East Patagonia, Tierra del Fuego and Strait of Magellan dispute

== Legal discussion ==

== Legal discussion ==

During the boundary dispute, manuscripts from the Hispanic period—preserved in archives and libraries across both the Americas and Europe—began to circulate as instruments of legal support. In this context, territorial claims were legitimized through the ability to demonstrate a legal foundation behind them. For this reason, various authors, diplomats, and historians dedicated themselves diligently to collecting documents, analyzing them, and formulating interpretations aimed at defending the interests of their respective countries. The main author in favor of Chile was [[Miguel Luis Amunátegui]] and the main one in favor of Argentina was [[Vicente Gregorio Quesada]].<ref name="QuesadaVSAmunategui">{{cite web |url=http://www.cema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-074.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080618062258/http://www.cema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-074.htm |title=The boundary dispute between Argentina and Chile: the Quesada-Amunátegui debate |date=2003 |archivedate=18 June 2008 |website=General History of the Foreign Relations of the Argentine Republic}}</ref><ref name="Escude">{{cite journal |last=Escudé |first=Carlos |title=Notes on the Origins of Argentine Territorial Nationalism |journal=Universidad del CEMA |date=2008 |pages=9–10 |url=https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/84493/1/589385852.pdf}}</ref>

During the boundary dispute, manuscripts from the Hispanic period—preserved in archives and libraries across both the Americas and Europe—began to circulate as instruments of legal support. In this context, territorial claims were legitimized through the ability to demonstrate a legal foundation behind them. For this reason, various authors, diplomats, and historians dedicated themselves diligently to collecting documents, analyzing them, and formulating interpretations aimed at defending the interests of their respective countries. The main author in favor of Chile was [[Miguel Luis Amunátegui]] and the main one in favor of Argentina was [[Vicente Gregorio Quesada]].<ref name="QuesadaVSAmunategui">{{cite web |url=http://www.cema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-074.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080618062258/http://www.cema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-074.htm |title=The boundary dispute between Argentina and Chile: the Quesada-Amunátegui debate |date=2003 |archivedate=18 June 2008 |website=General History of the Foreign Relations of the Argentine Republic}}</ref><ref name="Escude">{{cite journal |last=Escudé |first=Carlos |title=Notes on the Origins of Argentine Territorial Nationalism |journal=Universidad del CEMA |date=2008 |pages=9–10 |url=https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/84493/1/589385852.pdf}}</ref> However, many of these official texts were subject to divergent readings or even contradicted one another, generating overlaps and interpretive disputes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sanhueza |first1=Carlos |title=Un saber geográfico en acción: Hans Steffen y el litigio patagónico 1892–1902 |journal=Magallania (Punta Arenas) |date=2012 |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=21–44 |doi=10.4067/S0718-22442012000100002 |url=https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-22442012000100002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es |language=es}}</ref><ref name=KarenCDHS/>

However, many of these official texts were subject to divergent readings or even contradicted one another, generating overlaps and interpretive disputes.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Sanhueza |first1=Carlos |title=Un saber geográfico en acción: Hans Steffen y el litigio patagónico 1892–1902 |journal=Magallania (Punta Arenas) |date=2012 |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=21–44 |doi=10.4067/S0718-22442012000100002 |url=https://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0718-22442012000100002&lng=es&nrm=iso&tlng=es |language=es}}</ref><ref name=KarenCDHS/>

=== Argentina ===

=== Argentina ===