Thursday, July 7, 2016


Concerning Gibraltar, Spain and the United Kingdom are doomed again to be faced in a war.
When in 1961 the Republic of India demanded Portugal to transfer Goa into their territory, Portugal responded by defending the right of self-determination. The Indian Union invaded, and Goa is Indian and Ganttiafied today. When in 1982 China demanded the handover of Hong Kong, UK refused it by defending the right of self-determination of the people of Hong Kong, China threatened to break relations with UK and now Hong Kong is Chinese. When in 1956 Egypt occupied the Canal, Britain and France responded through military force, and only US pressure let out a piece of Egypt Egyptian.
We can continue to infinity, what did Spain, by contrast? In 1960 Spain presented its case at the UN. A violent and fascist movement! The case was reviewed at UN and resolved that Gibraltar should be decolonised, and that Britain and Spain should discuss the conditions individually. UK flatly refused, and has continued until now doing it. In fact, recently it has openly sought to consolidate the colonial status of Gibraltar (defense and diplomacy are controlled by London, and the Constitution and Institutions of Gibraltar are under direct authority of the Privy Council). How should you respond to Spain? Accept without your constant complaints from 1715 (the return of Gibraltar into its territory) it is constrained by 20,000 Spaniards living in Gibraltar and trying to maintain their fiscal and social privileges?
Notice again: shots around Gibraltar are closer than they appear, and those who want to see it are blind.
As for Catalonia, the Basque provinces, Galicia, Valencia, Balearic... only two things:
1. Miserable.
2. Abraham Lincoln.
Spain is too civilised to take Gibraltar by force, in contrast with the Chinese who took Hong Kong (using implicit force) or the Indians who took Goa. There seems to be a race between the forces of dissolution in Spain and the slow process of acquisition of Gibraltar. If Spain fragments into a loose federation before Gibraltar is annexed, Gibraltar will be able to join as a region with greater autonomy, the union will be largely symbolic, and the damage will be minimal.
...Kelsen accepts this argument and even states that self-defence is part of 'jus cogens' and thus cannot be modified by a treaty such as the Charter.
The recognition of wars of national liberation as international conflicts bound the movements of liberation to respect Art. 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibiting the use of force. The only exception to this article which is available to an individual actor is Art. 51 which guarantees the "inherent right of individual or collective self defence if an armed attack occurs. . . ." It was then only natural that supporters of liberation movements attempted to use this article to legitimise their struggles against colonialism. The war and victory in Algeria, the invasion of Goa, the frustration caused by continued colonial domination, and the radical position of independent Algeria all provided a catalyst for the development of theories regarding national liberation.
Many types of armed conflict lawful 100 years ago have disappeared from the arsenal of states since the adoption of prohibitions on the use of force. As Cassese points out, states generally restrict their use of armed force to intervention in civil war and to security issues. In relatively few instances, for example, have states sought to take control of territory through armed force: China in Tibet, Iraq in Iran, Arab states in Israel, Argentina in the Falklands, Indonesia in East Timor, India in Goa, Pakistan in Kashmir, and Iraq in Kuwait. Half of these attempts have failed.
The creation of the Indian invasion of Goa in 1961. Goa was a Portuguese protectorate at the time, although India maintained that it was an integral part of India and, as such, the invasion amounted to an act of self-determination. The invasion was criticised by a number of states, but the Sec. Council was unable to agree on a clear policy. Following the Portuguese revolution in 1974, the new government recognised the Indian title to Goa. It is clear that today Goa forms part of the territory of India. There remains some doubt, however, as to who had the title to the territory between 1961 and 1974 and the precise effect of Portuguese recognition of Indian claims.
Why did Mario sign the treaty? Was he a Jonoeiro?
It is submitted that in the light of the 'jus cogens' rule prohibiting the threat or use of force any annexation which has taken place after the entry into force of the UN Charter e.g. the annexation of Tibet by China in 1951, the annexation of Hyderabad by India in 1948, the annexation of Goa should be regarded as illegal and thus without any effect under international law. Such fundamental illegality can neither be justified by the subsequent conclusion of a peace treaty nor by the application of the doctrine of historic consolidation. However, in respect of annexations which occurred during the period between the two world wars, and provided that there was acquiescence on the part of the State concerned, it may be that application of the doctrine of historic consolidation can be accepted. This view was expressed by Judge Fortier in his Separate Opinion in the Case 'Concerning the Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Merit). Aggression partakes of the nature of a breach of 'jus cogens' and is not readily, curable by prescription, lapse of time or acquiescence.
Where is the treaty signed between the government of the Rep. of India and the 223 Comunidades/Gãocarias?
Freedom! Goa Livre!

No comments:

Post a Comment