The Falkland Islands should be given to Argentina.

I thank the opposition for his case.Contention One: The Right to Self-DeterminationAll men do indeed have the rights to self-determination, but to what extent this covers is the question that is still often much disputed. The opposition uses the "right to self-determination" as his main logical basis. But there are several outright contradictions with this right; for example, UN Charter Chapter I Article II states that "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members." Decolonization GA Resolution 1514 also states in its preambulatory clauses that "[this house] Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations" and "Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory" With this said, the right to self determination in regards to the Falklands Island faces two difficulties; it violates Decolonization GA Resolution 1514 and the right to self-determination cannot ever be used in regards to this. A study into international law would suffice to conclude that the UN only grants the right of self-determination to people with a distinct nationality from one another. The say that the right to self-determination exists in the Falklands, where there are thousands of British citizens living in the area, is a falsity. The UN has further ratified this concept, by adopting and passing more resolutions urging both countries to negotiate a peaceful solution to this problem. [1,2,7]Contention Two: Nootka Sounds Convention and the Uti Posseditis JuriThe right to uti possedetis juri is a fundamental right for any new state; it states that the new state's authority shall extend as it once governed under the previous provincial government. With this said, let us affirm the following: if x were part of y, and y was part of a, if a were to secede, then y would inherit x from a. This is a fundamental rule of newly formed state. With this said, then it is affirmed that through the Nootka Sounds Convention, Spain owned the Falklands until 1829, when Argentina formed and gained independence. Under the Nootka Conventions, Article VI, it is said that:"It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain" This Article was ratified soon after October 1790, and since then, the islands has been under de facto control of the Spaniards. There was a brief inclusion when British sailors attempted to refly the British at the old British settlement of Port Egmont, but then was envicted by the Spanish Navy who then expelled the British (once in for all) and burned Port Egmont altogther. The opposition states that they were British since 1765; this settlement also existed alongside a Spanish one on the east of the islands. With this said, via the Treaty of Tordesillas, the island belonged to the Spaniards from the start. This domination was only confirmed by the Nootka Sounds. With this said, the Argentines had the full right to uti possedetis juri; for Spain held de facto control of that land (albeit there was a huge power vacuum during the period), and the British threats only returned because of the apparent weakness of the Argentine nation to fend for itself during the periods immediately after independence. [3,4]Contention Three: United Nations and Britain's Non-CooperationThe UN's establishe goal is to end colonization, but as seen, colonization still exists in several subtle form. Nevertheless, the right of self-determination was only declared to help end colonization, yet the British still colonize the Falklands, inhabiting it with settlers. Britain, as part of the United Nations, has refused to negotiate with this Argentine Government, even when it was a conditional (on the second operative clause of UN Resolution 2065, passed 1965) to do so. It has also been said in the preamblutory clauses that UN Resolution 1514 also applies to the Falklands (in UN resolution 2065). The referendums are much like the Crimean Referendum; there are a hoax referndum, designed to extend the imperialistic intentions of a country. Apart from this, the Convention on the Continential Shelf states that "The rights of the coastal State over the continental shelf do not depend on occupation, effective or notional, or on any express proclamation." With this said, it is more than clear that the Brits are violating multiple UN treaties whilst proclaiming it's right to "self-determination" henceforth causing Argentina to be one of the last, helpless victims of the British wrath. With this said, I shall move onto objections. [5,6]Objection One: International TreatiesThere is no clauses in the 1850 Convention of Settlement that prohibits the Argentines from making further claims on the Malvinas. The Convention states that both countries, after a period of "undeclared war" are now in perfect relations with each other. The opposition's strawman of the 1850 Convention of Settlement's revelence to this issue is henceforth invalidated. [8]Regarding the Lisbon Treaty, it is not a valid treaty for citation; the territorial dispute goes on evend despite what all the nations in Europe says. Despite this, the Lisbon Treaty must be considered first; the Lisbon Treaty does not reaffirm that the islands are British; rather, they state that as long as the islands belong to Britain, assosciation with the EU is possible. In fact, it is the United Kingdom who is in actuality breaking international laws here, for the United Kingdom has failed to comply with UN Resolution 1514 and 2065, and the Convention on the Continential Shelf.Objection Two: On Belonging Before Argentine IndependenceAs has already been proven in Contention Two, Spain exercised de facto integrity over the Falklands right up until 1833, when the British Invasion (I dare say) of Falklands ended the short lived Argentine settlement. The British Invasion highlights an important dilemma; the Brits did nothing when the Spaniards exercised its authority over the islands, but the Brits are now making all the noise they could when a smaller less influential country has taken over it. Via the right of uti possedetis juri, Argentina has all the rights to the island, accordingly to the Nootka Sounds Convention. With this said, the resolution is currently affirmed.[1] http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu...[2] http://www.un.org...[3] http://www.un.org...[4] http://en.wikisource.org...[5] http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org...[6] http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...[8] http://en.wikisource.org...