• adRn-s@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interestingly, those islands are on argentinean sea. There’re international laws that would say they are argentinean land… Even if they were occupied since maybe even before the two English invasions on Buenos Aires, a few centuries ago.

    • Deceptichum@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      … That’s not how it works.

      You don’t suddenly own every piece of land X nautical miles out from your coast since 1982.

    • Narrrz@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      actually, I think you’ll find, Argentina falls within BRITISH seas, extending outward from the shores of the Falklands.

      • rmuk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bad news, though: I just found out that large swathes of southern England are in France’s territorial waters, and the entire city of Manchester is owned by Liverpool for the same reason.

    • rainynight65@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles off the shore. States can claim a contiguous zone to up to 24 nautical miles, in which they can exercise some control to protect their territory and customs.

      The exclusive economic zone (EEZ), in which a state controls all economic resources, extends to 200 nautical miles off the shore. These are not territorial waters.

      All of the above have exceptions where the territorial waters and EEZs of two states would overlap.

      The Falklands are 260 nautical miles off the Argentinean coast. So even if those ‘international laws’ you’re so vaguely citing existed, they would not apply here.