Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum The Falklands/Malvinas Case.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum The Falklands/Malvinas Case."— Presentation transcript:

1 Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum The Falklands/Malvinas Case

2 I. Background A.Argentina in 1982: not minimally just (ruled by a brutal military junta) B.Britain in 1982: minimally just (liberal democracy) C.The dispute: Islands in the South Atlantic

3 1. The Falklands (Malvinas) a.About 2000 residents b.Disputed between Spain and Britain from 1748 c.Argentine claim inherited from Spain d.Both Argentina and UK settle c.1828, but Argentine settlement largely destroyed by US  British control since 1833 e.Approx. 2000 inhabitants (not British citizens as of 1982, but sympathetic to UK)

4 2. South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands British claim from 1775 discovery, administer as dependency of Falklands Argentina claims in early 20 th century (as dependency of Malvinas) All islands are unpopulated (perhaps 20 scientists or others at any one time)

5 II. Argentine actions A.Seizure of South Georgia 1.Events a.19 March 1982 – Group of Argentines land on South Georgia and raise Argentine flag b.Both sides send ships to the area. c.25 March – Argentina lands 100 soldiers d.31 March -- Britain lands 22 Marines e.3 April – “Battle” of Grytviken (pop: 11). 2 Argentines killed; all 22 British Marines surrender (1 wounded)

6 2. Was war just? Just Cause: British territorial sovereignty violated and 1 Marine wounded Rightful Intention: Assume goal is to restore British sovereignty. (Politics probably plays a role as well, given the recession in Britain) Public Declaration by Lawful Authority: Met by British announcements Last Resort: Britain negotiated after flag-raising and continued negotiations after occupation, but Argentina refused to leave or submit the dispute to the World Court for arbitration Probability of Success: Not certain, but certainly possible for Britain to win Proportionality: Is Grytviken worth a war?

7 B. Invasion of the Falklands 1.Events a.2 April: Hundreds of Argentine Marines land and surround British garrison (around 70 men). b.1 Argentine killed. No British casualties. c.British garrison surrenders. 2.Do the wishes of the 2000 islanders make war a proportional response?

8 III. War and its Consequences A.Britain retakes islands by force B.Material losses 1.Britain: Six ships and 34 aircraft destroyed, £2.778 billion (about £1.4 million per Falklander) 2.Argentina: 1 cruiser, 1 submarine, several transport boats, 109 aircraft, monetary costs unknown

9 C. Casualties 1.Combat Deaths a.633 Argentine military dead, about half from sinking of General Belgrano. 1188 more wounded. b.256 British military dead. 777 more wounded. c.19 civilians killed (16 Argentine civilian sailors, 3 British women on the Falklands hit by friendly fire) 2.Postwar deaths a.PTSD common on both sides after war b.By 2002, 264 British veterans and 454 Argentine veterans had committed suicide

10 Was it worth it? Remember: This was a small war (not even a war by my criteria)


Download ppt "Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum The Falklands/Malvinas Case."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google