Quirno at the UN: ultimatum over Sea Lion and possible appeal to the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Foreign Minister Pablo Quirno confirmed that Argentina issued an ultimatum to the United Kingdom to suspend activities linked to the exploitation of resources in the Malvinas Islands and warned that, if London does not comply with the request, it will turn to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to request provisional measures. The statement was made in an interview and picked up by Crónica. According to that source, the Government granted the United Kingdom a two-week deadline to halt actions related to the Sea Lion project.

What measures did the Government announce and what legal framework do they fall under?

According to Crónica, the decision was announced by the Casa Rosada on Monday and falls under the procedure provided for in Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The foreign minister stated that «the framework of presenting ourselves before an international tribunal is to assert our rights in the face of the unilateral decision of the United Kingdom» and that this «means one more step in the strategy that was announced by President Milei a couple of weeks ago in a national broadcast.»

Quirno anticipated the next step if there is no favorable response: «We will go to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea to obtain provisional measures that halt this situation.» According to the same source, the official stated that «it is the first time that Argentina submits the Malvinas cause to an international tribunal regarding hydrocarbon exploitation.»

What is the urgency invoked and what project does it refer to?

The urgency raised by Javier Milei’s administration is linked, according to Crónica, to the schedule planned for the Sea Lion oil development, promoted by a consortium made up of Rockhopper Exploration and Navitas Petroleum. Quirno referred to the possibility that production begins before there is a resolution at the international level and indicated that the first barrel is expected in 2028. «That is why we are doing this sufficiently in advance to prevent that,» he noted.

The foreign minister also mentioned measures against supplier companies, investors and financial entities that consider participating in the venture. «They will have to decide between operating under illegitimate licenses in the Malvinas or operating in Argentina with the potential that this has,» he stated. According to his account, some private companies have already communicated that they will not participate in activities linked to Sea Lion, and he referred to the role of banks and funds that could provide resources to finance the development.

What does the Foreign Ministry’s diplomatic protest say and how does it relate to the above?

The Argentine Foreign Ministry reported that, on the instructions of Foreign Minister Quirno, a formal note of protest was submitted on July 13 to the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In that note, the «most energetic rejection» is expressed regarding the movements of the vessel HMS Medway, «illegally deployed in the Malvinas Islands,» which were not duly notified in accordance with the bilateral agreements and declarations in force, and which involved transit through the Argentine Territorial Sea.

According to the official source, this unilateral action constitutes a violation of the commitments assumed by both Governments in the Joint Declaration of September 25, 1991, which replaces Annexes I, II, III and IV of the Joint Declaration given in Madrid on February 15, 1990, in its section I.2 «Confidence-building measures,» point «b» (text according to the Joint Declaration given in Buenos Aires and London on July 12, 1993). The Argentine Government firmly rejects this British military incursion into spaces under Argentine jurisdiction, which adds to a sustained policy of unilateral acts incompatible with the resolutions of the United Nations and with the duty of both parties to refrain from altering the situation while the sovereignty dispute remains pending resolution.

The Foreign Ministry adds that such unconsulted and illegal movements contravene the bilateral commitments on confidence-building measures in the military sphere in force between the two countries, while they add to the long series of unilateral actions that the United Kingdom carries out in contravention of Resolution 31/49 of the United Nations General Assembly, which urges both parties to refrain from adopting decisions that entail the introduction of unilateral modifications in the situation of the Malvinas Islands while the sovereignty controversy remains pending resolution.

What concrete data emerge from the sources and how do they compare?

• Ultimatum and deadline: Crónica reports that the Government granted the United Kingdom a two-week deadline to halt actions related to Sea Lion. The official source does not mention that deadline in the available text.
• Legal framework: Crónica frames the decision in Annex VII of UNCLOS. The Foreign Ministry, in the available text, does not mention that annex or the arbitration procedure.
• Sea Lion project: Crónica identifies the consortium Rockhopper Exploration and Navitas Petroleum and a forecast of first barrel for 2028. The official source does not mention the project or those companies.
• Protest over HMS Medway: The Foreign Ministry details the July 13 note and the violation of the 1991 Joint Declaration. Crónica does not mention this episode in the available text.
• Resolution 31/49: The Foreign Ministry expressly cites it. Crónica does not mention it.

The sources coincide that there is an Argentine diplomatic action underway regarding the Malvinas and that the Government aims to halt British activities. However, they do not mutually confirm the details: the ultimatum with deadline, the appeal to the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the Sea Lion project appear only in Crónica; the protest over the HMS Medway and the citation of Resolution 31/49 appear only in the Foreign Ministry. Neither of the two sources alone allows verifying all the facts.

Value module: comparison of deadlines and derived calculation

Document: Crónica (secondary source) and Argentine Foreign Ministry (primary source).
Body and date: Crónica, no explicit date in the material; Foreign Ministry, note of July 13.
Unit: days.
Values used: Crónica mentions a two-week deadline for the United Kingdom to halt actions. The Foreign Ministry mentions a protest note submitted on July 13. The exact date of the announcement of the deadline is not available in the Crónica material.
Operation: it is not possible to calculate a time difference between both events because the start date of the deadline is missing. If it were assumed that the deadline began on the same day as the note (July 13), it would expire on July 27, but that equivalence is not confirmed by the sources. It is recorded as an unverified hypothesis.
Denominator: not applicable.
Reason for non-conversion: no currencies or units are converted because the material does not include exchange rates or conversion factors.

What data or decision should be followed?

It is appropriate to follow the United Kingdom’s response to the Argentine ultimatum and, in particular, whether the expiration of the two-week deadline mentioned by Crónica is confirmed. It is also advisable to observe whether Argentina formally files the appeal before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and whether the Foreign Ministry expands the protest over the HMS Medway with new notes or statements. The evolution of the Sea Lion project and the eventual participation of companies and financiers are other points to monitor, although for now they are only documented in the secondary source.