Three historical and legal bases for the return of Gibraltar to Spain

October 30, 2023, updated at 4:47 PM.

In 2018, Pedro Sánchez stated that he had reached an agreement with then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, in which she committed to addressing the issue of Gibraltar's sovereignty. The President of the Spanish government even promised that if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union with the well-known Brexit, "the political, legal, and geographical ties with Gibraltar would go through Spain."

It is obvious that this did not happen five years later, although it could have been inferred from the letter that ABC exclusively obtained. In it, May denied these claims.

"The Spanish government has repeatedly requested this, but has not succeeded," the Prime Minister explained regarding the amendment of Article 184 of the Utrecht Treaty, adding words of reassurance to the residents of Gibraltar: "We will always stand by your side, we are proud that Gibraltar is British. Our position on its sovereignty has not changed and will not change."

More than three hundred years of disputes have passed since the signing of the treaty.

In which Spain tried to reclaim this strategic territory of 6.8 square kilometers and a population of 31,000 people, regardless of whether we were under a republic, dictatorship, monarchy, or the government of PSOE or PP.

In 1720, King George I of Great Britain sent the first letter to Spain, promising to return Gibraltar "quickly." Seven years later, there was even a war for Gibraltar, which England won.

“The end of Moratinos' era on the issue of Gibraltar”

José Manuel García Margallo, former Minister of Foreign Affairs. During the 18th century, Gibraltar faced terrible sieges from various regimes trying to take control of it. In the most significant one, from 1779 to 1783, over 5,000 Spaniards and 1,900 British soldiers lost their lives.

More recently, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, socialist Miguel Ángel Moratinos, stated in 2009 that the claim to sovereignty over this territory is "inalienable." In 2013, his successor, José Manuel García-Margallo, responded that "Moratinos' era on the issue of Gibraltar is over."

Violation of the Utrecht Treaty

The Endless Story. But if we adhere to the provisions of the Treaty of Utrecht, despite various disputes and military clashes between both countries over the rock, it can be established that Great Britain has openly violated some of the provisions set in 1713 for 300 years.

What exactly does this article say? What does it establish and why is London not complying with it? The well-known Article X states: "The Catholic King [Philip V], on his own behalf and on behalf of his heirs and successors, hereby transfers to the Crown of Great Britain full and complete rights to the city and castle of Gibraltar, along with its port, defenses, and fortifications that belong to it, and transfers such rights absolutely, so that it may have and enjoy them with all rights and forever, without any exceptions or obstacles."

However, today the definition of the transferred territory is a matter of dispute regarding land, airspace, and sea, precisely because the treaty established the transfer of ownership "without territorial jurisdiction and without open communication with the neighboring land country."

This means that, although the United Kingdom has a valid right of sovereignty, the issue of its territorial scope needs to be resolved, as the mentioned Article X did not establish a border, and no delimitation was carried out later.

Spain has already expressed its opposition to the British presence on land and objected to the construction of an airport in 1938, as it was beyond the boundary established in Utrecht in 1713.

“Abuse and fraud”

To "prevent abuse and fraud in the import of goods," the agreement also established that "the connection to the Spanish coast by sea cannot be open and safe at all times." This isolated Gibraltar, which could be supplied by sea for its own existence but could not trade what it received. And during "great difficulties," it allowed its residents to buy food on Spanish territory, but only for personal consumption.

According to this provision, Gibraltar remained isolated until 1985, when, in the context of Spain's entry into European institutions and NATO, it sought to engage the residents of Gibraltar in positions more favorable to it, on one hand, and to support the development of the entire region, on the other.

However, these steps to facilitate exchanges have not led to significant progress in achieving the goal of returning the territory. On the contrary, the United Kingdom, in addition to consolidating its political autonomous status, has been strengthening the colony's economy and continues to work towards turning the rock into a business center in the medium term, contrary to the terms of the Utrecht Treaty.

Recently, the British government has shown great interest in recognizing the waters surrounding the rock as English property, which Spain does not agree to, for the simple reason that only the waters of the port of Gibraltar were transferred in the treaty.

Nevertheless, the previous government of David Cameron, for example, did not miss the opportunity to complain about the alleged violations of these waters by Spanish vessels, incited by the "llanitos." However, according to the agreement made in 1713, such violations did not occur.

The Third Utrecht Agreement

The third agreement, concluded in Utrecht, is the most important because it states that if the United Kingdom attempts to "transfer, sell, or in any way dispose of the property of Gibraltar," Spain has priority in halting the transfer.

In this context, the British government has already decided to "alienate" its colony. Obviously, not in favor of a foreign power, but in favor of the population of the rock through ambiguous concessions made to them. On one hand, there is the Gibraltar constitution of 1969, and on the other hand, the amendments made in 2006, which introduced the right to self-determination for Gibraltarians, although they subordinate it to "existing treaties," as required by Spain.

If we listen to international law and correctly interpret Article X of the Treaty of Utrecht, the transfer to Spain should have ended, and Spain should have restored its sovereign rights over the transferred territory. It should not be forgotten that the mentioned article considers this piece of land as a strategic outpost without a settlement, so it says nothing about its population. Therefore, it provided for a return to Spain if Britain abandoned it. This not only prohibits the transfer to a third country but also to an independent Gibraltar, which was confirmed by the United Nations in its resolution 2253 from 1967.