ABSTRACT
In 1964, Jose Ruda stated: people reaffirm the irrenounceable rights of the Argentine Republic to the Malvinas Islands. Argentina's superior historical claim through inheritance and occupation - privately, even British officials have admitted the latter's strength - is balanced by length of occupation and the self-determination principle, which favour Britain. This observation recalls early Argentine complaints about the triumph of the strongest, as well as Eden's 1937 comment that it was essentially a matter of tactics and policy rather than of law. Although rival versions of the Falklands/Malvinas past have been presented as accurate interpretations, there remains a need to 'confront these differing presentations of the past'. During the 1770s Samuel Johnson argued that 'the time is now come when Falkland's Islands demand their historian', but people await still an in-depth, critical and balanced synthesis of the dispute's historical and legal dimensions drawing upon Argentine, British and other research.
