Ernesto Loffler considered today that Argentina should imitate Chagos and go to the International Court of Justice to claim the non-compliance by Great Britain of Resolution 2056/XX that in 1965 invited our Country and the United Kingdom to " "continue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee charged with examining the situation with respect to the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples in order to find a peaceful solution to the problem", in relation to the dispute over the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands.
The assessments on international law by the professor and member of the Superior Court of Justice of Tierra del Fuego, were given at the opening of the #EntreFederales Cycle of the Austral University , which took place this Monday the 25th at 4 p.m. in Ushuaia, and broadcast to through the YouTube channel of the prestigious academic center of Argentina, called: “Malvinas Argentinas and the force of reason. Six arguments to sustain our sovereignty” ; where Ernesto Loffler put together the historical, legal and juridical reasons of Argentina regarding the Malvinas, South Georgia, South Sandwich, maritime spaces and Antarctica, as an integral part of the southern province. There is already an applicable precedent: advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the “Legal Consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago Mauritius in 1965”, issued on February 25, 2019, referring to the violation of the territorial integrity of the island African crime committed by Great Britain, by failing to comply with General Assembly resolutions 2066/XX and 2232/XXI, said the lawyer, teacher and judge.
The 40 minutes of Dr. Ernesto Loffler 's presentation closed, after raising the unconstitutionality of art. 2 of the Provincialization Law of Tierra del Fuego, No. 23,775 , in which "With regard to Antarctica, Malvinas, Georgias del South, South Sandwich and other subantarctic islands, the new province is subject to the treaties with foreign powers concluded by the federal government, for the ratification of which it will not be necessary to consult the provincial government.
What would happen if the negotiations within the framework of the Malvinas issue involved the renunciation of any of the rights over Fuegian territory? Loffler asked. And he recalled: “any negotiation that alters the limits of our Province must, under penalty of unconstitutionality: 1 ) be approved by an aggravated majority of our Provincial Legislature, with the vote of ¾ of the members of the Chamber, 2) if approved, be validated through popular consultation.
