Malvinas: the path of legal diplomacy for the peaceful defense of our interests

The Malvinas is a national cause of all Argentines. Defending it demands acting with the determination to which we are bound by the force of our National Constitution and the sacred nature of this cause. Today that responsibility confronts us with a threat that has names and an operations program. The British Rockhopper Exploration and the Israeli Navitas Petroleum intend to exploit oil in the North Malvinas Basin through the so-called "Sea Lion" project, under illegal and illegitimate licenses issued under the de facto authority of the United Kingdom in our islands. Argentina has lodged repeated protests against these unlawful activities. In recent months, the companies' announcements, their contracts, and the drilling schedule have brought closer the start of a program that envisages 35 years of production and 23 wells. Beneath the seabed of our country's Continental Platform lie reserves that, once extracted, are lost forever. Preserving them means defending the heritage of all Argentines. On September 3, President Javier Milei presented on national broadcast a comprehensive strategy to defend our rights and respond to that threat. His instruction was to employ all available diplomatic and legal tools with the firmness this cause demands. Thus we advance toward the goal of recovering the full exercise of our sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the surrounding maritime areas. The submission before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is one more gear in that legal and diplomatic machinery we have already set in motion, with a concrete and immediate objective: to obtain provisional measures that halt the exploitation of hydrocarbons at Sea Lion before it begins. The broad international support Argentina has received is not only appreciated: it is the reasonable and expected response to the United Kingdom's repeated unilateral actions, which aggravate the dispute while systematically refusing dialogue. The international community calls for negotiation and peaceful solutions, not the trampling of sovereign rights or the illegitimate exploitation of natural resources. This has been expressed by the United Nations General Assembly and its Special Committee on Decolonization, known as the C24, the OAS, Mercosur, CELAC, ALADI, and the Group of 77 and China, among others. The Ibero-American Summit, held in Madrid on November 4 and 5, renewed the call to negotiate and to refrain from unilateral measures. Faced with the advance of illegal and illegitimate activities and the risk of irreversible harm, we decided to add the judicial avenue to that diplomatic effort in order to safeguard our resources. From the Foreign Ministry, we have driven the initiation of this proceeding before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea as part of a strategy we are also advancing at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Preparing the case we filed against the United Kingdom required months of coordinated work. The national government's legal team that carried out that task was composed, at this stage, of Ambassador Mario Oyarzábal, Legal Counsel of the Foreign Ministry; the Legal and Technical Secretary of the Presidency, María Ibarzabal Murphy; Deputy Attorney General Santiago Castro Videla, representing the National Treasury Attorney General's Office; the Legal Secretary of the Ministry of Economy, Juan Ignacio Stampalija; and the specialists Marcelo Kohen, Nico Schrijver, and Agustín Giustiniani. Arriving in time to defend what is ours On September 28 we initiated an arbitration against the United Kingdom. Both countries are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and have accepted its mechanisms for resolving disputes. Its Annex VII establishes how to form a tribunal of five independent arbitrators that will examine the case and adopt a decision that both parties must comply with. We chose that avenue to demand that the United Kingdom fulfill its obligations regarding the natural resources of the disputed maritime areas and refrain from introducing unilateral modifications. What happens if the works advance while that tribunal is being organized? The Convention allows requesting from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, headquartered in Hamburg, provisional measures — that is, urgent protection to prevent irreparable harm during that wait. We took that step on October 13, after the United Kingdom refused to adopt the measures we had requested. Once constituted and able to act, the arbitral tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the measures that have been ordered. The United Kingdom must answer for its actions In the hearings of November 10 and 11 we explained which rights are at risk, why they can be protected in this proceeding, and what irreparable harms threaten to occur before the arbitrators can intervene. London objected to the judges' jurisdiction, arguing that the case would require resolving territorial sovereignty. It is important that every Argentine understand this distinction. What we have raised before the judges is what obligations the Law of the Sea Convention imposes on both States in the disputed maritime areas. The merits decision on sovereignty falls outside these proceedings. To resolve that controversy, resolutions 2065 (XX), 3160 (XXVIII), 31/49, and 37/9 of the United Nations General Assembly keep alive the call for Argentina and the United Kingdom to negotiate, through diplomatic channels, a peaceful solution. Is it necessary to first resolve the sovereignty dispute in order to prevent one of the parties from irreversibly altering the resources under discussion? Our position is that the Convention allows protecting them while that controversy remains pending. It recognizes rights over the seabed and subsoil, requires acting in good faith and resolving differences by peaceful means, and obliges the protection of the environment. In turn, resolution 31/49 of the United Nations General Assembly urges both countries to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications while the decolonization process continues. The United Kingdom ignores that call and refuses to negotiate sovereignty. At the same time, it promotes the illegal and illegitimate exploitation of our resources as if the controversy had already been resolved in its favor. The British government invoked the applicability of the right of self-determination to the current inhabitants of the islands. Our delegation refuted that argument on the grounds that the Malvinas remain on the list of territories subject to decolonization, that the UN General Assembly defined the way to decolonize through the resolution of the sovereignty dispute between the two States, and that the self-organized referendum in 2013 produced no change in the situation. The British defense further argued that there was time to wait. It pointed to March 21, 2027 as the earliest date for new drilling and March 2028 for extraction. In its view, the arbitrators could act before those operations began. We responded that the experience of other cases shows that forming the tribunal and putting it in a position to act can take several months. A drilled well leaves a permanent mark on the subsoil, even if hydrocarbon extraction is still far off. Provisional measures seek to prevent a fait accompli before the arbitral tribunal can act. It is about preserving that which a later decision could no longer restore to its original state. The risk extends equally to the marine environment. The contingency plan of one of the companies itself envisages that a spill originating at a well could reach Argentine waters outside the dispute within 30 days. Our country would have to face the consequences and coordinate the response to an activity it did not authorize. For that reason, we demand information and cooperation to fulfill our obligations of protection and preservation of that environment. London also cited the companies' losses and the future revenues of the population. The companies assumed their risks with full knowledge of our protests and of the dispute. The services and current living conditions of the inhabitants are sustained without the production of the illegal project. We asked the judges to weigh those economic interests, to the extent they are relevant, against the danger of irreversible harm to Argentine rights. Argentina is already in action On those grounds we requested four measures. The first requires the United Kingdom to adopt all necessary measures to prevent new drilling for exploitation and the installation of production infrastructure in the North Malvinas Basin linked to the so-called "Sea Lion" project, both by the State itself and by natural or legal persons under its jurisdiction or control. We also request that it refrain from using information obtained from the exploration of the natural resources of the disputed maritime areas to the detriment of our rights. We request that it stop preventing Argentina from fulfilling its obligations to protect and preserve the marine environment of those areas, and that it refrain from other measures that may aggravate the dispute, in particular new illegal and illegitimate authorizations to exploit the resources of the disputed continental shelf. The Tribunal has tentatively announced November 28 to issue its decision on this provisional protection. We expect a favorable ruling, with confidence in our arguments and full respect for the independence of the judges. That ruling will resolve the request for urgent protection at this stage. The international arbitration is already underway, and Argentina will continue to exercise all the legal and diplomatic actions at its disposal, with the same firmness and determination, whatever scenario may arise. In the meantime, we will continue with warnings to companies and governments, sanctioning proceedings, and criminal actions against the companies and their executives. That is why it is urgent that Congress give priority and speed to the consideration and passage of the National Sovereignty Defense Bill. Its approval strengthens the State's tools to act with the determination we have shown in defense of the rights of all Argentines. Respect for our legislation and for the legitimate Argentine authorities is also the basis of the invitation to invest in our continental territory, where the revaluation of the country's strategic assets opens opportunities with clear rules and predictability. For the first time in the history of the Malvinas Question, Argentina went to confront the United Kingdom face to face before an international tribunal, with determination and professionalism. We will not stand idly by while they attempt to appropriate our natural resources. Because our firmness is not at odds with peace: it is precisely respect for the law and for dialogue that distinguishes us from those who seek to impose themselves through faits accomplis. That is the instruction of the President of the Nation, and that is our commitment to the Homeland. As Foreign Minister, I wish to express my deepest recognition to the legal team that represented Argentina in the hearings of November 10 and 11 in Hamburg. They were days of absolute dedication, tireless work, and extraordinary commitment to the Homeland. We are honoring, in a peaceful way, the legacy of the Malvinas cause with the tools of international law. And this team did so with courage, excellence, and unbreakable legal rigor, demonstrating that Argentina is equal to the greatest challenges and that, when it comes to defending what is ours, we spare no effort. We will sustain this defense in every instance the law allows. Argentines have on their side the force of the law and a Government determined to uphold it. By history and by right, the Malvinas are Argentine.