| FALKLAND ISLANDS Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) Overseas territory of UK (claimed by Argentina) Joined United Nations: 24 October 1945 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 04/05/10 |
| CAPITAL |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Stanley
3,140 (July 2008 est.)
Elizabeth II of United Kingdom
Queen since 6 February 1952
Queen since 6 February 1952
The monarchy is hereditary; governor appointed by the monarch
HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
SELECTION PROCESS
Dr. Tim Thorogood
Chief Executive since 3 January 2008
Chief Executive since 3 January 2008
Executive Council; three members elected by the Legislative
Council, two ex officio members (chief executive and the
financial secretary), and the governor
elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; governor appointed
by the monarch
Council, two ex officio members (chief executive and the
financial secretary), and the governor
elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; governor appointed
by the monarch
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
British
| RELIGIONS |
Christian 67.2%, none 31.5%, other 1.3% (2006 census)
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Overseas territory of the United Kingdom; also claimed by Argentina . No administrative divisions. Legal system is
English Common Law
Executive: - Executive Council; three members elected by the Legislative Council, two ex officio members (chief
executive and the financial secretary), and the governor
elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; governor appointed by the monarch
Legislative: unicameral Legislative Council (10 seats - two ex officio, eight elected by popular vote, members serve
four-year terms); presided over by the governor
Elections: Last held 5 November 2009 (next to be held November 2013)
Judicial: Supreme Court (chief justice is a nonresident); Magistrates Court (senior magistrate presides over civil and
criminal divisions); Court of Summary Jurisdiction
English Common Law
Executive: - Executive Council; three members elected by the Legislative Council, two ex officio members (chief
executive and the financial secretary), and the governor
elections: none; the monarchy is hereditary; governor appointed by the monarch
Legislative: unicameral Legislative Council (10 seats - two ex officio, eight elected by popular vote, members serve
four-year terms); presided over by the governor
Elections: Last held 5 November 2009 (next to be held November 2013)
Judicial: Supreme Court (chief justice is a nonresident); Magistrates Court (senior magistrate presides over civil and
criminal divisions); Court of Summary Jurisdiction
| LANGUAGES |
English
| BRIEF HISTORY |
The islands were uninhabited when they were first discovered by European explorers. There is disputed evidence of
prior settlement by humans, based on the existence of the Falkland Island fox, or Warrah, on the islands, as well as a
scattering of undated artifacts including arrowheads and the remains of a canoe. It is thought this canid was brought to
the island by humans, although it may have reached the islands by itself via a land bridge during the last ice age. The first
European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600. Although
several English and Spanish historians maintain their own explorers discovered the islands earlier, some older maps,
particularly Dutch ones, used the name 'Sebald Islands', after de Weert. However, the islands appear on numerous
Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s[citation needed]. In January 1690, English sailor John Strong, captain
of the Welfare, was heading for Puerto Deseado (in Argentina), but driven off course by contrary winds, he reached
the Sebald Islands instead and landed at Bold Cove. He sailed between the two principal islands and called the
passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659-1694), who as
Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and who later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From
this body of water the island group later took its collective English name. The first settlement on the Falkland Islands,
called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in
1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765,
English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named
the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of Great Britain.
A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after
assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked
Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon
her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, and in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of
the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of
the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish
the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any
territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770 [1]. From then
on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos
Aires under the control of the Vice-royalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind
a plaque asserting her claims. The Royal Navy built a base at Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for
navigation around Cape Horn. The World War I naval battle, the Battle of Falkland Islands took place in December
1914, with a British victory over the Germans. During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and
serviced ships which took part in the Battle of the River Plate. Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the
latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the
United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN
Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The
United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution
1514, regarding the de-colonization of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for
the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the Issue. Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions
took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations
was the 2,000 inhabitants of mainly British descent who preferred that the islands remained British Territory. On April
2, 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic (South Georgia and
the South Sandwich Islands), encouraged in part by the United Kingdom's reduction in military capacity in the South
Atlantic and as a diversion from poor economic performance at home. The invasion was condemned by the United
Nations Security Council, although world reaction ranged from support in the Latin American countries (with the
exception of Chile), to opposition in Europe, the Commonwealth, and eventually the United States. The British sent a
large expeditionary force to retake the islands leading to the Falklands War. After a short but fierce naval and air war,
the British landed at San Carlos Water on May 21 and a land war followed until the Argentinean forces surrendered on
June 14. Following the war, the British increased their military presence on the islands, constructing RAF Mount
Pleasant and increasing the military garrison. Falkland Islanders were also granted full British citizenship. Although the
UK and Argentina since resumed diplomatic relations in 1989, no further negotiations on sovereignty have taken place.
Sources: Wikipedia History of the Falkland Islands
prior settlement by humans, based on the existence of the Falkland Island fox, or Warrah, on the islands, as well as a
scattering of undated artifacts including arrowheads and the remains of a canoe. It is thought this canid was brought to
the island by humans, although it may have reached the islands by itself via a land bridge during the last ice age. The first
European explorer widely credited with sighting the islands is Sebald de Weert, a Dutch sailor, in 1600. Although
several English and Spanish historians maintain their own explorers discovered the islands earlier, some older maps,
particularly Dutch ones, used the name 'Sebald Islands', after de Weert. However, the islands appear on numerous
Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s[citation needed]. In January 1690, English sailor John Strong, captain
of the Welfare, was heading for Puerto Deseado (in Argentina), but driven off course by contrary winds, he reached
the Sebald Islands instead and landed at Bold Cove. He sailed between the two principal islands and called the
passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659-1694), who as
Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and who later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From
this body of water the island group later took its collective English name. The first settlement on the Falkland Islands,
called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in
1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland. Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765,
English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named
the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of Great Britain.
A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after
assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked
Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon
her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, and in 1790, Britain officially ceded control of
the islands to Spain, and renounced any and all colonial ambitions in South America, and its adjacent islands, as part of
the Nootka Convention. In addition, the Nootka Convention provided for equal British, Spanish, and US rights to fish
the surrounding waters of, as well as land on and erect temporary buildings to aid in such fishing operations, in any
territory south of parts already occupied by Spain - the Falkland Islands being one of them since 1770 [1]. From then
on Spain ruled the islands unchallenged under the name "Islas Malvinas", maintaining a settlement ruled from Buenos
Aires under the control of the Vice-royalty of the Rio de la Plata until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind
a plaque asserting her claims. The Royal Navy built a base at Stanley, and the islands became a strategic point for
navigation around Cape Horn. The World War I naval battle, the Battle of Falkland Islands took place in December
1914, with a British victory over the Germans. During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and
serviced ships which took part in the Battle of the River Plate. Sovereignty over the islands became an issue again in the
latter half of the 20th century. Argentina, which had never renounced its claim to the islands, saw the creation of the
United Nations as an opportunity to present its case before the rest of the world. In 1945, upon signing the UN
Charter, Argentina stated that it reserved its right to sovereignty of the islands, as well as its right to recover them. The
United Kingdom responded in turn by stating that, as an essential precondition for the fulfilment of UN Resolution
1514, regarding the de-colonization of all territories still under foreign occupation, the Falklanders first had to vote for
the British withdrawal at a referendum to be held on the Issue. Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions
took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations
was the 2,000 inhabitants of mainly British descent who preferred that the islands remained British Territory. On April
2, 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic (South Georgia and
the South Sandwich Islands), encouraged in part by the United Kingdom's reduction in military capacity in the South
Atlantic and as a diversion from poor economic performance at home. The invasion was condemned by the United
Nations Security Council, although world reaction ranged from support in the Latin American countries (with the
exception of Chile), to opposition in Europe, the Commonwealth, and eventually the United States. The British sent a
large expeditionary force to retake the islands leading to the Falklands War. After a short but fierce naval and air war,
the British landed at San Carlos Water on May 21 and a land war followed until the Argentinean forces surrendered on
June 14. Following the war, the British increased their military presence on the islands, constructing RAF Mount
Pleasant and increasing the military garrison. Falkland Islanders were also granted full British citizenship. Although the
UK and Argentina since resumed diplomatic relations in 1989, no further negotiations on sovereignty have taken place.
Sources: Wikipedia History of the Falkland Islands
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
The islands, an archipelago in the southern Atlantic Ocean, is an internally self-governing overseas territory of the
United Kingdom. Executive power is exercised by the government, whereas legislative power is vested in both the
government and the Legislative Council. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.A new
constitution came into force on 1 January 2009.
Within the executive branch of the Falkland Islands, the chief of state has been Elizabeth II since February 6, 1952.
Since May 1999 the viceroy of the British Crown has been Governor Donald Lamont and the head of government has
been Chief Executive Michael Blanch. Lamont was succeeded by Howard Pearce on 3 December 2002. He was
succeeded in September 2006 by Alan Huckle, then governor of Anguilla.
There are no elections for the executive branch in the Falkland Islands. The monarch is hereditary, and the Governor is
appointed by the monarch. For other elections, suffrage is universal, with the minimum voting age at 18.The Falkland
Islands elects a legislature on territorial level. The Legislative Assembly has 10 members, 8 of which are elected every 4
years and 2 members ex officio. As of the last elections, As of the last elections, 5 November 2009, only non-partisans
have been elected; there are no active political parties in the Falkland Islands. The next elections will be held in
November 2013.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of the Falkland Islands
United Kingdom. Executive power is exercised by the government, whereas legislative power is vested in both the
government and the Legislative Council. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature.A new
constitution came into force on 1 January 2009.
Within the executive branch of the Falkland Islands, the chief of state has been Elizabeth II since February 6, 1952.
Since May 1999 the viceroy of the British Crown has been Governor Donald Lamont and the head of government has
been Chief Executive Michael Blanch. Lamont was succeeded by Howard Pearce on 3 December 2002. He was
succeeded in September 2006 by Alan Huckle, then governor of Anguilla.
There are no elections for the executive branch in the Falkland Islands. The monarch is hereditary, and the Governor is
appointed by the monarch. For other elections, suffrage is universal, with the minimum voting age at 18.The Falkland
Islands elects a legislature on territorial level. The Legislative Assembly has 10 members, 8 of which are elected every 4
years and 2 members ex officio. As of the last elections, As of the last elections, 5 November 2009, only non-partisans
have been elected; there are no active political parties in the Falkland Islands. The next elections will be held in
November 2013.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of the Falkland Islands
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
The economy was formerly based on agriculture, mainly sheep farming, but today fishing contributes the bulk of
economic activity. In 1987, the government began selling fishing licenses to foreign trawlers operating within the
Falkland Islands' exclusive fishing zone. These license fees total more than $40 million per year, which help support the
island's health, education, and welfare system. Squid accounts for 75% of the fish taken. Dairy farming supports
domestic consumption; crops furnish winter fodder. Exports feature shipments of high-grade wool to the UK and the
sale of postage stamps and coins. The islands are now self-financing except for defense. The British Geological Survey
announced a 200-mile oil exploration zone around the islands in 1993, and early seismic surveys suggest substantial
reserves capable of producing 500,000 barrels per day; to date, no exploitable site has been identified. An agreement
between Argentina and the UK in 1995 seeks to defuse licensing and sovereignty conflicts that would dampen foreign
interest in exploiting potential oil reserves. Tourism, especially eco-tourism, is increasing rapidly, with about 30,000
visitors in 2001. Another large source of income is interest paid on money the government has in the bank. The British
military presence also provides a sizeable economic boost.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Falkland Islands)
economic activity. In 1987, the government began selling fishing licenses to foreign trawlers operating within the
Falkland Islands' exclusive fishing zone. These license fees total more than $40 million per year, which help support the
island's health, education, and welfare system. Squid accounts for 75% of the fish taken. Dairy farming supports
domestic consumption; crops furnish winter fodder. Exports feature shipments of high-grade wool to the UK and the
sale of postage stamps and coins. The islands are now self-financing except for defense. The British Geological Survey
announced a 200-mile oil exploration zone around the islands in 1993, and early seismic surveys suggest substantial
reserves capable of producing 500,000 barrels per day; to date, no exploitable site has been identified. An agreement
between Argentina and the UK in 1995 seeks to defuse licensing and sovereignty conflicts that would dampen foreign
interest in exploiting potential oil reserves. Tourism, especially eco-tourism, is increasing rapidly, with about 30,000
visitors in 2001. Another large source of income is interest paid on money the government has in the bank. The British
military presence also provides a sizeable economic boost.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Falkland Islands)
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
Argentina, which claims the islands in its constitution and briefly occupied them by force in 1982, agreed in 1995 to no
longer seek settlement by force; UK continues to reject Argentine requests for sovereignty talks
longer seek settlement by force; UK continues to reject Argentine requests for sovereignty talks
| REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDP) |
None reported.
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
None reported.
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
Philip J. Crowley
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 1, 2010
ARGENTINA/UK
Falkland/Malvinas: Issue Should be Resolved Bilaterally Between Argentina and U.K./ U.S. has Strong Friendship with both U.K.
and Argentina and We are Willing to Help
QUESTION: The Secretary had some comments about the Falklands dispute today, saying among other things that the U.S. would be
happy to act as an intermediary if the countries wanted one. Has there been any indication that Argentina or the UK are looking for --
MR. CROWLEY: I think actually, if you go back, Paul, and look at her precise language, she said we have strong friendship with both
Britain and Argentina and we are willing to help. I think our view remains that this is an issue that should be resolved bilaterally
between the two countries, but as she said on the flight down, if the United States can be helpful, we will be happy to see what we
can do.
Click here to read more »
Assistant Secretary
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 1, 2010
ARGENTINA/UK
Falkland/Malvinas: Issue Should be Resolved Bilaterally Between Argentina and U.K./ U.S. has Strong Friendship with both U.K.
and Argentina and We are Willing to Help
QUESTION: The Secretary had some comments about the Falklands dispute today, saying among other things that the U.S. would be
happy to act as an intermediary if the countries wanted one. Has there been any indication that Argentina or the UK are looking for --
MR. CROWLEY: I think actually, if you go back, Paul, and look at her precise language, she said we have strong friendship with both
Britain and Argentina and we are willing to help. I think our view remains that this is an issue that should be resolved bilaterally
between the two countries, but as she said on the flight down, if the United States can be helpful, we will be happy to see what we
can do.
Click here to read more »
BRIEFING FROM GLOBAL INITIATIVE TO END ALL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN
BRIEFING FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, PRE-SESSIONAL WORKING
GROUP
19-23 May 2008
From Peter Newell, Coordinator, Global Initiative
UNITED KINGDOM
Corporal punishment is lawful in the home in the UK, in all of the Overseas Territories (with the possible exception of the Pitcairn
Islands) and in the Crown Dependencies. Amendments to legislation in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have
restricted the defence of “reasonable chastisement”: in Scotland by introducing the concept of “justifiable assault” of children and
defining blows to the head, shaking and use of implements as unjustifiable (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, s51); in England,
Wales and most recently Northern Ireland by allowing use of the defence of “reasonable punishment” by parents and some other
carers charged with common assault but not by those charged with more serious assaults on children (Children Act 2004, s58; Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, s2).
Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools in the UK. Of the Overseas Territories (OTs) covered by the ICESCR, only Pitcairn and
St Helena have prohibited corporal punishment in schools; it is prohibited in state schools only in the Falkland Islands. It is lawful in
Bermuda (under the Education Rules 1974 and the Criminal Code s266), British Virgin Islands (Education Act 2004 s55, Criminal
Code s192), Cayman Islands (Education and Training Law 2005), Gibraltar (Criminal Offences Ordinance 1984 s82) and Montserrat
(Education Act 2004 s49, Juveniles Ordinance 1982 s37, Penal Code 1983 s193). None of the Crown Dependencies (CDs) has
enacted explicit prohibition of corporal punishment applicable to all schools (public and private).
In the penal system, corporal punishment is prohibited as a sentence for crime in the UK and in all OTs and CDs, although as at May
2006 it remained on the statute book in Guernsey. It is prohibited as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions in the UK (but not, it
recently came to light, in the “secure training centres”, where children aged between 12 and 15 are held. It is prohibited in Bermuda,
British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Jersey and Guernsey. There is no explicit
prohibition of its use as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions in Gibraltar or Montserrat. In the Isle of Man, it is prohibited in law
as a disciplinary measure against persons aged 17 and over in prison but only as a matter of policy for young people detained in the
young person’s secure unit.
Click here to read more »
BRIEFING FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS, PRE-SESSIONAL WORKING
GROUP
19-23 May 2008
From Peter Newell, Coordinator, Global Initiative
UNITED KINGDOM
Corporal punishment is lawful in the home in the UK, in all of the Overseas Territories (with the possible exception of the Pitcairn
Islands) and in the Crown Dependencies. Amendments to legislation in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have
restricted the defence of “reasonable chastisement”: in Scotland by introducing the concept of “justifiable assault” of children and
defining blows to the head, shaking and use of implements as unjustifiable (Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003, s51); in England,
Wales and most recently Northern Ireland by allowing use of the defence of “reasonable punishment” by parents and some other
carers charged with common assault but not by those charged with more serious assaults on children (Children Act 2004, s58; Law
Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 2006, s2).
Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools in the UK. Of the Overseas Territories (OTs) covered by the ICESCR, only Pitcairn and
St Helena have prohibited corporal punishment in schools; it is prohibited in state schools only in the Falkland Islands. It is lawful in
Bermuda (under the Education Rules 1974 and the Criminal Code s266), British Virgin Islands (Education Act 2004 s55, Criminal
Code s192), Cayman Islands (Education and Training Law 2005), Gibraltar (Criminal Offences Ordinance 1984 s82) and Montserrat
(Education Act 2004 s49, Juveniles Ordinance 1982 s37, Penal Code 1983 s193). None of the Crown Dependencies (CDs) has
enacted explicit prohibition of corporal punishment applicable to all schools (public and private).
In the penal system, corporal punishment is prohibited as a sentence for crime in the UK and in all OTs and CDs, although as at May
2006 it remained on the statute book in Guernsey. It is prohibited as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions in the UK (but not, it
recently came to light, in the “secure training centres”, where children aged between 12 and 15 are held. It is prohibited in Bermuda,
British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Jersey and Guernsey. There is no explicit
prohibition of its use as a disciplinary measure in penal institutions in Gibraltar or Montserrat. In the Isle of Man, it is prohibited in law
as a disciplinary measure against persons aged 17 and over in prison but only as a matter of policy for young people detained in the
young person’s secure unit.
Click here to read more »
The Future Of The Falkland Islands And Its People
February 2003
The Falklanders are a nation same like the Scots, the Welsh or the English – or the people of Tokelau for that matter. Moreover, their
right to self-determination has already been officially and formally recognized and guaranteed by the British Government through the
process of enacting the 1985 Falklands Constitution. This act of transfer of prerogatives from London to Stanley entails that any
future decisions regarding the sovereignty of the Islands would be up to the Falklanders alone to make, and this is irreversible. Once
recognized/granted, the self-determination cannot be taken away.
Yet even the Falklands self-determination has been achieved not without the determined bold effort of the Falklanders themselves, a
turning point probably being their successful rejection and blocking of the attempted «lease back solution» back in the Nineteen-
seventies.
It must be pointed out that the Falklands self-determination is an internal affair between the Falklands people on the one hand,
represented by their elected government exercising sovereignty on the Islands themselves, and the British Government on the other
hand exercising Falklands sovereignty internationally. Neither Argentina nor the UN could be parties to this bilateral business.
Any recognition of the Falklands self-determination by third parties like the UN is desirable but not crucial at all. While such
recognition will come inevitably in the context of more global political developments expanding the practice of self-determination
worldwide, it is nevertheless worth keeping the pressure on the UN Decolonization Committee for recognition and abandonment of its
double standards.
The UN involvement is useful in countries like Western Sahara or Timor, where there could hardly have been any self-determination
without it. However, all the other «non self-governing territories» presently monitored by the UN Decolonization Committee are
exercising their right of self-determination regardless of any UN sponsorship. A comparison between the Freedom House annual
ratings of the «decolonized» (the present 16 territories subject to UN «decolonization») and their «decolonizers» (the 24 members of
the Decolonization Committee) would suggest that the former are three times more democratic than the latter. And surely, as much
better off, too.
Click here to read more »
February 2003
The Falklanders are a nation same like the Scots, the Welsh or the English – or the people of Tokelau for that matter. Moreover, their
right to self-determination has already been officially and formally recognized and guaranteed by the British Government through the
process of enacting the 1985 Falklands Constitution. This act of transfer of prerogatives from London to Stanley entails that any
future decisions regarding the sovereignty of the Islands would be up to the Falklanders alone to make, and this is irreversible. Once
recognized/granted, the self-determination cannot be taken away.
Yet even the Falklands self-determination has been achieved not without the determined bold effort of the Falklanders themselves, a
turning point probably being their successful rejection and blocking of the attempted «lease back solution» back in the Nineteen-
seventies.
It must be pointed out that the Falklands self-determination is an internal affair between the Falklands people on the one hand,
represented by their elected government exercising sovereignty on the Islands themselves, and the British Government on the other
hand exercising Falklands sovereignty internationally. Neither Argentina nor the UN could be parties to this bilateral business.
Any recognition of the Falklands self-determination by third parties like the UN is desirable but not crucial at all. While such
recognition will come inevitably in the context of more global political developments expanding the practice of self-determination
worldwide, it is nevertheless worth keeping the pressure on the UN Decolonization Committee for recognition and abandonment of its
double standards.
The UN involvement is useful in countries like Western Sahara or Timor, where there could hardly have been any self-determination
without it. However, all the other «non self-governing territories» presently monitored by the UN Decolonization Committee are
exercising their right of self-determination regardless of any UN sponsorship. A comparison between the Freedom House annual
ratings of the «decolonized» (the present 16 territories subject to UN «decolonization») and their «decolonizers» (the 24 members of
the Decolonization Committee) would suggest that the former are three times more democratic than the latter. And surely, as much
better off, too.
Click here to read more »
Summit of the Americas fails to address human rights
Fifth Summit of the Americas
20 April 2009
The fifth Summit of the Americas has failed to recognize that human rights must be placed at the centre of efforts to confront the
many fundamental challenges facing the region.
Governments from every country in the Americas, except for Cuba, took part in the four-yearly meeting held in Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, between 17 and 19 April.
The 34 heads of state and government discussed the Summit's three principal themes: human prosperity, energy security and
environmental sustainability.
The Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain was adopted by consensus at the close of the Summit on 19 April. Based on the
three themes, the Declaration fails to lay out a clear human rights framework for progress in these areas.
A number of governments, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Honduras, indicated that they were not prepared to formally
sign the Declaration. Leaders agreed to instead adopt it by consensus and have Trinidadian Prime Minister Manning sign on behalf of
all leaders.
The governments that had registered objections did not feel that the Declaration deals adequately with the current global economic
crisis. They also wanted to see strong references to the issue of Cuba's reintegration into Organization of American States (OAS) and
the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba.
Amnesty International delegates at the Summit urged the governments of the region to make a firm commitment to ensuring that all
measures taken in response to the current global economic crisis fully conform to their human rights obligations. But the recognition
in the Declaration of the responsibility governments have to address the crisis does not acknowledge human rights at all.
"At a time of global economic turmoil and with a new spirit of compromise in the air between the government of US President
Barrack Obama and other governments in the Americas this Summit offered an unparalleled opportunity to lay out a strong human
rights vision for the Americas," said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, who was part of the Amnesty
International delegation at the Summit. "Instead, human rights have once again been pushed to the back."
Click here to read more »
Fifth Summit of the Americas
20 April 2009
The fifth Summit of the Americas has failed to recognize that human rights must be placed at the centre of efforts to confront the
many fundamental challenges facing the region.
Governments from every country in the Americas, except for Cuba, took part in the four-yearly meeting held in Port of Spain,
Trinidad and Tobago, between 17 and 19 April.
The 34 heads of state and government discussed the Summit's three principal themes: human prosperity, energy security and
environmental sustainability.
The Declaration of Commitment of Port of Spain was adopted by consensus at the close of the Summit on 19 April. Based on the
three themes, the Declaration fails to lay out a clear human rights framework for progress in these areas.
A number of governments, including Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Honduras, indicated that they were not prepared to formally
sign the Declaration. Leaders agreed to instead adopt it by consensus and have Trinidadian Prime Minister Manning sign on behalf of
all leaders.
The governments that had registered objections did not feel that the Declaration deals adequately with the current global economic
crisis. They also wanted to see strong references to the issue of Cuba's reintegration into Organization of American States (OAS) and
the lifting of the US embargo against Cuba.
Amnesty International delegates at the Summit urged the governments of the region to make a firm commitment to ensuring that all
measures taken in response to the current global economic crisis fully conform to their human rights obligations. But the recognition
in the Declaration of the responsibility governments have to address the crisis does not acknowledge human rights at all.
"At a time of global economic turmoil and with a new spirit of compromise in the air between the government of US President
Barrack Obama and other governments in the Americas this Summit offered an unparalleled opportunity to lay out a strong human
rights vision for the Americas," said Alex Neve, Secretary General of Amnesty International Canada, who was part of the Amnesty
International delegation at the Summit. "Instead, human rights have once again been pushed to the back."
Click here to read more »
An Explosive Issue: British Government Must Act
The British government must take this new opportunity to end its shameful opposition to a ban on cluster bombs.
by Tom Porteous
February 21, 2007
According to the police report, Kamaleddine Mohammad was gathering wood near the Rashidiyeh Palestinian refugee camp outside
Tyre in Lebanon last month when he stepped on an unexploded submunition from a cluster bomb. Mohammad was yet another
victim of Israel's cluster bombing campaign at the end of last summer's war between Israel and Hizbollah. He is one of the tens of
thousands of civilians killed or injured by cluster munitions in war zones throughout the world in recent decades.
This week, Norway is leading an effort to initiate negotiations that would, if successful, lead to an international ban on most, if not
all, cluster munitions, thus preventing thousands of further civilian deaths and injuries. The initiative deserves the support of all states
that profess to care about the rules of war and the protection of civilians caught up in armed conflict.
Cluster munitions, dropped from aircraft or shot out of artillery and ground rocket systems, explode in mid air and scatter hundreds
of submunitions over an area as big as, or even bigger than, a football pitch. When used in populated areas, they are almost certain to
cause large numbers of civilian casualties. Furthermore, because many of these submunitions fail to explode on impact but remain
volatile, the target area effectively becomes a minefield. Long after hostilities have ended these weapons continue to reap a bitter
harvest in civilian deaths and injuries. Children are particularly vulnerable.
In southern Lebanon, which, in the last days of last summer's war, the Israel Defence Forces blanketed with millions of
submunitions, 186 people have been injured and 30 killed by unexploded cluster submunitions since the end of the fighting.
The British government is a major producer, user, exporter and stockpiler of cluster munitions. Britain used them in Iraq in 2003,
Kosovo in 1999, Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, and the Falkland Islands in 1982. It has sold them to armed forces around the world. And
it has been opposing efforts to prohibit the use of inaccurate and unreliable cluster munitions through international negotiations such
as those which led to the landmark Mine Ban Treaty of 1997.
Click here to read more »
The British government must take this new opportunity to end its shameful opposition to a ban on cluster bombs.
by Tom Porteous
February 21, 2007
According to the police report, Kamaleddine Mohammad was gathering wood near the Rashidiyeh Palestinian refugee camp outside
Tyre in Lebanon last month when he stepped on an unexploded submunition from a cluster bomb. Mohammad was yet another
victim of Israel's cluster bombing campaign at the end of last summer's war between Israel and Hizbollah. He is one of the tens of
thousands of civilians killed or injured by cluster munitions in war zones throughout the world in recent decades.
This week, Norway is leading an effort to initiate negotiations that would, if successful, lead to an international ban on most, if not
all, cluster munitions, thus preventing thousands of further civilian deaths and injuries. The initiative deserves the support of all states
that profess to care about the rules of war and the protection of civilians caught up in armed conflict.
Cluster munitions, dropped from aircraft or shot out of artillery and ground rocket systems, explode in mid air and scatter hundreds
of submunitions over an area as big as, or even bigger than, a football pitch. When used in populated areas, they are almost certain to
cause large numbers of civilian casualties. Furthermore, because many of these submunitions fail to explode on impact but remain
volatile, the target area effectively becomes a minefield. Long after hostilities have ended these weapons continue to reap a bitter
harvest in civilian deaths and injuries. Children are particularly vulnerable.
In southern Lebanon, which, in the last days of last summer's war, the Israel Defence Forces blanketed with millions of
submunitions, 186 people have been injured and 30 killed by unexploded cluster submunitions since the end of the fighting.
The British government is a major producer, user, exporter and stockpiler of cluster munitions. Britain used them in Iraq in 2003,
Kosovo in 1999, Iraq and Kuwait in 1991, and the Falkland Islands in 1982. It has sold them to armed forces around the world. And
it has been opposing efforts to prohibit the use of inaccurate and unreliable cluster munitions through international negotiations such
as those which led to the landmark Mine Ban Treaty of 1997.
Click here to read more »
Friday, April 2nd 2010 - 00:48 UTC
Message from the Falkland Islands Government on the 28th Anniversary of the invasion by Argentina
Today we remember the events of 2 April 1982 which led to the deaths of over nine hundred people in the Falkland Islands over a
period of 74 days.
For those personally involved in the war, and their families, today will bring back sad and painful memories.
In Britain, the Falkland Islands and in Argentina, the families of the fallen will be reflecting on the events of 1982. Two hundred and
fifty five British servicemen, three Falkland Islanders as well as six hundred and forty nine Argentine servicemen lost their lives in the
war. Many more were wounded, physically and mentally. Some will never recover.
For many years, Falkland Islanders have welcomed next of kin visits from both Britain and Argentina. Only last October, under the
auspices of the Argentine Families Commission, three hundred and seventy five relatives visited the Falklands to rededicate the
Argentine cemetery at Darwin. It is right and proper that these visits should continue.
Many veterans from both sides have also visited the Falkland Islands to ease the pain of that conflict. We welcome them and pay
tribute to their courage.
Twenty eight years after the war, the Falkland Islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom with the
inalienable right to determine our own future. It is appropriate that, on this day, we should re-emphasise our wish to seek peaceful
co-operation with our neighbours as full participating members of the South Atlantic community, working with each other to ensure
that never again will the tragedy of 1982 be repeated.
Those who made the supreme sacrifice on both sides would expect nothing less of us.
Members of the Legislative Assembly, Falkland Islands Government
Click here to read more »
Message from the Falkland Islands Government on the 28th Anniversary of the invasion by Argentina
Today we remember the events of 2 April 1982 which led to the deaths of over nine hundred people in the Falkland Islands over a
period of 74 days.
For those personally involved in the war, and their families, today will bring back sad and painful memories.
In Britain, the Falkland Islands and in Argentina, the families of the fallen will be reflecting on the events of 1982. Two hundred and
fifty five British servicemen, three Falkland Islanders as well as six hundred and forty nine Argentine servicemen lost their lives in the
war. Many more were wounded, physically and mentally. Some will never recover.
For many years, Falkland Islanders have welcomed next of kin visits from both Britain and Argentina. Only last October, under the
auspices of the Argentine Families Commission, three hundred and seventy five relatives visited the Falklands to rededicate the
Argentine cemetery at Darwin. It is right and proper that these visits should continue.
Many veterans from both sides have also visited the Falkland Islands to ease the pain of that conflict. We welcome them and pay
tribute to their courage.
Twenty eight years after the war, the Falkland Islands are a self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom with the
inalienable right to determine our own future. It is appropriate that, on this day, we should re-emphasise our wish to seek peaceful
co-operation with our neighbours as full participating members of the South Atlantic community, working with each other to ensure
that never again will the tragedy of 1982 be repeated.
Those who made the supreme sacrifice on both sides would expect nothing less of us.
Members of the Legislative Assembly, Falkland Islands Government
Click here to read more »
Human Rights Capacity Training Given in the Falklands
April 2, 2010
by J. Brock (FINN)
HUMAN RIGHTS CAPACITY TRAINING GIVEN IN THE FALKLANDS
Prof David McQuiod-Mason, left and Rosanna Mesquita, right with notes gathered during the Monday afternoon session at the FI
Chamber of Commerce
Seminars on Building Human rights capacity in the Falkland Islands have been held in Stanley during this past week. Some of the
seminars have been held in the function room at the Falkland Islands Chamber of Commerce while others have been held at the
Education Department and the KEMH.
The Trainers were Professor David McQuoid-Mason from the University of Kwazulu Natal and Ms Rosanna Mesquita from the
Commonwealth Foundation.
Classes helped Faith based groups, the Media, government and community leaders to interpret Chapter one of the new Falkland
Islands Constitution, dealing with the protection of fundamental rights.
They found that training in the Falklands was different from that held in St Helena in that the Falklands apparently have a higher
level of income than in the UK. St Helena does not. Civil and political rights are important here, while on St Helena the economic
and social rights are more important.
The pair would like to return again to continue training in building human rights capacity in the Falkland Islands.
They left the Falklands on Tuesday.
Click here to read more »
April 2, 2010
by J. Brock (FINN)
HUMAN RIGHTS CAPACITY TRAINING GIVEN IN THE FALKLANDS
Prof David McQuiod-Mason, left and Rosanna Mesquita, right with notes gathered during the Monday afternoon session at the FI
Chamber of Commerce
Seminars on Building Human rights capacity in the Falkland Islands have been held in Stanley during this past week. Some of the
seminars have been held in the function room at the Falkland Islands Chamber of Commerce while others have been held at the
Education Department and the KEMH.
The Trainers were Professor David McQuoid-Mason from the University of Kwazulu Natal and Ms Rosanna Mesquita from the
Commonwealth Foundation.
Classes helped Faith based groups, the Media, government and community leaders to interpret Chapter one of the new Falkland
Islands Constitution, dealing with the protection of fundamental rights.
They found that training in the Falklands was different from that held in St Helena in that the Falklands apparently have a higher
level of income than in the UK. St Helena does not. Civil and political rights are important here, while on St Helena the economic
and social rights are more important.
The pair would like to return again to continue training in building human rights capacity in the Falkland Islands.
They left the Falklands on Tuesday.
Click here to read more »
Falkland Islands Association
Report by the Executive Committee to the Annual General Meeting held
at the Union Jack Club, Waterloo, London
5th December 2009
Events on the Islands
An event which I mentioned in last year’s report, finally took place only two months ago: this was the visit of the Argentine next of
kin to the military cemetery at Darwin. There had been so much diplomatic sparring and Posturing by the Argentine government, that
the actual visits, on successive Saturdays in October, were almost an anticlimax. The Argentine Families Commission behaved
sensibly and sympathetically in the planning stage, the arrangements went well and the next of kin were grateful for the sensitive
reception they received.
I can understand why those who lived through invasion and occupation in 1982 are very suspicious of any Argentine visitor to the
islands. I take a more positive view, remembering the comments of an Argentine yachtsman who visited in 2006: “after one day I
saw that this was not Argentina; after two days I saw it was not even the Malvinas”. Within reason, I think that we shall benefit from
Argentines who visit the prosperous and self-confident Falklands of today and go home with a Falklands stamp in their passports.
For we must recognize that the Falklands of today are a stronger and much more flourishing community than they were thirty or
even twenty years ago. The population is at its highest level ever and the number of qualified young people steadily increases.
Although there are financial problems, they come against a background of remarkable prosperity. Finally, and very important, the
commitment of HMG and the British people to self-determination for the Islands has not faltered. It is our resolve in the FIA that this
support shall remain steadfast.
Click here to read more »
Report by the Executive Committee to the Annual General Meeting held
at the Union Jack Club, Waterloo, London
5th December 2009
Events on the Islands
An event which I mentioned in last year’s report, finally took place only two months ago: this was the visit of the Argentine next of
kin to the military cemetery at Darwin. There had been so much diplomatic sparring and Posturing by the Argentine government, that
the actual visits, on successive Saturdays in October, were almost an anticlimax. The Argentine Families Commission behaved
sensibly and sympathetically in the planning stage, the arrangements went well and the next of kin were grateful for the sensitive
reception they received.
I can understand why those who lived through invasion and occupation in 1982 are very suspicious of any Argentine visitor to the
islands. I take a more positive view, remembering the comments of an Argentine yachtsman who visited in 2006: “after one day I
saw that this was not Argentina; after two days I saw it was not even the Malvinas”. Within reason, I think that we shall benefit from
Argentines who visit the prosperous and self-confident Falklands of today and go home with a Falklands stamp in their passports.
For we must recognize that the Falklands of today are a stronger and much more flourishing community than they were thirty or
even twenty years ago. The population is at its highest level ever and the number of qualified young people steadily increases.
Although there are financial problems, they come against a background of remarkable prosperity. Finally, and very important, the
commitment of HMG and the British people to self-determination for the Islands has not faltered. It is our resolve in the FIA that this
support shall remain steadfast.
Click here to read more »
Represented by
Alan Huckle
Governor since 25 August 2006
Alan Huckle
Governor since 25 August 2006
Derek F. Howatt
Financial Secretary Since March 2003
Financial Secretary Since March 2003
Click on map for larger view
Click on flag for Country Report
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
None reported.