Written By Rosabella Daraoui ’28

Introduction

As soccer fans tuned into the 2026 World Cup, political disputes were reignited for the whole world to see. After winning the semi-final match against England, Argentine players displayed a banner that said, “Las Malvinas son Argentinas,” or “The Falkland Islands are Argentinian.”¹See Jill Lawless & Graham Dunbar, UK Urges FIFA to Investigate Argentina over Falklands Banner at World Cup, AP News (July 16, 2026), https://apnews.com/article/england-argentina-world-cup-falkland-islands-malvinas-240a5fcd72446efd674fd6d9eb52572a?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share (on file with American University International Law Review) (reporting on the World Cup match and providing context behind the political tensions). This phrase refers to Argentina’s and the United Kingdom’s (“U.K.”) conflict over a territorial claim to the Falkland Islands (“Islands”) dating back to 1833.²See id. (stating that the UK sent a warship to the Islands and expelled Argentine forces in 1833, who were there trying to establish control over the territory). However, this political display at an international sporting event demonstrates continuing tensions and a lack of international resolution on this issue despite the United Nations’ (“U.N.”) involvement.³See G.A. Res. 2065 (XX), U.N. GAOR, 20th Sess., Supp. No. 14, 57 (Dec. 16, 1965) [hereinafter Res. 2065] (urging both Argentina and the UK to negotiate and peacefully resolve the dispute). The U.N.’s inability to take a definitive stance in the dispute demonstrates its failure to reconcile the idea of self-determination with its anti-colonial sentiment.⁴See id. (urging both sides to find a solution, “bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter” while also seeking an end to colonialism “in all its forms”); see also U.N. Charter art. 1, ¶ 2 (emphasizing the principle of “self-determination of peoples” when nations interact).

Background: The Falkland Islands’ Stance and Argentina’s Reaction to the 2013 Referendum

In 2013, a referendum asked Falkland islanders, “Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?”⁵See John F. Burns, Voters in Falklands Back British Rule Nearly Unanimously, N.Y. Times (Mar. 12, 2013), https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/world/americas/falklands-voters-back-british-rule-nearly-unanimously.html (on file with American University International Law Review). Approximately 99.7% of voters voted yes.⁶See id. (emphasizing the Islanders’ overwhelming support for remaining a self-governing territory). International observers monitored the referendum to ensure its legitimacy.⁷See Press Release, Falkland Is. Ass’n, Result of Referendum Remains Clear 10 Years On (Mar. 10, 2023), https://www.fiassociation.com/news/press-release-result-of-referendum-remains-clear-10-years-on/ (on file with American University International Law Review) (reflecting on the referendum and the logistics that made the process “free and fair”).The Islands maintain the results today.⁸See id. (noting that the government of the Falklands continue to adhere to the results of the referendum).The Islands’ Legislative Assembly released a press statement saying: “A decade on, nothing has changed and the Falklands remain resolute in our allegiance to the United Kingdom and our determination to decide our own political future.”⁹Id. (citing the statement of MLA Leona Roberts). Recently, in response to the political display at the World Cup, the Islands’ government condemned the Argentine players’ political statement as insensitive to the residents who were traumatized victims of the Argentine invasion in 1982 and reaffirmed their desire to remain with the U.K.¹⁰See Falkland Islands Television, Falkland Islands Government Responds to Argentine World Cup Semi-Final Banner, at 00:15–00:49 (YouTube, July 16, 2026), youtube.com (recording a statement by MLA Michael Goss on behalf of the Islands’ government asking FIFA to sanction Argentina); see also Alex Brotherton, Argentina’s Paredes Banned for 10 Games, BBC (Aug. 21, 2026), https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/c98v7p1pr3eo (on file with American University International Law Review) (reporting that FIFA sanctioned the Argentine team for its involvement in the political display); Burns, supra note 5 (describing how Argentina occupied the Islands again in 1982 to establish sovereignty over the territory).

However, Argentina’s claim to the Islands did not waver.¹¹See Burns, supra note 5 (“No vote by British ‘settlers’ . . . could trump Argentina’s historic claim”). Argentine officials claimed the dispute was a “matter of sovereignty, not popular will” and that Argentina has a historic claim in line with the principle of territorial integrity.¹²See id. (noting that Argentine officials did not believe the referendum was relevant and that there was a renewed call in Argentina to claim sovereignty over the Islands). In 2025, Argentina reaffirmed its support of the General Assembly Resolution 2065, which classified the Islands’ as a people under a “colonial situation.”¹³See Press Release, Consulate General in Sydney Argentine Republic, Malvinas – 60 years from Resolution 2065 (XX) (Dec. 16, 2025), https://csidn.cancilleria.gob.ar/en/malvinas-60-years-resolution-2065-xx (on file with American University International Law Review) [hereinafter Argentine Consulate] (describing Argentina’s interpretation of Resolution 2065 as encompassing the principle of territorial integrity); but cf., Res. 2065, supra note 3, at 57 (stating that a resolution should be in line with the principles of the U.N. Charter but never explicitly stating the principle of territorial integrity). This statement contradicts the self-governing structure the Islands developed in 1985.¹⁴See Our Islands, Our History, Falkland Is. Gov’t, https://falklands.gov.fk/component/jdownloads/?task=download.send&id=36&catid=7&m=0&Itemid=101 (Jan. 17, 2024) (on file with American University International Law Review) (stating a new Constitution was adopted after the war in 1982, and it enshrined the principles of self-determination and self-governance. In 2009, another Constitution was adopted, strengthening those principles). Resolution 2065 also urged Argentina and the U.K. to reach a peaceful solution, taking into consideration the U.N.’s aim of decolonization and the objectives of the U.N. Charter.¹⁵See Res. 2065, supra note 3, at 57 (acknowledging the conflict between Argentina and the UK, and describing the U.N.’s stance). Argentina further claimed that if a resolution with the U.K. is reached—in line with what Resolution 2065 advocated for—it must respect the principle of territorial integrity.¹⁶See Argentine Consulate, supra note 13 (reaffirming its willingness to continue negotiations only if its sovereignty rights over the Islands through the principle of territorial integrity is recognized).

The U.N. Charter’s Principles of Self-Determination and Decolonization

The U.N. Charter codifies the principle of self-determination.¹⁷See U.N. Charter art. 1 (codifying the principle of self-determination). Article 1(2) of the U.N. Charter states that the purpose of the U.N. is “[t]o develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” and Article 55 mentions self-determination as well.¹⁸Id. art. 1, ¶ 2; see also id. art. 55 (stating that to promote self-determination, there must be conditions of stability and well-being in member countries).

Derived from the principle of self-determination, Chapters XI, XII, and XIII establish a framework to transition territories toward self-government, taking into account the “political aspirations of the peoples.”¹⁹Id. chs. XI–XIII; see also U.N. Dep’t of Pol. Peacebuilding Affs., United Nations and Decolonization (last visited Sep. 27, 2026), https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/about [hereinafter U.N. DPPA] (on file with American University International Law Review)(describing the history behind the U.N.’s decolonization efforts and noting that their decolonization efforts stem from the principle of self-determination in Article 1(2) of the Charter). The U.N. monitors the territories it considers non-self-governing, and has continued to maintain the Islands on this list since its inception in 1946.²⁰See U.N. Dep’t of Pub. Info., What the UN Can Do to Assist Non-Self Governing Territories, at 4, 8 (accessed Sep. 27, 2026), https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/leaflet_-_english_june_2017.pdf (on file with American University International Law Review) (explaining how Chapter XI of the U.N. Charter contributed to the classification of territories as Non-Self-Governing and how the Islands continue to be classified with that status today). Subsequently, from these Chapters, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 1514 (XV), which “solemnly proclaimed the necessity of bringing colonialism in all its forms and manifestations to a speedy and unconditional end.”²¹U.N. DPPA, supra note 19; see G.A. Res. 1514 (XV), at 67 (Dec. 14, 1960) [hereinafter Res. 1514] (“All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development”). In support of this resolution, the General Assembly further stated in Resolution 1541 that a Non-Self-Governing Territory can reach self-government by these means of decolonization: (1) emergence as a sovereign independent state, (2) free association with an independent state, and (3) integration with an independent state.²²See G.A. Res. 1541 (XV), at 29 (Dec. 15, 1960) [hereinafter Res. 1541] (building upon Resolution 1514 by explicitly listing the manner in which a territory can reach self-government); U.N. DPPA, supra note 19 (providing context to the U.N.’s decolonization mission by describing the recognized means of decolonization established in Resolution 1541). Resolution 2625 also added that decolonization can result from the emergence of any other freely determined political status.²³See G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV), at 124 (Oct. 24, 1970) [hereinafter Res. 2625] (building upon Resolution 1541 by including another U.N.-recognized means of decolonization); U.N. DPPA, supra note 19 (providing context to their decolonization mission by describing the recognized means of decolonization established in Resolution 2625).

These Resolutions led to the adoption of Resolution 2065.²⁴See Res. 2065, supra note 3, at 57 (passed by the General Assembly in line with Resolution 1514 and its decolonization mandate). Resolution 2065 specifically acknowledges the dispute between the U.K. and Argentina but urges for a peaceful resolution in line with Resolution 1514 and the recognized means of decolonization.²⁵See id. (noting that Resolution 1514 stood for an end to colonialism in all its forms and that this proposition covers the situation in the Islands).

Tension between the U.N.’s Anti-Colonial Sentiment and the Charter’s Self-Determination

While the principle of self-determination and the means of decolonization are complementary, the U.N. violates the principle of self-determination enshrined in the U.N. Charter by misapplying decolonization to the Islands’ situation.²⁶See id. (emphasizing anti-colonial sentiments when recognizing the dispute between Argentina and the U.K.). The Islands remain on the Special Committee on Decolonization’s (“C-24”) official list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.²⁷See U.N. GAOR, Special Comm. On Decolonization, 2026 Sess., 9th plen. mtg., U.N. Doc. A/AC.109/2026/SR.9 (June 25, 2026) (explaining that the Special Committee on Decolonization conducted their yearly meeting to review the status of the territories on their list, and the Committee did not change the status of the Islands). This committee was created to monitor Resolution 1514, and meets annually to review the list.²⁸See id. (describing the purpose of the committee and its creation). At the recent C-24 meeting, the Islands’ representatives urged the Committee to recognize the inhabitants’ wishes to remain a self-governing territory.²⁹Id. Rather than acknowledge the inhabitants’ wishes, however, the Committee passed a resolution urging negotiations between the U.K. and Argentina to continue in line with Resolution 2065.³⁰Id.

The Islands’ 2013 referendum encompassed the U.N.’s core principles of the right to self-determination.³¹See U.N. Charter art. 1, ¶ 2 (stating that one of the purposes of the U.N. is aligned with the principle of self-determination); Res. 2625, supra note 23, at 122–24 (emphasizing the importance of the principle of self-determination to international law). While the Islands do not fall within the first three processes, they fall within the decolonization process under Resolution 2625 because the inhabitants voted to remain a self-governing territory through the 2013 referendum.See supra Sections II–III (Section II describes the referendum and its embodiment of the principle of self-determination. Section III describes the mean of decolonization established under Resolution 2625.). However, in support of the U.N.’s position, many member states have supported Resolution 2065 and continue to view the Islands as a non-self-governing territory.³²See U.N. GAOR, supra note 27 (recording member states’ assertions of the need to accelerate the decolonization process of these territories and to encourage a resolution in line with Resolution 2065).

In Resolution 2065, the U.N. takes a staunch anti-colonial perspective to the U.K. and Argentina dispute over the Islands: it urges a peaceful resolution, “bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations” and Resolution 1514’s goal of ending colonialism “in all its forms.”³³Res. 2065, supra note 3, at 57. Resolution 2065 mentions the U.N. Charter and its goal of decolonization, but nowhere in the Charter does it explicitly use the term “decolonization,” a term which limits the bounds as to what self-determination can signify.³⁴See generally id. (urging both sides to find a peaceful solution “bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations”); see generally U.N. Charter (using the broad term “non-self-governing territories” but not “decolonization,” “colonization,” or any other derivatives). However, it does explicitly use the expansive term “self-determination.”³⁵See generally U.N. Charter (using the term “self-determination” twice: in Article 1 and Article 55). Arguably, the Islands, albeit still a territory, had transitioned in 1985 to a self-governing framework in line with the principle of self-determination and the U.N. Charter framework of establishing self-government.³⁶See Self-Governance, Falkland Is. Gov’t, https://www.falklands.gov.fk/2-uncategorised/109-self-governance (last visited Sep. 27, 2026) (on file with American University International Law Review) (describing how the Falkland Islands’ government is currently elected); Our Islands, Our History, supra note 14 (stating that the Constitution from 1985 and the revised framework in 2009 exemplified the principles of self-determination and self-governance); see also U.N. Charter art. 1, ¶ 2 (enshrining self-determination as one of its core principles); U.N. Charter chs. XI–XIII (creating a process to help develop self-governance in territories “to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples”). Even though the U.N. Charter advocates for self-determination, the U.N. seemingly ignores the Islands’ self-determination and democratically elected government by classifying it as non-self-governing.³⁷See Self-Governance, supra note 37 (emphasizing the Islands’ government is elected by the people to represent them and to pass policies in line with what the people want).

The U.N. seems to conflate traditional decolonization with self-determination without allowing for situations in which territories choose to remain in their current status.³⁸See U.N. GAOR, supra note 27 (discussing the decolonization process as a means of helping territories realize their right to self-determination, but the Committee did not recognize the caveat that territories, like the Islands, can use their right to self-determination to vote to remain a territory). In Resolution 1514, it mentions the principles of equal rights and self-determination, but it assumes that self-determination is the same as the decolonization principle of complete sovereign independence.³⁹See Res. 1514, supra note 21, at 66–67 (mentioning the right of self-determination enshrined in the U.N. Charter, but claims it wants to end “colonialism in all its manifestations” (emphasis added)). Despite the results of the 2013 referendum, the U.N.’s actions post-referendum suggest they are not satisfied with the results, considering it has maintained the Islands’ status as a non-self-governing territory since 1946.⁴⁰See U.N. Dep’t of Pub. Info., supra note 20, at 4 (listing the 17 countries that its classified as Non-Self-Governing Territories).

Conclusion

The U.N. erroneously infringes on the principle of self-determination enshrined in the U.N. Charter and other supporting documents by misapplying decolonization principles to the Falkland Islands dispute between Argentina and the United Kingdom. The U.N.’s lack of support for the Islands’ self-determination stems from its misunderstanding of the situation and misapplying its anti-colonial stance to this dispute. This lack of support has allowed tensions to increase between the U.K. and Argentina, which affects their relations even in friendly (although hotly contested) sporting events. This dispute emphasizes the need for a stronger framework regarding the nuances between self-determination and decolonization. It also emphasizes the need for a greater understanding that self-determination can be manifested through untraditional forms, such as choosing to be a territory.