)[7] http://definitions.uslegal.com... [8] http://www.idi-iil.org...