Gibraltar ought in justice to be returned to Spain

I at least have enjoyed it. As is generally the case in these debates we will not be adding arguments in this last round, but will be attempting a rebuttal of my Con's arguments. On a side note, does anyone else find a delicious sort of irony in the fact that my avatar is the image of a prominent English Statesman (albeit previous to the usurpation of Gibraltar)?1. "The age of the claims ended long ago out of kings and queens"My opponent seems to be laboring under the impression that in international law treaties have expiration dates. This is not the case. Unless a treaty provides for a term of validity (as China's treaty with the United Kingdom over Hong Kong), the treaty is binding until such a time as a new agreement is reached. (See source 1 on round 3) Aside from the fact that in both the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we still have kings and queens, international agreements don't become extinct with a new form of government or the passing of the centuries. Both parties to the treaty consider it the title of legitimacy in the contentious issue of Gibraltar, and so what the treaty entitles the UK to do or not to do is very much relevant. Con also states that he doubts the world would listen. The fact that "the world" listens or does not listen is beside the point, as we are attempting to decide whether something ought to be done in justice, not whether or not it is likely to be done or whether or not the international community will expect it to be done. The fact is, however, as I have already mentioned before, that the UN committee on decolonization has indeed listened (source 8 round 3) and has resolved the following:1. Gibraltar is a colony2. The colonial situation of Gibraltar destroys Spain's national unity and territorial integrity and is incompatible with resolution 1514 (XV paragraph 6, 1960, on decolonization in general. In the case of Gibraltar the UN has not recognized the right to self-determination.3. The question of Gibraltar must be resolved by bilateral negotiations between Spain and the United Kingdom (not by a referendum in Gibraltar)4. Only the UN can decide when the process of decolonization has been completed, and until then the colony will remain on the UN's list of territories to decolonize. I believe that just may count as the world listening, the question is when the UK will listen to the world.2. It is a contradiction to grant "full and entire property" and yet no territorial jurisdiction, given the lack of clarity control defaults to Great Britain as the party with supposedly full control. I have full and entire property of my home, and yet Spanish law applies here, property and sovereignty are two very different things. More to the point, the United States has full and entire property of several naval bases in Europe, one of which is in Madrid in Torrejón de Ardoz. They are there due to an agreement with the Spanish government, this agreement, however, does not turn it into American territory. This is not a controversial statement, but a matter of international law. The status assigned to Gibraltar in the treaty of Utrecht are in no way contradictory, and in no way singular, as it has been common practice from time immemorial for a treaty to grant garrisons without recognizing sovereignty over an area. The only thing that makes Gibraltar contentious is the British tendency to disregard the terms of the treaty, which leads us to. ..3. UK violations are "technically true, however it is little more than propaganda". I thank my opponent for recognizing that it is true that the UK has repeatedly violated the treaty. It is of little importance if the amount of Spanish territorial waters being robbed is subjectively considered great or small, although as the area it expands into is not "unused" but has rather been an important resource for local fishermen it arguably isn't small. The fact is that a violation has taken place, and that these violations have been constant. Con mentions an apparent contradiction in the fact that the town is given no rights to the surrounding water, but rights to a port. This is no contradiction, however, as the treaty does grant right of passage through Spanish territorial waters to ships going to and from Gibraltar, a situation which is not uncommon either, particularly in areas like the Strait of Gibraltar which has no international waters, but through which ships from many nations must pass. There were two failed attempts on Spain's part to retake Gibraltar, as my opponent notes. These, however, were not in the context of a war. They were simple sieges (although one quite persistent) and little or no change resulted in the occupied area. The moment of change came in the 18th century during an epidemic. The Spanish Crown granted a humanitarian corridor just north of the British-occupied section of Gibraltar for a hospital, as there were no appropriate installations in the town or fort. After the epidemic passed, the British stayed. Hardly an expansion by right of conquest. As to where it would be on the map, the area which was take in this way is the area on which the hospital and airport currently sit.4. Gibraltar doesn't want to be independent anywaysThis may be true, although the movement for independence in Gibraltar is far from negligible. The point, however, is not to say that it is being attempted, but that it is not legally possible and therefore should not be cited as a possibility. I take this point as conceded. Conclusion:We have seen that according to international law, as well as the declarations of both parties involved in it, the treaty of Utrecht is still valid and binding. From this, and from an examination of the content of the treaty and the history of the English possession of Gibraltar, this treaty has been constantly violated. We have also seen that this position is not solely defended by Spain, but is reinforced by declarations by the United Nations Decolonization Committee. Declarations which reinforce the binding character of the treaty and recognize Spain's claim over Gibraltar. The treaty also implies, and the United Nations expressly declare, that there is no right to self-determination for Gibraltar, as it is not a sovereign entity. All referendums, therefore, have no bearing upon the situation. On this evidence there is no rational position other than a recognition that Gibraltar ought to be returned to Spain, and therefore, in this more modest forum, that we ought to recognize that the resolution stands. ¡Good luck in the school year!