The Falkland Islands Campaign of 1982 and British Joint Forces Operations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2019/2020 (SMP27)
Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme Annual Report 2019/2020 (SMP27) Sarah Crofts & Andrew Stanworth August 2020 Funded by the Falkland Islands Government 0 Recommended citation: Crofts, S. & Stanworth, A. 2020. Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme ‐ Annual Report 2019/2020 (SMP27). Falklands Conservation, Stanley. Falklands Conservation, 41 Ross Road, Stanley, Falkland Islands Corresponding author: Sarah Crofts: [email protected] Falkland Islands Government Denise Blake (Environmental Officer): [email protected] Falklands Conservation is a company limited by guarantee in England and Wales No. 3661322 and Registered Charity No. 1073859 Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Regis House, 45 King William Street, London, EC4R 9AN Telephone: +44 (0)1767 679039, [email protected] Registered as an Overseas Company in the Falkland Islands 1 Summary The Falkland Islands support seabird populations that are of global importance; both numerically, and in terms of conservation status. Accordingly, fluctuations in local populations may substantially affect the global conservation status of these species. The Falkland Islands Seabird Monitoring Programme (FISMP) monitors Gentoo Penguin (Pygoscelis papua) at 11 sites (17 colonies), Southern Rockhopper Penguin (Eudyptes c. chrysocome) and Macaroni Penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus) at five sites (14 colonies) and Magellanic Penguin (Spheniscus magellanicus) at one site (one colony). King Penguin (Aptenodytes patagonicus) and Black‐browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) -
Unlocking NATO's Amphibious Potential
November 2020 Perspective EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE J.D. WILLIAMS, GENE GERMANOVICH, STEPHEN WEBBER, GABRIELLE TARINI Unlocking NATO’s Amphibious Potential Lessons from the Past, Insights for the Future orth Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members maintain amphibious capabilities that provide versatile and responsive forces for crisis response and national defense. These forces are routinely employed in maritime Nsecurity, noncombatant evacuation operations (NEO), counterterrorism, stability operations, and other missions. In addition to U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Navy forces, the Alliance’s amphibious forces include large ships and associated landing forces from five nations: France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (UK). Each of these European allies—soon to be joined by Turkey—can conduct brigade-level operations, and smaller elements typically are held at high readiness for immediate response.1 These forces have been busy. Recent exercises and operations have spanned the littorals of West and North Africa, the Levant, the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Given NATO’s ongoing concerns over Russia’s military posture and malign behavior, allies with amphibious capabilities have also been exploring how these forces could contribute to deterrence or, if needed, be employed as part of a C O R P O R A T I O N combined and joint force in a conflict against a highly some respects, NATO’s ongoing efforts harken back to the capable nation-state. Since 2018, NATO’s headquarters Cold War, when NATO’s amphibious forces routinely exer- and various commands have undertaken initiatives and cised in the Mediterranean and North Atlantic as part of a convened working groups to advance the political intent broader strategy to deter Soviet aggression. -
The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. -
British Overseas Territories Law
British Overseas Territories Law Second Edition Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson HART PUBLISHING Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Kemp House , Chawley Park, Cumnor Hill, Oxford , OX2 9PH , UK HART PUBLISHING, the Hart/Stag logo, BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published in Great Britain 2018 First edition published in 2011 Copyright © Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson , 2018 Ian Hendry and Susan Dickson have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identifi ed as Authors of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. While every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this work, no responsibility for loss or damage occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any statement in it can be accepted by the authors, editors or publishers. All UK Government legislation and other public sector information used in the work is Crown Copyright © . All House of Lords and House of Commons information used in the work is Parliamentary Copyright © . This information is reused under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 ( http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ open-government-licence/version/3 ) except where otherwise stated. All Eur-lex material used in the work is © European Union, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ , 1998–2018. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. -
198J. M. Thornton Phd.Pdf
Kent Academic Repository Full text document (pdf) Citation for published version Thornton, Joanna Margaret (2015) Government Media Policy during the Falklands War. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis, University of Kent. DOI Link to record in KAR https://kar.kent.ac.uk/50411/ Document Version UNSPECIFIED Copyright & reuse Content in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated all content is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of research The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record. Enquiries For any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: [email protected] If you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.html Government Media Policy during the Falklands War A thesis presented by Joanna Margaret Thornton to the School of History, University of Kent In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of History University of Kent Canterbury, Kent January 2015 ©Joanna Thornton All rights reserved 2015 Abstract This study addresses Government media policy throughout the Falklands War of 1982. It considers the effectiveness, and charts the development of, Falklands-related public relations’ policy by departments including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Defence (MoD). -
The Royal Engineers Journal
ISSN 0035-8878 m 0 fl z z m 0 THE id- ROYAL d ENGINEERS r JOURNAL INSTITUTION OF RE OFFICE COPY < DO NOT REMOVE Volume 96 DECEMBER 1982 No. 4 THE COUNCIL OF THE INSTITUTION OF ROYAL ENGINEERS (Established 1875, Incorporated by Royal Charter, 1923) Patron-HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN President Major-General PC Shapland, CB, MBE, MA .......................................................... 1982 Vice-Presidents Brigadier D L G Begbie, OBE, MC, BSc, C Eng, FICE .................................. 1980 Major General G B Sinclair, CBE, FIHE ................................................................ 1980 Elected Members Lieut-Colonel C C Hastings, MBE .................................... 1980 Colonel P E Williams, TD ........ ..................................... 1980 Brigadier D H Bowen, OBE ........... ............................................ 1980 Colonel W MR Addison, BSc ....................................... 1981 ColonelJ G Evans,TD .............................................. 1981 Captain J H Fitzmaurice ............................................. 1981 CaptainA MWright, RE, BSc .......................................................... 1981 ColonelJN Blashford-Snell, MBE ........................................................ 1982 Colonel RC Miall,TD, BSc, FRICS,ACIArb ........................................ 1982 Colonel J HG Stevens, BSc, CEng, FICE ....................................................... 1982 MajorWS Baird, RE ................................................. 1982 Ex-Officio Members Brigadier R A Blomfield, -
A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations from 1941 to the Present
CRM D0006297.A2/ Final July 2002 Charting the Pathway to OMFTS: A Historical Assessment of Amphibious Operations From 1941 to the Present Carter A. Malkasian 4825 Mark Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1850 Approved for distribution: July 2002 c.. Expedit'onaryyystems & Support Team Integrated Systems and Operations Division This document represents the best opinion of CNA at the time of issue. It does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of the Navy. Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited. Specific authority: N0014-00-D-0700. For copies of this document call: CNA Document Control and Distribution Section at 703-824-2123. Copyright 0 2002 The CNA Corporation Contents Summary . 1 Introduction . 5 Methodology . 6 The U.S. Marine Corps’ new concept for forcible entry . 9 What is the purpose of amphibious warfare? . 15 Amphibious warfare and the strategic level of war . 15 Amphibious warfare and the operational level of war . 17 Historical changes in amphibious warfare . 19 Amphibious warfare in World War II . 19 The strategic environment . 19 Operational doctrine development and refinement . 21 World War II assault and area denial tactics. 26 Amphibious warfare during the Cold War . 28 Changes to the strategic context . 29 New operational approaches to amphibious warfare . 33 Cold war assault and area denial tactics . 35 Amphibious warfare, 1983–2002 . 42 Changes in the strategic, operational, and tactical context of warfare. 42 Post-cold war amphibious tactics . 44 Conclusion . 46 Key factors in the success of OMFTS. 49 Operational pause . 49 The causes of operational pause . 49 i Overcoming enemy resistance and the supply buildup. -
A Scoping Study for Potential Community-Based Carbon Offsetting Schemes in the Falkland Islands
A SCOPING STUDY FOR POTENTIAL COMMUNITY-BASED CARBON OFFSETTING SCHEMES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS Chris Evans, Jonathan Ritson, Jim McAdam, Stefanie Carter, Andrew Stanworth and Katherine Ross Date: revised Sept 2020 Undertaken by Funded by Recommended citation: Evans, C. et al (2020). A scoping study for potential community‐based carbon offsetting schemes in the Falkland Islands. Report to Falklands Conservation, Stanley. Author affiliations: Chris Evans (UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology) Jonathan Ritson (University of Manchester), Jim McAdam (Queen’s University Belfast and Falkland Islands Trust), Stefanie Carter (South Atlantic Environmental Research Institute), Andrew Stanworth (Falklands Conservation) and Katherine Ross (Falklands Conservation). Falklands Conservation: Jubilee Villas, 41 Ross Road, Stanley, Falkland Islands Corresponding author: [email protected] www.falklandsconservation.com Charity Information: Falklands Conservation: Registered Charity No. 1073859. A company limited by guarantee in England & Wales No. 3661322 Registered Office: 2nd Floor, Regis House, 45 King William Street, London, EC4R 9AN Telephone: +44 (0) 1767 693710, [email protected] Registered as an Overseas Company in the Falkland Islands ii Contents A SCOPING STUDY FOR POTENTIAL COMMUNITY‐BASED CARBON OFFSETTING SCHEMES IN THE FALKLAND ISLANDS .................................................................................................................................. i Summary ................................................................................................................................................ -
Amphibious Warfare: Theory and Practice* Tomoyuki Ishizu
Amphibious Warfare: Theory and Practice* Tomoyuki Ishizu Introduction In December 2013, the Government of Japan released its first “National Security Strategy” and announced the “National Defense Program Guidelines for FY 2014 and beyond.” The new Guidelines set forth the buildup of “dynamic joint defense force,” calling for a sufficient amphibious operations capability by means of amphibious vehicles and tilt-rotor aircraft, for example, to cope with potential enemy attack against any of Japan’s remote islands. This paper analyzes amphibious warfare from a historical viewpoint to show its major framework and concept. It is no wonder that the scale and form of amphibious operations may differ significantly among states depending on their national strategy, status of military power in the national strategy, military objectives, and historical or geographical conditions. The reason is that the national strategy, which is prescribed according to the national history, geography, culture and more, determines the role of the nation’s military force and way of fighting. With all these facts taken into account, this paper attempts to propose a general framework for examining amphibious warfare, especially for amphibious operations, and to sort out ideas and terms used in such operations. 1. What are Amphibious Operations? (1) The issues surrounding their definition The first issue that one inevitably encounters in examining amphibious operations is the ambiguity surrounding their definition. Without a uniform understanding of the meaning of amphibious operations and of their associated concepts and terminologies, the actual execution of operations will likely be met with difficulties. Nevertheless, a uniform understanding or a “common language” for the associated concepts and terminologies has not been arrived at, not even in the United States, which has conducted many amphibious operations. -
The Sea Lion Islands: a Chronological History
The Sea Lion Islands: A Chronological History D. Bailey, Historian in Residence, 2019 Sea Lion Island is the most Southerly occupied Island in the Falklands archipelago and is the largest of the ‘Sea Lion Islands’ group. They first appear named on a map of ‘Hawkins Maidenland’ in 1689 and have been known as the Sea Lion Islands since. Not a great deal is known about Sea Lion Island’s history between its discovery and the mid- nineteenth century but it is safe to assume that the bountiful stocks of seals and sea lions were brutally exploited by the many (predominantly American) sealers visiting the Falklands to take advantage of their lack of protection. In terms of ownership, the islands are first mentioned included in a grant issued to Alexander Ross and Samuel Lafone (who lent his name to Lafonia) in 1846. In their early prospectus (1849) they mention the islands’ use for the profitable sealing industry that had been steadily wiping out the populations on the islands for the best part of a hundred years. The Sea Lion Islands are referred to as being “favourite resorts of these valuable animals” but it was later noted that “…Hitherto, these valuable rookeries have been so much poached by French and American adventurers and fished in so indiscriminate a manner, that on some of the best grounds the animals are becoming shy and scarce;…” As with many of the Falkland Islands, Sea Lion Island does have a rich maritime history often linked either to the perilous waters around Cape Horn or to the shallow reefs off the island itself. -
Jacques Tiziou Space Collection
Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Isaac Middleton and Melissa A. N. Keiser 2019 National Air and Space Museum Archives 14390 Air & Space Museum Parkway Chantilly, VA 20151 [email protected] https://airandspace.si.edu/archives Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Biographical / Historical.................................................................................................... 1 Scope and Contents........................................................................................................ 2 Arrangement..................................................................................................................... 2 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 2 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 4 Series : Files, (bulk 1960-2011)............................................................................... 4 Series : Photography, (bulk 1960-2011)................................................................. 25 Jacques Tiziou Space Collection NASM.2018.0078 Collection Overview Repository: National Air and Space Museum Archives Title: Jacques Tiziou Space Collection Identifier: NASM.2018.0078 Date: (bulk 1960s through -
RECORD of the MEETING of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL Held 26Th April 1989
Qll#9 RECORD OF THE MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL held 26th April 1989 : RECORD OF THE MEETING OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL HELD IN STANLEY ON 26TH APRIL 1989 PRESIDENT His Excellency the Governor, Mr W H Fullerton PRESENT MEMBERS Ex-Officio The Honourable the Chief Executive (Mr R Sampson) The Honourable the Financial Secretary (Mr J H Buckland-James) Elected The Honourable A T Blake (Elected Member for Camp Constituency) The Honourable J E Cheek (Elected member for Stanley Constituency) The Honourable R M Lee (Elected Member for Camp Constituency) The Honourable L G Blake OBE JP (Elected Member for Camp Constituency) The Honourable E M Goss MBE (Elected Member for Camp Constituency) The Honourable T S Betts (Elected Member for Stanley Constituency) PERSONS ENTITLED TO ATTEND The Commander British Forces (Air Vice Marshall D 0 Crwys-Williams) The Attorney General (Mr D G Lang) CLERK Mr P T King PRAYERS Prayers were said by the Reverend J W G Hughes RAF APOLOGIES were received from the Honourable C D Keenleyside and the Honourable Mrs C W Teggart The President Honourable Members, we have two principal items of business before us today: the Legislative Council (Privileges) Bill 1989 and a motion by the Honourable the Chief Executive on Seamount. Before we begin ITd like to extend a warm welcome to both our new Financial Secretary, Mr John Buckland-James, and to the Chief Executive, Mr Ronnie Sampson himself, on the occasion of their first meeting of Legislative Council. It is a pleasure to have them with us. Both I know have impressed us with their enthusiasm and the interest they take in matters pertaining to the Falklands and both bring a wealth of experience which I am sure will be of great value to us all.