![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This year, 2017 marks the thirty-fifth anniversary of the Falklands crisis. This article addresses the question of why Britain fought the Falklands war. Britain’s official representation of the war began with a false premise, which proclaimed that “the Falkland Islands were a British sovereign territory.” Metaphorically speaking, Britain’s representation was structured into “a chain of hypothetical propositions.” This metaphor not only enables one to apprehend a striking parallel between the deduction of one proposition from another and the construction of national interests but also offers a useful way to understand how Britain’s premise delineated the parameters within which the putative truths of British interests could be “discovered,” reproduced and transmitted through pure deduction. The validity of the conclusion that Britain must repossess the Falklands through military means did not flow from empirical evidence. Rather, it stemmed from the power held by the British ruling elite to define the first premise.
Acknowledgements
Part of this article is drawn from my doctoral thesis. I would like to thank Colin Hay and Jutta Weldes for their substantial inputs and comments on earlier drafts of my research. I am very grateful for their unwavering support over the years. This article is dedicated to them with deep gratitude. The usual disclaimer applies.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Shih-Yu Chou is a worker who takes inspiration from the October Revolution and the Cuban Revolution. She acquired her doctorate in politics at Sheffield University in March 2012. She worked as a postdoctoral researcher between August 2016 and July 2017.
Notes
1 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 633; emphasis added. Weber (Citation1994) provides an excellent critical constructivist conceptualisation of sovereignty.
2 See CAB 148/218 ODO (SA) (82) 2nd meeting, April 7, 1982.
3 See 34 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 987; emphasis added.
4 See CAB 148/218 ODO (SA) (82) 2, April 5, 1982.
5 See CAB 148/218 ODO (SA) (82) 13, April 8, 1982.
6 For a discussion of articulation, see Laclau and Mouffe (Citation2001) and Stuart Hall (Citation1985, Citation1986). For a discussion of interpellation or hailing, see Althusser (Citation1971).
7 For a brilliant discussion of logic, language and reality, see Ludwig Wittgenstein (Citation1961, Citation2001). Doty (Citation1996) provides an excellent analysis of implicit assumptions behind foreign policy discourses.
8 See Arnauld and Nicole (Citation1850), Priest (Citation2000), Toulmin (Citation1958), Walton (Citation2008).
9 Example 2 has two variants.
Example 2.1
The Falkland Islanders were 1800 British people in the South Atlantic, and they enjoyed freedom and democracy.
Example 2.2
The Falkland Islanders were 1800 British people in the South Atlantic. They enjoyed freedom and democracy.
There are two reasons why arguments in everyday language might be paratactic. First, many verses in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible are characteristically paratactic. With the spread of the KJV, it has an impact on the English language. As an illustration, consider verses in Genesis 19, which begins with:
And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; And he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall rise up early, and go on your ways. And they said, Nay; but we will abide in the street all night. And he pressed upon them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.
The New English Bible published in 1961 was the first to deviate from tradition by adopting a hypotactic style.
Second, the use of a paratactic style is very common in everyday language. For discussion, see Bryant (Citation1959), Hamlin and Jones (Citation2010) and Ong (Citation1975).
10 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 633; emphasis added.
11 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 633.
12 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 633–34.
13 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 638.
14 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 638.
15 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 639.
16 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 639.
17 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 639.
18 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 657.
19 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 642.
20 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 643.
21 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 644.
22 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 651.
23 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 651.
24 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 653.
25 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 659.
26 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 661.
27 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 972.
28 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 976.
29 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 971.
30 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1038.
31 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 959.
32 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 959–60.
33 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 971.
34 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 971.
35 See CAB 148/218 ODO (SA) (82) 12, April 8, 1982.
36 See CAB 148/218 ODO (SA) (82) 30, April 23, 1982.
37 See CAB 148/211 OD (SA) (82) 6th meeting, April 13, 1982.
38 See CAB 148/211 OD (SA) (82) 9th meeting, April 19, 1982.
39 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1085.
40 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1147.
41 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1084.
42 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 277.
43 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 25.
44 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1050.
45 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 988.
46 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 985.
47 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 823.
48 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 823.
49 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1149.
50 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 970.
51 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 970.
52 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1155.
53 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1155.
54 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1150.
55 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1150.
56 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1146.
57 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1150.
58 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1150.
59 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1146.
60 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 275.
61 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 80W–81W.
62 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 24.
63 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1149.
64 See 22 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 79.
65 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1150.
66 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1154.
67 See 21 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1982) 1147; emphasis added.