ROSLER “Malvinas, an unfair and conventional war” (Clarín, AR)

Andrés Rosler, at Clarín, uses the example of Malvinas War in this article to analyze and try to understand the ambivalences of international law toward wars.

The Malvinas war was initiated by a de facto government, which is the reason why it is categorized as an unfair war. As a matter of fact, Rosler explains, according to the UN Chart war is, in most cases, unfair. Following international law, Argentina´s attack is an aggression. On the other hand, British legitimate defense on this aggression does not grant any sovereignty rights over the Islands since, if we follow international law, victory does not grant new rights.

Rosler explains that Malvinas war was a conventional war with no civilian casualties. But if we analyze it in more detail it is possible to find some of the ambivalences of international public right. War is understood as a crime, but a soldier fighting in a war is granted legal immunity whenever he commits acts of war, even if he is fighting for an “unfair” cause. Rosler poses the question: why is someone given legal immunity, if the war itself is unfair? If one wanted to resolve this ambivalence, there are only two ways in the Malvinas case. The first option implies that the Islands are British, since Britain won the war. This would leave the door open to many new wars worldwide. The second option implies that Argentinean soldiers have committed homicide, since they were fighting for an unfair cause according international law.

Rosler concludes that, having these two options, the ambivalence of international law seems to be the more sensible answer.