On 29 December 2025, the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), in partnership with the Embassy of Argentina in India, convened a discussion on the Question of the Malvinas, marking the 60th anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX)—the first UN resolution to formally recognise the sovereignty dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The discussion brought together diplomats, scholars, media and policy experts to reflect on the historical, legal, and diplomatic dimensions of one of the longest-standing unresolved colonial disputes.
Opening the discussion, H.E. Mariano Caucino, Ambassador of Argentina to India, underlined the historical roots and enduring relevance of the Malvinas question. He recalled that the dispute dates back to 3 January 1833, when British forces forcibly occupied the islands, known in Argentina as Islas Malvinas, expelling Argentine authorities and settlers. “This event interrupted Argentina’s uninterrupted exercise of sovereignty over the territory, which it had inherited from Spain upon becoming independent in the early 19th century,” he said, reiterating that Argentina has never recognised the legitimacy of that occupation.
The Ambassador highlighted 1965 as a decisive moment, when the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2065 (XX), formally acknowledging the existence of a sovereignty dispute and calling on both parties to negotiate a peaceful and definitive solution. “For the first time, the wider international community formally acknowledged the dispute and invited bilateral dialogue,” he noted, adding that the resolution classified the Malvinas as a special case of decolonisation, distinct from other territorial disputes.
Situating Argentina’s position within a broader historical context, Ambassador Caucino recalled the country’s consistent support for global decolonisation movements in the 1950s and 1960s, particularly in Asia and Africa. He emphasised that Argentina’s approach has always been anchored in the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes and respect for international law, as enshrined in the UN Charter.
Addressing the unique nature of the Malvinas case, the Ambassador observed that the islands had no indigenous population prior to European arrival, and that the only population forcibly removed in 1833 was Argentine. “This reality adds complexity to the question of self-determination and requires careful and balanced consideration of both legal and human dimensions,” he said, underscoring Argentina’s call for negotiations that take into account the interests, rather than the wishes, of the islanders—language deliberately reflected in UN resolutions.
Ambassador Caucino also underscored the significance of holding the discussion in India, a country that has played a historic role in advancing decolonisation and multilateralism. “India’s voice has been pivotal in global forums, and its support for the resumption of negotiations on the Malvinas question has been greatly appreciated,” he remarked, reaffirming Argentina’s commitment to dialogue as “the path toward a just and lasting solution.”
Building on this foundation, Mr. Andrés Sebastián Rojas, Counsellor at the Embassy of Argentina, offered a detailed legal and historical exposition of Argentina’s claim. Referring to UNGA Resolution 2065 (XX) as a “cornerstone in the international treatment of the Question of the Malvinas,” he traced the islands’ history from early Spanish administration to the British occupation of 1833, which he described as “a clear manifestation of 19th-century colonial expansion.”
Mr. Rojas emphasised that under international law, sovereignty cannot be acquired through the use of force. He invoked the principle of uti possidetis juris, noting that Argentina inherited the islands from Spain at independence in 1816—a principle also applied in other post-colonial contexts, including South Asia. He further stressed that Argentina’s continuous assertion of its claim since 1833 is a critical element of its legal position.
A central theme of Mr. Rojas’s intervention was the non-applicability of self-determination to the Malvinas case. “There was no indigenous population on the islands, and the current population is largely composed of settlers introduced by the occupying power,” he explained, adding that Resolution 2065 intentionally refers to the “interests” of the islanders rather than their “wishes.” “Had the General Assembly intended to apply self-determination, it would have stated so explicitly,” he noted.
Concluding his remarks, Mr. Rojas reaffirmed that nearly six decades after the adoption of Resolution 2065, Argentina continues to call for the resumption of negotiations. “Addressing the Question of the Malvinas through dialogue, law, and multilateral engagement remains essential—not only for Argentina, but for the integrity of the international legal order,” he said.
Leave a Reply