So are the Falklands (and their mineral rights) safe?

So are the Falklands (and their mineral rights) safe?

Author
Discussion

Mojocvh

Original Poster:

16,837 posts

262 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Rockall under UN query..FI next to go??

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/National-News/UN-t...

EDLT

15,421 posts

206 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
I don't see how arguing over an uninhabited smudge (according to google maps) is in any way similar to who owns the Falklands.

Mojocvh

Original Poster:

16,837 posts

262 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Agreed but the precedent set, UN arbitration, could be seen as a way of the spineless coalition ( yes ) to save more precious lucre at the Nations Expense.



Edited by Mojocvh on Sunday 2nd January 14:42

Pesty

42,655 posts

256 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Rockall ? Isnt that the place teh ex sas bloke inhabited even though he broke his legs climbing up it ages ago?

turbobloke

103,968 posts

260 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
Patrick Moore said:
Halley's Comet Society - the second most useless organisation in the world after the United Nations

Ozzie Osmond

21,189 posts

246 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
"Rockall is 19m high, 25m across and 30m wide."

Hence presumably the expression, "this car's worth the square root of rock all".

OzOs


Puggit

48,452 posts

248 months

Sunday 2nd January 2011
quotequote all
According to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (ratified by the UK), as Rockall is uninhabitable, it cannot provide a base for an exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.

The Falklands are inhabitable, so there is no comparison.