History of Ceuta and Melilla -and why Gibraltar is a colony but they are not

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Live Fast Die Young

Sergeant
44 Badges
Oct 2, 2018
58
0
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • BATTLETECH: Season pass
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • BATTLETECH
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Tyranny - Bastards Wound
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cradle of Civilization
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mandate of Heaven
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rule Britannia
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Europa Universalis IV: Dharma
  • BATTLETECH: Flashpoint
  • Europa Universalis IV: Golden Century
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Europa Universalis IV: Mare Nostrum
  • Europa Universalis 4: Emperor
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • BATTLETECH: Heavy Metal
  • Europa Universalis IV: El Dorado
  • Pillars of Eternity
  • Europa Universalis IV: Common Sense
  • Europa Universalis IV: Cossacks
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Stellaris
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Europa Universalis IV: Rights of Man
  • Tyranny: Archon Edition
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Tyranny - Tales from the Tiers
  • Europa Universalis IV: Third Rome
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Europa Universalis IV: Res Publica
  • Europa Universalis IV: Wealth of Nations
  • Europa Universalis IV: Conquest of Paradise
  • Europa Universalis IV: Art of War
Already in Greek mythology the city of Ceuta had a special relevance. For the ancient Greeks Europe and Africa were united by a mountain range, until Hercules with a blow of his mallet opened a breach known today as the Strait of Gibraltar. Both Gibraltar and Ceuta -known historically as Calpe and Abila respectively- formed the famous columns of Hercules, representative symbol of Spain throughout history.

Thanks to the newest EU IV 'Spain' patch, there are a lot of upgrades in North Africa too. I enjoy very much playing this game while also learning history. Because of this, I got curious about the history of the area, because it is not something that we learn at school (in Spain) so I looked it up.

Here is a brief history of both north African cities, currently "autonomous cities" of the Kingdom of Spain. At the end there is a brief conclusion and comparison with Gibraltar, which as you know might be officially declared as a colony by the EU if there is a hard Brexit.

Ceuta
During the 8th century (the time of the conquest of the Iberian Peninsula by the Muslims) the city was destroyed, being rebuilt a century later. At that time there was already a conflict over the jurisdiction of the city. The caliphs in Spain always claimed it as part of Al-Ándalus, that is, they claimed that Ceuta has always been under peninsular jurisdiction. For example in the X century Ceuta was under the caliphate of Cordoba, in the XI century it was the territory of the Taifa of Málaga, in the XIII it was sovereignty of the Taifa of Murcia and from the XIV onwards it was under the kingdom of Granada.
Later, fruit of the Christian reconquest, the main kingdoms of the peninsula (Portugal, Castile and Aragon) made expeditions through the Mediterranean with the intention of increasing their presence and importance in front of the Muslim power. On August 21, 1415, an army led by King D. Juan I of Portugal invaded Ceuta for the glory of Portugal.

Ceuta then passed to Spanish sovereignty as a consequence of the Iberian Union. The union dreamed by the Catholic Kings occurred in 1581, when Felipe II was sworn in as king of Portugal before the Portuguese Cortes. Felipe II became a legitimate heir to the throne thanks to the matrimonial strategies of the Catholic monarchs. The Portuguese throne had become vacant in 1578, when King Sebastian I died in the campaign of Alcazarquivir, located in the Atlantic area of Morocco. The objective of these campaigns was to fight against the Muslim forces for fear that they would attack the Peninsula again. Portugal's main enemy in the area was the Berber kingdom of Fez, which continually harassed the Portuguese North African enclaves.

In 1640 the Portuguese (badly influenced by the English) decided to become independent of Spain understanding that they would be more prosperous. The Duke of Braganza took advantage of the conflict that existed at that time as a result of the Union of Arms, together with conflicts between Castilian troops and the Catalan peasants in the border with France, to become independent of Spain. Despite this decision, the population of Ceuta refused to follow the uprising of Portugal, remaining faithful to Spain. That is why, since then, the city of Ceuta has received the honorary titles of "Siempre Noble y Leal" (Always Noble and Loyal).​

Melilla
The Phoenicians, original people of present-day Lebanon, founded the city in the 7th century BC. with the name of Rusadir. It has been under the rule of Carthaginians, Romans, Byzantines, Vandals, the Visigoths and the Arabic. As for the latter, it is necessary to emphasize that it was the Umayyad dynasty that initiated the conquest of the city during its Muslim period, a dynasty that is not related to the Moroccan national identity. The city (known at that time as "Melilia") was a commercial enclave of great importance due to its location. The Strait was a place of great instability due to the Viking looting, being Melilla devastated by them in 859 AD. Almost a century later, the city joins the caliphate of Córdoba (again, peninsular rule).

After the Almoravids first passed away, the Almohads came, and after their defeat in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa by the Christians, they disappeared gradually. The population of the city of Melilla was always independent of the kingdoms of the area. After the Almohads escaped to Algeria, the Marinid dynasty occupies part of the northern region of present-day Morocco, being defeated again by Alfonso XI of Castile, giving rise to small kingdoms such as Fez or Tremecen. Both kingdoms tried to dispute the strategic city of Melilla, being always defended successfully by the inhabitants of Melilla.
The city of Melilla was since then "no-man's land", continuously attacked by the nearby Berber kingdoms. At the end of the fourteenth century, the native population, tired of the raids and looting of the bordering Muslim kingdoms, burned the city, not again becoming important until the arrival of Castile and Portugal.

In 1399 Castilla conquers Tetuan in order to better control the Strait and reduce piracy in the area, which had become a serious problem. Throughout the XV century Portuguese and Castilian strengthen their presence in the area, their activity being so intense that they had to create limits of action in the region in order to avoid conflicts between the two kingdoms. By means of the Treaty of Alcaçovas, signed in 1479, the Atlantic zone of present Morocco is fixed for Portugal -except Canary Islands- while the Mediterranean part is for Castile.

A year after the conquest of the Kingdom of Granada, the Catholic Kings sent scouts with the objective of knowing the exact situation of the Melilla region, to create a fortress there. Although the city was uninhabited, the surroundings were convulsive as there were open conflicts between the Kingdom of Fez against Portugal. The Catholic Kings finally decide not to enter Melilla, as the conquest of the New World is more present in their thoughts.
That is why, the Duke of Medina Sidonia, Juan Alonso Perez de Guzman, asks for royal authorization to conquer the Melilla plaza. Castilla agreed, and it's finally conquered by Pedro de Estopiñán, head of the army of the dukedom of Medina Sidonia, on September 17th, 1497. In 1556, due to lack of funds, this duchy gave the autonomous city of Melilla to the Kingdom of Castile due to not being able to maintain it.​

Gibraltar
The history of Gibraltar was united to the history of the rest of the Peninsula until the 4th of August of 1704, date in which an Anglo-Dutch coalition took control of strategic enclave. To understand how England and Holland were able to attack Gibraltar without fear of possible reprisals by Spain, it is necessary to go back to the War of Spanish Succession. Carlos II of Austria, known as the enchanted one -due to his weak state of health, physically and mentally, fruit of the constant conjugal crosses, normal at that time among the royal families- dies without descendants. In his testament, Carlos II names as successor the Frenchman Felipe de Anjou, coming from the Bourbon family and grandson of Louis XIV. Felipe de Anjou was crowned under the name of Felipe V, being the first Bourbon to reign in Spain, and for many, the start of Spain's tragic downfall.

The relevance in the world of Spain at that time was outstanding, that is why Europe was not willing to allow the union of two superpowers such as Spain and France, as it would mean a strong blow to the status quo established in the continent. Thus England and Holland united to support Charles of Habsburg who had dynastic rights. Clearly the claim of the Habsburg House was the weakest; even so a war began at a European level, concentrated, of course, in Spain. All the interested powers moved chips to obtain support for their candidates in the Peninsula.
On the one hand, there was Philip V who matched perfectly the centralist model of Castile, the strongest kingdom on the Peninsula. On the other, Charles of Habsburg, represented the model of the House of Austria, which came as a glove to the Crown of Aragon, and especially Catalonia. The fact that the Crown of Aragon supported the Habsburgs did not mean, far from it, that it departed from national sentiment, but that for each kingdom the best thing for Spain was a king and not the other; they were non-secessionist patriots, a constant misrepresentation on the part of modern Catalan nationalism.

On August 4, 1704, Admiral Rooke and the Dutch Prince Hesse-Darmstadt with a force markedly superior to the Spanish garrison succeeds in seizing the Rock. The native population of Gibraltar fled, moving to the bordering municipality of San Roque, whose City Council today is still called "Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Gibraltar en San Roque" (Town Hall of the City of Gibraltar in San Roque). Finally, the archduke Charles inherited the German empire with which he loses the interest to reign Spain. Queen Anne of Great Britain agreed with King Louis XIV of France to end the War of Succession by the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713. The main lines of the Treaty were, first of all, to recognize Philip V as King of Spain. In second term, the Austrian Empire takes the Spanish low countries as well as Naples and Sardinia, while the Kingdom of Savoy annexes Sicily. In third and last term, England would have right to trade with the Spanish Indies, and also be able to do so with slaves. As for the territories, England annexes Menorca and Gibraltar.​


But as International Law itself fixes, mere occupation is not a motive for the acquisition of sovereignty; That is why the analysis of history is key in order to see if a particular piece of land has followed the steps of the rest of their homeland over time.

As we can see, in the case of the autonomous cities, Ceuta has more than 420 years of Spanish history plus another 84 previous years of Portuguese sovereignty, while Melilla has more than 500 years of Spanish sovereignty. On top of that, these two cities were never effectively controlled and developed by any other country. During the colonization era in North Africa, both Ceuta and Melilla (as well as the rock Vélez de la Gomera) were always organized outside the Spanish protectorate of Morocco, which is why these enclaves were never considered as colonies, being of Spanish sovereignty as much as any other territory in Peninsular Spain. Morocco, on the other hand, became independent from France in 1956.

Unlike the Spanish North African cities, Gibraltar was registered by the UN in 1946 as "non-autonomous territory". Already in 1963, in the middle of a decade of decolonization by the European powers, Gibraltar is included in the list of territories to be decolonized by the United Nations. It is detailed how Gibraltar destroys the national unity and the territorial integrity of Spain, rendering it incompatible with the UN Resolutions agreed on the subject (Resolution 1.514, sixth paragraph, of 1960).

And finally, an unrelated thought. It is very beautiful to imagine what would have happened if there was no New World or if it was discovered at a different moment. Would the Christian kingdoms have taken over north Africa and fight the Saracens and the Ottomans? Maybe the arabic kingdoms united to fight the christian menace of a post-reconquista expanding into their homeland? All these thoughts are represented in some of the missions in the game. That's why I love this game so much! :D
 
Last edited:
Clearly the claim of the Habsburg House was the weakest; even so a war began at a European level, concentrated, of course, in Spain.

The warfare was concentrated almost exclusively in the Low Countries, Northern Italy and the Rhine Basin. Comparatively little warfare took place in Spain itself.

As we can see, in the case of the autonomous cities, Ceuta has more than 420 years of Spanish history plus another 84 previous years of Portuguese sovereignty, while Melilla has more than 500 years of Spanish sovereignty. On top of that, these two cities were never effectively controlled and developed by any other country.

And Gibraltar has more than 310 years of British rule. It was not effectively controlled by Spain, which was why a small navel raid could capture and hold it. Gibraltar was a small village prior to British conquest and the modern town and fortress are almost entirely British in origin...

I am aware that I am playing linguistic games, but you should be careful of nationalist assertions that certain areas are intrinsically part of a given polity based on a broad brush historical description.

It is detailed how Gibraltar destroys the national unity and the territorial integrity of Spain, rendering it incompatible with the UN Resolutions agreed on the subject (Resolution 1.514, sixth paragraph, of 1960).

Unfortunately the same resolution gives peoples of 'non-autonomous' territories the right to self determination, and the population of Gibraltar is strongly loyalist to Britain and they cannot be forcibly united with Spain without their consent. However, don't give up hope - if the repeated farce of Brexit keeps up with a hard exit then the people of Gibraltar might just decide that Spanish government is a better option than a closed border...
 
Unlike the Spanish North African cities, Gibraltar was registered by the UN in 1946 as "non-autonomous territory". Already in 1963, in the middle of a decade of decolonization by the European powers, Gibraltar is included in the list of territories to be decolonized by the United Nations. It is detailed how Gibraltar destroys the national unity and the territorial integrity of Spain, rendering it incompatible with the UN

Gib is a member of the EU, joining as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom. They elect EU Members of parliment. Thats according to EU Treaty Law, Treaty of of Ascension 1972, covering member states territories. Sovereignty was cedded by Spain to UK in treaty law, on three separate instances back in the 1700s. In 1967 and 2002 referendums had 99% votes of remaining British and rejection of beoming spainish.

In the UN it is Spain who blocks Gibralters right of self determination, and to be removed from the 1946 list, and has stated it has been decolonised, and the UK who refuses to deny them those rights. Gib has voted twice to reject spainish sovreignty by massive votes against, and to remain British. Gib political posistion

"The Purposes of the United Nations are ... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

To the same section 2 of Resolution 1514 (XV) states: "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."


Furthermore, resolution 2231 (XXI) itself recalls and demands implementation of Resolution 1514(XV) (guaranteeing Gibraltar's right to self-determination) and therefore it believes that the Spanish claim for its territorial integrity (which would not be affected by Gibraltar's decolonisation) cannot displace or extinguish the rights of the people of Gibraltar under resolution 1514(XV) or under the Charter. From this point of view, any additional right that Spain could claim by virtue of the "reversionary" clause contained in the Treaty of Utrecht is overruled and annulled under article 103 of the UN Charter: " In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

Gib was not a part of Spain when the UN was set up, it had not been for centuries. It wasFranco who wantedit back, first from AH as payent for joining the Axis, then post war from UK for not joining the axis. Its worth pointing out that Catalan rights under the same treaty law are denied by spain and Spain experince of democracy only started with te death of franco and has not really got to grips with how democracy works, Just like argentinia and its claims on the falklands.
 
The main topic of my list was about Ceuta and Melilla, maybe I shouldn't have compared with Gibraltar.

And Gibraltar has more than 310 years of British rule. It was not effectively controlled by Spain

You can't compare with the north African plazas like that, which were Spanish before Morocco even existed (it's origin was 1631 with the proclamation in Tafilalet of Mohamed I) while Gibraltar which was taken by force and Spain doesn't give up on it. Completely different case from a historical point if view.

For the comments you both posted I guess you are both British and I guess you don't want to admit that Gibraltar is a colony.

Here, everybody knows the only reason they don't accept to go back to Spain is because its full of financial criminals that would lose there benefits and because there are more companies than people, many of them online casinos. Also we are having many problems with it as a focus of drug, illegal tobacco and more. There is no self determination in this case because history is what it is wether they like it or not, and it's about time the Uk decolonizes Gibraltar.
 
For the comments you both posted I guess you are both British and I guess you don't want to admit that Gibraltar is a colony.

Nope. Irish-English-Australian, so not a big of fan of Empire. None the less, I do believe the people of Gibraltar deserve self determination and if they choose to remain a part of Britain then they have that right, and they have consistently indicated this is the case.

In terms of the history of the Iberian peoples and their interactions with North Africa, this is a fascinating area I know far too little of and thank you for passing on the information about Ceuta and Melilla.
 
Nope. Irish-English-Australian, so not a big of fan of Empire. None the less, I do believe the people of Gibraltar deserve self determination and if they choose to remain a part of Britain then they have that right, and they have consistently indicated this is the case.

In terms of the history of the Iberian peoples and their interactions with North Africa, this is a fascinating area I know far too little of and thank you for passing on the information about Ceuta and Melilla.

Self determination is not a human right that everyone has, it's only applicable in some cases. I don't know the details but I know that much. It certainly is not applicable to occupied territories because "the people of Gibraltar" are just taking advantage of a favorable situation and greed is not a reason for self determination.

It's dangerous to accept that this is how it works because today is Gibraltar, but tomorrow maybe California decides they don't want to be held down by the rest of America, Texas, Bavaria in Germany, north Italy, and basically half of the world can decide that they are a nation on their own.
No, self-determination is different for each case depending on the history of that piece of land and the rest of its home country. And then when the economic situation changes, they may "self determinate" to join again their home country. That would be pretty stupid don't you think? That's why self determination is not just something that the people votes, because most people don't know the historic background and in most cases they just look for themselves.

Besides, if we were to accept that, which I don't, then they should be a country on their own, not a colony of a third state. Let them be a pirate nation.

By the way the fortress was Spanish, not english. And the "modern town" doesn't even have its own electricity generation and depends on Spain's supply of services for survival.
 
Last edited:
Gib is a member of the EU, joining as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom. They elect EU Members of parliment. Thats according to EU Treaty Law, Treaty of of Ascension 1972, covering member states territories. Sovereignty was cedded by Spain to UK in treaty law, on three separate instances back in the 1700s. In 1967 and 2002 referendums had 99% votes of remaining British and rejection of beoming spainish.

In the UN it is Spain who blocks Gibralters right of self determination, and to be removed from the 1946 list, and has stated it has been decolonised, and the UK who refuses to deny them those rights. Gib has voted twice to reject spainish sovreignty by massive votes against, and to remain British. Gib political posistion

"The Purposes of the United Nations are ... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."

To the same section 2 of Resolution 1514 (XV) states: "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."


Furthermore, resolution 2231 (XXI) itself recalls and demands implementation of Resolution 1514(XV) (guaranteeing Gibraltar's right to self-determination) and therefore it believes that the Spanish claim for its territorial integrity (which would not be affected by Gibraltar's decolonisation) cannot displace or extinguish the rights of the people of Gibraltar under resolution 1514(XV) or under the Charter. From this point of view, any additional right that Spain could claim by virtue of the "reversionary" clause contained in the Treaty of Utrecht is overruled and annulled under article 103 of the UN Charter: " In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail."

Gib was not a part of Spain when the UN was set up, it had not been for centuries. It wasFranco who wantedit back, first from AH as payent for joining the Axis, then post war from UK for not joining the axis. Its worth pointing out that Catalan rights under the same treaty law are denied by spain and Spain experince of democracy only started with te death of franco and has not really got to grips with how democracy works, Just like argentinia and its claims on the falklands.

That's pretty insulting saying that Spain lacks democratic experience, you should better inform yourself.
Also, who told you it was only Franco who asked for it back? That's not true, maybe you should search in Spanish with Google translate in order to get the full story.

And finally, you are touching a delicate topic with Catalonia, we better not enter that because this topic is about Ceuta and Melilla. But I'm just going to say you are really uninformed if you think that Spain is negating them any rights. They have legal separatist parties for a reason and there is a legal road to Independence that the separatists leaders refuse to follow, because all they want is to enrich themselves (it has been proven many times and that's why some of them are in jail).
 
Last edited:
Self determination is not a human right that everyone has, it's only applicable in some cases. I don't know the details but I know that much.

You know very little. Every nation in the United nations is treaty bound to acept the right of self determination (http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 and http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml) What it is is codified in Law.

Some other law Spain rejects for Gib, but demands for ceuta etc.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982):
"The sovereignty of a coastal state extends, beyond its land territory and internal
waters and,...to the adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea" (Article 2
.1).
"This sovereignty extends to the airspace over the territorial sea as well as to its bed
and subsoil" (Article 2 .2).
"Every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit
not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from the baselines determined in
accordance with the Convention" (Article 3)

You also dont know that when the UN told Uk to seek a referdum for Gib, it also told spain to do the same for Ceuta etc, Uk did so, Gib wanted to stay british, Spain refused, instead it exilled 4000 nationlists in Ceuta and closed the border with Gib.


Spain was refused membership on the UN untill 1955 because of its fascist dictatorship, making it incompatable with the civilised world. Uk and Gib were members at that time.

It certainly is not applicable to occupied territories because "the people of Gibraltar" are just taking advantage of a favourable situation and greed is not a reason for self determination.

Ignorant of the law and history, Morocco became a member of the UN in 1956 and wanted Ceuta and Melilla returned as they were colonies. Spain has refused saying they are semi autonomous regions and a part of mainland Spain. Spain offered to exchange Ceuta for Gib a number of times between 1868 and 1937, refused on grounds of self determination by the UK Government who has no authority to swap people for people unlike the Spanish governments of that time thought they could.

Morocco position is that it has been a state since the 8th century under sharia law and the plazas were conquered, the original Muslim being exterminated or exiled.In 1706 and 1709 it allied with Uk and France to restore them to their control.they failed, but legally its not till 1865in the International Cape Spartel Treaty that Spain has legally international acceptance of de jure sovereignty of the plazas.

Lastly Gib is not an occuppied terr.


As for the territories, England annexes Menorca and Gibraltar.


"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever".


That's pretty insulting saying that Spain lacks democratic experience, you should better inform yourself.

Spainish citizens has experienced democracy since 1975, before then dictatorship for almost as long.

You should attend a school, University is beyond you abilities at present. https://www.iemed.org/publicacions/...visiting-spains-transition-powell-charles.pdf

Also, who told you it was only Franco who asked for it back? That's not true, maybe you should search in Spanish with Google translate in order to get the full story..

Maybe you should read what i wrote and not invent crap.

That would be the diplomatic exchanges between Franco and Uk post war, Franco and AH during the war.
And finally, you are touching a delicate topic with Catalonia, we better not enter that because this topic is about Ceuta and Melilla. But I'm just going to say you are really uninformed if you think that Spain is negating them any rights. They have legal separatist parties for a reason and there is a legal road to Independence that the separatists leaders refuse to follow, because all they want is to enrich themselves (it has been proven many times and that's why some of them are in jail)..

Another example of you not understanding the right of self determination or how democracy works. Catalonia positions in law is exactly the same as Ceuta.


As for the territories, England annexes Menorca and Gibraltar.


"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever".
 
Last edited:
You know very little. Every nation in the United nations is treaty bound to acept the right of self determination (http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873 and http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml) What it is is codified in Law.

Some other law Spain rejects for Gib, but demands for ceuta etc.
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982):
"The sovereignty of a coastal state extends, beyond its land territory and internal
waters and,...to the adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea" (Article 2
.1).
"This sovereignty extends to the airspace over the territorial sea as well as to its bed
and subsoil" (Article 2 .2).
"Every state has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit
not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from the baselines determined in
accordance with the Convention" (Article 3)

You also dont know that when the UN told Uk to seek a referdum for Gib, it also told spain to do the same for Ceuta etc, Uk did so, Gib wanted to stay british, Spain refused, instead it exilled 4000 nationlists in Ceuta and closed the border with Gib.


Spain was refused membership on the UN untill 1955 because of its fascist dictatorship, making it incompatable with the civilised world. Uk and Gib were members at that time.



Ignorant of the law and history, Morocco became a member of the UN in 1956 and wanted Ceuta and Melilla returned as they were colonies. Spain has refused saying they are semi autonomous regions and a part of mainland Spain. Spain offered to exchange Ceuta for Gib a number of times between 1868 and 1937, refused on grounds of self determination by the UK Government who has no authority to swap people for people unlike the Spanish governments of that time thought they could.

Morocco position is that it has been a state since the 8th century under sharia law and the plazas were conquered, the original Muslim being exterminated or exiled.In 1706 and 1709 it allied with Uk and France to restore them to their control.they failed, but legally its not till 1865in the International Cape Spartel Treaty that Spain has legally international acceptance of de jure sovereignty of the plazas.

Lastly Gib is not an occuppied terr.





"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever".




Spainish citizens has experienced democracy since 1975, before then dictatorship for almost as long.

You should attend a school, University is beyond you abilities at present. https://www.iemed.org/publicacions/...visiting-spains-transition-powell-charles.pdf



Maybe you should read what i wrote and not invent crap.

That would be the diplomatic exchanges between Franco and Uk post war, Franco and AH during the war.


Another example of you not understanding the right of self determination or how democracy works. Catalonia positions in law is exactly the same as Ceuta.





"The Catholic King does hereby for himself, his heirs and successors yield to the Crown of Great Britain the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar together with Fort and Forts thereunto belonging; and he gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right forever without any exception or impediment whatsoever".


Thanks for the effort. I will collect my sources and reply you. I have exams these days so I'll do it in a couple of weeks. Also, I want to fully read what you've attached.

PS: For someone that accuses other people of not being fit for university, you are very partial. Yes the Catholic King yielded that land to the british, but there were a set of CONDITIONS, of which the british have already broken three important ones. Please look it up before coming back with some nationalistic rant. Studying history is not a bad thing for avoiding being manipulated.

Yes, technically gibraltar is not a colony, it is a "british overseas territory". In practice, it is a colony.
- There was displacement of the autochthonous population. The Gibraltarians left Gibraltar the same day of the capture (robbery) taking all the belongings they could and were installed in the line that delimited Gibraltar, not to spend even a night under a foreign flag. From that fact emerged a town, La Linea de la Concepcion, whose shield and flag are the same as Gibraltar since they are the real Gibraltarians, or their descendants.
- The famous "llanitos" are population of alluvium, descendants of the scum that they did not want in the metropolis and sent to repopulate the colony, as the English always did.
- It is so much the love they have for Gibraltar, that their laws are not the same as those of the occupying power (another characteristic of the colonies), being a kind of second class British: They are not free to travel to Great Britain, having to take out the passport and apply for a visa and they don't have access to the government that is, that no "Gibraltarian" can occupy a position in the Government of the United Kingdom. Something unthinkable by the way in Ceuta and Melilla, which are not colonies, and where any person from Ceuta or Melilla can reach even President of the Government of the Kingdom of Spain if so decided and voted by most Spaniards.

In addition, the UN something has to say about it, they have always considered Gibraltar as a territory to decolonize, and therefore, a colony, while the consideration of Ceuta and Melilla as plazas of sovereignty, not colonies, has not changed one bit.

But as I said, don't take my word for it, when I have time I will make the effort to collect the information, like you did, and reply you. If I don't do it in a couple of weeks you can remind me if you want.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Let's install people in some place and 300 years later we will ask them if they are still the same people or have converted to the ethnic group that used to or should own that land.

Britsh logic in Gibraltar, the Malvinas and several other places. If they don't approve of our policy, just make their lives a living hell until the message sinks in, i.e. Cyprus.

Oh, and then claim that this is "self determination" and not Imperialism.

Let's cast a vote in Akrotiri and Dekelia and ask them if they wanna be British or part of Cyprus and then flash the results around saying that the people of Akrotiri have spoken... Ridiculous (lackof) logic.
 
thanks for the effort. I will collect my sources and reply you. I have exams these days so I'll do it in a couple of weeks. Also, I want to fully read what you've attached.

PS: For someone that accuses other people of not being fit for university, you are very partial. Yes the Catholic King yielded that land to the British, but there were a set of CONDITIONS, of which the British have already broken three important ones. Please look it up before coming back with some nationalistic rant. Studying history is not a bad thing for avoiding being manipulated.

Your reading impaired, i mentioned you should attend a school as University level is beyond your abilities at present, because your ignorant of the history of Spain, in which democratic practices are a recent political adoption. Your entire posting is an uniformed nationalistic rant, ignorant of the law and history, just as one expects froma school kid.

When Spain lost a war it lost Gib, it surrendered in perpetuity sovereignty over Gib in the peace treaty, if and only if Uk grants independence to Gib*, can Spain legally claim prior sovereignty over Gib, thats the only condition on sovreignty in the treaty in which Spain surrendered sovereignty over Gib to the Uk crown. However it tried to re conquer it twice more, losing both times and being forced to again recognise Uk sovereignty over Gib, last time was in the treaty of Paris 1783, it has never tried again to conquer Gib.

It has tried and failed to obtain Sovereignty through the UN, failling every time, not least because the Un position is thats its up to Spain Uk and Gib to settle, not the UN.
UN Fourth Committee in 1997:
Gibraltar is not part of Spain. It has not been part of Spain since Spain alienated it forever to Great Britain by Treaty 284 years ago. Accordingly the established
principle that self-determination is not available to the people of a territory that is actually an integral part of a Member State clearly has no application to Gibraltar.
In our case the exercise of self-determination cannot disintegrate Spain for the reason that Gibraltar is not integrated in Spain

Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1967
The representative of Spain and other representatives who generally are giving support to the Spanish case have claimed that the British retention of Gibraltar constitutes a partial or a
total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and therefore is incompatible with the Charter. My delegation submits, on the contrary, that paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV) was not intended to apply to historic territorial claims between sovereign Member States. It is our view that the resolution was concerned not with the territorial integrity or national unity of sovereign States but with the possibility of a disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity in Non-Self-Governing Territories, which were yet to become independent. If one accepts the interpretation placed on operative paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV) by the Spanish representative, it should follow, I think, that every historic claim by one sovereign State against another could fall within the purview of the discussions of this Committee.
This would mean that nearly every European country, such being Europe's history, could lay claim to some part of another European country on the basis of some earlier conquest or some earlier transfer of land. The dangers of such a doctrine are so obvious that it should be unnecessary to develop the point further.

Uk Governemnt posiostion.
"As a separate territory, recognized by the United Nations and included since 1946 in its list of non-self-governing territories, Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the Charter of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government therefore supports the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, promoted in accordance with the other principles and rights of the Charter of the United Nations, except in so far only as in the view of Her Majesty's Government, which it has expressed in Parliament and otherwise publicly on many occasions, Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is the position of Her Majesty's Government that there is no constraint to that right, except that independence would be only an option for Gibraltar with Spain's consent".

Chief Minister of Gibraltar Peter Caruana, on the New 2006 constitution, expressed the following to the UN, not asking for taking of the de colonisation list, because its inaporpriate, as its nota colony.
Constitution accepted and adopted last November by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum, which was recognised by the United Kingdom as an act of self-determination, had created a modern and mature relationship between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and gave Gibraltar practically full self-government.It does
not alter the political and factual reality that Gibraltar has, to every other effect ceased to be a colony, is not a colony, is not considered by its ex-administering Power to be a colony.

Yes, technically gibraltar is not a colony, it is a "british overseas territory". In practice, it is a colony.

Thats the ball game, in law its a british overseas territory, and your entire rant collapses under your own ignorance of what Gib, is in law. In Practice it is and has always been a british overseas territory, both Uk and Gib consider that decolonisation is not required.

In addition, the UN something has to say about it, they have always considered Gibraltar as a territory to decolonise, and therefore, a colony, while the consideration of Ceuta and Melilla as plazas of sovereignty, not colonies, has not changed one bit.

But as I said, don't take my word for it

Your word is no good.http://chronicle.gi/2018/12/un-adopts-annual-consensus-decision-gibraltar/ and http://www.undocs.org/A/AC.109/2017/8 as i wrote, your word is simply, no good.

Decolonaztion is for Spain giving back Spanish Sahara to its owners before being conqured by spain, losing a war of liberation and being told by the UN to give Sidi Ifni, the last remaining spainish colony, back to morocco.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09557570701828584?src=recsys&journalCode=ccam20
 
Last edited:
Here, everybody knows the only reason they don't accept to go back to Spain is because its full of financial criminals that would lose there benefits and because there are more companies than people, many of them online casinos. Also we are having many problems with it as a focus of drug, illegal tobacco and more. There is no self determination in this case because history is what it is wether they like it or not, and it's about time the Uk decolonizes Gibraltar.

Or maybe they don't want to go back to Spain because less than a quarter of them are Spanish? Gibraltar has been British for longer than it ever belonged to the Kingdom of Spain and it shows pretty clearly in the demographics.
 
Or maybe they don't want to go back to Spain because less than a quarter of them are Spanish? Gibraltar has been British for longer than it ever belonged to the Kingdom of Spain and it shows pretty clearly in the demographics.

Actually there are 2.1% of Spainish descent present in the demographics of Gibs population.https://www.indexmundi.com/gibraltar/demographics_profile.html nearly all from Catlans who stayed when it was ceded to Uk.
 
Your reading impaired, i mentioned you should attend a school as University level is beyond your abilities at present, because your ignorant of the history of Spain, in which democratic practices are a recent political adoption. Your entire posting is an uniformed nationalistic rant, ignorant of the law and history, just as one expects froma school kid.

When Spain lost a war it lost Gib, it surrendered in perpetuity sovereignty over Gib in the peace treaty, if and only if Uk grants independence to Gib*, can Spain legally claim prior sovereignty over Gib, thats the only condition on sovreignty in the treaty in which Spain surrendered sovereignty over Gib to the Uk crown. However it tried to re conquer it twice more, losing both times and being forced to again recognise Uk sovereignty over Gib, last time was in the treaty of Paris 1783, it has never tried again to conquer Gib.

It has tried and failed to obtain Sovereignty through the UN, failling every time, not least because the Un position is thats its up to Spain Uk and Gib to settle, not the UN.
UN Fourth Committee in 1997:
Gibraltar is not part of Spain. It has not been part of Spain since Spain alienated it forever to Great Britain by Treaty 284 years ago. Accordingly the established
principle that self-determination is not available to the people of a territory that is actually an integral part of a Member State clearly has no application to Gibraltar.
In our case the exercise of self-determination cannot disintegrate Spain for the reason that Gibraltar is not integrated in Spain

Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples 1967
The representative of Spain and other representatives who generally are giving support to the Spanish case have claimed that the British retention of Gibraltar constitutes a partial or a
total disruption of national unity and territorial integrity of Spain and therefore is incompatible with the Charter. My delegation submits, on the contrary, that paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV) was not intended to apply to historic territorial claims between sovereign Member States. It is our view that the resolution was concerned not with the territorial integrity or national unity of sovereign States but with the possibility of a disruption of the national unity or territorial integrity in Non-Self-Governing Territories, which were yet to become independent. If one accepts the interpretation placed on operative paragraph 6 of resolution 1514 (XV) by the Spanish representative, it should follow, I think, that every historic claim by one sovereign State against another could fall within the purview of the discussions of this Committee.
This would mean that nearly every European country, such being Europe's history, could lay claim to some part of another European country on the basis of some earlier conquest or some earlier transfer of land. The dangers of such a doctrine are so obvious that it should be unnecessary to develop the point further.

Uk Governemnt posiostion.
"As a separate territory, recognized by the United Nations and included since 1946 in its list of non-self-governing territories, Gibraltar enjoys the individual and collective rights accorded by the Charter of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government therefore supports the right of self-determination of the people of Gibraltar, promoted in accordance with the other principles and rights of the Charter of the United Nations, except in so far only as in the view of Her Majesty's Government, which it has expressed in Parliament and otherwise publicly on many occasions, Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht gives Spain the right of refusal should Britain ever renounce sovereignty. Thus, it is the position of Her Majesty's Government that there is no constraint to that right, except that independence would be only an option for Gibraltar with Spain's consent".

Chief Minister of Gibraltar Peter Caruana, on the New 2006 constitution, expressed the following to the UN, not asking for taking of the de colonisation list, because its inaporpriate, as its nota colony.
Constitution accepted and adopted last November by the people of Gibraltar in a referendum, which was recognised by the United Kingdom as an act of self-determination, had created a modern and mature relationship between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and gave Gibraltar practically full self-government.It does
not alter the political and factual reality that Gibraltar has, to every other effect ceased to be a colony, is not a colony, is not considered by its ex-administering Power to be a colony.



Thats the ball game, in law its a british overseas territory, and your entire rant collapses under your own ignorance of what Gib, is in law. In Practice it is and has always been a british overseas territory, both Uk and Gib consider that decolonisation is not required.



Your word is no good.http://chronicle.gi/2018/12/un-adopts-annual-consensus-decision-gibraltar/ and http://www.undocs.org/A/AC.109/2017/8 as i wrote, your word is simply, no good.

Decolonaztion is for Spain giving back Spanish Sahara to its owners before being conqured by spain, losing a war of liberation and being told by the UN to give Sidi Ifni, the last remaining spainish colony, back to morocco.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09557570701828584?src=recsys&journalCode=ccam20

My friend, again you show everyone how partial your position is. Of course the UN is going to satisfy the desires of a permanent member of the security council. Don't want tot take my word, then listen to the UK itself when it recognizes that Gibraltar is a colony, for example when they wanted to keep the online casinos http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...ES&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9739679

As I said, I'll take the time to answer everything in a few days. Keep talking little kid
 
My friend, again you show everyone how partial your position is. Of course the UN is going to satisfy the desires of a permanent member of the security council. Don't want tot take my word, then listen to the UK itself when it recognizes that Gibraltar is a colony, for example when they wanted to keep the online casinos http://curia.europa.eu/juris/docume...ES&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=9739679

As I said, I'll take the time to answer everything in a few days. Keep talking little kid

Your link supports the UK posted legal position and, hows that for incompetence?.

Being a permanent member gives the Uk a permanent veto rather than a rotating veto, none of which is relevant to Gibs sovereignty status as the UK has never used its veto on any matter related to it.
 
I was going by the surname origins for the Gibraltese. Otherwise some people will just argue that the Gibraltese are all really Spanish.

Intresting way to go, biggest issue with that approach is that women take the males name, so the genetic heritage is not really being expressed, only a linguistic heritage from the male line.
 
Your link supports the UK posted legal position and, hows that for incompetence?.

Being a permanent member gives the Uk a permanent veto rather than a rotating veto, none of which is relevant to Gibs sovereignty status as the UK has never used its veto on any matter related to it.

You are lying. The link shows that the UK clearly states "Gibraltar is a colony".
Being a permanent member also involves a boost on soft power, precisely because of that permanent veto. If you can't see that, you are stupid.
Gibraltar is on the list of territories to decolonize and that's what seems to blow your mind. You come here insulting, lying, and with nationalistic cheap talk.
The UN humors the UK over such a small thing because of its position within the UN. If you can't see that then you are naive. Otherwise Gibraltar would have already been decolonized. Nowadays more and more people around the world realizes that the UN is full of s..t. You should accept that the Commonwealth is gone for good, luckily for everyone, and the world has changed. Gibraltar is a colony that needs to be decolonized. Even the UK says that, when they don't lie.
 
When will Spain end their illegal occupation and return Olivença to Portugal?
And when will India end its colonial domain over Goa, Damão and Diu? Give Goa Back!

In 1640 the Portuguese (badly influenced by the English) decided to become independent of Spain [...]
Not sure it was that bad. I mean, it worked.