Funny how you sidestepped my point that those uninhabited islands are the subject of legal claims to ownership by the UK and Argentina, and unlike the times when the New World, Australasia, etc. were being colonised, there exists today an international court of justice precisely for the purpose of settling legal disputes between countries. It would make far more sense, and would be infinitely more likely to produce an impartial result, if the question of whose claim took precedence was settled by the ICJ, rather than leaving it to the biases of a small group of settlers.

If Argentina had thought they could overthrow the status quo by an appeal to the ICJ they would have taken that route, rather than attempt an armed take-over. I would presume that an armed invasion to try to overthrow the established (since 1833) position would do nothing to make any subsequent appeal to the ICJ seem more reasonable.

And I don't sidestep your point that "those uninhabited islands are the subject of legal claims to ownership by the UK and Argentina". I treat it with the disdain it deserves. The Falklands are not 'uninhabited'.