От Skvortsov Ответить на сообщение
К VLADIMIR
Дата 10.09.2020 07:58:11 Найти в дереве
Рубрики Современность; Армия; Версия для печати

Да вроде не было у UK прав на архипелаг в 1832 г.

>Мне лично до фени, но бриты там воткнули свой раньше, чем испанцы, да и свое право на архипелаг заявили до появления независимой Аргентины.

Christian J.Maisch
The Falkland/Malvinas Islands
Clash of 1831 –1832:
U.S. and British Diplomacy in the South Atlantic

Although Louis Antoine de Bougainville of France established the first settlement in the Islands in 1764, the Spanish crown protested it as an incursion in its sphere of colonization. Consequently, the French transferred their settlement of Port Louis on East Falkland (or Malvina Oriental) to Spain in 1766. The Spanish then renamed the settlement Puerto Soledad and placed it under the administration of their colonial government in Buenos Aires. At approximately the same time that France transferred the settlement to Spain, the British established (in early 1766) their own settlement of Port Egmont on the Isle of Saunders, a small island located in the northwest region of the archipelago. Subsequently, Spain expelled Great Britain’s settlement from the Isle of Saunders in June 1770, almost resulting in a war between the two countries. Following very difficult negotiations, mediated by the French ambassador in London, Great Britain and Spain defused the immediate crisis through a convention embodied in two diplomatic declarations dated 22 January 1771.

Unfortunately, this convention failed to resolve the dispute. First, Spain’s declaration restored to Great Britain only “the possession of the port and fort called Egmont [in the Isle of Saunders].”This meant – as the Duke of Wellington was to acknowledge fifty-eight years later when he was prime minister –that Great Britain could not clearly claim to “have ever possessed the sovereignty of all those islands. The Convention [of 1771] certainly goes no further than to restore . . . Port Egmont [to Great Britain].”

Second, the Spanish declaration included an explicit reservation that the restoration of Port Egmont did not in “any wise . . . affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands.” The British declaration, in turn, accepted the Spanish declaration as “a satisfaction for the injury done to his Britannick Majesty” but failed either to object to the Spanish reservation or to make a counter reservation protecting Great Britain’s own claim of sovereignty.This meant – as William Pitt said in 1771 when he was one of the leaders of the parliamentary opposition to the government of Frederick Lord North –that the exchange of declarations by Great Britain and Spain “was not satisfaction, nor reparation; the right was not secured and even restitution was incomplete, for Port Egmont alone was restored.”There is some evidence, mostly from Spanish and French diplomatic correspondence, that the significant aforementioned British omissions actually constituted part of a face-saving agreement. Apparently, Spain allowed the reestablishment of the British settlement while reserving its own right of sovereignty in exchange for a secret promise by the government of Lord North to withdraw from the archipelago after a “decent interval.”Great Britain’s departure from the Isle of Saunders in May 1774 and its failure to protest Spain’s continued acts of sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands (which included the destruction of the very fort abandoned by the British in Port Egmont) seem to support this interpretation. But, the British government has repeatedly described its withdrawal as a measure of austerity.
After the British withdrawal, Spain maintained its own settlement in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands and administered it from the Captaincy General of Buenos Aires (later the Viceroyalty of the River Plate). During this period (1774 – 1811), Spain and Great Britain signed the Treaty of Saint Lawrence (also known as the Nootka Sound Convention) on25October1790. By the terms of this treaty, Spain recognized Great Britain’s right to navigate, land, and settle in the regions of the Pacific Coast of North America not already occupied by Spanish settlers and its right to continue fishing in the seas near the Spanish possessions in South America. The establishment of any permanent settlement by Great Britain in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands was implicitly prohibited by Article6 of the treaty: “It is further agreed, with respect to the Eastern and Western Coasts of South America, and to the Islands adjacent, that no Settlement shall be formed hereafter, by the respective Subjects, in [the regions] . . .South of those . . . same Coasts, and of the Islands adjacent, which are already occupied by Spain.”Since Spain had a settlement in the Falkland/Malvinas Islands at the time of this convention, while Great Britain did not, Spain and Argentina have claimed that this treaty represented a de jure recognition on the part of Great Britain of the Spanish right of sovereignty over these Islands.