can be initiated, and limits the case to occasions where an initial attack of aggression has occurred. Throughout history there have been several cases that evaluate specific cases of aggression of one country onto another, and the occurrence that will be specifically analyzed in this paper follows the well-documented case of Britain versus Argentina in the Falkland Islands.
The territorial dispute in the Falklands between British powers and Argentina has its roots in over 200 years of history. Dating back from 1690, the conflict follows the transfer of the sovereignty of the islands between several powers. While history dictates Britain occupation of the islands for an undisputed period of just under 150 years, Argentinean rhetoric claims that the British occupation of the Falklands in 1833 was illegal, and that in the periods of inoccupation by Britain, they had gained their own sovereign right to the islands. Despite this claim, much of the public opinion on the islands favored British rule of their state. Tensions between the two nations rose, and eventually the conflict culminated in Argentina’s 1982 invasion and occupation of the islands, to which Britain responded with a two-month war. Argentina, while it may have had just cause for the territorial claim of the historically disputed lands, they lack both the legal and ethical backing for the claim of pursuing a “just” war. It is important to recognize that while examining the history is important, recognizing the wants and desires of a state’s inhabitants are significantly more important, and relates to their rights of self-determination as established by both Walzer and the United Nation’s Charter. In threatening, and finally imposing their forces on the island, Argentina participated in an act aggression, and thus made itself a transgressor of “unjust” war. Walzer argues that “no war… can be just on both sides”1, and as such there must always be an aggressor and a victim. In the case of the Falklands battle, there is a significant burden of proof in favor of the argument that Argentina was an aggressor, and thus pursued an unjust war.
As addressed previously, the course of the sovereignty of the islands follows an ambiguous and contentious history. According to Argentina, the islands originally constituted Spain’s legacy. They claimed that when the Spanish abandoned the lands in 1811, they passed their territorial jurisdiction of the lands over, and the Argentinians were then able to claim their own right to sovereignty in 18292. The Argentinian claim for sovereignty rests on the case that there was no British occupation between the periods of 1774 and 1829, and no protest existed during the periods of time when Argentina behaved as if they owned the land. Contrastingly, the British argue that they had asserted sufficient sovereignty in their occupation of the lands from 1766 to 1774, and that their later occupation of the islands for 150 (mostly undisturbed) years, reinforces their own claim to sovereignty. Following this argument, the British adopt the doctrine of prescription3 which describes the principle that continuous possession over a long period generates a right of ownership. Walzer addresses this doctrine, and suggests the importance of it in his claim that “state rights are not constituted through a series of transfers”, but instead it is “over a long period of time [that] shared experience and cooperative activit[ies]… shape a common life”.1 He implies through this that the rights of nations relate to the consent given by the members of the state and are derived from the extended rule of the land. In addition, he goes on to include the associations and affiliation that develop among the people during that time. This idea provides an appropriate segue to the importance of self-determination in the islanders who occupied the lands. There was overwhelming, and almost unanimous agreement for the British rule of the state, and as such the rights to self-determination rest in Britain’s favor. Under the UN Charter, self-determination is an enshrined right, and as the current authority on international law, it provides a legitimate, legal reinforcement for the claim.
In his book Just and Unjust Wars, Walzer addresses a similar case to the Falklands War1.
The conflict between France and Germany over Alsace-Lorraine address many of the same circumstances surrounding the territorial integrity of a land. In a similar context, the Germans believed they had rights to sovereignty as a result of historical precedent (Argentina’s claim), while France was convinced of its rights due to over 200 years of its control, the effective government it had established within the territory, and the allegiance of the inhabitants to France (Britain’s argument). Walzer, in his examination of this case adopts the stance that the “lands follow the people”. He argues that the case of sovereignty rests in the desires of the people and asserts the claim that the “territorial integrity is a function of national existence” and it is the “coming together of a people that establishes the integrity of a territory”. Taking from Walzer’s argument, a similar stance can be adopted in the case of the Falklands War. Popular sentiment surrounding the opinion of the islanders favored British control and maintaining links with their European ancestors. Despite concessions made by the British government in the form of a lease back agreement that would allow Britain prescriptive rights over the island and recognize Argentinean sovereignty, the plans ultimately ended up falling through because of lack of support from the island’s inhabitants. As Walzer expressed “individual rights… underlie the most important judgments that we make about war”1 and in ignoring their rights to self-determination, there was a direct violation by Argentina of the rights of the islanders. There actions, which infringed on the self-determined boundaries of the Falklands territorial integrity, can thus be considered
aggression.
The legal infringements of Argentina’s actions can be further explored in the stance taken by the United Nations when confronted with the case. As previously explored, self-determination is a right enshrined in the UN Charter, and violation of this right constitutes an act of aggression. With this legislation in play, Resolution 502 which passed on April 3rd, of 1982, was an appropriate response to Argentina’s initial attacks. Calling for the end of all hostilities, and for forces to be withdrawn, it created the legal jurisdiction which undermined Argentina’s action, and that would later provide the legitimacy needed jfor Britain’s actions. UN support is often a strong indicator of the legitimacy of a claim, and in past cases (for example the Gulf War of 2003), lack of UN support provided a signal of problematic evidence. Support for Britain in the case of The Falkland War was strong, and of the 15 members of the Security Council, 10 members voted in favor, with only one voting against, and the others abstaining. The reigning decisions of that day gave significant burden to the claim that Britain was the aggrieved party, and thus future acts taken by them could only be seen as a response to aggression. This idea is further reinforced in the direct support Britain received from Article 51 of the Charter, which expresses “inherent right of individual and collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs”. To take on the absolutist stance though, that Argentina was the only one at fault, and they acted in an unprovoked manner would be a naïve claim, and as such the British case must also be evaluated. It has been argued that the only concern the British Government had was keeping up the illusion that they were making steadfast gains with regards to the negotiations with Argentina.3 The prolonged nature of the settlement (spanning seventeen years), appeared to be excessive in the eyes of the Argentinean people, and the optics surely do support the perspective that the British were purposely drawing out the situation. Despite all of this, what still remains was Argentina’s clear manifest to invade the Falklands. There were persistent threats from Argentina expressing their intent to resort to alternative means if an expedient solution was not reached. The following attacks and invasion on the islanders support the actual manifestation of the claims, and give strength to the argument that Argentina was pursuant in an act of aggression. The direct violation of Falkland’s territorial integrity is consistent with the definition of aggression outlined by Walzer, and he expresses this to be “the true crime of war”. Given this course, a legal precedent existed for Britain’s retaliation, and its actions remain a just cause.
Through a comprehensive examination of the case, it can be determined that while each side had what appeared to be their own strong case for sovereignty of the island, Argentina’s action were a direct infringement on the rights of a people. Britain’s response as such remains an appropriate one, as it acted in ways appropriate with their legal and ethical rights.