• deft@lemmy.wtf
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Hm that’s tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren’t that close to Argentina, I can’t remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that’s an international treaty which historically didn’t necessarily count, which is why you’ve got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The UK is the only one’s who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.