The Falkland/Malvinas Islands and the Senkaku/Diaoyutai Islands disputes: A comparative approach to define territorial disputes

Résumé du document

Disputes over islands are countless throughout History. States have always searched to extend their boundaries, and islands in particular have always been coveted as both a proliferous natural resources source and a means to gain more land and fishing area. This has been even more the case since 1982 with the signature of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which grants each nation 12 nautical miles of territorial water and 200 nautical miles of Exclusive Economic Zone along its coasts (special regulations apply for zones where the nearest land is closer than these distances).

This means that a country has full control of the exploitation of all natural resources included in the Exclusive Economic Zone. It is striking to see how many present and past day territorial issues are related to islands and who owns sovereignty over these islands. Examples of present day issues are the disputes over Cyprus, the Liancourt Rocks or the South Kuril Islands.

Although they are more than 17000 kilometers away one from the other, the Falkland and the Senkaku Islands have thus much in common: both are the subject of vivid international disputes that have been lasting for several decades and that impact greatly the relations between the antagonist countries. The United Kingdom has claimed sovereignty over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands since 1690, with the landing of Captain John Strong and the first settlement of English colonists.

Extraits

[...] For example, France was able to conduct nuclear tests in the territorial seas of French Polynesia, thousands of kilometers away from Paris. The geographical position of the islands is also an argument for both Argentina and China and Taiwan. Involving the Convention on the Continental Shelf, both Argentina and China use their proximity with the islands as yet another factor supporting their cause. The Convention on the Continental Shelf does indeed establish the rights of a sovereign state over the continental shelf surrounding it. [...]

[...] The control of the islands continued to fluctuate between Spain and the UK until 1811, when the islands were deserted. The next settlers arrived in 1828 and were Argentinian. This settlement was made with authorization of Great Britain, who was also asked by the main settler, Vernet, that the event of the British returning to the islands, [they] would take his settlement under their protection”.[4] The settlement endured until the return of the British in 1833. Since 1833, Great Britain and later on, the United Kingdom, have had de facto sovereignty over the archipelago. [...]

[...] This implies knowledge of the ocean bottom and of the structure of the tectonic plates of the area. For now, no impartial scientific third party has ruled out on the issue of knowing whether or not China and/or Argentina do have continental shelf control over the islands. We can here see that territorial dispute settlement goes beyond the simple borders of international law, and implies taking into account all kinds of geographical, historical, political and economic factors. This makes dispute settlement all the more complicated, as an objective point of view becomes harder to find as the number of factors to take into account multiply. [...]

[...] In 1985, the Falklands were named British overseas territory. The Falklands are thus self-governing, with the exception of foreign policy. Relations between Argentina and the UK were inexistent until 1989, when diplomatic relations were once more developed. In 1998, Carlos Menem, President of Argentina, stated during a visit in London that Argentina maintained its claimed over the Falklands, although force would never be used again. The Falklands territorial sea and the EEZ that surround them contain oil and are plentiful areas of fishing. [...]

[...] The tactic may even be more effective for China as Japan's colonial past is much more vivid in the East Asian minds than in South America. Japan's close neighbors, especially Korea and China, are still resentful of certain acts of violence committed by Japanese soldiers at times of war or of occupation. Using the memory of Japan's imperialism can thus be considered to be a clever strategy to try and wake this “unfortunate past” that still burdens East Asia. It is thus very interesting to see how territorial dispute settlement can depend heavily on the past. [...]