The UK's formal response to the Argentine Foreign Ministry's delayed complaint regarding the incursion of the military patrol vessel HMS Medway confirms the worst-case scenario: London is attempting to render the post-war bilateral agreements meaningless and effectively nullify them . Far from remaining silent, the BritishForeign Office and Ministry of Defence have issued a formal rebuttal seeking to legitimize the vessel's free passage through our territorial waters, attempting to equate a warship illegally stationed in the Malvina Islands with any scientific or commercial vessel.

The three letters from London to justify the provocation

According to information from British diplomacy gathered by the national and international press, the Crown structured its defense on three main arguments:

1. The concept of "innocent passage": The United Kingdom categorically rejects the notion that the HMS Medway's voyage—which took place between July 5 and 8 en route to the docks of Punta Arenas—constitutes a violation of sovereignty. It maintains that the voyage was a legitimate exercise of "innocent passage" as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

2. The Antarctic support screen: To give the crossing a "civilian" and "scientific" veneer, London introduced a logistical justification. It officially stated that the movement was part of a "routine visit to Chile to support the operations of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), delivering essential supplies" intended to sustain the campaign of the icebreaker RRS Sir David Attenborough .

3. The assertion of a generic notice: Great Britain maintains that it did not break post-war communication channels. Its spokesperson stated verbatim: “We have notified the Argentine government in advance of the routine logistical visit of HMS Medway to Chile.”

With this latest statement, London exposes its trap: the United Kingdom considers the protocol fulfilled by sending generic information about an international itinerary to Chile, but deliberately omitting and ignoring the obligation to formally agree to its entry into the Argentine Territorial Sea 48 hours in advance, as required by specific bilateral regulations .

The political counterattack: Accusations of "manipulation"

The British response also took on a strong political dimension. Because the Foreign Ministry's statement was released in tandem with the post-match celebrations where Argentina defeated England 2-1 and raised the "The Malvinas are Argentine" flag, Downing Street hardened its stance.

Spokespeople for the island's colonial government and British media formally accused Argentina of carrying out "political manipulation," arguing that the San Martín Palace deliberately used a routine and regulated naval movement to fuel nationalist fervor after the football victory.

Why doesn't the "Innocent Passage" principle apply in the South Atlantic?  

The British argument of "innocent passage" constitutes a legal fallacy designed to nullify the sovereign rights of the Argentine Republic and circumvent existing controls.

What is the Innocent Passage?

According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), innocent passage is the right of ships of all States to navigate through the territorial sea of another country, provided that the transit is expeditious, uninterrupted, and not prejudicial to the peace, good order, or security of the coastal State . While this includes warships, they must not engage in activities involving threats, use of force, or weapons exercises.

Why does it NOT apply in this specific case?

By using the general framework of UNCLOS, Great Britain seeks to distance itself from the Madrid II Treaty. Accepting London's position would imply validating that a Royal Navy vessel has the right to navigate freely off the coasts of Santa Cruz and Tierra del Fuego without requesting authorization or giving the corresponding post-war notices.