I always find it very amusing that the Spanish government has the guts to show up and say "hey, guys, so, we actually stole that so can we please have it back?"
Looting the whole continent for centuries was not enough. They want more, of course
Looting the whole continent for centuries was not enough. They want more, of course
I get what you are saying, but legality and morality are two very different things.
Against the will of all the natives living in the territory. You can't just show up to a house and claim that it's yours and simply take everything out of it and then take it somewhere else and claim that technically you didn't steal anything because you first claimed it yours lol.
Nobody likes this, but there is no alternative.
In the 1500s, you could.
My personal experience after visiting many of the former Spanish territories in Central and South America is that these countries do not fondly remember the las conquistadories--who pillaged, raped and slaughtered their way across the continent while proselytizing Christianity.
Many of the people I spoke with lay their countries poverty directly at the feet of Spain and American corporations -- who collectively pillaged their country's natural resources and humiliated indigenous people for over 200 years.
This is why Colombia just elected Petro--who's promised to end the looting of Colombia's natural resources, among other things.
Too little, too late, isn't it? If they have been fed up for the past 200 years.
Take the Battle of Boyacá[1] for instance. It was a key turning point where the indigenous population achieved victory over Spanish forces. An event that eventually resulted in the independence of Colombia from Spain and creation of several sovereign states.
I don't see any technical fact of the matter here. These legalistic claims may have been true in the eyes of the Spanish of the time. But the rest of us are free to reject this worldview and, thus, the claims of legality.
Spanish law may say that 1) Spanish law applied in these territories and 2) that they were allowed to take what they took. But none of us have to credit these assertions. We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
This is not about Spanish law, but international maritime law. The ship is Spanish and departed from Spanish territories at the time, thus they have a claim over it.
> We are free to conclude that these assertions of sovereignty were illegitimate and that Spanish law is, therefore, irrelevant.
This is a bit anarchistic. In your scenario, _any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws, thus why would anyone follow them in the first place?
This is about your original assertion that "they didn’t steal anything." And the answer to that depends on whatever the law was in the place where the supposed theft occurred. Spain would presumably take the position that this would be Spanish territorial law. But that merely begs the question, since the whole issue is whether Spanish colonial rule was legitimate.
> This is a bit anarchistic.
That's a bit ironic. One might say that it was Spain's colonization that was anarchistic, since it was done in obvious disregard of the laws and customs of the people living on that land at the time. Maybe today they are just dealing with the consequences.
In any case, I would imagine that the matter would be resolved by some sort of tribunal with competent jurisdiction. If they were to conclude that Spain's claim to the treasure were illegitimate because it was ill-gotten, that's hardly anarchism.
Of course, I'm not predicting that this will actually occur. In fact, I'm not sure I'm prepared to argue that it should occur. I'm merely pointing out that, if the assertion is "the Spanish stole," then arguing that they didn't, because the Spanish had colonized the country and claimed it as their territory, isn't very helpful, and perhaps missing the point. The person who thinks "the Spanish stole" would clearly also consider these unilateral Spanish proclamations to be illegitimate--and it's not obvious to me why they would be wrong.
> any_ country may be free from following international treaties and laws
An exaggeration, surely. The argument I'm making is specific to situations where today's legal rights directly depend on the legitimacy of historical territorial claims.
Were there no indigenous people living there previously?
There were. But the de facto successor to the indigenous governments was the Spanish crown. And the ship sank during Spanish rule.
Spain is not going to claim a galleon loaded with goods taken from the Colombian territories _before_ the 1500s or _after_ 1810.
Why would that make the "rule" morally fine?
It doesn't, but that doesn't really matter. There are many legal things that are immoral.
Right now, Spain does have a claim on the ship.
A claim yes, a moral one? Not sure. A legal one? Also not sure.
> Technically speaking, they didn’t steal anything since they claimed the American territories as Spanish.
When the Spanish came to America, the people living here certainly weren't Spanish. It was even discussed if the indigenous peoples were human or not.
Not for lack of trying.
But of course, there are specific international treaties way older than that.
When it came to their European colleagues, 18th-century Spain was perfectly happy to follow international relations principles that we would recognize today. Their conquest of Central and South America was predicated on the Treaty of Tordesillas, in which they and the Portuguese agreed to some lines on a map (with the Pope's help) and went to play "loot the locals".
Pretty horrible sight if you ask me, a shame on British soul and something former colonial countries still keep asking forgiveness for, for very good reasons
Also, international maritime law is, well, international. Unless Colombia decides that they would withdraw from the UN and international courts, of course it will apply to them.
Colombia was under the Spanish crown rule between 1525 and 1810, thus there was not a country there, at least not legally.
It’s akin to some day Northern California splitting from California and then claiming socal “stole it’s water” or similar argument.
There were some thefts before mining started taking place, but most of the gold was mined by and for the crown.
Also, this is Columbia making the claim, not the locale where the mines existed.