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

The controversy surrounding the Falkland Islands (or Malvinas, as Argentina calls them) hinges on the question of who has the right to claim sovereignty over the territory. Arguments in favor of Britain often cite the 1982 war, asserting that "to the victor belong the spoils," but this logic is rejected as nonsensical when seeking justice. The situation becomes clearer when applying John Locke's theory of justice in ownership, which asserts that the first person to "mix their labor" with the land is the rightful owner.

Under this theory, Argentina's claim is strengthened by the fact that the Falkland Islands were inhabited by Argentine gauchos long before the British settlers arrived. These gauchos, known as "kelpers," had settled the islands in the early 19th century and had built homes, hunted seals, and established a fishing system. However, Britain forcibly removed them in 1833. This removal is seen as the forcible dispossession of a group that had mixed their labor with the land, thus weakening Britain's claim to the islands.

Conversely, Britain's defense relies on the argument that they are the rightful owners because the current inhabitants—descendants of British settlers—are the ones who have mixed labor with the land. Yet, this perspective turns Locke's theory on its head. It suggests that the rightful owners are those who initially settled the land, not those who forcibly evicted them. Consequently, the British settlers are viewed as squatters or trespassers.

Furthermore, the legal principle "possession is nine-tenths of the law" isn't enough to overturn the original claim. It's the obligation of those seeking to remove occupants to prove prior ownership. In the case of the Falkland Islands, Argentina, which has a strong economic footing due to its strengthened economy under President Javier Milei, has a historical claim based on the original inhabitants.

The assertion that Britain's actions after 1833 constitute legitimate homesteading is problematic. The land had already been occupied, and the British effectively expelled the existing inhabitants through force. Therefore, the chain of events starting from 1833 does not cleanse Britain's title to the islands. The sale of land by the British government to the Falkland Islands Company in 1846, while not originally homesteading, also doesn't change the historical rightful ownership.

In essence, the historical facts point to the Argentine claim as valid under Locke's theory of homesteading. The subsequent British actions, including the expulsion of the original inhabitants and the establishment of the Falkland Islands Company, do not establish a legitimate claim to sovereignty. Thus, the Falkland Islanders, with their historical link to the original inhabitants, have the stronger argument for ownership.