Iceland fight for the sea 1972. Fish wars. Excerpt characterizing the Cod Wars

Interesting story tiny Iceland's victories over Britain in several trade wars. Victories won through perseverance and diplomacy. Iceland has no oil, gas, coal or even forests, and the agricultural potential of the country, 11% of whose territory is occupied by glaciers, is extremely limited. Fish is a strategic commodity for the country.

The first post-war conflict between Britain and Iceland began in 1952, when Iceland announced the extension of the waters off-limits to foreign fishermen from three to four miles. The British filed an application with the International Court of Justice, and while the proceedings were ongoing, they banned Icelandic fishing vessels from entering their ports. This ban dealt a serious blow to the Icelandic economy: Great Britain was the largest market for the small northern country.

And here the descendants of the Vikings were rescued by the recently begun Cold War. The resulting surplus cod was enthusiastically purchased by the Soviet Union, which hoped to thereby increase its influence on, albeit small, one of the founding states of NATO. This prospect worried the United States, which also began purchasing large quantities of Icelandic fish. As a result, joint Soviet-American imports compensated for the damage caused by British sanctions.

This conflict ended with the victory of Iceland. A country with a population of 160 thousand people defeated a great power, one of the five states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council. In 1956, Great Britain was forced to recognize the Icelandic four-mile zone.

But that was only the beginning

First Cod War

The Icelandic patrol boat Albert approaches the British trawler Coventry in the Westfjords. 1958

Encouraged by their success, already in 1958 the Icelanders decided to once again expand their exclusive fishing zone, this time to 12 miles. But now it all started very unsuccessfully for them: all other NATO members opposed such unilateral actions. This time it was not without the participation of the military: Great Britain sent to the shores of Iceland warships. In total, during the first Cod War, 53 Royal Navy ships took part in the operation to protect the fishing fleet, opposed by seven Icelandic patrol boats and one PBY Catalina flying boat.

The presence of foreign navies in Iceland's coastal waters has sparked protests in the country. Demonstrations of angry Icelanders gathered outside the British embassy, but Ambassador Andrew Gilchrist met them with ridicule, playing recordings of bagpipes and military marches on the gramophone at full volume.

The number of such episodes grew. Realizing that Iceland had no chance in the confrontation with the British fleet, the country's authorities resorted to blackmail. The island nation's government has threatened to withdraw from NATO and expel American troops from the country. Despite overwhelming naval superiority, under American pressure, Great Britain was forced to recognize the 12-mile Icelandic exclusive economic zone. The Icelanders' only significant concession was the granting of limited fishing rights to the British in the outer six miles of the twelve.

Second Cod War

The Icelandic boat Ver (left) tries to cut the trawls of the British trawler Northern Reward (right), while the British tug Statesman (center) tries to stop it

Despite the victory in 1961, the situation with fish resources off the coast of Iceland continued to deteriorate. In the 1960s, herring disappeared from the waters surrounding the island, with catches falling from 8.5 million tons in 1958 to almost zero in 1970. Cod numbers also declined steadily, and according to biologists, they were expected to disappear along with herring by about 1980.

Iceland's attempts to involve international organizations in resolving the issue failed. Proposals to introduce quotas for fish production and create areas closed to fishing, where populations could restore their numbers, were either ignored or left for endless discussions in industry committees.

In September 1972, the Icelandic government, in order to preserve fish stocks and increase the country's share of the total catch, expanded the boundaries of the country's maritime exclusive economic zone to 50 miles. Tactics this time coast guard was different. Instead of detaining British trawlers or expelling them, the Icelanders cut the fishing trawl lines with special cutters. After the Icelanders cut the nets of eighteen fishing vessels, British trawlers left Icelandic-claimed waters in May 1973. However, they soon returned, this time protected by Royal Navy frigates.

The Icelanders once again pulled out their joker from their sleeves. Voices have been raised in the country's government about the need to withdraw from NATO, which is supposed to protect its members, but in practice does not provide any assistance. In September 1973, he arrived in Reykjavik to save the situation. general secretary NATO Joseph Luns. On October 3, British warships were withdrawn, and on November 8, the parties to the conflict signed an interim agreement. According to it, the fishing activities of the British within a 50-mile zone were limited: their annual catch should not exceed 130,000 tons. The agreement expired in 1975.

Iceland won again.

Third Cod War

Collision between the Icelandic patrol boat Baldur (right) and the British frigate Mermaid

Even after the Armistice, relations between Great Britain and Iceland remained strained. In July 1974, Forester, one of Britain's largest trawlers, was discovered by an Icelandic patrol boat fishing within the 12 mile zone. After a 100-kilometer chase and shelling with at least two hits, the trawler was captured and taken to Iceland. The ship's captain was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in prison and a £5,000 fine.

On November 16, 1975, the Third Cod War began. Having honestly waited until the end of the 1973 agreement, the Icelanders decided not to waste time on trifles and declared the now 200-mile coastal strip their exclusive maritime zone. To counter the British trawlers, they were able to field six patrol boats and two Polish-built trawlers, armed and converted into coast guard ships.

In addition, they intended to purchase Asheville class patrol boats from the United States, and after refusal they even wanted to receive Soviet Project 35 patrol boats - but this deal did not take place either. To protect 40 of their trawlers, the British this time sent an “armada” of 22 frigates (however, no more than 9 British warships were located off the coast of Iceland at a time), 7 supply ships, 9 tugs and 3 auxiliary ships.

The Third Cod War lasted 7 months, until June 1976. It turned out to be the toughest of the three - during it there were 55 deliberate collisions between ships of both countries. On February 19, 1976, Iceland broke off diplomatic relations with Great Britain.

The outcome of the last Cod War was predictable. Having exhausted all available options for confrontation with Great Britain (not counting an open declaration of war), Iceland again used its “forbidden trick”. The Icelanders threatened to close the American base in Keflavik, which was the most important link in NATO's defense system in the North Atlantic.

On June 2, 1976, through the mediation of the same NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns, a new agreement was concluded that put an end to the Icelandic-British cod wars. According to it, over the next 6 months, 24 British trawlers could be located within Iceland's 200-mile maritime exclusive zone at a time.

Expansion of the Icelandic Exclusive Economic Zone.

After this period, the UK no longer had the right to fish within the 200-mile zone without Icelandic permission, thereby recognizing its new maritime boundaries.

Bronze "statue of friendship" in Kingston upon Hull, England, erected in 2006 as a sign of final reconciliation after the Cod Wars. A second similar statue stands in the Icelandic village of Vik.

Against the background of modern trade wars, I would like to look a little into history.

Diplomatic and later armed conflicts between Great Britain and Iceland over fishing, especially cod, began in 1952.

When fishing resources in the White Sea and off the coast of the Faroe Islands were exhausted in the mid-50s of the 20th century, British and West German fishermen rushed to Icelandic waters. Reykjavik sounded the alarm and accused London of destroying the Icelandic cod population.
Iceland claimed an exclusive 4-mile fishing zone around its territory. The UK responded to this with an embargo on the import of Icelandic fish and other sanctions. From 1952 to 1958, the conflict remained on the diplomatic plane, which is why this period is called the “Proto-Cod War.” However, since 1958, the conflict has entered a hot phase of armed conflict, called the “Cod Wars”.

The first cod war (1958 - 1961), after the expansion of the zone from 4 to 12 nautical miles.
- Second cod war (1972 - October 1973), after expanding the zone from 12 to 50 nautical miles
- Third Cod War (1975 - June 1976) expansion to 200 miles

The Western European press called the hostilities that began at the end of 1975 nothing more than “an absurd war of friends.” After British fishermen refused to leave the 200-mile sea zone, Icelandic Coast Guard warships began destroying British fishing nets. The first serious incident occurred in December, when the Icelandic frigate Thor blocked the path of three British ships. “An Icelandic air force warship opened fire on unarmed British trawlers,” the British news agency BBC reported. “As a result of the shelling, the frigate Thor itself received serious damage, but the British ships remained unharmed.” According to the Icelandic authorities, three British ships surrounded the military frigate from different sides and attacked it with a ram. The British retreated only when Thor was on the verge of sinking.

In February 1976, following a series of incidents in which faster British ships overtook and rammed Icelandic Coast Guard vessels, Reykjavik announced the severance of diplomatic relations with Britain. “This is a guerrilla war at sea,” said Icelandic Prime Minister Geir Hallgrimsson. The Icelandic flotilla at the height of the conflict consisted of only 7 obsolete frigates, while 22 modern frigates, 7 auxiliary and 6 tug ships came to the aid of British fishermen. But, despite the unequal forces, success, according to observers of those years, was generally on the side of the Icelandic flotilla.

“The Icelandic mini-Armada has a cheerful disposition and operates on the principle of ‘making life miserable for the enemy,’” Spiegel wrote in March 1976. - British frigates are waiting for the Icelanders, like cats at a mouse hole. And if at midnight some sounds slip into the radio signals, the English sailors know: the “fucking bastards” (sons of bitches) are approaching.” The Icelanders' tactics were to lure the enemy closer to the fjords and then fire at the enemy frigates. British authorities accused the Icelandic military of “extreme cruelty.” It was reported that Icelandic ships opened fire more than once, shooting at British sailors.

By March 1976, public opinion in Iceland began to put pressure on the authorities, demanding an immediate withdrawal from NATO and the withdrawal of the alliance's military bases from the country. The culmination of numerous protests was the blocking of the entrance to the military base in Keflavik, which at that time was considered one of the most important outposts of the alliance in the fight against Soviet submarines. Washington hoped to the last that Icelandic politicians “would not follow the lead” of the demonstrators. It was all the more unexpected when the Althing almost unanimously adopted a resolution in which it demanded the immediate expulsion of foreign military personnel from the island. They say that it was at this moment that the head of the White House called British Prime Minister James Callaghan with a demand “to resolve the conflict with the Icelanders by any means necessary.” In early June 1976, the parties signed an agreement under which Great Britain recognized the 200-mile Icelandic zone and, despite violent public protests, limited fishing in the North Atlantic
This war cost almost no casualties. The British and Icelanders reported several dozen wounded. One Icelandic Coast Guard employee was also killed (In June 1973, the patrol boat Ægir rammed the destroyer HMS Scylla; during the collision, an Icelandic engineer who was repairing the hull - his welding machine - was killed by electric shock flooded with water.)

As fish stocks deplete, competition between the fishing fleets of different countries has intensified. According to the UN, more than 100 countries are currently involved in conflicts over the right to fish.

Over the past decades, such conflicts have arisen constantly, and the military periodically provides support to the fishermen. The latest example of this kind was the conflict between Russia and Norway. The Italians cut the nets of Greek fishermen in the Mediterranean Sea. Warships of China and Vietnam exchanged salvoes in the South China Sea, a Burmese patrol ship sank a Thai seiner, etc. Fishing conflicts periodically arose between the European Union and Morocco, Taiwan and Argentina, Russia and Japan, etc.

Most often, conflicts arise between neighboring states that have access to the sea. However, practice shows that such disputes are the easiest to regulate. The situation becomes more complicated when fishing is carried out by trawlers belonging to a state located far from the fishing zone. Six countries - Russia, Japan, Spain, Poland, South Korea and Taiwan - account for up to 90% of all fish catches in remote waters. The countries most affected by aliens are Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Iceland and New Zealand.

Cod Wars

The conflict between Iceland and Great Britain continued for several decades. British trawlers and seiners were fishing off the Icelandic coast, and Iceland (originally Denmark, of which Iceland was a part until 1944) tried to push them out.

The "First Cod War" broke out in 1893 when the Danish government declared that foreign fishermen could not fish within 13 miles (approximately 24 km) of the coast of Iceland and the Faroe Islands. This was done primarily to stop British fishermen, who, nevertheless, defiantly continued to fish in the prohibited zone. Great Britain did not accept this condition, since, according to the British, this could become a contagious example for other North Sea countries, which could cause a serious blow to the fishing industry of England. Danish warships arrested violators and sold their ships and cargo under the hammer. In 1899, the crisis reached its peak when Danish warships stopped the British trawler Caspian. The trawler captain agreed to go aboard the Danish patrol ship, but ordered his assistant to take command and hide. Trying to stop the trawler, the Danes fired at it and damaged it, but the intruder escaped. The Caspian captain appeared before a Danish court and was sentenced to 30 days in prison for illegal fishing and attempting to obstruct justice. The damaged ship returned to England, after which the British press began a campaign in defense of the fishermen, calling on the navy to protect them from the unruly Danes. Diplomatic methods of resolving conflicts did not yield results for a long time, as a result, British fishermen were forced to temporarily stop fishing in this part of the Atlantic. The problem resolved itself after the outbreak of the First World War.

The "Second Cod War" occurred in 1958 when Iceland expanded its maritime jurisdiction from 4 miles to 12 miles off its coast. Great Britain was unable to prevent Iceland's actions and in 1961 concluded a bilateral agreement with Iceland recognizing this decision (Iceland entered into a similar agreement with Germany).

In 1972, the “Third Cod War” began - Iceland unexpectedly increased its jurisdiction over maritime territories to 50 miles (about 80 km). Great Britain and Germany protested and appealed to the International Court of Justice. The Court recognized that coastal states cannot draw ocean boundaries based solely on their national legislation. However, Iceland ensured that the British were forced to comply with certain fishing quotas. For this purpose, a bilateral agreement was concluded.

Immediately after the expiration of this treaty, the “Fourth Cod War” began, which lasted from 1975 to 1976. During this period of time, two countries - members of the NATO bloc were actually on the brink of war. Iceland declared as its jurisdiction the maritime area adjacent to its shores for 200 miles (approximately 320 km). The conflict began when Icelandic coast guards cut the fishing nets of British trawlers. Following a number of other clashes between Icelandic and British ships and trawlers, matters took an unexpected turn when Iceland threatened to close an important NATO military base located in the town of Keflavik. As a result, Great Britain agreed to keep its fishermen out of a zone of 200 miles from the Icelandic coast and to reduce the amount of fish they caught. As a result of this, about 1.5 thousand English fishermen and 7.5 thousand workers in UK food enterprises were left without work. In fact, Great Britain lost all four "cod wars."

Tuna Wars

The conflict began after Japan announced it was starting scientific fishing off the west coast of Australia. Japanese trawlers mainly caught tuna and, according to Australia and New Zealand, the fishing volumes were very far from “scientific”. Australia and New Zealand are trying to stop Japan, including using force against Japanese seiners.

Another tuna war took place in the Bay of Biscay, where Spanish and French fishermen were fishing. At the same time, the Spaniards strove to fish in French waters, and the French in Spanish waters. In some cases, the navies of both countries provided support to “their” fishermen.

Crab War

It has been going on since the 1980s between South and North Korea, which harvest delicious types of crabs in the Yellow Sea. Both countries cannot agree on zones where it is possible to produce fish and fish products. As a result, North Korean ships enter the South Korean economic zone, and South Korean ships enter the North Korean one. Warships of both countries periodically come into conflict. Every year, as a result of the use of weapons by patrolmen of the Southern and North Korea Dozens of fishermen are killed and injured.

Squid War

There is a dispute between the UK and Argentina over fishing zones around the Falkland (or Malvinas) Islands. Britain began colonizing the Falkland Islands in 1833, immediately after Argentine settlers were expelled. In 1982, Argentina tried to establish its sovereignty over the Falklands by military means, but was defeated. The two countries restored diplomatic relations in 1990, but the Falklands issue continues to be a source of friction. In 1994, Great Britain expanded its economic zone around the Falklands to 850 miles (approximately 1.4 thousand km), explaining this by the need to protect the squid population from predatory fishing. In response, Argentina amended its constitution, which declared Argentina's right to fish in the Falklands region. Warships of both countries are demonstratively present in the disputed zone, guarding the trawlers. The conflict takes on particular significance as squid prices rise and traditional cephalopod fishing grounds in the North Atlantic are depleted.

Halibut War

In 1986, Spain joined the European Union and agreed to a 10-year moratorium on fishing off the coast of Europe (this was done in order to restore the number of commercial fish). Having lost their traditional fishing grounds, Spanish fishermen moved to the shores of Canadian Newfoundland. In 1994, Canada, in turn, imposed a moratorium on fishing off the northern coast of Newfoundland within its 200-mile economic zone. Along the way, Canada and a number of states whose vessels were fishing in this area agreed to establish fishing quotas (the quotas allocated to Canadians were larger than the quotas allocated to all other countries participating in the agreement). Offended member states of the European Union tried to make changes to the quotas, but Canada stood its ground.

On March 9, 1995, off the coast of Canada in the Great Bank area (an extensive shoal off the coast of Newfoundland), three Canadian patrol ships began pursuing the Spanish trawler Estai, which was suspected of violating international fishing laws. The pursuit continued for several hours. The Canadian Navy was put on alert. The Prime Minister of Canada even allowed sailors to use weapons. In the end, already in international waters, the Canadian guard ship Cape Roger managed to catch Estai on its tail. Seeing that the Estai was not going to stop, the Cape Roger, which had previously detained five other Spanish trawlers with water cannons, used live weapons. They fired four warning bursts from a heavy machine gun towards the Estai, the captain of the Spanish fishing vessel was given five minutes to stop the ship - otherwise Cape Roger threatened to open fire. Only after this did Estai surrender. Canadian inspectors found that 79% of the caught halibut did not reach a length of 38 cm, and 6% - less than 17 cm (it was allowed to catch adult halibut with a length of 60 cm). In addition, an analysis of the ship's log showed many violations related to concealment of the real size of the vessel's catch. The Estai captain was charged with illegally fishing for halibut, hindering apprehension, damaging fishing equipment and refusing to stop when asked by authorities (he was released on $8,000 bail). After this incident, Spanish and Portuguese fishing trawlers left the Grand Bank area.

On March 13, Spain sent its warships to the Newfoundland zone to protect the fishermen. The European Union sided with Spain, calling the Canadians' actions "pirate" and threatening to impose sanctions against Canada. economic sanctions. On March 28, 1995, Spain filed a claim with the International Court of Justice in The Hague, arguing that Canada did not have the right to arrest the Spanish ship in international waters. In turn, Canada informed the court that the latter does not have the right to resolve this dispute, since Canada, in its declaration of May 10, 1994, introduced a clause according to which the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction in resolving all types of conflicts, with the exception of those that arose as a result Canada's efforts to protect marine conservation regulations in the northwest Atlantic Ocean. The court recognized the validity of Canada's application and refused to consider Spain's claim. In September 1995, the conflicting parties reached an agreement and revised the quotas in favor of the Europeans.

The halibut wars took place not only between Canada and Spain. Conflicts between Argentina and Taiwan, as well as China and the Marshall Islands, followed a similar scenario.

Salmon War

The fish soured relations even between close allies such as the United States and Canada when the countries could not agree on the distribution of salmon quotas. The main problem is that salmon, which live in the ocean, nevertheless spawn in fresh waters, thereby creating difficulties in determining the country that owns this species of fish. Traditionally, it was believed that the owner's right belongs to the country in whose territory the salmon was born, that is, the country in whose territory the salmon eggs were deposited has the right to harvest salmon. However, since during migration salmon from one country mix with salmon from another, it is almost impossible to determine the “place of birth” of a particular fish.

Canadians are demanding that the United States reduce the amount of sockeye salmon that migrate to the Fraser River basin (Canada). The Americans, in turn, are demanding that Canadians reduce the catch of coho salmon swimming near Vancouver Island so that more fish can return to US territorial waters. In 1985, the Canada-US salmon fishing agreement was signed, according to which quotas for catching this fish were established, which were later replaced by a fee for the use of Canadian territorial waters by American seiners. However, the implementation of this agreement faced many difficulties. Canada and the United States accused each other of violations of the agreement.

In 1997, this agreement expired, and the United States and Canada resumed negotiations to resolve the problem of quota distribution. However, the negotiations were unsuccessful. On May 27, 1997, the American trawler Christina was detained by Canadian authorities (it is believed that this was done in order to demonstrate to Washington the seriousness of Canada's intentions). According to the Canadian side, the American ship did not warn the Canadians about its entry into Canadian territorial waters. Canada has tightened entry regulations into its waters, requiring all seagoing vessels to provide identification information in advance. The Canadian side argued that the American coast guard also requires Canadian ships to immediately notify them of entering US territorial waters. The US State Department immediately announced the termination of negotiations until a “constructive and friendly atmosphere” necessary for discussions was established.

The conflict reached the point that in July 1997, about 200 Canadian trawlers blocked the way of the American ship Malaspina, which was trying to enter a Canadian port with a cargo of freshly caught salmon and several hundred tourists on board. At the same time, Canadian ships detained two American trawlers fishing without obtaining the appropriate permit. The Malaspina conflict was resolved after the US threatened to prevent American tourists from entering the area of Canada.

In 1999, the United States and Canada entered into a new agreement - US quotas for salmon production were reduced, in addition, the United States agreed to allocate significant funds to restore the stock of this fish.

The question of determining the size of the part of the sea that was under the jurisdiction of coastal states turned out to be one of the most difficult in history international law.

Until the 18th century, the practice was that the border of the “maritime possessions” of states was limited by the horizon line visible from the shore. However, starting from the 18th century, many countries began to use a method according to which the border of the maritime possessions of states was considered to be the point to which the weapons of a coastal country could reach. In fact, the more advanced a country was in the production of weapons, the more area of the sea it could control. However, in practice, subject territory was limited to the distance of a cannonball from the coast - on average, 3 miles (approximately 4.8 km). This idea belonged to the Dutch publicist Cornelius von Binkershock, who already at the beginning of the 17th century proposed using the range of a cannon shot to determine the maritime territories of coastal countries.

By the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century, the United States, as well as some Western European countries, declared their territory to be a maritime space extending exactly three miles from the coast. By the end of the 19th century, technological developments made it possible to increase the range of artillery to 10-12 miles (16-19.3 km). It was at this time that the concept of “adjacent waters” began to be used in international law. In 1776, England declared a part of the sea located 12 miles from its shores to be a “customs zone.” In 1799, the United States followed the example of England, in 1817 - France, and in 1909 - Russia.

The principles of the “free sea” and the definition of adjacent waters by cannon remained the basis of international law in the field of ocean use until 1945. Then the United States established new rules for fishing and extraction of resources located on the seabed in waters adjacent to US territory. The distance that was claimed to belong to the United States was much greater than the usual 3 miles.

Before the adoption of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) different countries tried to establish their jurisdiction over maritime territories, and in each case the size of these territories varied. Australia, Germany, Qatar, Great Britain and the USA maintained a distance of 3 miles (5.5 km), Algeria, Cuba, India, Indonesia and the USSR considered a distance of 12 nautical miles (22.2 km) to be their territorial waters, and Cameroon, Gambia, Madagascar and Tanzania - 50 miles (92.5 km). Some Latin American countries, in particular Chile and Peru, have declared claims to sea areas adjacent to their shores for a distance of up to 200 miles (approximately 370 km). In 1952, Chile, Ecuador and Peru signed a declaration in which they declared a distance of 200 nautical miles as their zone of jurisdiction. Nicaragua joined them, and subsequently the African state of Sierra Leone established a similar norm. Nowadays, the territorial waters of coastal countries are recognized as a maritime space with a distance of 12 miles (19.2 km).

Evolution of maritime laws

Seas and oceans wash the shores of 150 countries. Naturally, the use of the sea gave rise to many international conflicts, the resolution of which was difficult to find due to the absence of any global agreements on the use of the ocean.

In ancient times, relations between countries in this area were regulated according to the so-called “Coastal Law” (it is believed that it developed spontaneously): residents or rulers of a given coastal area were the owners of all vessels and ships washed ashore as a result of shipwrecks, abandoned ships, and also the cargo they transported, in other words, everything that was thrown ashore by the waves. Naturally, many residents of coastal areas, in the hope of increasing the number of sea "gifts", began to enter into a criminal conspiracy with pirates and pilots, creating false lighthouses in order to throw ships off the right course and cause shipwreck. Such actions caused enormous damage, and many states passed laws severely punishing individuals who, through their deliberate actions and for the purpose of profit, caused shipwrecks. International treaties were also signed, which also implied the provision of mutual assistance at sea.

Maritime legislation existed in many seafaring countries of the world already by the 10th century. In the late 10th and early 11th centuries, the Italian city-state of Amalfi had a complex set of maritime laws that became the model for maritime law in Mediterranean countries. A very developed “Maritime Code” existed among the states and cities that were part of the Hansa trade union, which regulated trade and maritime navigation of the countries of the Baltic and North Seas in the 17th century. Over time, some countries that were especially successful in maritime affairs developed new interests. England declared its claims to the sea routes running through the North Sea, Sweden and Denmark tried to obtain similar rights in the Baltic. Hazel Christie, author of the Law of the Sea encyclopedia, notes that such appetites of the Mediterranean states have actually made the Mediterranean Sea closed to navigation for ships of all other countries.

Great geographical discoveries gave a new impetus to this process, since in in this case it was about owning not just waves and fish, but the riches of newly discovered lands. In the 16th century, an attempt to divide the Atlantic Ocean into spheres of influence was made by the then superpowers - Portugal and Spain. The arbiter in this case was the Pope, who issued the corresponding bull in 1493. In 1494, Spain and Portugal concluded the famous Treaty of Tordesillas, which divided the territories (and waters) discovered by Europeans into “Spanish” and “Portuguese”. The demarcation line passed through both poles of the Earth and crossed the Atlantic Ocean at a distance of approximately 2 thousand km from the westernmost part of the Cape Verde Islands. The lands located to the east of this line were recognized as the possessions of Portugal, to the west - to Spain. The consequence of the first trip around the world by the Spaniard Ferdinand Magellan was the Treaty of Saragossa in 1529, which delimited the zones of influence of Spain and Portugal in the Pacific Ocean. The Eastern Hemisphere was divided along a line 1.4 thousand km away from the Moluccas. east. Asia became the sphere of interest of Portugal (the only exception was the Philippine Islands, the place of Magellan’s death), and Oceania, i.e., the territory of the Pacific Ocean, was part of Spain’s zone of influence. The Spaniards and Portuguese received the right to pursue and seize all foreign ships passing through “their” territory, conduct all kinds of inspections, impose customs duties, and also judge the crew members of a foreign ship according to their own laws.

This division of the world's oceans somewhat improved the previously extremely hostile relationship between Portugal and Spain, however, these powers found themselves involved in a conflict with England, France and Holland, which by this time had also begun to explore new continents. As maritime trade developed, the need to abolish restrictions on the use of maritime spaces was increasingly felt. One of the first supporters of such abolition was the famous Dutch politician and lawyer Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). It is on the ideas of Grotius that modern maritime legislation is based. In his famous work "Mare Liberum", published in 1609, Grotius addressed the rulers and free peoples of the entire Christian world. Grotius argued that the Dutch had a legal right to engage in trade with the East Indies and called for the Portuguese and Spanish to be deprived of their monopoly on maritime traffic. Grotius questioned the very idea that any state has the right to own the oceans.

Christopher Joyner, author of the monograph “International Law in the 21st century.” Rules for Global Governance notes that Russia has also made a significant contribution to the development of the “free sea” concept. In 1588, Tsar Fyodor Ioannovich refused to comply with the British demand to close the White Sea to the passage of ships from third countries. The Treaty of Nystad, concluded between Russia and Sweden after the Northern War in 1721, is indicative, according to which both countries were granted equal rights to maritime movement and maritime trade. In fact, Russia received the right to exit the Baltic Sea into the open ocean and engage in international trade.

In 1780, during the American Revolutionary War, Russia issued the Declaration of Armed Neutrality, in which it addressed England, France and Spain. One of the provisions of the declaration was a proposal to ensure the unhindered passage of merchant ships of neutral states through seaports located between the territories of enemy countries. As a result of this, Russia was able to use Spain's Mediterranean ports. The Declaration became a precedent agreement that ensured the safety of merchant ships of neutral states in military conditions. Moreover, if in wartime there is freedom of movement for ships of neutral states, then, consequently, in peacetime, all countries of the world without exception received the right to free movement on the oceans.

By the late 1950s, the significantly increased number of conflicts prompted the United Nations to convene the first UN Conference on the International Law of the Sea in 1958, to discuss issues such as the regulation of the continental shelf and territorial waters, as well as fisheries issues.

As a result of the conference, the Convention on Territorial Waters and Contiguous Zones was adopted, according to which countries were given the right to claim full jurisdiction in the territorial waters (12 miles or 22.2 km from their shores) surrounding the territory of a given country. Jurisdiction extended to water, underwater space, the seabed, as well as air space over the waters. Foreign ships received the right of so-called “innocent passage” (innocent passage is the passage of a foreign ship through territorial waters, as a result of which the peace, good order or security of coastal countries is not violated).

The Convention on Fisheries and the Conservation of Living Resources of the World Ocean implied the right of all nations of the world to engage in fishing. The Convention also required states to implement certain conservation policies in accordance with the principle of maximum sustainable production. However, the first UN Conference on the International Law of the Sea was ineffective, as most countries did not join it.

The Convention on Open Sea, which guaranteed a certain freedom in the use of the world's oceans. The rights to use maritime spaces, laying underwater cable routes and pipelines were granted not only to maritime countries, but also to landlocked countries. In this case, countries with maritime access would have to grant it to countries further inland. Coastal states were given the right to pursue foreign ships whose crews violated their laws. The convention also included measures to combat piracy and the slave trade.

As part of the conference, the Convention on the Continental Shelf was also adopted. For the first time, a clear definition was given to the concept of the continental shelf, according to which the shelf is considered the surface and subsoil of the seabed in areas adjacent to the coast of a continent or island, but located outside the territorial waters to a depth of 200 m or beyond this limit to the place to which the depth allows development. However, the Continental Shelf Convention, signed in 1958, became an anachronism even before it came into force, since already in the early 1960s the technological capabilities of many countries made it possible to mine from the seabed, the depth of which far exceeded the above 200 meters.

In 1960, the Second UN Conference on the International Law of the Sea was convened to resolve the problem of determining the width of the continental shelf, as well as clarify the rights of coastal countries. Even despite the participation of delegations from 87 countries, this conference also could not achieve the desired result, primarily due to disagreements between “rich” and “poor” countries. Developing countries have begun to fear that “rich” states with the most modern technologies, use all the resources of the ocean before the "poor" states are able to lay claim to their rights to extract the resources.

In 1968, the UN created the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed, which became the organizational basis for convening the third UN Conference on the International Law of the Sea. The conference took place from 1973 to 1982. Its main product was the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into full force on November 16, 1994.

Maritime Constitution

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea has become a kind of “maritime constitution” that regulates the use of the ocean and the relations of countries in the field of navigation and the use of sea resources. By 2005, 145 states of the world had become parties to the Convention.

The Convention contains a list of “maritime freedoms”. Maritime freedoms, however, are not absolute - all states are obliged to respect the interests of other countries in the process of implementing these freedoms.

The Convention recognized a maritime space of 12 miles (19.2 km) as the territorial waters of coastal countries. In this zone, riparian countries have full jurisdiction. Vessels and ships of foreign states have the right of “innocent passage” through these territories. At the same time, warships also have the right of “innocent passage” (in the territorial waters of foreign states, submarines are required to move on the surface of the water with the national flag of their country raised). Within 12 miles, coastal countries have ownership of all living and nonliving resources of the ocean. In addition to the above territorial waters, the convention also provides for "contiguous waters" of 24 miles (38.4 km), which should allow states to conduct effective immigration, sanitary, customs and environmental policies.

Thanks to the convention, the term “Special Economic Zone” came into circulation. Each coastal state has the right to claim a special economic zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km) adjacent to its coast, within which it has the right to explore, exploit and manage living and non-living resources. Within their special economic zones, states have the right to regulate construction work, as well as the use of infrastructure already existing in the ocean for economic, scientific and environmental purposes. However, coastal countries do not have ownership rights over the sea area itself or its resources within the special economic zone. In these zones, all countries have the right to build pipelines and lay cable routes.

For states consisting entirely of islands, such as the Philippines, Indonesia, Maldives and Seychelles, the convention provides for a special status - “archipelago state”. The distance of territorial and adjacent waters, as well as special economic zones for such countries, is measured from the outermost point of the outermost island. This principle applies only to islands that are sovereign states in their own right and are not part of any mainland country.

Open waters refer to oceanic and marine areas that are outside national jurisdictions and outside the internal waters of states, such as rivers, lakes, bays and straits. All countries, including those that are landlocked, have the right to navigate open waters. However, there are some regulations in place to protect marine life and prevent marine pollution. Military and government ships are required to display the flag of the country to which they belong. All civil and military aircraft also have the right to fly freely across open waters. All countries in the world have the right to fish in open waters, but must also adhere to their obligations to international agreements, as well as respect the rights of riparian countries. Any country in the world has the right to build pipelines and cable routes along the ocean floor, as well as conduct scientific research. research activities in open waters, if the activity is for peaceful purposes and does not interfere with international maritime navigation.

The provisions of the convention also regulate some other features of international navigation, in particular, maritime navigation in international sea straits. The problem of regulating maritime navigation in the territories of international straits acquired particular relevance during the Cold War. Major maritime powers such as the USSR, USA and Great Britain tried to ensure unimpeded passage for their ships through international sea straits. On the other hand, countries bordering the straits tried to lobby for a concept according to which they could at any time deny passage through the strait to those ships that could pose any danger. These countries included Spain and Morocco (Strait of Gibraltar), Turkey (Bosphorus and Dardanelles), Iran and Oman (Strait of Hormuz), and Indonesia and Malaysia (Strait of Malacca).

Within the framework of the convention, a compromise solution was found, according to which the concept of “transit passage” was introduced. Today in the world there are 135 strategic international straits less than 24 miles (38.4 km) wide, provided for the unimpeded passage of ships from all countries of the world. All ships and aircraft have the right of passage through these straits. Submarines have the right to sail through these territories while underwater. In turn, countries bordering international straits received the rights to develop a maritime traffic regime, as well as the right to regulate environmental standards and the process of resource extraction in the straits area.

The conservation of living marine resources is also one of the main components of the convention. Although all countries are granted fishing rights, the convention obliges countries to cooperate with each other in the conservation and management of living marine resources. All fishing vessel crews must adhere to the obligations assumed by their countries. Coastal countries, in turn, are obliged to ensure conditions under which living resources within special economic zones are not threatened with extinction.

Another area of regulation under the convention is the conduct of scientific research at sea. Western countries advocated freedom of research, with the condition that research countries would be required to notify the purpose of their research. Developing countries, on the contrary, advocated a system that would require formal permission to be obtained from the countries in whose special economic zones research was to be conducted. To the dissatisfaction of most developed countries, the convention actually protected the position of developing countries, since according to its provisions, official permits must be obtained to conduct research activities in special economic zones of states. However, after receiving a request to conduct research work in its maritime territories, countries do not have the right to unreasonably delay their response, and in case of refusal, they are obliged to give reasons for it. To obtain permission any research papers must be exclusively peaceful.

The problem of production turned out to be very painful mineral resources from the seabed. Finding an answer to a simple question: “Who has the right to mine the seabed for the purpose of extracting resources?” took a lot of time. One group of states (mainly industrialized ones) insisted that those countries that have the necessary technical and economic means for this have the right to engage in this activity. Another group (primarily developing countries) called for the creation of an international regime that would ensure that a portion of the proceeds from seabed mining are distributed to countries most in need. According to the Convention, the resources lying on the bottom of the open ocean are the property of all mankind, and no country can claim ownership of them or any part of them. Western countries saw in the above principle a manifestation of the ideology of socialism and were in no hurry to join the agreement. In 1990, the UN Secretary-General began a series of consultations with interested countries regarding possible changes to the convention, which, four years later, led to the signing of an agreement that became integral part Convention on the Law of the Sea. Industrial the developed countries received the opportunity to block the adoption of any decision they did not like, and corporations engaged in the extraction of minerals on the seabed received a number of financial benefits.

Cod: Body length - up to 1.8 m; the fishery is dominated by fish 40–80 cm long, aged 3–10 years. The color of the back is from greenish-olive to brown with small brown specks, the belly is white. Cod is one of the most important commercial fish. Its liver, rich in fat (up to 74%), is a source of fish oil (animal fat obtained from a large, 1.3-2.2 kg liver) and a raw material for the production of popular canned food.

The story of how a small Icelandic fleet, consisting of just a few patrol boats, defeated the Royal Navy of Great Britain may seem absolutely fantastic. However, Icelanders think differently. The cod wars in which this victory was won are a source of national pride for the small northern people. To be fair, it should be noted that victory in these conflicts was achieved primarily by Icelandic diplomats and politicians. But this in no way diminishes the courage and determination of the Icelandic coast guard sailors who bravely stood in the way of the British frigates.

Here's how it actually happened...

Seafood Wars

The vast resources of the World Ocean, alas, are not endless, and this applies even to theoretically renewable fish resources. Their predatory exploitation leads to the depletion of stocks and provokes numerous conflicts between fishermen from different countries, who are periodically supported by the military. In recent decades, conflicts involving fish and other seafood have arisen around the world.

In the Indian Ocean, there is an undeclared permanent tuna war between Japan and Australia. North and South Korea are waging a crab war. In the Atlantic in the 1990s, Spain and Canada fought a halibut war. Argentina and Great Britain tensely divide squid around the disputed Falklands, and even the friendly USA and Canada in the 80s and 90s of the 20th century spoiled relations because of salmon fish - sockeye salmon and coho salmon.

British fishing boats detained in French territorial waters in the English Channel during the Scallop wars in 2012

The longest of all the “fish” conflicts is the series of Cod Wars that took place in the North Atlantic. Moreover, sometimes they were literally half a step away from transitioning into a real armed conflict. Typically, the “Cod Wars” refer to three conflicts in the second half of the 20th century between Great Britain and Iceland. At the same time, Icelandic historians attribute them to a single “chain” of British-Icelandic conflicts, which number as many as ten “war” episodes. And the very first of which dates back to the beginning of the 15th century, when England violated the Norwegian monopoly on trade with Iceland (at that time a Norwegian possession).
IN late XIX century, when Iceland was already a possession of the Kingdom of Denmark, a conflict over the fish-rich Icelandic waters almost led to the Danish-British War. In 1893, Denmark unilaterally announced the closure of a 50-mile zone around the coasts of Iceland and the Faroe Islands to foreign fishermen. The British did not recognize this claim, fearing that such a precedent would lead to similar actions on the part of other states surrounding the North Sea, and continued to send fishing vessels to the shores of the Danish possessions. A slight digression should be made here, because the issue of economic and political control over coastal maritime space is complex and controversial.

Territorial waters

Most countries in the world have access to the sea. It is quite natural that the use of the world's oceans has more than once given rise to conflicts. The issue of extending the jurisdiction of coastal states to adjacent areas of vast bodies of water has been one of the most difficult for international law. But at the very beginning everything was quite simple. Since ancient times, traditionally, the border of “sea domains” was determined by the horizon line, which was seen by an observer from the shore.

Cornelius van Binkerschock, President of the High Court of Holland and Zealand

At the beginning of the 18th century, the Dutch lawyer Cornelius van Binkerschock put forward a rationalization idea. Based on the fact that a state can claim control over coastal waters if it can exercise effective control over them, van Binkerschock proposed that the width of territorial waters be determined by the range of a cannon shot. At that time, cannonballs could fly from the coast no more than three nautical miles - about 5.5 kilometers.

The proposal of Binkershock baths, called the “cannonball rule”, became the generally accepted international norm for a couple of centuries.
determining the size of territorial waters. True, he had certain shortcomings. Firstly, different states had different levels of technological development. And this was the reason for the obvious inequality: the more powerful guns a country had, the larger the area of the sea it extended its sovereignty. Secondly, the range of artillery was constantly increasing.
As a result, in addition to the three-mile coastal coastal zone that states claimed as part of their territory, there was a 12-mile (22.2 km) customs zone. Subsequently, especially after the Second World War, many states declared much larger areas of the world's oceans as their own. Gambia, Madagascar and Tanzania "captured" 50 miles (92.6 km), and Chile, Peru, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Sierra Leone - 200 miles of coastal space.

The position of the countries of the world in relation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Dark green color - states that have ratified the Convention;
Light green - states that have signed but not ratified the Convention;
Gray - states that have not signed the convention.

The countries of the world managed to reach a common denominator only in 1994, when the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea came into force. At the moment, the Convention has been ratified by the overwhelming majority of states - among the large coastal countries, the USA, Turkey, Venezuela, Peru, Syria and Kazakhstan have not joined it. According to it, the territorial waters over which the sovereignty of a coastal state extends is a maritime space 12 miles wide. In addition, countries have priority economic rights within a 200-mile (370.4 kilometer) exclusive economic zone.

British-Danish Cod War

However, let's return to our cod. As we remember, British shipowners in the 1890s decided to ignore Denmark's attempt to expand its territorial waters. In response, Danish warships patrolling the coastal waters of Iceland and Faroe Islands began to detain trawlers and escort them to their ports. There, the British were fined and their catch confiscated. For some time the British refrained from fishing in the area closed to the Danes. However, demand for fish in Great Britain grew, increasing by a quarter between 1896 and 1899. And the forbidden waters were very rich in cod and other commercial species. And everything returned to normal - the British ignored the ban, and the Danes fined them with varying degrees of success.

In April 1899, things came to a shooting. The British trawler Caspian was detained by the Danes off the coast of the Faroe Islands. The trawler's captain, Johnson, boarded the Danish patrol ship, but not before ordering his mate to move the vessel away. Trying to stop the fleeing trawler, the Danes opened fire on it and caused damage, but the British managed to escape. The detained Johnson was tried in Tórshavn, the capital of Faroe Islands, and sentenced to thirty days of arrest, which he served on a diet of water and bread.

The capital of the Faroe Islands is Tórshavn in 1898 or 1899

After these events, it was Great Britain’s turn to remember that it has a navy, and the strongest in the world. British "gunboat diplomacy" - the demonstrative presence of the Royal navy in Danish waters - allowed the problem to be solved quickly and (for the British) effectively. The 1901 agreement set the width of the territorial waters of Iceland and the Faroes at the traditional three miles. At this point, the conflict calmed down for the time being, which was greatly facilitated by the outbreak of the First World War.

The beginning of the conflict between Iceland and Great Britain

After Germany occupied Denmark in 1940, the British landed in Iceland. The following year, control of the island passed to the United States, and in 1944 the Kingdom of Iceland, which was in a personal union with Denmark, became an independent republic. One of the first foreign policy actions of the young state was the breaking of the Danish-British agreement of 1901.

British soldiers in Reykjavik. May 1940

If for Denmark the “fish issue” was important, but far from critical, for Iceland it turned out to be fundamental. This country depends on fishing and related industries like no other country in the world. Iceland has very little natural resources. There is no oil, gas, coal or even timber here, and the agricultural potential of the country, 11% of whose territory is occupied by glaciers, is extremely limited. Fish and fish products are Iceland's main export item (89.71% of the total between 1881 and 1976). In essence, the issue of preserving fish stocks is a matter of the country's survival.

The first post-war conflict between Britain and Iceland began in 1952, when Iceland announced the extension of the waters off-limits to foreign fishermen from three to four miles. The British filed an application with the International Court of Justice, and while the proceedings were ongoing, they banned Icelandic fishing vessels from entering their ports. This ban dealt a serious blow to the Icelandic economy - the UK was the largest market for the small northern country.

And here the descendants of the Vikings were rescued by the recently started Cold War. The resulting surplus cod was enthusiastically purchased by the Soviet Union, thereby hoping to increase its influence on, albeit small, one of the founding states of NATO. This prospect worried the United States, which also began purchasing large quantities of Icelandic fish. As a result, joint Soviet-American imports compensated for the damage caused by British sanctions.

This conflict, like the three Cod Wars that followed, ended with the victory of Iceland. A country with a population of 160 thousand people defeated a great power, one of the five states that are permanent members of the UN Security Council. In 1956, by decision of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (the predecessor of the OECD), Great Britain was forced to recognize the Icelandic four-mile zone.

First Cod War

Encouraged by their success, already in 1958 the Icelanders decided to once again expand their exclusive fishing zone, this time to 12 miles. But now everything started very unsuccessfully for them: all other NATO members opposed such unilateral actions.
Unlike the “paper” conflict of 1952-56, this time it was not without the participation of the military: Great Britain sent warships to the shores of Iceland. In total, during the first Cod War, 53 Royal Navy ships took part in the operation to protect the fishing fleet, opposed by seven Icelandic patrol boats and one PBY Catalina flying boat.
The presence of foreign navies in Iceland's coastal waters has sparked protests in the country. Demonstrations of angry Icelanders gathered outside the British embassy, but Ambassador Andrew Gilchrist met them with ridicule, playing recordings of bagpipes and military marches on the gramophone at full volume.

The Icelandic patrol boat Albert approaches the British trawler Coventry in the Westfjords. 1958

The Icelanders were in a clear losing position. Their attempts to detain British fishermen or expel them beyond the 12-mile zone were met with opposition from larger and more powerful British warships. Already on September 4, when the Icelandic patrol boat Ægir tried to expel a British trawler from the Westfjords, the British frigate Russell intervened, causing the two warships to collide.
On November 12, the patrol boat Thor tried to detain the trawler Hackness with warning shots and rammed it, but the omnipresent Russell again came to the aid of the trawler. The captain of the frigate demanded that the Icelanders leave the trawler alone, since it was outside the four-mile zone recognized by the British. The captain of the Thor boat, Eirikur Kristoffersson, refused and began approaching the trawler, ordering him to hold it at gunpoint. The British promised to sink the Icelandic boat if it fired again. The conflict situation ended after the arrival of several more British ships, under whose protection the trawler retreated.
The number of such episodes grew. Realizing that Iceland had no chance in the confrontation with the British fleet, the country's authorities resorted to banal blackmail. The island nation's government has threatened to withdraw from NATO and expel American troops from the country. Despite overwhelming naval superiority, under American pressure, Great Britain was forced to recognize the 12-mile Icelandic exclusive economic zone. The Icelanders' only significant concession was the granting of limited fishing rights to the British in the outer six miles of the twelve.

Second Cod War

Despite the victory won in 1961, the situation with fish resources off the coast of Iceland continued to deteriorate. In the 1960s, herring disappeared from the waters surrounding the island, with catches falling from 8.5 million tons in 1958 to almost zero in 1970. Cod numbers also declined steadily, and according to biologists, they were expected to disappear along with herring by about 1980.
Iceland's attempts to involve international organizations in resolving the issue failed miserably. Proposals to introduce quotas for fish production and create areas closed to fishing, where populations could restore their numbers, were either ignored or left for endless discussions in industry committees.

A cutter (foreground) used by the Icelandic Coast Guard to damage British fishing trawls. Behind him is a harpoon cannon

In September 1972, the Icelandic government expanded the country's maritime exclusive economic zone to 50 miles to preserve fish stocks and increase the country's share of the total catch. This time the Coast Guard's tactics were different. Instead of detaining British trawlers or expelling them, the Icelanders cut the fishing trawl cables with special cutters.

On the foreign policy front, the situation for the Icelanders was even worse than during the first war. The unilateral expansion of the maritime economic zone was condemned not only by Western states, but also by the Warsaw Pact countries. The only Icelandic victory in this area was the support from African countries, which was won thanks to the demagoguery of the Icelandic prime minister: this leader of a NATO member country declared that Icelandic actions were part of a wider struggle against imperialism and colonialism.

The Icelandic boat Ver (left) tries to cut the trawls of the British trawler Northern Reward (right), while the British tug Statesman (center) tries to stop it

After the Icelanders cut the nets of eighteen fishing vessels, British trawlers left Icelandic-claimed waters in May 1973. However, they soon returned, this time protected by Royal Navy frigates. In June 1973, the patrol boat Ægir collided with the frigate Scylla while reconnaissance of ice conditions in Vestfjord. And on August 29 of the same year, the crew of Ægir suffered the first, and, unfortunately, not the last human sacrifice in all three wars. During a collision with another British frigate, an engineer who was repairing the hull died from an electric shock - his welding machine was flooded with water.

The Icelanders were again forced to take out their joker from their sleeves. Voices have been raised in the country's government about the need to withdraw from NATO, which is supposed to protect its members, but in practice does not provide any assistance. In September 1973, NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns arrived in Reykjavik to save the situation. On October 3, British warships were withdrawn, and on November 8, the parties to the conflict signed an interim agreement. According to it, the fishing activities of the British within a 50-mile zone were limited: their annual catch should not exceed 130,000 tons. The agreement expired in 1975.

Iceland won again.

Third Cod War

Phased expansion of Iceland's economic maritime zone. Dark blue indicates the 200-mile stripe.

Collision between the Icelandic patrol boat Baldur (right) and the British frigate Mermaid

The Third Cod War lasted 7 months, until June 1976. It turned out to be the toughest of the three - during it there were 55 deliberate collisions between ships of both countries. Another person died during this conflict, this time a British fisherman who was killed by a trawl line cut by an Icelandic boat. Things went the furthest during this war on the diplomatic front - to the point that on February 19, 1976, Iceland broke off diplomatic relations with Great Britain.

Collision between the Icelandic patrol boat Óðins and the British frigate Scylla during the Third Cod War on 23 February 1976

The outcome of the last Cod War was predictable. Having honestly exhausted all available options for confrontation with Great Britain (not counting an open declaration of war), Iceland again used its favorite “forbidden trick.” Without further ado, the Icelanders threatened to close the American base in Keflavik, which was the most important link in the NATO defense system in the North Atlantic.
On June 2, 1976, through the mediation of the same NATO Secretary General Joseph Luns, a new agreement was concluded that put an end to the Icelandic-British cod wars. According to it, over the next 6 months, 24 British trawlers could be located within Iceland's 200-mile maritime exclusive zone at a time. After this period, the UK no longer had the right to fish within the 200-mile zone without Icelandic permission, thereby recognizing its new maritime boundaries.

Bronze "statue of friendship" in Kingston upon Hull, England, erected in 2006 as a sign of final reconciliation after the Cod Wars. A second similar statue stands in the Icelandic village of Vik.

The Cod Wars ended in a complete and unconditional victory for Iceland. Of course, without help from the United States, it would hardly have been able to survive the fight against Great Britain. Nevertheless, the example of a small country defeating a great power is indicative: sometimes diplomacy can be stronger than the army or navy.

And here Yuri Gudimeno decided to present this historical event in a very original way:

I thought for a long time about how I could clearly and not boringly tell about the great (without quotes) victory of tiny Iceland over the British Empire in the so-called “Cod War”. And I couldn’t think of anything better than to describe all 18 years of war in roles. Sorry, but with obscenities, there’s no way without it (and here you can do without it, since for children and those who wrinkle their nose at the word b...b I have prepared an adapted version -V.M.)

So, Cod Wars.

Characters:

British Empire - population of about 51 million people, nuclear state.
Iceland - population about 300 thousand people, no army.
NATO is an alliance that includes both Britain and Iceland.
Other countries - USSR, Germany, USA and others.

Act one. 1958

Iceland. I need cod.

Other countries. You have 4 miles around your, um, island, so catch yourself there.

Iceland. I need more cod.

(Iceland claims it now owns all of the 12 miles of maritime territory around the island)

Other countries (in unison). No fucking way!

Iceland (gently). Cod, cod, my cod...

Britannia. Hey you...

Iceland (corrects). You.

Britannia. Listen, you. Just as I caught fish from you, I will continue to fish. Is the hint clear?

Iceland. I'll hit you between the eyes.

Britain (shocked): What?!

Iceland. Between the eyes.

Britannia. I have nuclear weapons.

Iceland. You won't hit me.

Britannia. I have a fleet.

Iceland. Soon you will remember how pleasant it was to talk about your fleet in the present tense.

Britannia. You have less population than I have sailors in the navy!

Iceland. Nothing. The cod will become fattier on English meat.

Britannia. Oh you...

(British fishermen continue to fish for cod in Icelandic waters)

Iceland (thoughtfully). Between the eyes.

(The Icelandic Coast Guard surrounds the British ships and cuts off their trawls)

Britain (choking on milk tea). You're crazy!..

Britannia. I need cod!

Iceland. No. Iceland needs cod and Soviet Union. Hey, Soyuz, would you like some fish?

USSR (from afar). Fish? The Union wants fish!

Britannia. Your mother...

(Britain withdraws its fishermen and recognizes Iceland's rights to the 12-mile zone)

Act two. 1972

Iceland. I need cod.

Britannia. Again?!

Iceland. To me. Needed. Cod.

(Iceland says its exclusive rights now extend to 50 miles around the island)

Other countries (in unison). You're crazy!

Iceland (corrects). You.

Britannia. You got me, you little bastard.

Germany. And me. Maybe I need cod too!

(Britain and Germany continue to fish in Icelandic waters with naval frigates attached to their fishermen)

Iceland (thoughtfully). I'll hit you between the eyes. Each one.

(The Icelandic coast guard tries to cut off the trawls of English fishermen, but runs into warning fire from the navy)

Iceland (melancholy). If I don’t hit you, others will hit you... (picks up the phone) Hello, USA? Iceland is worried. No, not Ireland, but Iceland. No, these are different countries. I'll hit you between the eyes. What? No, this is not for you yet. We had your military base here, remember? What do you mean, “still standing”? We'll remove it now, since it's worth it. Otherwise, they are offending us here, and your base is of no use. We will put another base, a red one. With a bear and a button. And Russians. What does "no need" mean? And, “resolve the issue”? Okay, decide quickly. Ciao. (hangs up)

THE USSR. Did someone call me?

Iceland. No, you heard it.

THE USSR. Do you still have cod?

Iceland. No. She drowned.

THE USSR. It's a pity.

USA. Hey, you there in Icelandic waters!

Britain and Germany (in unison). What?

USA. Get the fuck out of there, please.

Britannia. But cod...

USA. Heartburn from cod.

Britain (doomed). Your mother...

(Britain and Germany leave Icelandic waters)

Iceland. I'll hit you next time.

Act three. 1975

Iceland. I need cod.

Britain and Germany (looking around, in a quiet whisper). Fuck you.

Iceland. To me. Needed. Cod.

(Iceland claims it now owns waters 200 miles around the island)

Other countries. Iceland, yes you... I mean, you...

Iceland (interrupts). I'll hit you.

Germany (melancholy). It will hit.

Britannia. Watch and learn, suckers.

(Britain re-introduces navy to protect fishermen in Icelandic waters)

Iceland (thoughtfully). I have seven ships. Britain has about a hundred. (rubbing hands) It will be a great victory worthy of our Viking ancestors!

Germany (whispers). Iceland has gone crazy, call the psychiatrists.

Iceland. Release the Coast Guard!

(The old frigate Thor emerges with difficulty from the bay, blocks the road for three English warships at once and enters into battle with them)

Other countries (in unison). Iceland has gone crazy!

Iceland (with devilish laughter). The halls of Valhalla await us, where we will feast forever with Forefather Odin at the long table!..

Other countries (whispers). Fuck it.

(Icelandic and English ships chase each other across the sea, skirmishing)

USA. Yo Mama. You both...

Iceland (not listening). Fight, English rats! Your place is in gray Niflheim, under the heel of the great Hel! Behold the raven banner! Thor is with us!

USA (in panic). You are both members of NATO!

Iceland (without turning around). Not anymore.

USA (falling into chthonic horror). How is it not?!

Iceland. We will not fight shoulder to shoulder with the cowardly English rats. We are leaving NATO.

Other countries (in unison). Holy shit!..

USA (turning pale). But you have the only NATO base in the northern seas!

USSR (creeping up). But from this place in more detail...

USA. Your mother! Britannia! Can I have a few words with you?

Britain (reluctantly). What else?!

USA. Get out of there!

Britannia. This is a matter of principle!

USA. I'll hit you between the eyes!

Iceland. Fuck off, USA, I was the one who noticed her first!

USA. You're crazy!

Iceland (waving the cod). You know, bears really love raw fish. Historical fact.

THE USSR. Fishy fish...

USA. Your mother! Britannia!

Britain (disappointed). What the hell...

(Britain recalls its ships and, following all European countries, recognizes Iceland’s right to a 200-mile zone around the island)

Iceland (sad). Great Odin was left without a sacrifice... And the fun ended so quickly... (looking around and noticing the Eyjafjallajökull volcano) Although everything can still be improved!

All countries of the world (in unison). Your mother...

A curtain

Cause

Expansion of Iceland's exclusive economic zone

Bottom line

Icelandic victory

Opponents Commanders Strengths of the parties Losses

1 killed

In response to opposition to British fishing vessels, London sent three frigates to the shores of Iceland.

The Icelanders declared British fishermen poachers and closed all the country's ports and airfields to Great Britain. After the intervention of an intermediary represented by NATO, of which both countries were members, the British ships left Icelandic waters.

However, the conflict continued to escalate. British fishermen refused to leave Icelandic waters, and several ships of the British navy reappeared off the coast of Iceland.

A British frigate opened fire on an Icelandic coast guard patrol boat while it was patrolling in an area declared to be Icelandic territorial waters. As a result, one coast guard officer was killed and a patrol boat was damaged.

Write a review about the article "Cod Wars"

Notes

Excerpt characterizing the Cod Wars

At this time, he received a letter from his wife, who begged him for a date, wrote about her sadness for him and about her desire to devote her whole life to him.
At the end of the letter, she informed him that one of these days she would come to St. Petersburg from abroad.
Following the letter, one of the Masonic brothers, less respected by him, burst into Pierre's solitude and, bringing the conversation to Pierre's marital relations, in the form of fraternal advice, expressed to him the idea that his severity towards his wife was unfair, and that Pierre was deviating from the first rules of a Freemason , not forgiving the repentant.
At the same time, his mother-in-law, the wife of Prince Vasily, sent for him, begging him to visit her for at least a few minutes to negotiate a very important matter. Pierre saw that there was a conspiracy against him, that they wanted to unite him with his wife, and this was not even unpleasant to him in the state in which he was. He didn’t care: Pierre didn’t consider anything in life to be a matter of great importance, and under the influence of the melancholy that now took possession of him, he did not value either his freedom or his persistence in punishing his wife.
“No one is right, no one is to blame, therefore she is not to blame,” he thought. - If Pierre did not immediately express consent to unite with his wife, it was only because in the state of melancholy in which he was, he was not able to do anything. If his wife had come to him, he would not have sent her away now. Compared to what occupied Pierre, wasn’t it all the same whether he lived or not lived with his wife?
Without answering anything to either his wife or his mother-in-law, Pierre got ready for the road late one evening and left for Moscow to see Joseph Alekseevich. This is what Pierre wrote in his diary.
“Moscow, November 17th.
I just arrived from my benefactor, and I hasten to write down everything that I experienced. Joseph Alekseevich lives poorly and has been suffering from a painful bladder disease for three years. No one ever heard a groan or a word of murmur from him. From morning until late at night, with the exception of the hours during which he eats the simplest food, he works on science. He received me graciously and seated me on the bed on which he was lying; I made him a sign of the knights of the East and Jerusalem, he answered me in the same way, and with a gentle smile asked me about what I had learned and acquired in the Prussian and Scottish lodges. I told him everything as best I could, conveying the reasons that I proposed in our St. Petersburg box and informed him about the bad reception given to me and about the break that had occurred between me and the brothers. Joseph Alekseevich, having paused and thought for a while, expressed his view of all this to me, which instantly illuminated for me everything that had happened and the entire future path ahead of me. He surprised me by asking if I remembered what the threefold purpose of the order was: 1) to preserve and learn the sacrament; 2) in purifying and correcting oneself in order to perceive it and 3) in correcting the human race through the desire for such purification. What is the most important and first goal of these three? Of course, your own correction and cleansing. This is the only goal we can always strive for, regardless of all circumstances. But at the same time, this goal requires the most work from us, and therefore, misled by pride, we, missing this goal, either take on the sacrament, which we are unworthy to receive due to our uncleanness, or we take on the correction of the human race, when we ourselves are an example of abomination and depravity. Illuminism is not a pure doctrine precisely because it is carried away by social activities and is filled with pride. On this basis, Joseph Alekseevich condemned my speech and all my activities. I agreed with him in the depths of my soul. On the occasion of our conversation about my family affairs, he told me: “The main duty of a true Mason, as I told you, is to improve himself.” But often we think that by removing all the difficulties of our life from ourselves, we will more quickly achieve this goal; on the contrary, my lord, he told me, only in the midst of secular unrest can we achieve three main goals: 1) self-knowledge, for a person can know himself only through comparison, 2) improvement, which is achieved only through struggle, and 3) to achieve the main virtue - love of death. Only the vicissitudes of life can show us its futility and can contribute to our innate love of death or rebirth to a new life. These words are all the more remarkable because Joseph Alekseevich, despite his severe physical suffering, is never burdened by life, but loves death, for which he, despite all the purity and height of his inner man, does not yet feel sufficiently prepared. Then the benefactor explained to me the full meaning of the great square of the universe and pointed out that the triple and seventh numbers are the basis of everything. He advised me not to distance myself from communication with the St. Petersburg brothers and, occupying only 2nd degree positions in the lodge, try, distracting the brothers from the hobbies of pride, to turn them to the true path of self-knowledge and improvement. In addition, for himself, he personally advised me, first of all, to take care of myself, and for this purpose he gave me a notebook, the same one in which I write and will henceforth write down all my actions.”

Iceland fight for the sea 1972. Fish wars. Excerpt characterizing the Cod Wars

Write a review about the article "Cod Wars"

Notes

Links

Excerpt characterizing the Cod Wars