Cod Wars | Britishseafishing.co.uk Britishseafishing.co.uk Advice and information on sea fishing in the UK Search The Cod Wars Background to the Cod Wars The cod wars were a series of disputes between Britain and Iceland running from the 1950s to the 1970s over the rights to fish in Icelandic waters. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense of the word (the massive and well-equipped Royal Navy would have easily defeated the tiny Icelandic Navy), the peak of the Cod Wars saw thirty seven Royal Navy warships mobilised to protect British trawlers fishing in the disputed territory. While the wars were eventually settled through diplomatic means there was conflict between British naval vessels and Icelandic ships out at sea. The Cod Wars showed how seriously nations took their fishing rights, and the lengths they would go to in order to access rich fishing grounds. The Royal Navy’s 2,500 ton Leander-class frigate HMS Scylla collides with the Icelandic vessel ICGV Odinn in the third and final Cod War. The First Cod War The first Cod War took place in autumn 1958 and was caused by a dispute over who could fish in the seas surrounding Iceland.

In the late 1950s a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – the area of sea that a country controlled and could fish in exclusively – only extended four miles out to sea from a country’s coastline. British trawlers could therefore fish very close to Iceland and take advantage of the fertile fishing grounds that surrounded the country. Iceland – worried that foreign vessels were overexploiting their fisheries – brought in a new law that extended their EEZ to twelve miles. Britain was not happy and chose to ignore this new limit and continued to fish up to the original four-mile limit. The situation escalated when Britain sent warships to protect its trawlers fishing in the disputed areas. This was seen as a David versus Goliath conflict, as Britain had, at that time, the second most powerful navy in the world (after the USA), while Iceland had little more than patrol boats and militarised coast guard vessels to protect itself. A number of incidents took place including Icelandic patrol boats firing across the bows of British trawlers in an effort to force them to leave the new zone, and Britain threatening to sink any Icelandic vessels that attacked British trawlers.

Eventually, Britain accepted that it had no right to stop Iceland extending the EEZ to twelve miles and backed down. There was also an agreement that future conflicts would be settled at the International Court of Justice to avoid further conflict. The Second Cod War A diagram showing how net cutters are used to sever a trawler’s net. The second cod war took place in September 1972 when Iceland ignored the agreement about disputes being settled via diplomatic means and unilaterally extended its EEZ from twelve to fifty miles. Again Britain refused to recognise this new limit leading to Iceland using its patrol boats to chase British and West German trawlers out of its newly declared exclusive zone. The Icelandic coast guard then started using net-cutters to destroy the trawling nets of the British fishing vessels that ventured inside the zone. Soon the Royal Navy was sent to protect the British trawlers. Confrontations took place for over a year with British trawlers continuing to have their nets cut by Icelandic ships and Royal Navy ships being rammed by Icelandic coast guard boats. A serious incident took place in March 1973 when the British trawler Brucella refused to follow directions of the patrol boat Arvakurto leave the EEZ.

Crew from the Icelandic vessel then appeared on deck and began firing rifles at the Brucella, damaging her bridge and lifeboats. The trawler then followed the Icelander’s instructions to leave the EEZ. No one was injured in the incident. But worse was to come in July of the following year. The trawler C.S. Forester, one of the biggest trawlers in the British commercial fleet, was spotted fishing within the twelve-mile limit by the Icelandic patrol boat V/S ÞórI. The British vessel was pursued for over one hundred miles and then shelled with non-explosive ammunition by the Icelandic vessel. At least two shells hit causing damage to the ship. The C.S. Forester was eventually boarded and towed to an Icelandic port where it was impounded and the skipped was jailed for thirty days. He was eventually released when the C.S. Forester’s owners paid £2,300 and a further £26,500 for the release of the trawler.

Eventually, a breakthrough was reached when it was agreed British trawlers could fish within certain specified areas in the fifty-mile zone, as long as Britain took no more than 130,000 tons of cod per year. However, this agreement was only valid for two years, and expired on 13 November 1975. The Third, and Final, Cod War As soon as this agreement expired the third cod war began. In late 1975 Iceland increased the EEZ limit again, this time to 200 miles. Britain, along with other European nations, were furious, arguing that although there was broad agreement that a 200-mile limit would be brought in throughout the world, this agreement was still years away and Iceland had no right to impose such a limit so soon. This Cod War led to some of the most heated confrontations of the three wars. One of the most contentious episodes involved the Icelandic patrol boat Þór and three Royal Navy support ships.

British and Icelandic accounts differ about exactly what happened, but what is clear is that Þór was rammed by British vessels to the extent that it began to sink and in an attempt to defend itself fired blank, and then live ammunition at the British ships. Some of the live rounds struck a British ship, the Star Aquarius although no injuries and only minor damage resulted. Iceland raised the stakes by attempting to procure US Asheville-class gunboats, such as the USS Tacoma, pictured. These vessels were heavily armed with four machine guns, a 40mm cannon and could be configured to launch surface-to-surface missiles. Another serious incident took place when another Iceland patrol boat, the Týr, tried to cut the nets of a British trawler. HMS Falmouth, a 2800 ton Rothesay-class frigate intervened to protect the trawler. HMS Falmouth rammed the Týr which continued, and eventually succeeded in cutting the trawler’s nets. This caused HMS Falmouth to ram the Týr a second time, nearly capsizing the vessel. The captain of the Týr ordered his men to man the ship’s guns.

A stand-off developed between the two ships which only ended when the heavily damaged Týr was forced to limp back to port due to the damage it had sustained when it was rammed for the second time. In total there were fifty-five incidents of Royal Navy vessels ramming Icelandic boats during the third Cod War. This presented a problem for the Royal Navy as the frigates it was using were designed for launching missiles at distant enemy ships or hunting enemy submarines in the open ocean. They were ill-suited to the close in maneuvering and ramming Icelandic boats which they were required to perform in the third Cod War, and the frequency with which they were used to ram Icelandic vessels was beginning to cause significant damage to a number of Royal Navy frigates. By the end of the third Cod War the Royal Navy was even strengthening the hulls of frigates before they were sent to Iceland in order to limit the damage that was caused to the vessels when they rammed and Icelandic boats. The situation escalated again when it was revealed that the Icelandic justice minister Ólafur Jóhannessonwas attempting to upgrade Icelandic naval power by loaning a number of powerful Asheville-class gunboats from the US, or purchasing Mirka-class frigates from Russia.

Although this was probably a ploy, and America turned down Iceland’s request outright, it had the desired effect of showing that Iceland had no intention of backing down and was willing to take on the Royal Navy head on. But Iceland still had their ace card to play. A US-manned NATO naval air base was located on the Reykjanes peninsula, near the town of Keflavík in western Iceland. This base housed the US 85th Air Group, radar stations and anti-submarine warfare units as well as serving as a base for US search and rescue units. As the third cod war was taking place at the height of the Cold War this naval air station was crucial for the Americans to track and monitor Soviet submarine and airplane movements through the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) gap – a key choke point for Soviet forces gaining access to the open Atlantic and US territorial waters. The GIUK gap was of crucial importance in the third cod war, and Iceland’s threat to close the NATO base located there forced Britain to give in to Iceland’s demands. Without this base America would be blind to what was happening in huge areas of the north Atlantic, as well as losing the deterrent factor of having forces amassed relatively close to the USSR.

Believing that Iceland was serious about closing the air base America began putting huge pressure on Britain to comply with Iceland’s extended EEZ. Talks to end the Cod Wars took place in Oslo in spring 1976, with the threat to close the NATO base placing pressure on Britain to end the dispute. An agreement was eventually reached on May 28th. A maximum of twenty-four British trawlers were allowed to fish within the new EEZ as long as their catch was limited to 50,000 tons. However, this agreement only lasted for six months, after which Britain agreed that it had no right to fish inside the zone. Aftermath Diagram showing the increasing size of Iceland’s EEZ as the three cod wars progressed. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense, the Cod Wars none the less showed how close two countries would come to combat over the issue of fishing rights. In the end Iceland were successful in extending their EEZ massively, and today the 200-mile limit is accepted internationally (apart form in Europe where the Common Fisheries Policy takes precedence).

Britain’s reason for challenging Iceland’s ever increasing EEZ was perfectly logical – British trawlers relied on catching cod in the plentiful waters of Iceland, and without this fish many ports built on the fishing industry would struggle. However, Iceland were always going to eventually win international backing to extend their EEZ, and Britain was fighting a losing battle by opposing this. The loss of access to these fisheries devastated many British fishing communities such as Hull and Grimsby and many Scottish ports, with as many as 1,500 fishermen and several thousand shore-based workers from these areas losing their jobs. Share this page: Now Britain and Iceland go to war over the mackerel | The Independent Now Britain and Iceland go to war over the mackerel Tuesday 10 August 2010 23:01 BST Click to follow The Independent Online The European Union could impose trade sanctions against Iceland or stop its ships from entering EU ports in an emerging "mackerel war". In an echo of the 1970s "Cod War" when British gunboats were sent to ward off Icelandic trawlers in disputed waters, the EU has warned it will take "all necessary measures" to protect its fishing and economic interests.

The rising tension follows Iceland's unilateral decision to catch three times as much mackerel this year as the EU considers reasonable, prompting a similar move by the Danish-owned Faroe Islands. Together with the amounts traditionally taken by the EU and Norway, the quotas would exceed the sustainable catch by a third and threaten a success story in European fishing, which has been dogged by political dithering and national self-interest. Iceland – which traditionally has a reputation for good stewardship of fish – insists it has the right to catch any fish it wants within its 200-mile territorial limit, established during the Cod War. The Federation of Icelandic Fishing Vessel Owners defended its behaviour as "legal and responsible". After failing to resolve the dispute – which Brussels says threatens to wreck international fishing agreements, Fisheries Commissioner Maria Damanaki said on Monday the EC would be sending a "very clear message" to the two states demanding a sustainable deal.

She added: "However, should the current anarchic situation in the mackerel fisheries continue with unreasonable positions being maintained by parties, then the Commission will contemplate all necessary measures to conserve the mackerel stock and safeguard EU interests." The EU, which suspects Iceland's decision is being driven by the parlous state of its economy, says it will consider abandoning all fishing agreements with the states – which could spell chaos to efforts to conserve stocks such as cod. Another possibility is trade sanctions, or preventing Icelandic boats from landing their fish in EU ports. In a sign of its anger, Norway has already banned fish processors from accepting any mackerel landed by Icelandic or Faroese boats. Tempers are also running high in Scotland, where mackerel is more valuable than haddock or cod. Last week 20 fishermen from Peterhead and Fraserburgh used vans and cars in a bid to prevent the Faroese vessel the Jupiter from unloading 900 tonnes of mackerel at Peterhead. In a further reverberation, the UK, Norway and other fishing nations might seek to damage Iceland's hopes of joining the EU, or use negotiations to encourage it to back down.

The Scottish Fisheries Secretary, Richard Lochhead, said yesterday: "I am greatly encouraged by the commitment being shown by the EU on this and hope that these matters will be at the fore of Iceland's EU accession negotiations." With co-operation between interested fishing nations and consumer demand buoyed by advice to eat oily fish, mackerel had been hailed by the Marine Stewardship Council as an example of a good fishery. For 10 years, the EU, Norway and the Faroe Islands had a trilateral agreement, apportioning fixed shares of the total catch recommended by scientists. But two years ago – arguing that shoals were moving north due to climate change – Iceland began large-scale fishing and set a catch of 115,000 tonnes for 2009. Reykjavik increased that to 130,000 tonnes this year, when scientists were recommending a decline in the total overall catch. The Faroe Islands, which had a 4 per cent share of the deal with the EU and Norway, announced it would take 85,000 tonnes, a 16 per cent share.

Assuming all the parties catch their expected quotas, 772,000 tonnes will be caught this year, 35 per cent more than the 570,000 tonnes recommended by the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas. Accusing Iceland of "piracy", Bertie Armstrong – head of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation – said: "We would classify that as the abandonment of rational fisheries management." At Westminster, UK Fisheries Minister, Richard Benyon, was more diplomatic: relations between Britain and Iceland are already strained due to Labour's decision to freeze the assets of the Landsbanki bank during the financial crisis two years ago. Mr Benyon said: "Mackerel is one of the most sustainable fisheries, due to the action that EU member states have taken in successfully managing the stocks. This is being put at risk by the setting of arbitrary quota.

"I do not want to see this issue cause a deterioration in the otherwise good relationships between our respective industries and I urge both Iceland and Faroe Islands to reconsider their actions." The 1970s Cod War Iceland has always jealously guarded its fishing rights, so much so that a row that erupted in the 1970s almost brought Reykjavik and London to the brink of military action. The "cod war", a more serious version of an earlier row over fishing rights that took place between the two states in the 1950s, began in 1972 when Iceland announced a unilateral extension of its fishing rights from 13 miles off its coast to 50 miles. Ostensibly the reason was to reduce over-fishing, but it hit British boats catching cod and other whitefish in the same waters and London protested the move. Iceland's coastguard began cutting the nets of British trawlers straying into its new, enlarged waters. As a result, Prime Minister Edward Heath sent Royal Naval warships and tug-boats to protect British fishing crews. There were some incidences of boats being rammed.

With the row still simmering, in 1975 Iceland extended its fishing rights again, to 200 miles. Britain protested again – but Iceland laid down its trump card by threatening to close the Keflavík Nato base, crucial for defending the Atlantic Ocean from attack by the Soviet Union. Iceland finally got its way and, after 1 December 1976, Britain agreed its ships would not fish within 200 miles of Iceland. Since the "war", the two countries' fishing industries have fared very differently. Iceland – which is thought to have stayed out of the EU in order to protect its fishing industry – is acknowledged to run fisheries responsibly, allowing other species caught by accident to be traded between boats and landed, rather than thrown back into the sea. By contrast, the EU Common Fisheries Policy, which Britain joined on its accession to the Common Market in 1973 – is considered to have been a disaster. A third of all fish are thrown back dead from boats, either because they are the wrong species, a legal but imperfect size, or the quota has already been met.

As a result, cod in the North Sea has plunged to 3 per cent of its natural abundance, despite a recent recovery. And much of the cod sold in Britain now comes from Iceland. More about: Cod Wars – Exequy's Blog History , Uncategorized The cod wars were a series of disputes between Britain and Iceland running from the 1950s to the 1970s over the rights to fish in Icelandic waters. Although it was never a war in the conventional sense of the word (the massive and well-equipped Royal Navy would have easily defeated the tiny Icelandic Navy), the peak of the Cod Wars saw thirty seven Royal Navy warships mobilized to protect British trawlers fishing in the disputed territory. While the wars were eventually settled through diplomatic means there was conflict between British naval vessels and Icelandic ships out at sea. The Cod Wars showed how seriously nations took their fishing rights, and the lengths they would go to in order to access rich fishing grounds. The First Cod War The first Cod War took place in autumn 1958 and was caused by a dispute over who could fish in the seas surrounding Iceland.

In the late 1950s a country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) – the area of sea that a country controlled and could fish in exclusively – only extended four miles out to sea from a country’s coastline. British trawlers could therefore fish very close to Iceland and take advantage of the fertile fishing grounds that surrounded the country. Iceland – worried that foreign vessels were over exploiting their fisheries – brought in a new law that extended their EEZ to twelve miles. Britain was not happy and chose to ignore this new limit and continued to fish up to the original four-mile limit. The situation escalated when Britain sent warships to protect its trawlers fishing in the disputed areas. This was seen as a David versus Goliath conflict, as Britain had, at that time, the second most powerful navy in the world (after the USA), while Iceland had little more than patrol boats and militarized coast guard vessels to protect itself. A number of incidents took place including Icelandic patrol boats firing across the bows of British trawlers in an effort to force them to leave the new zone, and Britain threatening to sink any Icelandic vessels that attacked British trawlers.

Eventually, Britain accepted that it had no right to stop Iceland extending the EEZ to twelve miles and backed down. There was also an agreement that future conflicts would be settled at the International Court of Justice to avoid further conflict. The Second Cod War The second cod war took place in September 1972 when Iceland ignored the agreement about disputes being settled via diplomatic means and unilaterally extended its EEZ from twelve to fifty miles. Again Britain refused to recognize this new limit leading to Iceland using its patrol boats to chase British and West German trawlers out of its newly declared exclusive zone. The Icelandic coast guard then started using net-cutters to destroy the trawling nets of the British fishing vessels that ventured inside the zone. Soon the Royal Navy was sent to protect the British trawlers. Confrontations took place for over a year with British trawlers continuing to have their nets cut by Icelandic ships and Royal Navy ships being rammed by Icelandic coast guard boats. A serious incident took place in March 1973 when the British trawler Brucella refused to follow directions of the patrol boat Arvakurto leave the EEZ.

Crew from the Icelandic vessel then appeared on deck and began firing rifles at the Brucella, damaging her bridge and lifeboats. The trawler then followed the Icelander’s instructions to leave the EEZ. No one was injured in the incident. But worse was to come in July of the following year. The trawler C.S. Forester, one of the biggest trawlers in the British commercial fleet,was spotted fishing within the twelve-mile limit by the Icelandic patrol boat V/S ÞórI. The British vessel was pursued for over one hundred miles and then shelled with non-explosive ammunition by the Icelandic vessel. At least two shells hit causing damage to the ship. The C.S. Forester was eventually boarded and towed to an Icelandic port where it was impounded and the skipped was jailed for thirty days. He was eventually released when the C.S. Forester’s owners paid £2,300 and a further £26,500 for the release of the trawler.

Eventually, a breakthrough was reached when it was agreed British trawlers could fish within certain specified areas in the fifty-mile zone, as long as Britain took no more than 130,000 tons of cod per year. However, this agreement was only valid for two years, and expired on 13 November 1975. The Third, and Final, Cod War As soon as this agreement expired the third cod war began. In late 1975 Iceland increased the EEZ limit again, this time to 200 miles. Britain, along with other European nations, were furious, arguing that although there was broad agreement that a 200-mile limit would be brought in throughout the world, this agreement was still years away and Iceland had no right to impose such a limit so soon. This Cod War led to some of the most heated confrontations of the three wars. One of the most contentious episodes involved the Icelandic patrol boat Þór and three Royal Navy support ships.

British and Icelandic accounts differ about exactly what happened, but what is clear is that Þór was rammed by British vessels to the extent that it began to sink and in an attempt to defend itself fired blank, and then live ammunition at the British ships. Some of the live rounds struck a British ship, the Star Aquarius although no injuries and only minor damage resulted. Another serious incident took place when another Iceland patrol boat, the Týr, tried to cut the nets of a British trawler. HMS Falmouth, a 2800 ton Rothesay-class frigate intervened to protect the trawler. HMS Falmouth rammed the Týr which continued, and eventually succeeded in cutting the trawler’s nets. This caused the Falmouth to ram the Týr a second time, nearly capsizing the vessel. The captain of the Týr ordered his men to man the ship’s guns. A stand-off developed between the two ships which only ended when the heavily damaged Týr was forced to limp back to port due to the damage it had sustained when it was rammed for the second time.

In total there were fifty-five incidents of Royal Navy vessels ramming Icelandic boats during the third Cod War. This presented a problem for the Royal Navy as the frigates it was using were designed for launching missiles at distant enemy ships or hunting enemy submarines in the open ocean. They were ill-suited to the close in maneuvering and ramming Icelandic boats which they were required to perform in the third Cod War, and the frequency with which they were used to ram Icelanic vessels was beginning to cause significant damage to a number of Royal Navy frigates. Indeed, by the end of the third Cod War the Royal Navy was even strengthening the hulls of frigates before they were sent to Iceland in order to limit the damage that was caused to the vessels when they rammed and Icelandic boats. The situation escalated again when it was revealed that the Icelandic justice minister Ólafur Jóhannessonwas attempting to upgrade Icelandic naval power by loaning a number of powerful Asheville-class gunboats from the US, or purchasing Mirka-class frigates from Russia.

Although this was probably a ploy, and America turned down Iceland’s request outright, it had the desired effect of showing that Iceland had no intention of backing down and was willing to take on the Royal Navy head on. But Iceland still had their ace card to play. A US-manned NATO naval air base was located on the Reykjanes peninsula, near the town of Keflavík in western Iceland. This base housed the US 85th Air Group, radar stations and anti-submarine warfare units as well as serving as a base for US search and rescue units. As the third cod war was taking place at the height of the Cold War this naval air station was crucial for the Americans to track and monitor Soviet submarine and airplane movements through the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) gap – a key choke point for Soviet forces gaining access to the open Atlantic and US territorial waters. GIUK Gap Without this base America would be blind to what was happening in huge areas of the north Atlantic, as well as losing the deterrent factor of having forces amassed relatively close to the USSR. Believing that Iceland was serious about closing the air base America began putting huge pressure on Britain to comply with Iceland’s extended EEZ.

Talks to end the Cod Wars took place in Oslo in spring 1976, with the threat to close the NATO base placing pressure on Britain to end the dispute. An agreement was eventually reached on May 28th. A maximum of twenty-four British trawlers were allowed to fish within the new EEZ as long as their catch was limited to 50,000 tons. However, this agreement only lasted for six months, after which Britain agreed that it had no right to fish inside the zone. Aftermath Although it was never a war in the conventional sense, the Cod Wars none the less showed how close two countries would come to combat over the issue of fishing rights. In the end Iceland were successful in extending their EEZ massively, and today the 200-mile limit is accepted internationally (apart form in Europe where the Common Fisheries Policy takes precedence). Britain’s reason for challenging Iceland’s ever increasing EEZ was perfectly logical – British trawlers relied on catching cod in the plentiful waters of Iceland, and without this fish many ports built on the fishing industry would struggle. However, Iceland were always going to eventually win international backing to extend their EEZ, and Britain was fighting a losing battle by opposing this.

The loss of access to these fisheries devastated many British fishing communities such as Hull and Grimsby and many Scottish ports, with as many as 1,500 fishermen and several thousand shore-based workers from these areas losing their jobs. Share this: europe - What was the attitude of the other European countries in the 1970s Cod War? - History Stack Exchange What was the attitude of the other European countries in the 1970s Cod War? up vote 6 down vote favorite 1 In the 1970s Britain and Iceland came close to a shooting war in the so called Cod War. Using these stats (admittedly from some decades later) as a guide, Norway, Denmark and Spain also have significant fishing fleets. What was their attitude towards the dispute? Incidentally Wikipedia's Cod Wars article lists West Germany as a "belligerent" on Britain's side but says nothing detailed about West Germany's involvement. 2 its suprising how influential fishing disputes have been in world history. For example, I discovered that the Newfoundland fishery rights for the various beligerants were one of the big issues slowing down the Treaty of Paris ending the American Revolutionary War.

– T.E.D.♦ Aug 7 '13 at 21:59 3 Fishing is obviously an evil trade participated in by war-mongering sea misers :P – American Luke Aug 8 '13 at 0:20 West Germany continued fishing alongside the UK during the Cod War but didn't deploy any warships. I do know that Belgium made a separate deal with Iceland in 1972 and thus broke rank with the rest of the EU. Greenland and the Faroe Islands supported Iceland but as for the rest of western Europe I would think it likely that they supported the UK, simply because many of them were fishing alongside them in the debated waters. – Karlth Aug 8 '13 at 1:03 1 @T.E.D. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… most bizarre war ever (which has been linked elsewhere to fishing rights), possibly. Both sides forgetting there was a war on for over 3 centuries :) – jwenting Aug 8 '13 at 5:45 @T.E.D probably because in the case of Newfoundland and Iceland fishing accounts for the majority of their respective economies.

– Karlth Aug 8 '13 at 10:16 up vote 1 down vote This is a part answer to your question According to the website The Cod Wars (Britains-smallwars.com),there were actually 3 Cod wars, involving some shots being fired and in particular, ramming of boats - one nasty one in particular prompted some response from various groups around the world, according to the website: The Nordic Union came out in support of Iceland (There is a precedent that may be a reason why, that in the 1930's, Britain took Norway to the international Court of Justice which ruled in Norway's favour according to The National Archives 'Cod Wars' page ) With the threat of shutting down a key NATO station, which according to the website, NATO and the US took a mediation role - where NATO as a whole stopped the conflict.

According to the article "”There’s Something Wrong With Our Bloody Fish Today” Wargaming the “Cod Wars”" (Manley), West Germany (and other fishing fleets frequenting the area - from the Faroe Islands and Belgium), where the 3rd Cod War, the Royal Navy fought to defend the interests of fishermen from several European nations as well as those of Britain. But these articles do not mention any particular action or response from Spain, nor do any suggest direct involvement of other naval fleets, other than the fishing vessels from those listed above being harrassed by Icelandic Coast Guard ships (until they made their governments made agreements with Iceland). answered Dec 30 '13 at 23:45 user3436 The Cod Wars | Iceland Defeats Britain | Guide to Iceland The Cod Wars Text by: Ingólfur Shahin Who would have guessed that something as harmless as fishing spots could incite wars between two nations? In a way, that’s exactly what happened between Iceland and the United Kingdom during the three Cod Wars. In the 1950s and 1970s, the island-neighbour nations engaged in naval conflicts over territorial waters.

Iceland had extended the borders of its own waters into what the UK regarded as international waters. The problem? Fishing ships from the UK and other countries had used this section of the sea for decades, and the action by Iceland would damper their fishing industry. Why Go To War? In the early 20th century, much of Iceland was heavily dependent on income from the fishing industry. With the recent invention of the steam-powered boat, fishing trawlers could venture farther from land, so the Icelandic Government increased the distance from the mainland in which waters were considered Icelandic territory. The British Government, realising that this action could set a precedent other countries might follow, ignored the change in boundaries and ordered warships to protect their trawlers. Several incidents occurred in the 1950s, including the collision of an Icelandic patrol vessel and the British HMS Russell. Soon after that, the Icelandic patrol vessel María Júlía fired upon the British trawler Kingston Emerald, forcing it to retreat. Eventually, the two sides essentially agreed to disagree. They determined that if any future disagreements were to arise, they would consult with the International Court of Justice.

However, two decades later, a different political party led the Icelandic government, which then ignored the treaty. This time, the boundary was expanded to 50nm from the mainland, more than four times the distance of the first disputed boundary. This led to the second cod war. Several violent incidents occurred and during this war, the Icelandic coast guard started to use net cutters to cut the trawling lines of non-Icelandic vessels fishing within the new exclusion zone. The British government sent more warships to protect their fishing boats. After a series of talks within Nato, British warships were later recalled. An agreement was signed which limited British fishing activities to certain areas inside the 50nm (93 km) limit, resolving the dispute that time. This agreement expired in November 1975, and the third "Cod War" began. Resolution of the Conflict In 1975 Iceland again increased its demands and declared that the ocean up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from its coast fell under Icelandic authority. There were several incidents of ramming by Icelandic ships and British trawlers, tugboats and frigates.

British trawlers also saw their nets cut by the Icelandic coast guard. This was only a minor inconvenience to the British, but the government of Iceland had a strong strategic position. Iceland threatened to close the NATO base at Keflavík, which would have severely threatened NATO’s position in the Atlantic Ocean during the United States’ conflict with the Soviet Union. As a result, the British, under pressure from the United States, agreed to relent to Iceland. 200 nm is now the sea-zone prescribed to nations by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea . All in all, both the British and Icelandic sides experienced one casualty each. A British fisherman was killed when a heavy rope was cut and recoiled into his body, and an Icelandic Coast Guard engineer was electrocuted when his welding equipment was flooded with seawater. TED Case Study: Iceland Cod War I. Identification 1. The Issue Consider the cod . It is a common species of fish, unremarkable in taste or activity. It is a rather unprepossessing fish, its main ability is to produce huge quantities of young. Yet, this dull fish was the cause of two NATO allies going to the brink of war.

Between November 1975 and June 1976, Great Britain and Iceland confronted each other over Iceland's proclaiming its authority over the ocean up to 200 miles from its coast. The issue was the amount of cod caught by British and Icelandic fishermen. This "war" consisted of British fishing trawlers having their nets cut by the Icelandic Coast Guard and numerous rammings between Icelandic ships and British trawlers and frigates. The "war" caused Iceland to threaten to close the NATO base at Keflavik, which would have had major repercussions on the ability of NATO to defend the Atlantic Ocean from Soviet incursions. With this threat hanging over its head, plus the international trend towards a 200 mile economic exclusion zone, and the economic cost of the conflict, Great Britain agreed to have its fishermen stay outside Iceland's 200 mile economic zone without specific agreements. 2. Description In November, 1975, the third Cod War between Great Britain and Iceland began. This dispute centered on Iceland's decision to extend its zone of control over fishing from 50 miles beyond its shores to 200 miles.

Great Britain did not recognize Iceland's authority in this matter and so continued fishing inside the disputed area. Iceland deployed 8 ships, six Coast Guard vessels and two Polish-built stern trawlers converted into Coast Guard ships to enforce her control over fishing rights. In response, Great Britain deployed a total of twenty-two frigates (although no more than six to nine frigates at one time), seven supply ships, nine tug-boats and three auxiliary ships to protect its 40 fishing trawlers. While few shots were fired during the seven-month conflict, several ships were rammed on both sides, causing damage to the vessels and a few injuries to the crews. This was the third time Iceland and Great Britain had clashed over fishing rights, particularly over the rights to fish for cod. The first "war" occurred in 1958 when Britain was unable to prevent Iceland from extending its fishing limits from 4 miles to 12 miles off Iceland's coast. The second dispute was in 1972-1973, when Iceland extended its limits to 50 miles. (1) This conflict was concluded with an agreement between the two countries that limited British fishing to certain areas inside the 50 mile limit.

In addition, Britain agreed that British vessels could not catch more than 130,000 tons of fish annually.(2) This agreement was valid for two years, and expired on November 13, 1975, when the third "Cod War" started. The Icelandic position was similar in all three conflicts. The major point was that Iceland depends on its fishing industry more than any other state in the world. Iceland has few natural resources, no timber, no fuel, little agricultural potential, and no mineral deposits. Its economy is uniquely dependent on fishing for survival and for exports, to fund the imports needed for the other parts of the economy. "Fish and fish products of one form or another...have on average accounted for 89.71 per cent of Iceland's total export in each year during the period 1881-1976." (3) Iceland argued, therefore, that it had an overwhelming need to ensure the survival of the fish stocks in its area. In addition, Iceland stated that foreign fishermen, from the Faroe Islands, Belgium, West Germany, and the majority from Great Britain, were causing an over-exploitation of the fish stocks around Iceland.

The tonnage of fish catches had been decreasing since a peak in the 1950's, even though technological improvements allowed greater catches for fishing vessels. The size and age of the cod caught had also steadily decreased over the years. This meant that there were fewer cod spawning, thus reducing the total population of cod existing. Stocks of cod had decreased by a third during the 1970's.(4) Iceland stated that fish catches would have to be reduced. Since Iceland's survival depended on fishing, it argued that other nations should bear the reduction of catches. Since Icelandic fishermen were able to catch all of the allowable tonnage of fish, all foreign fishing activity took fish from Icelandic fishermen, not in addition to the fish caught by Iceland. Iceland was concerned that the cod might follow the pattern of the Icelandic herring, which during the 1960s almost disappeared. From a population of 8.5 million tons in 1958, the herring population declined to almost nothing by 1970. This decline could have been prevented by adequate conservation methods. This fear prompted conservation efforts by Iceland.

Iceland had attempted in the past to organize international conferences on establishing conservation regulations on fishing, with no response.(5) Iceland had also offered suggestions to the United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea regarding regulating fishing, such as closing nursery grounds to fishermen, placing quotas on tonnage of fish caught, and rotating preservations areas, where no fishing would occur. Most of these ideas were ignored, or retired to endless committees. In order to enforce these conservation efforts, Iceland saw its 200 mile economic exclusion zone as necessary. No nation would be able to fish within 200 miles of Iceland without Iceland's permission. In addition, the Icelandic Coast Guard would be able to board any ship inside that limit, in order to determine its compliance with Icelandic fishing regulations. With marine biologists predicting that if these efforts were ignored there would have been no cod left by 1980,(6) Iceland became convinced that it had to act unilaterally. Due to the failure of the international arena regarding the Icelandic herring, Iceland acted on its own to protect the cod. In addition to the survival of the cod and the survival of Iceland arguments, there was the legal argument.

In the United Nations conferences on the Law of the Sea, international opinion had tended towards a 200 mile economic exclusion zone, with a 12 mile limit on territorial waters. At the first meeting of substance on the Law of the Sea, from July to August of 1974, more than 100 States supported the right of coastal States to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone of up to 200 nautical miles from baselines.(7) This included Great Britain. Iceland stated that it was merely enforcing what would soon be an international law and that it was following precedents set by other nations. Great Britain had different opinions. While it agreed that the number of cod had been decreasing, Britain was not convinced over- fishing was the cause, nor over what the limit on the catch should be. Iceland based its limit of 230,000 tons of cod allowed on how many four-month old cod are caught in sample catches. Great Britain based its proposal for 280,000 tons of cod on samples of older fish.

However, little was actually known about the whole ecology of the fishery stocks, let alone the relationship between what numbers of what age of fish caught and the effect on the spawning population. Britain also argued that, while the international system was arriving at an agreed 200 mile limit, Iceland had no right to unilaterally enforce the limit. As noted above, the conflict lasted for seven months. The United Nations' Security Council was consulted, after a particularly violent collision incident, but took no action. The Nordic Council issued a statement of support for Iceland. NATO and the United States became involved, due to Iceland's threat of closing the NATO base at Keflavik if the conflict with Great Britain continued. While the United States offered to mediate between the two parties, it was NATO intercession that helped end the dispute. With mediation by the Secretary-General of NATO, Dr. Joseph Luns, Iceland and Great Britain were able to come to an agreement on June 2, 1976. This agreement limited the British to 24 trawlers allowed inside the 200 mile limit at any one time. There were four conservation areas that were completely closed to all British fishing.

In addition, Icelandic patrol vessels were allowed to halt and inspect British trawlers suspected of violating the agreement.(8) The duration of the agreement was 6 months, after which Great Britain had no right to fish inside the 200 mile zone. 3. Related Cases IV. Trade Clusters 12. Type of Measure: QUOTA The amount of cod that Great Britain could legally catch was limited to 50,000 tons annually. In addition, only 24 trawlers, from a list of 93 could fish at any one time inside the 200 mile zone. There were four areas that were completely closed to British fishing. On top of all this, this agreement only lasted six months, after which Britain was not allowed to fish in Icelandic waters.(11) 13. Direct v. Indirect Impacts: DIRect 14. Relation of Trade Measure to Environmental Impact a. Directly Related to Product: YES (FISH) b. Indirectly Related to Product: NO c. Not Related to Product: NO d. Related to Process: YES (Species Loss Sea) [SPLS] 15. Trade Product Identification: FISH 16.

Economic Data The Icelandic fishing industry produced 27 billion Kr. (approx. equal to $27.88 billion) worth of exports during 1971-5, and 215 billion Kr. (approx. equal to $72 billion) during 1976-80.(12) This accounted for between 15 and 20 per cent of Iceland's GNP.(13) The British fishing industry based on Icelandic fish produced about 23.1 million pounds (approx. equal to $51 million) worth of catch.(14) The agreement with Iceland caused about 1,500 fishermen to become unemployed, plus about 7, 500 people on shore were briefly unemployed.(15) 17. Impact of Trade Restriction: MEDIUM Importing cod from Iceland caused cod prices to rise slightly in Great Britain, by about 6 or 7 pence a pound.(16) 18. Industry Sector: FOOD large picture of a cod 22. Resource Impact and Effect: HIGH and SCALE If the fishing had continued at the levels before the conflict, there was a high chance the cod would disappear from Icelandic waters.

23. Urgency and Lifetime: HIGH and 20 years Years to Regional Extinction: 10 Both Icelandic and British marine biologists agreed that the cod was being vastly overfished during the early 1970's. They projected that, if the level of fishing continued unabated, "there would be no cod left be 1980."(18) 24. Substitutes: LIKE Fishermen are switching to other species of fish, the blue whiting especially, but also sprats, pilchards and mackerel. Switching to blue whiting required re-tooling the processing machines. Since cod are mostly used for fish and chips in Britain, the switch to another fish would require the consumer to change his or her taste. The other alternative is for the British to consume less fish and chips. (1) "Now, the Cod Peace," Time, June 14, 1976. p. 37 (2) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 152 (3) Ibid., p.

7 (4) The Economist, November 29, 1975. p. 94 (5) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 51-52 (6) Blair, Jon, "No cod left by 1980..." The Times, January 24, 1976. p. 12. (7) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 160 (8) "Now, the Cod Peace," Time, June 14, 1976. p. 37 (9) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 7. (10) "Cod," Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7, 1993. p.172-173 (11) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 189-181 (12) International Financial Statistics Yearbook, vol.

XLIX, 1996 (13) Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. p. 7 (14) Ibid. (15) "Trawlermen forecast loss of 9,000 jobs" The Times, May 31, 1976. p. 1 (16) Clayton, Hugh "Dispute with Iceland means dearer fish this weekend," The Times, November 28, 1975. p. 6 (17) "Cod," Encyclopedia Americana, v. 7, 1993. p.172-173 (18) Blair, Jon "No cod left by 1980..." The Times, January 24, 1976. p. 12 (19) The Economist, May 29, 1976. p. 51 (20) The Economist, February 21, 1976. p. 13-14 (21)UN Chronicle, January, 1976.

24-6 (22) Wirecutter and Icelandic Region photos from: Jonsson, Hannes Friends in Conflict, Hurst & Co., London, 1982. What Were the Cod Wars? (with pictures) What Were the Cod Wars? Last Modified Date: 18 January 2017 Copyright Protected: Can you see through these real-life optical illusions? The Cod Wars were a series of skirmishes between Great Britain and Iceland during the 1950s and 1970s. Although the situation was thankfully resolved without bloodshed, it did illustrate some major political issues dealing with fishing rights, territorial waters , and the right of a country to protect its valuable natural resources. As human pressure on the environment increases, incidents like the Cod Wars may happen again. The story begins with the cod, a fish which once existed in great bounty across the North Atlantic. Cod have been extensively fished by a variety of nations for centuries, and fortunes were built upon cod fisheries in places like Iceland. Iceland has historically relied very heavily on cod as an industry. Scientists in Iceland began to be concerned when long ranging ships from other countries fished for cod offshore.

Although this practice was technically legal, it threatened cod stocks in Iceland. Ad In 1958, Iceland took action, extending an exclusive economic zone beyond its internationally recognized territorial waters. The country argued that this was necessary to protect the threatened cod fishery, and it pledged to enforce the zone with the assistance of a quota system and the Icelandic Coast Guard. Britain resented the move, and it sent fishing ships into the exclusive economic zone, along with escorts, setting off the first Cod War in fall 1958. After a few months of deliberate collisions, net cutting, and warning shots, the first Cod War ended with a treaty and an agreement to take future disputes to the International Court of Justice. The Cod Wars, known in Icelandic as Þorskastríðin or Landhelgisstríðin, were not over. In 1972, Iceland extended the exclusive economic zone again, in an attempt to revive the failing fishery by forcing international producers out. The two countries almost literally went to war in 1973, but the crisis was averted after a series of North Atlantic Treaty Organization ( NATO ) talks.

In 1975, however, another Cod War broke out, when the British refused to recognize the economic exclusion zone and Iceland once again sent out Coast Guard ships to enforce it. This time, Iceland threatened to withdraw from NATO and close a NATO base unless their demands were meant, and a final treaty was reached. Although the Cod Wars might seem petty, they were a very important event in history. Iceland began to come into its own as a NATO power during the Cod Wars, when the nation realized that it had leverage. Issues with the cod fishery were more widely recognized, leading to more global awareness about sustainable fishing and a moratorium on cod fishing in some countries. It was fortunate that no one died during the Cod Wars; future conflicts over dwindling resources may not be so bloodless. Ad

Question: The 1970’s ‘Cod Wars’ were over fishing rights between the UK and which other country?
Answer: Iceland