The Role of the Falkland Islands in UK–Argentina Relations

Abstract

The Falkland Islands, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean, have both claimed and continously shaped the complex and often fraught diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina. A contested British Overseas Territory, the islands are referred to in Argentina as Islas Malvina, representing colonial relics and wounds of national identity. This paper looks at the Falkland Islands’ diverse importance in UK–Argentina relations concerning history, geopolitics, legality, economy, and culture. Starting with colonial sovereignty claims, the paper incorporates the evolution of the dispute with the 1982 Falklands War, which resulted in enduring and militarized bilateral trauma and transformed diplomatic positions, advance mandates from rigid posturing to pseudo-relatives engagement frameworks. This body of work analyses the conflict under international law focusing on the tensions created by the principle of territorial integrity put forth by Argentina and the UK’s position on the right to self-determination, surrounding the 2013 referendum where 99.8% of Falklanders voted to remain British. This economic aspect looks at the dispute regarding the exploitation of fisheries and prospective oil reserves, its strategic value in British defense policy, and Argentina's use of regional alliances alongside soft power and sanctions. Additionally, it looks at the socio-symbolic dimension of the Falklands conflict in the two countries’ national psyche, the impact of Brexit on British foreign policy toward the South Atlantic, and the changing role of other parties like the UN or Latin American regional groups. The paper claims that, despite the recurring disputes, this conflict is best understood as one that has entered a “frozen conflict” state; there is no real possibility of confrontation, but neither is there any willingness to resolve it unless some significant political change occurs. From this standpoint, the Falkland Islands are not just a dispute territory. Instead, they serve as a benchmark for the competing narratives of grave concerns of territory, sovereignty, post-colonial identity, diplomacy, and regional security.