Article 8th of Utrecht Treaty

[caton]

Article 8th of Utrecht Treaty


When King Carlos III of Spain knew about the English settlement in Malvinas, he ordered his ambassador to ask the English government for information and to invoke Article 8 of the Utrecht Treaty, writing in his instructions “...jamás consentiría semejantes establecimientos y los impediría a toda costa, aunque con mucho sentimiento de verse en tal cruel posición.” (“.. I would never consent such settlements and I would not allow them at any price, though with deep feeling due to find himself in such a cruel position”).

The Spanish Ambassador Count Masserano had a meeting with English Minister Count Shelburne and he informed his King as follows: “Le repetí suficientes veces que el Mar del Sur, como sus costas e islas adyacentes pertenecen a España, que ninguna otra potencia puede establecerse en aquellos parajes ni aún navegar en ellos, según se dispone por el Artículo 8° del Tratado de Utrecht, base de cuantos subsisten entre ambas potencias y de que la Gran Bretaña es garante y no es creíble quiera ser la primera en infrigirla” (“I repeated him a sufficient number of times that the South Sea, its coasts and adjacent islands belong to Spain, that no other power can establish himself in those zones, not even sail in them according Article 8th of the Utrecht Treaty, the basis of all treaties which subsist between both powers, of which Great Britain is trustee and that it is not believable that she wants to be the first to infringe”).

Article 8th stablishes that “...que el ejercicio de la navegación y el comercio para las Indias Occidentales de España, queda en el mismo estado en que se encontraba en tiempos del mencionado Rey Carlos II.” (“...that the practice of navigation and trade for the Spanish West Indies* remains in the same condition as it was at the times of the already mentioned King Carlos II”).

So, the Utrecht Treaty supports Spanish right in Malvinas and as a consequence of it, our right.


Best,


Javier


*The Americas were known as the “West Indies”, being the Eastern Indies the Asian ones.

[Sea Eagle]

Javier,

I would be very interested to know when Argentina as a sovereign nation and fully independent from Spain and the Spanish crown became a signatory to the treaty of Utrecht and if it was with the permission and agreement of the other signatories?

In addition I would also like to know if Argentina has ever formally adopted by law or constitutionally ALL the other Treaties to which Spain was a party prior to 1810 and is Argentina still bound by all the agreements in those treaties?

This is a serious question.

Regards,

Ernie

[Sea Eagle]

Javier,

Oops, I almost forgot, talking of the Treaty of Utrecht

ARTICLE 10
OF THE
TREATY OF UTRECHT
13 JULY 1713

First Paragraph:

The Catholic King does hereby, for himself, his heirs and successors, yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever, without any exception or impediment whatsoever.

(El Rey Católico, por si y por sus herederos y sucesores, cede por este Tratado a la Corona de la Gran Bretaña la plena y entera propiedad de la ciudad y castillo de Gibraltar, juntamente con su puerto, defensas y fortaleza que le pertenecen, dando la dicha propiedad absolutamente para que la tenga y goce con entero derecho y para siempre, sin excepción ni impedimento alguno.)

Of course if I remember correctly one of the arguments of Spain in demanding the ‘return’ of Gibraltar in this matter is that the Treaty of Utrecht was made under duress at a low point in Spain’s power and ability as a defeated nation and therefore is invalid.

What do you think, is it valid or not?

Regards,

Ernie

[caton]

Article 10 of Utrecht Treaty


As per article 10 of the Utrecht treaty (1713) that ended that war, Spain ceded England the "ownership" of the city and castle of Gibraltar altogether with it's port, defences and fortresses belonging to Spain. But it also states that "the ownership is ceded to Great Britain WITHOUT ANY TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION".
This apparent contradiction is not such, considering that the distinction between JURISDICTION and OWNERSHIP was clearly and undoubtedly explained by the greatest expert of international right of those times, the Dutchman Grotius (Hugo Grocio, in Spanish) .
So, what Spain ceded Britain was not sovereignty but the military use of the installations.

[Sea Eagle]

Javier,

Hmmm, this is an interesting point but it seems to me that there is no ambiguity in the text in either language unless you are open to mischievous interpretation. The territorial jurisdiction is clearly linked with and refers to the "country round about" in the context in which it is written. Undoubtedly included by the Spanish King in case the British tried to extend their jurisdiction inland. The wording otherwise would not make any sense, certainly in the English version nor, I am certain, in the Spanish version.

Quote:-

"But that abuses and frauds may be avoided by importing any kind of goods, the Catholic King wills, and takes it to be understood, that the above-named propriety be yielded to Great Britain without any territorial jurisdiction and without any open communication by land with the country round about."

In Spanish:

"Pero, para evitar cualesquiera abusos y fraudes en la introducción de las mercaderías. quiere el Rey Católico, y supone que así se ha de entender, que la dicha propiedad se ceda a la Gran Bretaña sin jurisdicción alguna territorial y sin comunicación alguna abierta con el país circunvecino por parte de tierra."

You said:

"the ownership is ceded to Great Britain WITHOUT ANY TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION".

Regrettably I cannot find these words either in Spanish or English in Article 10 so what Grotious said or did not say about them is not relevant as far as I can see.

Good try,

Regards,

Ernie

[caton]

Ernie,


Your quote:

"Good try"

It is not "my" try nor my interpretation of the treaty, but Spain's.


Best - Javier