The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The claim of Amasa Stetson, of Massachusetts, on the United States, for money advanced, in fulfilling the orders of the Government while discharging the duties of Commissary General of Purchases, in time of the late war with Great Britain ; and for services rendered. --

Claim relating to the War of 1812.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government ; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject. --

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting documents containing the information required by the resolution of Mr. Wright, on the 22d inst. relative to the execution of the act fixing the military peace establishment. --

14th Congress, 1st session, 1815-1816. House. Document no. 33.

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting a return of the arms and military stores furnished to the respective states, under the provisions of the law of one thousand eight hundred and twelve.

At head of title: [107].

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting communications from the plenipotentiaries of the United States charged with negotiating peace with Great Britain : showing the conditions on which alone that government is willing to put an end to the war. --

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. 6.

Report of the Committee on Military Affairs, on the differences that exist, between the United States and some of the individual States, respecting the relative powers of the general and state governments over the militia.--

February 28, 1815. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States.

Resolutions reported by the Military Committee, expressive of the thanks of Congress to Major General Jackson, and the troops under his command, for their gallantry and good conduct, in the defence of New Orleans.--

February 13, 1815. Printed by order of the Senate of the United States.

Military Appointment

George Ridout (1791-1871) was a member of the York volunteers during the War of 1812. He served as 3rd lieutenant in the grenadier company of the York militia, fought in the Battle of Queenston Heights, and was taken prisoner of war in April, 1813 when the Americans occupied York. Ridout studied law, and was admitted to the bar in Janurary 1813. He was an active member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, becoming a bencher in 1820, serving as treasurer for several years, and assisting in the development of the library. In 1828 he was appointed judge of the Niagara District Court and reappointed in 1832. In 1836, Sir Francis Bond Head, Lieutenant-Governor, charged Ridout with insult to the person and office of the Lieutenant Governor and disloyalty to the policies of the crown, and dismissed him from his offices. Ridout denied the charges and was eventually ordered to be reinstated by Lord Glenelg, the colonial secretary. Sir Francis Bond Head refused to do so, and instead chose to resign.

Everything that rises must converge: a neo-Marxist analysis of Canadian business-government relations

The following thesis presents an analysis of business-government relations within a neo-Marxist framework. Specifically, the discussion encompasses how the business interest group. the Business Council on National Issues, maintains consensus and unity amongst its monopoly capital members. Furthermore. the study elaborates on the process through which the group's interests are acknowledged and legitimized by the state under the "public interest" f8fue. Most of the literature pertaining to business-government relations within the context of interactions between business interest groups and the state, and such specific branches of the state as the government and/or the civil service. emphasize a liberal-pluralist perspective. Essentially, these writings serve to reflect and legitimate the current slatus quo. Marxist discourses on the subject, while attempting to transcend the liberal-pluralist framework. nevertheless suffer from either economic determinism .. ie., stressing the state's accumulation function but not its legitimation function or historical specificity. A cogent and comprehensive neo-Marxist analysis of business-government relations must discuss both the accumulation and legitimation functions of the state. The process by which the concerns of a particular business interest group become part of the state's policy agenda and subsequently are formulated and implemented into policies which legitimate its dominance is also studied. This inquiry is significant given the liberal-pluralist assumptions of a neutral state and that all interest groups compete "on a level playing field". The author's neo-Marxist paradigm rejects both of these assumptions. Building on concepts from nea-Marxist instrumentalism. structuralism. state monopoly capitalism, and forms and functions of the state perspectives. the author proposes that policies which legitimize the interests of the monopoly capital fraction cannot. be discerned only from the state's activities. per StJ. Clearly, if the liberal-pluralist 3 contention of multiple and conflicting interest groups, including those within the capitalist class, is taken at face value, M interest group such as the Business Council on National Issues (BCND, must somehow maintain. internal consensus Md unity amongst its members. Internal consensus amongst its members ensures that the state can better acknowledge and articulate its concerns into policies that maintain hegemonic dominance of the monopoly capital fraction under the "public interest" fllf.JJdq. The author contends that the BCNI focuses most of its interactions on the upper echelons of the civil service since it is this branch of the state which is most responsible for policy formulation and implementation. The author's paradigm is applied within the context of extensively analyzing newspaper coverage. BCN! publications, and other published sources, as well as a personal interview with an executive administrative member of the BeNI. The discussion focuses on how agreement and unity amongst the various interests of the monopoly capital fraction are maintained through the business organization, its policy scope, and finally its interactions with the state. The analysis suggests that while the civil service is an important player in expressing the interests of the BCNI's membership through policies which ostensibly also reflect the "public interest", it is not the only strategic target for the BCNI's interactions with the state. The author's research also highlights the importance of government officials at the Cabinet level and Cabinet Committees. Senior elected officials from the Federal government are also significant in avoiding intergovernmental or interprovincial conflict in implementing policies that legitimize hegemonic dominance of the monopoly capital fraction over other fractions and classes.

Niagara-Welland Power Company Limited fonds, 1833, 1852, 1904-1906, 1909, n.d.

The Welland Power and Supply Canal Company Limited, established in 1893 and incorporated in 1894 with a capital stock of $500,000. The aim of the company was to harness the natural water supply of the Niagara and Welland Rivers. In 1898 the Canadian Electrical News published a report by Henry Symons, QC outlining the main project of the company. This project involves the construction of a canal from the Welland River to the brow of the mountain at Thorold, a distance of 8 miles; the construction at Thorold of a power house, and from Thorold to Lake Ontario, a raceway by which to carry water into the lake. The estimate for the machinery to generate 100,000 horse power is £125,000; for transmission line to Toronto at a voltage of 10,000….The total estimate therefore amounts to £2,452,162, or roughly speaking, $12,000,000. Source: Canadian Electrical News, August 1898, p. 172. In 1899 the company officers petitioned the federal government desiring a name change to the Niagara-Welland Power Company Limited. Officers of the company were Harry Symons, President; Charles A. Hesson, Vice-President; and M.R. O’Loughlin, James B. Sheehan, James S. Haydon, Frederick K. Foster, directors; John S. Campbell, secretary-treasurer. The company’s head offices were located in St. Catharines, with a New York (City) office on Broad Street. In 1905 and 1909 the company petitioned the federal government for additional time to construct its works, which was granted. The company had until May 16, 1915 to complete construction. John S. Campbell (1860-1950) was a graduate of the University of Toronto and Osgoode Hall. During his university years John began his military career first in "K" Company, Queens Own rifles and then later as Commanding Officer of the 19th Lincoln Regiment, from 1906 to 1910. Upon his return to St. Catharines John Campbell served as secretary in the St. Catharines Garrison Club, a social club for military men begun in 1899. After being called to the Bar, he became a partner in the firm of Campbell and McCarron and was appointed to the bench in 1916, serving until retirement in 1934. Judge Campbell served as an alderman for several terms and was the mayor of St. Catharines in 1908 and 1909. He also served as the first chairman of the St. Catharines Public Utilities in 1914. John S. Campbell was married to Elizabeth Oille, daughter of Jerome B. and Charlotte (St. John) Oille. The family home "Cruachan" was located at 32 Church St.

The Weekly Register September 1811 to March 1812

The Weekly Register, also known as Niles Weekly Register was a weekly periodical edited by Hezekiah Niles (1777-1839), and published in Baltimore Maryland. Volumes of Interest were published between 1811 (Vol. 1, No. 1, September 7, 1811) to 1814 (Vol. 5, No. 26, February 26, 1814). These volumes focus primarily on 19th century Politics and Government in the United States of America. Niles edited and published the Weekly Register until 1836, making it one of the most widely-circulated magazines in the United States. The popularity also made Niles into one of the most influential journalists of his day. Devoted primarily to politics, Niles' Weekly Register is considered an important source for the history of the period. The Register also recorded current economics, technology, science, medicine, geography, archaeology, the weather, and stories of human interest. PLEASE CLICK ON THE WEEKLY PERIODICALS ON THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN (PDF FILES)TO DOWNLOAD FILES. Pages are divided as follows: 1811 September 7th pages 1-16 14th pages 17-32 21st pages 33-48 28th pages 49-72 1811 October 5th pages 73-88 12th pages 89-104 19th pages 105-120 26th pages 121-136 1811 November 2nd pages 137-152 9th pages 153-184 15th pages 185-208 23rd pages 209-224 30th pages 225-240 1811 December 7th pages 241-256 14th pages 257-280 21st pages 281-296 28th pages 299-320 1812 January 4th pages 321-336 11th pages 337-360 18th pages 361-376 25th pages 377-392 1812 February 1st pages 393-408 8th pages 409-432 15th pages 433-448 22nd pages 449-464 29th pages 465-480 PLEASE CLICK ON THE WEEKLY PERIODICALS ON THE RIGHT OF THE SCREEN (PDF FILES)TO DOWNLOAD FILES. Call Number: SPCL PER JK 1 N52