What does Argentina’s territory expansion mean for the Falklands?

Port Stanley, capital of the Falkland Islands. Argentina’s success at the UN CLCS has inevitably reopened the Falklands question Port Stanley, capital of the Falkland Islands. Argentina’s success at the UN CLCS has inevitably reopened the Falklands question Jeremy Richards
07 Apr
2016
As Argentina’s claim to expand its territorial waters into the South Atlantic is accepted, attention has immediately turned to the implications for the UK-controlled Falklands Islands

In 2009, an Argentinian delegation stood up to make a presentation to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a subsidiary of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Its objective: to gain the South American nation an extension to the standard 200 nautical miles which defines Argentina’s continental shelf. The delegation requested the zone be extended to the maximum distance of 350 nautical miles, covering an extra 660,000 square miles, out into the South Atlantic.

Last week, some seven years on, the CLCS reported that it would accept Argentina’s request. ‘This is an historic occasion for Argentina,’ Foreign Minister Susana Malcorra was reported as saying. ‘This reaffirms our sovereignty rights over the resources of our continental shelf.’

What complicates the situation, however, was the delegation’s insistence in 2009 (repeated at a subsequent CLCS session three years later) that Argentina asserts ‘its legitimate and imprescriptible sovereignty over Islas Malvinas [the Falkland Islands], Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur [South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands] and the corresponding island and maritime areas as they are part of [Argentina’s] national territory.’ Therefore, in its statement, the CLCS included that ‘the Commission had already decided that it was not in a position to consider and qualify those parts of the submission that were subject to dispute’. In other words, while it accepts Argentina’s legitimate claims to a wider Atlantic territory, it doesn’t mean it is willing, or indeed able, to rule on the Falklands question.

Nevertheless, the sensitivity around this issue has led the UK government to comment on the CLCS verdict, stating that ‘the CLCS has no jurisdiction over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands’, that ‘the CLCS could not and did not consider claims relating to the Falkland Islands within the Argentine submission,’ and, finally, that ‘the UK government remains in no doubt over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, nor of the right of the islanders to determine their own future’.

It put on notice that Argentina takes seriously the notion that it sees the southwest Atlantic as an essential element in its long-term planning

‘The recommendation from the CLCS is important,’ explains Klaus Dodds, Professor of Geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London and author of Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction, ‘because it will form the basis for the Argentine state to extend its sovereign rights over a vast area of the South Atlantic seabed. While it excludes the Falklands, South Georgia and what is called Argentine Antarctic Territory, the UN CLCS clearly found much of the Argentine submission regarding the outer continental shelf convincing and in line with Article 76 of UNCLOS. So Argentina has demonstrated its scientific-technical credentials. It also, in a way, put on notice that Argentina takes seriously the notion that it sees the southwest Atlantic as an essential element in its long-term planning.’

And the UK’s response? ‘It’s worth remembering,’ Dodds points out, ‘that in 2012 a vast area of the Antarctic [claimed by both the UK and Argentina] was named Queen Elizabeth Land by the British government and was a deliberate attempt to redraw the map in favour of the UK sovereignty position. So both Argentina and the UK use maps and mapping to cement their sovereignty positions in the contested South Atlantic and Antarctic.’

Dodds also calls for a more in-depth understanding of the CLCS, and the impact which it has in settling global territorial marine disputes. ‘Its recommendations – not judgements – are recasting the sovereign politics of the global seabed,’ he explains, ‘and many coastal states are benefiting as they extend their sovereign rights over the seabed and potentially onto resources contained on and within that area.’

Share this story...

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to Twitter

Related items

Geographical Week

Get the best of Geographical delivered straight to your inbox every Friday.

LATEST HEADLINES

Subscribe Today

EDUCATION PARTNERS

Aberystwyth UniversityUniversity of GreenwichThe University of Winchester

TRAVEL PARTNERS

Ponant

Silversea

Travel the Unknown

DOSSIERS

Like longer reads? Try our in-depth dossiers that provide a comprehensive view of each topic

  • The Air That We Breathe
    Cities the world over are struggling to improve air quality as scandals surrounding diesel car emissions come to light and the huge health costs of po...
    The Nuclear Power Struggle
    The UK appears to be embracing nuclear, a huge U-turn on government policy from just two years ago. Yet this seems to be going against the grain globa...
    Diabetes: The World at Risk
    Diabetes is often thought of as a ‘western’ problem, one linked to the developed world’s overindulgence in fatty foods and chronic lack of physi...
    National Clean Air Day
    For National Clean Air Day, Geographical brings together stories about air pollution and the kind of solutions needed to tackle it ...
    REDD+ or Dead?
    The UN-backed REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) scheme, under which developing nations would be paid not to cut dow...

MORE DOSSIERS

NEVER MISS A STORY - follow Geographical

Want to stay up to date with breaking Geographical stories? Join the thousands following us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram and stay informed about the world.