Falkland islanders have been British since the war between Britain and Argentina 30 years ago, but with the promise of oil on the horizon they do not rule out independence.

"Now we want to be British, but maybe the next generation in the use of their self-determination decides that it's better to be independent," Jan Cheek, a member of the islands' legislative assembly, told AFP.

The islands are currently a British Overseas Territory with London in charge of its defense and international relations and all the rest falling under the legislative assembly.

It costs Britain about $180 million a year to defend the archipelago, which the local government could easily absorb if the promise of oil reserves in its offshore waters materializes.

A stroll through Stanley leaves no doubt who the kelpers, as the islanders are known, identify with, 30 years after the war over the South Atlantic archipelago that began April 2, 1982 and cost the lives of 649 Argentine troops and 255 British servicemen.

The big 4x4 vehicles seen everywhere here fly the Falklands flag and bear bumper stickers that read: "Falkland Islands. British to the core," and, "We are British and we are proud."

But no one consulted by AFP rejected the idea of independence, mainly due to the reports of an oil windfall in the offing.

"Now we are British and we are happy like this, we'll see what happens with oil and then we'll know," said Steve, a kelper who asked that his full name not be used.

If one thing is clear, they do not have much love for Argentina and its claim to the islands.

"We hope that the Argentine government can move on, and recognizes our right to live here as Falkland Islanders," said Stephen Luxton, director of mineral resources for the Falklands Islands government.

Both Luxton and Cheek referred several times to the Falklands as "our country."

But speaking of "country" in the case of the Falklands, or Malvinas as it is known in Spanish, opens a Pandora's box of international law.

Eduardo Barcesat, a legal expert and adviser to the Argentine government, told AFP that neither Argentina nor the United Nations would recognize a declaration of independence by the Falklands.

"The UN has valuable and applicable precedents, which determine that you can't apply the self-determination right when the local population is a consequence of a colonialist territorial conquest," he said.

"The UN never entitled the kelpers to be a part in the sovereignty debate," Barcesat added.

So the Falklands could wind up in the position of Kosovo, which declared independence from Serbia in 2008 and today is recognized by about 80 countries and still has not applied for UN membership.

Washington Baliero, a professor of international law at the Universidad de la Republica in Uruguay, believes that Britain could consent to independence in an agreement with the islanders.

He told AFP that the Falklands case is unique, one that does not fall neatly under either decolonization or self-determination.

"As far as decolonization goes, it is not a non-European people outside the metropolis and subject to colonial rule," he said. "The kelpers are British citizens and of British origin."

"And the self-determination principle was designed for a colonized people. Kelpers' opinion is important anyway, but it isn't a pure and simple self-determination case," he added.