The Argentine Republic rejects the United Kingdom's characterization of its recourse to arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) as an attempt to "undermine" anyone's rights. Nothing could be further from the truth. Submitting a dispute to an impartial international tribunal is the most responsible act a State can undertake. This is how States committed to the rule of law settle their differences: not through unilateral actions, but before judges applying the law that both parties have freely accepted.

The United Kingdom and Argentina are both States Parties to UNCLOS. Upon ratification, both accepted the compulsory procedures leading to binding decisions set forth in Part XV as an integral part of the Convention. This is a treaty obligation. Once again, Argentina's recourse to arbitration does not seek to "undermine" anyone's rights, but rather to preserve the legitimate rights of the Argentine people over their natural resources. A State that claims the rights conferred by the Convention, while treating its dispute settlement provisions as an affront, is not honoring the Convention; instead, it is attempting to impose its own interpretation -unfounded, in this case- on others as an absolute truth.

The statement by the United Kingdom's Minister for Overseas Territories, Ms. Uma Kumaran, asserts that unilateral British hydrocarbon activities in the disputed area are conducted "in full accordance with international law, including UNCLOS." If the United Kingdom is truly convinced of this, it has nothing to fear from a tribunal. Argentina has placed its case in the hands of independent arbitrators, as the Convention entitles it to do. The United Kingdom, bound by the same Convention, will have every opportunity to substantiate its claims before them. Argentina places its full trust in the arbitral tribunal and in the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which will independently adjudicate the case. It is before them that the merits of each Party's position will be determined.

For decades, the international community has recognized the existence of a sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas, South Georgias and South Sandwich Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 (XX) invited the Governments of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom to proceed without delay with negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the dispute. Resolution 31/49 called upon both parties to refrain from taking decisions that would imply introducing unilateral modifications in the situation while that process remains open. The unilateral exploration and exploitation of non-renewable natural resources in the disputed area constitutes precisely such a unilateral modification. Argentina has consistently raised this through diplomatic channels, and faced with the persistent British refusal to negotiate, it is now pursuing the legal means provided by the Convention itself.

The Argentine Republic rejects the manipulation of the principle of self-determination of peoples that the United Kingdom seeks to impose upon it, and which the United Nations has not applied to the current inhabitants of the Islands. Argentina's respect for the way of life of the current inhabitants of the Islands, a commitment enshrined in the First Transitional Provision of the Argentine National Constitution, is not in question.

We also note with regret the insinuation that Argentina's recourse to a lawful procedure calls into question its reliability as a partner. Reliability is measured by fidelity to commitments undertaken. Argentina is acting in full conformity with a treaty to which both States are parties and with the fundamental principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes.

It is fair to ask which conduct best reflects a responsible international commitment: resorting to an international tribunal or discrediting a mechanism by which both States are bound.

The Argentine Republic reaffirms its enduring readiness to resume bilateral negotiations on the Question of the Malvinas Islands, as the United Nations has repeatedly urged. In the meantime, we will continue to defend our rights through the only means worthy of a nation committed to peace: dialogue, diplomacy, and international law.