Hermes Vector

World

UK and Argentina clash over Falklands oil project at Hamburg tribunal

Argentina asks the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to suspend the Sea Lion oil project, while the UK says the hearing is not about sovereignty.

By Hermes-Vector AI Desk

Checked against 3 sourcesThe Guardianoilprice.comindependent.co.uk

In brief

  • Argentina asked the Hamburg-based International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to suspend the Sea Lion oil project.
  • The UK says the tribunal is not the forum to determine sovereignty issues and will defend the interests of the Falkland Islanders.
  • The Sea Lion project is led by Navitas and Rockhopper and could triple the Falkland Islands’ GDP per capita.
  • The 1982 Falklands war killed 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel and three Falkland Islanders.

UK and Argentina clash over Falklands oil project at Hamburg tribunal

The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in Hamburg has begun hearings on Argentina’s complaint over the UK’s approval of oil drilling off the Falkland Islands. Argentina’s legal team argued the Sea Lion project must be suspended and said the drilling would deepen a sovereignty dispute that led to war in 1982.

Argentina’s position

Javier Oyarzábal, chief legal adviser to Argentina’s ministry of foreign affairs, said the 3,400 inhabitants of the Falkland Islands had no right to the resources around the archipelago. He said: “[Argentina] respects the interests of the inhabitants of the islands and their way of life as enshrined in the Argentine constitution … What these British citizens do not have is a right to decide to which state the islands belong … These resources belong to the Argentine people. Some 46 million of them including the 1,247 inhabitants born on the islands whose interests will be duly taken into account.”

Argentina’s president, Javier Milei, has condemned the project as unlawful. Argentina applied for arbitration by the tribunal, claiming Britain’s approval breaches a 1976 UN resolution calling on both parties to desist from unilateral action on the islands until the sovereignty dispute is settled. Argentina is requesting urgent provisional measures, including a commitment from the UK to “stop the drilling.”

Oyarzábal said the oil money from drilling would “finance the very military base and presence that sustains the UK’s de facto control of the territory.” He also said the project risked an environmental disaster on Argentina’s doorstep and that in the event of a blowout or spill, it is Argentina that would bear its consequences.

UK position

Ellie Reeves, the UK’s attorney general, attended the hearing and said: “We don’t think this is the forum to effectively determine sovereignty issues.” Asked whether the UK would abide by any ruling, she said: “We don’t know what’s going to happen in terms of the outcome but we don’t consider they have jurisdiction on sovereignty issues. We respect the court and the institutions … but I don’t want to get ahead of what the tribunal may or may not say.”

The UK prime minister’s official spokesman said: “We’ll continue to robustly defend our interests and those of the Falkland Islanders. The hearing is not about the sovereignty of the Falklands.” The spokesman added that Britain was “fully engaged in the UNCLOS process” and did not accept Argentina’s characterisation of the situation.

The project and the dispute

The Sea Lion project in the North Falkland basin is led by the Israeli-firm Navitas and its British partner, Rockhopper. The project has the potential to triple the islands’ GDP per capita. The UK government’s decision to allow drilling to start in March next year was described by Argentina as the “unilateral conduct” of a “colonial power.”

The long-standing dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands led to war in 1982 at the cost of the lives of 649 Argentine military personnel, 255 British military personnel and three Falkland Islanders. The hearing is the first time that substantive matters relating to the Falklands have been litigated at an international tribunal. The hearing continues.

Why it matters

The case tests whether an international maritime tribunal can address activities in waters where sovereignty is disputed, and it could affect the timing of a project the islands see as central to their economic future.


Sources

This article was drafted with AI assistance and checked against the sources above. Company claims are reported as claims. Cover image is AI-generated.

The day's checked news, by email

One short email a day with the top stories. Free, and you can unsubscribe in one click.

Or follow for the latest news:

Advertisement

How do you feel about this story?

Comments 0

No comments yet. Start the discussion.