United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]

Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom’s favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.

Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it

Or perhaps fortunately for the Falkland islanders, who have consistently voted to remain part of Britain?

The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.

Actually they make a claim based on the fact that it used to belong to Spain as well, and they inherited it when they won their independence from Spain.

The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.

And? Russia took over part of Ukraine and those citizens in the captured areas voted to stay with Russia.

(I’m not saying that’s what happened with the Malvinas, just that voting alone does not make ownship right or wrong.)

Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.

[Citation Required]

Instead they choose to START a war over it.

Agree with you on this one. Conflict was done for political reasons, and lives were lost.

However, if one nation held land that another nation believed was there, how long would they wait while they seeked a diplocatic solution, before they tried another route?

Just stop already. For some reason this topic is a brain worm for Argentinians. You all go batshit over it and lose all reason and perspective.

Honestly, it seems like British get more triggered when honest debate on this issue happens.

And you can’t honestly see how a nation would want islands that are 350ish miles away from them, and that they feel belongs to them for centuries, back? Truly?

Distance means fuck all.

Do you believe China would be happy with Great Britain owning Hong Kong indefinitely, being right next to China?

Do you believe that if China owned the Catalina Islands off the coast of California that the US would be okay with that, indefinitely?

Do you believe that what Russia is doing to Ukraine right now has nothing to do with the land around Russia?

If there’s one constant in world politics, it’s that a nation’s always considers the ground around their nation as theirs as well, or at the very least in their ‘Spear of influence’, and hence their’s to control.

What does their history have to do with what they want today?

I’m not going to give you an education here about it, there’s plenty you can read about the history of the Hawaiian nation and the US.

Lets just say that the wishes of the Hawaiian people in the past were not honored very well.

Are you saying Hawaiians should be denied democracy?

No, not at all. You really should read up on the history before continuing to assume that I’m saying things that I’m not saying.

So the people that have inhabited the island for generations get no say?

I never said that. Just that a vote is not the only criteria on what is legal ownership or not.

You keep comparing this to russia and ukraine

When you say that one vote makes ownership legit/right, then another vote in another place (Ukraine) should too, which it doesn’t, because obviously one country invading another can’t be legally/ethically handwaved away by a region population vote.

That bolsters my point, that voting alone does not make an ownership.

are you feeling alright?

No need to be rude, and try and kill the messenger.

Spain “owning” it

Don’t think it fair to put double quotes around owning. Spain had/has a legitimate claim.

But Argentina nor Spain never had any settlers there before. The French came first then finally settled by the British.

Literal Spanish boots on the ground, sure, but they did own them. And the French had given them back to the Spain, who owned them by treaty.

From the wiki …

Spanish settlement

*In 1493, Pope Alexander VI issued a Papal bull, Inter caetera, dividing the New World between Spain and Portugal. The following year, the Treaty of Tordesillas between those countries agreed that the dividing line between the two should be 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde Islands.[6] The Falklands lie on the western (Spanish) side of this line. *

Spain made claims that the Falkland Islands were held under provisions in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which settled the limits of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. However, the treaty only promised to restore the territories in the Americas held prior to the War of the Spanish Succession. The Falkland Islands was not held at the time, and were not mentioned in the treaty. When Spain discovered the British and French colonies on the Islands, a diplomatic row broke out among the claimants. In 1766, Spain and France, who were allies at the time, agreed that France would hand over Port Saint Louis, and Spain would repay the cost of the settlement. France insisted that Spain maintain the colony in Port Louis and thus prevent Britain from claiming the title to the Islands and Spain agreed.[5] Spain and Great Britain enjoyed uneasy relations at the time, and no corresponding agreement was reached.[4]

The Spanish took control of Port Saint Louis and renamed it Puerto Soledad in 1767. On 10 June 1770, a Spanish expedition expelled the British colony at Port Egmont, and Spain took de facto control of the Islands. Spain and Great Britain came close to war over the issue, but instead, concluded a treaty on 22 January 1771, allowing the British to return to Port Egmont with neither side relinquishing sovereignty claims.[7] The British returned in 1771 but withdrew from the islands in 1774, leaving behind a flag and a plaque representing their claim to ownership, and leaving Spain in de facto control.[8]: 25

From 1774 to 1811, the islands were ruled as part of the Viceroyalty of the River Plate. In that period, 18 governors were appointed to rule the islands. In 1777, Governor Ramon de Carassa was ordered to destroy the remains at Port Egmont. The British plaque was removed and sent to Buenos Aires.[5]: 51

Spanish troops remained at Port Louis, known then as Port Soledad, until 1811[9] when Governor Pablo Guillen Martinez was called back to Montevideo as the revolutionary forces spread through the continent. He left behind a plaque claiming sovereignty for Spain.[4][10]

Basically Spain owned the islands, found out later that the French and English were land squatting and had moved in on their islands, and had something to say about the matter. The French gave their land back to Spain, the English did not.

There’s allot of history and conflict over the CENTURIES there to unpack. Its a nuanced conversation.