That's stretching the definition of "settled." Whatever you call it, the fundamental questions are (1) what is necessary to establish a claim and (2) what is necessary to supersede a claim.
They did not live on the land, use the land, or anything of the sort
If living on the land and using the land is the test for a legitimate claim -- at least where previously uninhabited land is concerned -- Britain has as good of a case as anyone. There weren't permanent settlements on the land (or even consistent use) until they established them in the mid-19th century. Sporadic attempts to make use of the island (first by imperial Spain, then by the settler-colonial state of Argentina) don't strike me as any different from Britain's earlier sporadic attempts to make use of the island. I don't see how one can write off the early British attempts, but count the similar Argentine attempts as legitimate, and then write off the later British settlement that proved to be lasting.
Their only claim to the island and desire for it was geopolitical staging
If tomorrow I land on a previously-uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific, and along with some other people I "live on the land and use the land," it doesn't matter what our intent is. No one has a better claim to that land than us.
In 1690, the first definite visit to the Falklands (certainly by any country that ever made a claim on the islands) is by a British ship.
In 1764, a French settlement is established -- this would eventually be turned over the the Spanish, and it appeared to top out at a population of 100.
In 1766, a British settlement is established -- nothing about the population, but it apparently contained a small town separate from a garrison.
In 1776, the British military departs, but leaves behind a plaque in an attempt to maintain their claim.
British sealers continue to use the settlement until 1780, when they are forced out by the Spanish (presumably not a legitimate way for Spain to end Britain's claim).
In 1820, we see the first post-independence Argentine contact with the islands, when a privateer under the Argentine flag stays six months to make repairs to his ship. He's greeted and aided by at least one British person, who he found on the island.
No one from Argentina visits the island again until 1824. No settlement is attempted then or on a subsequent visit in 1826, and the 1826 visit proceeds only after obtaining permission from the British consulate in Buenos Aires.
In 1828, Argentina makes an attempt at establishing a settlement, and the leader of the expedition again asks the British consulate for permission.
In 1829, the British complain to Argentina that the leader of the settlement is attempting to regulate seal hunting rights (presumably signaling that British seal hunters have been frequenting the island)
In 1831, the conditions of the settlement are so miserable that when a U.S. ship arrives after a dispute over seized seal hunting ships, most of the settlers take the opportunity to leave. About 24 Argentinians remained.
In 1832, Argentina tries to establish a penal colony. British sealers are still using the islands.
In 1833, Britain expels the Argentine military presence, but none of the civilian/commercial presence. Five members of the settlement are murdered over a wage dispute. The survivors flee and are rescued by a British sealer.
In 1834, there were at least a few indefinite British residents. British presence was continuous from here on out.
By 1841, there was a population of about 50 at the new British colony, which grew to about 200 by 1849, and slowly increased from there.
First, British sealers only left (in 1780) after the Spanish forced them out. I don't see that as legitimately terminating the British claim. Second, British sealers returned in significant numbers right after the Spanish pulled all of their people off the island (in 1811). I see that as continued use of the islands, as well as a sign that the British never willingly gave up their claim. Third, although Argentina visited the island as early 1820 and had a few abortive commercial expeditions in subsequent years, they didn't attempt to establish a settlement until 1828. During this time they were aware of British claims and respected them. And as soon as Argentina challenged those claims (about the time when it began its imperial war of extermination against its indigenous people) Britain responded and formed a permanent settlement.
In short, I don't see Britain ever willingly renouncing its claim, I see Britain using the land near-continuously whenever they were not barred by the Spanish, and I see a halting Argentinian attempt to form a permanent settlement that began by asking the British for permission. At no point does Argentina have a clear claim on the island, and they certainly never have one stronger than Britain's claim.
I thought we had decided that use/settlement of unoccupied land was the touchstone for a legitimate claim on that land. Two colonial powers horsetrading an island doesn't square well with that. Similarly, claims drawn up in Rome by the Pope centuries before anyone regularly used or inhabited the island don't really hold any water.
when Spain took over the settlement by repayment, they pushed the British out
No, Spain coexisted with Britain on the island for years, just as France had coexisted with Britain before that. Spain didn't push out British sealers until four years after the British military left, too. This might suggest a joint claim on the island, or claims on different parts of the island, but it doesn't suggest Spain owned the whole thing outright. There had even been a Spanish/British military confrontation over the matter in 1770, and its resolution left both parties on the island for the next decade.
When Spain relinquished South America because they were overstretched, Argentina claimed land in the area.
If simply declaring a claim on unused, uninhabited land is valid, we're back to Britain having as good of a claim as anyone. What happened to use/settlement being the key factors?
The colonists claiming area that other colonists stayed behind in when the Spanish pulled out
When Spain left in 1811 they pulled out everyone -- military and civilian alike. The only people using or occupying the island at that point were sealers, and they were primarily British and American. If there's a "continued line of ownership through living and working the land," that points to Britain much more than Argentina. After Spain left, no Argentinian visited until 1820, and then there were only a few scattered commercial expeditions until 1828. British sealers had moved (back) in right after Spain pulled out in 1811, and it looks like they were there ever since. They were definitely there for the 1820 Argentine contact and the 1828 settlement attempt.
I consider rightful claims to land to be based on usage of unused land
I agree with this, as I have since you first mentioned it. Using this definition of a valid claim, Britain had at least some claim to at least part of the island earlier than Spain, to say nothing of Argentina. By continuously occupying and using the land from 1766-1780, they originally co-existed with the French, then co-existed with the Spanish for several more years. That's a valid claim, at least to part of the island. Britain didn't displace anyone, their neighbors generally didn't contest British claims, and Britain used the land.
They only stopped using the island in 1780, when the Spanish forcibly evicted them. That's not a valid termination of the British claim -- you can't just conquer someone's land and say they no longer have rights to it. And as soon as the Spanish left in 1811, British users came right back in, and seem to have continuously used the island up through when the British military returned in 1833. In short, there has been continuous British use of the island since 1766, with the only exception being when Spain (wrongly) conquered and occupied their part.
As for trading land and the French-Spanish swap early on, I think trading land is fine so long as the recipient uses it, which Spain (at least initially) did. However, when Spain abandoned the island -- pulling out every Spanish occupant -- never returned, and never re-asserted its claim, I see no reason to honor that claim any longer. Similarly, I see no reason to say that claim was transferred to Argentina: it wasn't traded, and it wasn't won in an independence struggle. Any argument in the form of "well it was part of the Vicereoyalty of Rio de la Plata, too" falls apart too, because the whole Viceroyalty didn't initially rebel (see Paraguay), and what was to become Argentina never really had control/use/occupation of the entirety of the part that did rebel (Bolivia and Uruguay soon split off, and much of the "desert" outside of Buenos Aires was indigenous-controlled and would be for decades). Certainly Argentina can't just claim any territory once claimed by Spain -- again, it comes back to what Argentina was actually using, with the corollary that you can't just show up on someone else's land and kick them out.
In reality, the way claims operated in the time these claims were made
I'm not putting much stock in these for two reasons. First, as leftists and anti-imperialists I would imagine we're both rightly critical of the Pope dividing up lands a continent away (nearly all of which Europeans had never seen, much less visited or used) for colonial powers. Second, as you point out, the only real rule was who could get away with holding a piece of land, and the rest was legal fictions largely invented after the fact as justification. That's not a good standard, but Britain would clearly win under it, too.
Before that, the British desire for the islands was purely geopolitical posturing.
British sealers were using the island for commercial purposes since at least 1776, and probably earlier. They didn't just set up a garrison and hang out. Britain certainly wasn't posturing any more than any other involved power was.
Spain had the best claim because it was transferred back to them through sale.
At most, this was a claim to part of the island, while the British had a valid claim to another part of the island. The British and French were co-existing in the Falklands before the French port was sold to Spain.
As Argentina was the only remaining nation who had done any development on the island administering it on behalf of Spain
I don't know if the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata -- a Spanish colony -- did much administering of the island. Even if we say that there was significant administration (not use) by the Viceroyalty, and even if we want to give Argentina credit for what its predecessor colony did, there's still the matter of Spain totally abandoning the Falklands in 1811, and the matter of Britain having at very least a partial claim to the island from the 1700s.
Britain again only became interested because they saw Argentina moving in to develop the area
But use is the touchstone here, not intentions. And Britain used the island consistently as a port for sealers during the whole time in question, excepting when they had been forced out by Spain.
It was several more decades before they developed it as anything besides corporate holdings. I
It wasn't just a holding, it was being used. Use of the land is what determines a valid claim, right?
The economic pressures on an island requiring external supply to be at all viable is such a coercive force that I don’t think a true claim of self-determination was ultimately possible for that populace.
I completely disagree with writing off claims of self-determination on the grounds that you buy things from elsewhere. I'm not sure it's accurate to say an external supply is "required," anyway -- like most places, they've undoubtedly structured their economy not around self-sufficiency, but around profitability, so what they're currently doing isn't a reflection of what they're capable of.
It's right to be skeptical of that, but I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise, and not every tiny island has always had people living on it.
deleted by creator
That's stretching the definition of "settled." Whatever you call it, the fundamental questions are (1) what is necessary to establish a claim and (2) what is necessary to supersede a claim.
deleted by creator
If living on the land and using the land is the test for a legitimate claim -- at least where previously uninhabited land is concerned -- Britain has as good of a case as anyone. There weren't permanent settlements on the land (or even consistent use) until they established them in the mid-19th century. Sporadic attempts to make use of the island (first by imperial Spain, then by the settler-colonial state of Argentina) don't strike me as any different from Britain's earlier sporadic attempts to make use of the island. I don't see how one can write off the early British attempts, but count the similar Argentine attempts as legitimate, and then write off the later British settlement that proved to be lasting.
If tomorrow I land on a previously-uninhabited island in the middle of the Pacific, and along with some other people I "live on the land and use the land," it doesn't matter what our intent is. No one has a better claim to that land than us.
deleted by creator
I don't think this is an accurate reading of the history. I'm not pulling this from anywhere obscure:
First, British sealers only left (in 1780) after the Spanish forced them out. I don't see that as legitimately terminating the British claim. Second, British sealers returned in significant numbers right after the Spanish pulled all of their people off the island (in 1811). I see that as continued use of the islands, as well as a sign that the British never willingly gave up their claim. Third, although Argentina visited the island as early 1820 and had a few abortive commercial expeditions in subsequent years, they didn't attempt to establish a settlement until 1828. During this time they were aware of British claims and respected them. And as soon as Argentina challenged those claims (about the time when it began its imperial war of extermination against its indigenous people) Britain responded and formed a permanent settlement.
In short, I don't see Britain ever willingly renouncing its claim, I see Britain using the land near-continuously whenever they were not barred by the Spanish, and I see a halting Argentinian attempt to form a permanent settlement that began by asking the British for permission. At no point does Argentina have a clear claim on the island, and they certainly never have one stronger than Britain's claim.
deleted by creator
I thought we had decided that use/settlement of unoccupied land was the touchstone for a legitimate claim on that land. Two colonial powers horsetrading an island doesn't square well with that. Similarly, claims drawn up in Rome by the Pope centuries before anyone regularly used or inhabited the island don't really hold any water.
No, Spain coexisted with Britain on the island for years, just as France had coexisted with Britain before that. Spain didn't push out British sealers until four years after the British military left, too. This might suggest a joint claim on the island, or claims on different parts of the island, but it doesn't suggest Spain owned the whole thing outright. There had even been a Spanish/British military confrontation over the matter in 1770, and its resolution left both parties on the island for the next decade.
If simply declaring a claim on unused, uninhabited land is valid, we're back to Britain having as good of a claim as anyone. What happened to use/settlement being the key factors?
When Spain left in 1811 they pulled out everyone -- military and civilian alike. The only people using or occupying the island at that point were sealers, and they were primarily British and American. If there's a "continued line of ownership through living and working the land," that points to Britain much more than Argentina. After Spain left, no Argentinian visited until 1820, and then there were only a few scattered commercial expeditions until 1828. British sealers had moved (back) in right after Spain pulled out in 1811, and it looks like they were there ever since. They were definitely there for the 1820 Argentine contact and the 1828 settlement attempt.
deleted by creator
I agree with this, as I have since you first mentioned it. Using this definition of a valid claim, Britain had at least some claim to at least part of the island earlier than Spain, to say nothing of Argentina. By continuously occupying and using the land from 1766-1780, they originally co-existed with the French, then co-existed with the Spanish for several more years. That's a valid claim, at least to part of the island. Britain didn't displace anyone, their neighbors generally didn't contest British claims, and Britain used the land.
They only stopped using the island in 1780, when the Spanish forcibly evicted them. That's not a valid termination of the British claim -- you can't just conquer someone's land and say they no longer have rights to it. And as soon as the Spanish left in 1811, British users came right back in, and seem to have continuously used the island up through when the British military returned in 1833. In short, there has been continuous British use of the island since 1766, with the only exception being when Spain (wrongly) conquered and occupied their part.
As for trading land and the French-Spanish swap early on, I think trading land is fine so long as the recipient uses it, which Spain (at least initially) did. However, when Spain abandoned the island -- pulling out every Spanish occupant -- never returned, and never re-asserted its claim, I see no reason to honor that claim any longer. Similarly, I see no reason to say that claim was transferred to Argentina: it wasn't traded, and it wasn't won in an independence struggle. Any argument in the form of "well it was part of the Vicereoyalty of Rio de la Plata, too" falls apart too, because the whole Viceroyalty didn't initially rebel (see Paraguay), and what was to become Argentina never really had control/use/occupation of the entirety of the part that did rebel (Bolivia and Uruguay soon split off, and much of the "desert" outside of Buenos Aires was indigenous-controlled and would be for decades). Certainly Argentina can't just claim any territory once claimed by Spain -- again, it comes back to what Argentina was actually using, with the corollary that you can't just show up on someone else's land and kick them out.
I'm not putting much stock in these for two reasons. First, as leftists and anti-imperialists I would imagine we're both rightly critical of the Pope dividing up lands a continent away (nearly all of which Europeans had never seen, much less visited or used) for colonial powers. Second, as you point out, the only real rule was who could get away with holding a piece of land, and the rest was legal fictions largely invented after the fact as justification. That's not a good standard, but Britain would clearly win under it, too.
deleted by creator
British sealers were using the island for commercial purposes since at least 1776, and probably earlier. They didn't just set up a garrison and hang out. Britain certainly wasn't posturing any more than any other involved power was.
At most, this was a claim to part of the island, while the British had a valid claim to another part of the island. The British and French were co-existing in the Falklands before the French port was sold to Spain.
I don't know if the Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata -- a Spanish colony -- did much administering of the island. Even if we say that there was significant administration (not use) by the Viceroyalty, and even if we want to give Argentina credit for what its predecessor colony did, there's still the matter of Spain totally abandoning the Falklands in 1811, and the matter of Britain having at very least a partial claim to the island from the 1700s.
But use is the touchstone here, not intentions. And Britain used the island consistently as a port for sealers during the whole time in question, excepting when they had been forced out by Spain.
It wasn't just a holding, it was being used. Use of the land is what determines a valid claim, right?
I completely disagree with writing off claims of self-determination on the grounds that you buy things from elsewhere. I'm not sure it's accurate to say an external supply is "required," anyway -- like most places, they've undoubtedly structured their economy not around self-sufficiency, but around profitability, so what they're currently doing isn't a reflection of what they're capable of.