How Iceland won the Cod Wars

Between 1958 and 1976, Iceland – A small island country with a population of just 200,000, engaged in a sequence of confrontations with the United Kingdom known as the cod wars. Those were no longer traditional wars with bullets and bombs; however, as a substitute, fierce maritime disputes over fishing rights within the North Atlantic. Notwithstanding being hugely outgunned by means of the British Royal Navy, Iceland emerged triumphant whenever, reshaping international fishing legal guidelines and proving that dedication and strategic ingenuity may want to overcome navy might.

Iceland’s economic system has constantly trusted fishing, specially cod, which accounted for up to 90% of its exports within the mid-20th century. As fishing technology advanced, foreign trawlers—specially British ones—commenced overfishing Icelandic waters, threatening the state’s livelihood.

• 1952: Iceland prolonged its fishing sector from 3 to four nautical miles.
• 1958: expanded to twelve nautical miles, sparking the primary cod struggle (1958-1961).
• 1972: prolonged to 50 nautical miles, triggering the second cod warfare (1972-1973).
• 1975: declared a 2-hundred-nautical-mile distinct monetary area (EEZ), leading to the 1/3 cod war (1975-1976).
• Each expansion changed into met with British resistance, however Iceland refused to go into reverse.

Iceland leveraged international regulation to its advantage:

• 1958: argued that the 12-mile restriction changed into justified under rising worldwide norms.
• 1975: referred to the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which later formalized 200-mile EEZs (thank you partially to Iceland’s precedent).
• Threatened to depart NATO: Iceland, a founding NATO member, hinted at taking flight, forcing the U.S. To mediate.

Iceland knew Britain relied on its ports:

• Closed NATO bases: threatened to close down the Keflavik air base, a critical bloodless warfare asset for the U.S.
• Reduce diplomatic ties: severed family members with the United Kingdom in 1976, escalating pressure.

Iceland’s coast protect (just a few patrol boats) used unconventional strategies:

• Internet cutters: deployed trawler-destructive gadgets to slice British nets.
• Ramming: small Icelandic ships intentionally collided with British frigates.
• Mental struggle: relentless harassment demoralized British crews.

• Public opinion: British fishermen and taxpayers grew weary of the luxurious battle.
• Political stress: the United Kingdom faced backlash from allies and trade unions.
• No real army choice: sinking Icelandic ships could were a PR catastrophe.

Iceland’s victory had a ways-accomplishing outcomes:

• Two hundred-mile EEZs became general: the un adopted Iceland’s stance in 1982.
• Boosted Iceland’s financial system: fisheries thrived, investment modernization.
• Proved small countries could win towards superpowers: a lesson in uneven conflict.

The cod wars weren’t pretty much fish—they had been about survival, sovereignty, and the power of a small kingdom to exchange the arena. Iceland didn’t just win; it rewrote the regulations of the sea. The tiny kingdom that confounded empires.