Sorry, Britain. The Falkland Islanders are just 190-year-old squatters

As per the dispute between Argentina and Great Britain over the Malvinas/Falkland Islands, one argument in favor of England is the 1982 war that England won. However, this idea that "might makes right" is not a valid argument for justice. Instead, the theory of justice in ownership, based on homesteading, should be considered. According to natural law, governments acquire sovereignty through the wishes of the individual people who are citizens and occupants of the territory.

A key legal principle is that "possession is nine-tenths of the law," meaning the burden of proof lies with those attempting to remove occupants from the contested territory.

Initially, Britain had a strong case, as there were 1,800 settlers on the disputed islands in 1982, virtually all of whom were Englishmen who desired to be ruled by the UK. However, a closer examination of history reveals that Argentina's claim is much stronger. The first permanent settlement on the islands was a French colony established in 1764 by Bougainville, which Spain purchased in 1766 and recognized as Britain's claim was withdrawn in 1790.

Between 1820 and 1829, Argentina resettled the islands through Vernet. In 1831, a US raid led to the expulsion of Argentines, followed by a British landing in 1833 that drove them out. This forcible dispossession contrasts with the concept of homesteading, which posits that the first person to mix labor with the land has legitimate ownership.

Britain's defense after 1833, claiming that the expulsion is ancient history and that the current settlers have mixed their labor with the land, turns the traditional understanding of homesteading on its head. The original homesteaders, the Argentines who built houses, hunted seals, and had an organized fishing system, were forcibly removed by Britain in 1833.

Simply seizing the land and claiming ownership does not negate the rights of the original possessors. The sale of the Falkland Islands Company in 1846 and the continued presence of British settlers do not establish new homesteading rights, as the original dispossession remains valid.

Therefore, from a libertarian perspective, Argentina's claim to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is more justified, as the British forcibly removed the original inhabitants, making them squatters or trespassers rather than legitimate owners.