BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Argentina created a permanent settlement

Vernet sought the permission of the British consulate before establishing his colony – clearly even he thought there was ambiguity over the status of the islands. Moreover the British and Spanish settlements ended not because of commercial failure but because of indirect pressure caused by war.  If Argentinian sovereignty survives expulsion through war then presumably British sovereignty could survive temporary abandonment due to war. It is also difficult to describe a settlement as permanent when it was on the point of collapse when the British took it over.
Distance

Proximity is a poor reason to make a claim to sovereignty as the Falklands lie outside the 200 mile limit that Argentina claims in the southern Atlantic.[1] The Falkland Islands today have effective self-government.  They have their own elected legislature and an independent judiciary.  The islands are also economically self-sufficient but for the cost of the Military Garrison – which is only necessary because of the Argentinian claim. Moreover with advances in communication the location of the settlement being thousands of miles away from Britain no longer makes much difference when it comes to governing the islands. [1] R. Reginald & J.M. Elliot, 'Tempest in a Teapot : The Falkland Islands War', The Borgo Press, 1983, http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article11.html
Popular sovereignty

The British colony was established only though the expulsion of the Argentinian colony.  It does not matter how long ago this happened - as the legal maxim goes ‘title does not pass with theft’. Colonists do not have a right to self-determination.  It would be absurd if a group of people could invade some land, drive off the people living there; and then state that they have acquired the right to decide for themselves to stay there.  The natural consequence of that principle would be that anyone could gain property through ethnic cleansing and long enough adverse possession.
Argentina created a permanent settlement

Argentina formally took posession of the islands in 1820 and established permanent settlements in that decade. Previous settlements by Spain and Britain had been military in nature (garrisons). Britain did not protest to these acts of sovereignty. The Argentinean settlements were only ended by illegal military force, the first strike by an American warship, acting on its own initiative and encouraged by the British charge de affairs in Buenos Aires, and the second and last blow by a British taskforce.
Popular sovereignty

The people of the Falklands are an established community with a right to self-determination.  They are not a transitory population – many of them can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th Century.  They are the only successful colonists of the Falklands. The Argentinian claim of sovereignty through inheritance of the Spanish title (uti possedetis[1]) is not accepted as a general article of international law, and even if it was it would have to be subordinate to the Islander’s right of self-determination. It is absurd that Argentina claims that the Islanders do not have a right to self-determination because they replaced an indigenous Argentinian population 200 years ago when Argentina consists largely of Spanish colonists who replaced the indigenous Native American population in roughly the same time period. [1] That newly independent nations inherit the claims of the old colonial states along the colonial boundaries. Dixon, Martin, Textbook on International Law, 6th ed., Oxford, 2007,  p.163, http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aS2fv32rvMcC&printsec=frontcover#v=on...
Blood has been spilt

If Britain returned the islands, it would be a profound insult to the soldiers who fought and died to liberate them in 1982. The campaign was honourably fought in defence of the rights of the people of the Falkland Islands to determine their own future. It was fought against a military dictatorship which used the campaign in a cynical attempt to divert domestic attention away from its oppressive, corrupt and incompetent rule. One of the positive consequences of British victory was that the military junta fell from power and Argentina became democratic. So Britain, Argentina and the Falkland islanders all have cause to celebrate the outcome of the 1982-83 war.
Argentina inherited Spain’s claim to sovereignty

The fact that Spain never formally renounced sovereignty is irrelevant – when Britain asserted its territorial claim Spain acquiesced. Additionally if Spain’s claim did not lapse when it evacuated its colony then surely neither did Britain’s.  Nor is it obvious that Argentina should have inherited the Spanish claim to the Falklands – they lie 250 miles off the coast of mainland South America. Britain was of course not going to immediately contest the 1816 claim as she did not yet recognise Argentina so far as Britain was concern the Argentines were not sovereign and did not have sovereignty over any of their territory – at the time the UK recognised Spanish sovereignty over the mainland that Argentina claimed.
The islanders are the only ones who can decide.

It is the Falkland Islanders themselves who have to decide whose sovereignty they should fall under; British, Argentine or even potentially their own. The Falkland Islands are a democracy with a democratically elected Legislative Assembly and Executive Council (made from members of the Legislative Assembly). Similarly it has its own courts. The self-determination of the islanders is prominent in their constitution.[1] The Falklands have therefore been recognised by the British government as a nation just like the Scots, Welsh and Irish. This means that the decision on any change of sovereignty in the future will be up to the islanders alone to make.[2] It is no longer up to Britain to simply cede the islands even if they wanted to. [1] The Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008, Statutory Instruments, 2008 no. 0000, http://www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The%20Falkland%20Islands%20Constitution%20Order%202008.pdf# [2] Ivanov, Lyubomir, ‘The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People’, February 2003, http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/Lyubospaper.htm
Value

If military costs are excluded, the islands are self-supporting. They are of great value because they bring rights to fishing and oil exploration. If the oil that has been detected in the islands’ territory can be extracted economically, the islands will be an even greater asset to Britain.[1] Strategically, they provide NATO with an airbase in the south Atlantic.  Port Stanley was used as a supply base for the Royal Navy in WW1, resulting in the Battle of the Falkland Islands.[2] Moreover ‘value’ means more than products and services – the value of the inhabitant’s right to self-determination is priceless [1] Swint, Brian, ‘Oil Grab in Falkland Island Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy’, Bloomberg, 25 January 2012, http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-25/oil-grab-in-falkland-islands... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands
International relations

Britain already has a working relationship with Argentina. In 2001, Tony Blair became the first British prime minister to visit Argentina since the 1982 conflict.[1] The agreements made with the Menem government show the potential for peaceful cooperation without returning the islands. In any case, direct relations with Argentina are of little strategic or economic importance to Britain, except where they affect the Falkland Islands. Trade policy is handled on both sides at a supra-national level, through the EU and Mercosur respectively. The Falkland Islands are simply not like other examples of decolonisation. Elsewhere Britain has given independence to the indigenous peoples of its former colonial possessions, responding to their desire for self-determination. The Falklands have no indigenous population – their inhabitants regard themselves as British in identity and have no desire to be ruled by Argentina, indeed Britain’s Prime Minister has gone so far as to say the Argentines are the ones who are sounding colonial.[2] [1] BBC News, ‘Blair’s historic Argentina visit’, 2 August 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1467847.stm [2] BBC News ‘Argentina outraged at Cameron’s ‘colonialism’ remarks’, 19 January 2012, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16625963
Length of occupation

It would not be possible for the UK to argue that it has a claim through prescription and the length of occupation because the original taking over the Argentine colony was not legitimate, as the islands were not res nullis. In the Chamizal Case (Mexico vs United States), the ICJ rejected the right to title by prescription invoked by the United States because "the physical possession taken by citizens of the United States and the political control exercised by the local and Federal Governments, have been constantly challenged and questioned by the Republic of Mexico, through its accredited diplomatic agents."[1] [1] The Chamizal Case (Mexico, United States), Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 15 June 1911, Vol.XI, pp.309-347
Argentina inherited Spain’s claim to sovereignty

Both Argentina and the islands were under Spainish sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Argentina – they were therefore part of the same territory – doing so free of British intervention (or complaints) from 1770 until 1811, i.e. 41 years. Upon independence from Spain, Argentina rightfully asserted sovereignty over the former Spanish territory, a principle that would latter be known under international law as uti possidetis juris. Britain did not claim sovereignty over the islands when Spain left them in 1811. Nor did Britain immediately challenge Argentina’s assertion of sovereignty in 1820, when David Jewett claimed the islands for Argentina, or in 1825, when the first treaty between the new country and Britain was signed.
Value

The islands are of minimal value to Britain. In an era of satellites and long-range ships and aircraft, the islands no longer have strategic value. Maintaining a garrison there is an unnecessary expense. Jorge Luis Borges (an Argentinean writer) likened the 1982 conflict to ‘two bald men fighting over a comb’.[1] [1] ‘Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986)’, http://kirjasto.sci.fi/jlborges.htm
International relations

Returning the islands would vastly improve Britain’s relationship with Argentina and Latin America as a whole. This would help Britain’s diplomatic and economic ties with the region. It would also be consistent with Britain’s post-war policy of decolonisation, which has seen it withdraw from almost every other colonial possession since 1945. Not only has Britain withdrawn from India, Africa, Malaysia and much of the Caribbean, it has also handed back Hong Kong to China – surely a similar case to that of the Falkland islands and Argentina.
Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.

It is not uncommon for legislation to apply in extreme circumstances and not in more routine ones – the right to use violence in defence of the home or self being just one example. If the legislation states that this relates to certain, terminal conditions and those patients shown to be of sound mind, then that’s how the legislation works. Society gives the universal right to free education but not if you’re 46 and decide that you should have done something different at school, the right is confined. That applies here and in most universal rights. Its aim is to solve one particular legal problem, not all of them.
There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.

This risk can be mitigated by making it clear that the elderly, disabled, and others who may feel a burden are genuinely wanted as a part of society but that the right to die is there if they feel it is too much. Any right to die being allowed is not going to be as simple as going to the doctors and getting an injection. In any system there would be checks and balances put in place. There would probably be some form of application process, checks to see if there is any coercion and that it is what the individual really wants as well as probably some form of cooling off period after which the checks would probably be redone before they finally have their chance to exercise their right to die.
The death of one individual has implications for others, which by definition, do not affect the suicide herself.

Obviously nobody is going to compel doctors or others in the medical profession to undertake a procedure of which they do not approve. Indeed doctors are routinely required to give independent advice - so that a patient is aware of the available options - without being required to perform a procedure themselves. The same is true with relatives or friends. There are many issues in life, where we may disagree with someone’s decision but we respect their right to make that decision just as they respect ours to check that they have considered all the implications. In the case of the doctors this is simple professionalism, in the case of loved ones, respect. improve this
Suicide is a rational choice in many situations.

When confronted with chronic pain or with diseases that steadily remove our sense of self – or at least the self of whom we are aware – death has proven to be a sensible option taken by sensible people[i]. It is a simple fact that we all die, our objections to it tend to be based on the idea that it can happen at the hands of others or at a time, or in a manner, not of our choosing. Neither of these issues arise with either assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia. Proposition has no difficulty at all with the suggestion that both procedures should be regulated and take place in safe, medically supported, environments. However, if an individual accepts that death is their preferred option in such a scenario, it is difficult to comprehend of reasons why they should not be allowed to proceed. Our social rejection of murder does not, ultimately relate to death itself but to the denial of choice. With murder someone is denying that person all their future potential so denying their freedom of choice, and this remains the case even if the murder was completely painless. Here, reason tells us, the virtuous act is death and the reservation of that choice. The determining element of humanity is that we are rational beings; a blanket ban – legal and social – on choosing the time and manner of our deaths reflects our primeval fear of a death that comes, unwanted, in the dark of the night, not the mature judgement of modern, thinking (and long-lived) humans. [i] Andy Bloxham. Husband films assisted suicide of wife to prove it was not murder. The Daily Telegraph. 10 March 2011.
Medical science allows us to control death, suicide and euthanasia are sensible corollaries to that.

We now live longer than at any time in the 100,000 years or so of human evolution and longer than the other primates[i]. In many nations we have successfully increased the quantity of life without improving the quality. More to the point, too little thought has been given to the quality of our deaths. Let us consider the example of the cancer patient who opts not to put herself through the agony and uncertainty of chemotherapy. In such a circumstance, we accept that a person may accept the certainty of death with grace and reason rather than chasing after a slim probability of living longer but in pain. All proposition is arguing is that this approach can also apply to other conditions, which may not be terminal in the strict sense of the world but certainly lead to the death of that person in any meaningful sense. The application of medical science to extend a life, long after life is ‘worth living’ or would be possible to live without these interventions cannot be considered a moral good for its own sake. Many find that they are facing the prospect of living out the rest of their days in physical pain or are losing their memory. As a result, some may see ‘going out at the top of their game’ as the better, and more natural, option. [i] Caleb E Finch. Evolution of Human Lifespan and the Diseases of Aging: Roles of Infection, Inflammation, and Nutrition. Proceding of the National Academy of Sciences of the united States of America. 12 October 2009.
The decision to die is a deeply personal one - it is no business of the state.

Ultimately, the decision to die is a personal one, it may affect others but, clearly it has the greatest impact on the person who decides to die. Clearly those who remain behind will have to deal with the consequences of that death and the end of their relationship with that person but, one would hope, that would be the case if she had died of natural causes at a later date. Furthermore the experience of watching someone die can by as traumatic, or more so, for the carer or loved one than it is for the individual concerned. What it clearly is not, is an issue for legislators and other strangers who have no connection to the person involved. There are deeply personal issues such as love, death, sex, and reproduction where we accept the state may have a role in the formal sense of preventing their abuse but otherwise should not have an opinion either way. With the right to die the state has maintained not only an opinion but a criminal sanction. This is a clear example of where the role of the state is to respect the individual and step back; legislation is far too cumbersome a tool with be used in circumstances as varied and complex as these. Dealing with the loss of a loved one, particularly in a situation such as assisted suicide, is painful and traumatic enough for all concerned without adding to that the additional stress of a threat of criminal sanction.
It is impossible to frame a structure which respects the right to die for the individual but that cannot be abused by others.

In terms of moral absolutes, killing people is wrong sets the bar fairly low. Pretty much all societies have accepted this as a line that cannot be crossed without the explicit and specific agreement of the state which only happens in very rare circumstances such as in times of war. There is a simple reason for a blanket ban. It allows for no caveats, no misunderstandings, no fudging of the issue, and no shades of grey. Again, the reason for this approach is equally simple; anything other than such a clear cut approach will inevitably be abused[i]. As things stand guilt in the case of murder is determined entirely on the basis that it is proven that someone took another life. Their reasons for doing so may be reflected in sentencing but the court is not required to consider whether someone was justified in killing another. It is in the nature of a court case that it happens after the event and nobody other than the murderer and the deceased know what actually took place between them. If we take shaken baby syndrome cases as an example the parent still loves the child, they have acted in the madness of a moment out of frustration. It’s still murder. Supporting a dying relative can be no less frustrating but killing them would still be murder, even where that comes after a prolonged period of coercion to fill in forms and achieve the appearance of consent. It would, however, be very hard to prove. At least with a baby we can assume consent was not given, that would not be the case here. [i] Stephen Drake and Diane Coleman. ‘Second Thoughts’ Grow on Assisted Suicide. The Wall Street Journal. 5 August 2012.
Once the moral absolute is broken, there is no other credible point before the right to use becomes standardised.

It is easy to say that this social move would not lead to healthy thirty year olds walking into emergency rooms and asking to end it all because they had just broken up with their partner or been sacked. However, it’s rather difficult to see why it should not. Proposition says that all this would do is extend the right to commit suicide to those currently incapable of performing the act themselves but that isn’t so. It also extends the surety of success and of a medically painless procedure that is not available to the teenager with a razorblade or the bankrupt with a bottle of pills and another of vodka. For the sake of exactly the equality of approach, it seems only fair to do so. Proposition are attempting to pick the easy bits of the case but, by doing so, they leave contradictions in their case, why shouldn’t the right to die be universal? They know the reason; society would reject the idea out of hand, regardless of its merits. As a result they draw an arbitrary line simply because it is difficult to argue this right as a response to poverty or grief or addiction. They could argue that all of those things “might” get better. Well similarly a cure for cancer “might” be invented. The only consistent argument is either a universal ban or a universal acceptance. Anything else is an argument about where to draw the line; such approaches tend to lead to a gradual, slippery descent away from the original intentions of legislators. Whatever the initial legislation, it would likely be a matter of days before the court cases started.
There is a risk that even a free choice may have some coercion involved.

By far the biggest worry is that a right to die will create a silent form of coercion that cannot be detected. In the West’s increasingly elderly society the role of older people in that society, their value and their continuing contribution is all too likely to be masked by the issue of the cost placed on those of working age. Even where older people do not face pressure from their families, society needs to be aware of this wider narrative. Such a narrative will slowly create a norm where the elderly feel that they are a burden and it is expected that they will exercise their right to die. The ‘choice’ will remain and they will even think it a choice free of coercion but will exercise their right not because they really want to die but because they feel it is what they ought to do, once the right to die is completely normalised those exercising it may not even consider that what they are doing is not really of their free will. Perceiving oneself as a burden is already a common cause of suicide[i] and would certainly increase if it were to no longer be considered taboo. Not having a right to die will not stop arguments about the burden placed on the working members of society by the elderly but it will stop this going any further towards the creation of a culture where individuals consider it normal that they should die when they feel they are a burden. [i] Joiner, Thomas E. et al., ‘The Psychology and Neurobiology of Suicidal Behaviour’, Annual Review of Psychology, 10 September 2004, p.304.