From its fragile beginnings to the present day, life has been dependent on the ocean. Humans are no exception to this rule. The oceans carry more cargo than the air and land combined, fish are an essential part of many people’s diets around the globe, and the ocean currents facilitate access to trade, fish, and new ideas. It stands to reason that some of the world’s largest conflicts are for the purpose of controlling the vast resources of the ocean. Although the ocean has a seemingly infinite amount of resources available for humans to exploit, there is a limit. In recent years, uncontrolled overfishing, warming temperatures and rising acidity have contributed to the decline and collapse of oceanic ecosystems and the increased scarcity of fish and other animals. As resources become scarcer, many nations have seen a major source of income dwindle and in some places disappear. Conflicts between countries reliant on fishing have led to revisions of the famed law, “Freedom of the Seas”. As the Cod Wars in the North sea have shown, however, much more has to be done to prevent future strife. A number of issues still remain in protecting the oceans from exploitation, including fishing vessels flying “Flags of Convenience”. Laws governing the usage of the world’s oceans must be refined to prevent the abuse of increasingly scarce oceanic resources.
Throughout human history, the world’s oceans have been a source of life and growth. The first major global civilizations all formed on the coasts and by rivers. Over 100 million tons of fish are consumed annually and for many people it serves as over 20% of their animal protein intake. In the past, countries spread across the oceans and formed vast interconnected empires, connecting ideas and culture. While many of these empires were built on slavery and the mistreatment of indigenous peoples, they were responsible for bringing about a new age in global interconnectedness. Although today we do not primarily depend on the ocean for transport, it is still a major source of resources for countries around the globe. In the past, the sea was a boundless place full of resources, discovery, and wealth. However, in recent years, it is becoming all the more clear that the seas are not endless and do not contain an inexhaustible supply of resources. Overfishing and pollution are some of the main contributors to declining populations of fish and collapsing oceanic ecosystems. As fish stocks have dropped, economic hardships and conflicts between sea-faring nations have increased. The story of Siglufjordur is one representative of changes throughout the world’s oceans. In the early 1900’s, Siglufjordur, a coastal city in northern Iceland, was known as the herring capital of the world. It’s herring fisheries became so large and profitable that it brought the Icelandic economy along with it: “Following their government’s assertion of jurisdiction over fisheries out to 12 miles in 1958 and a new phase of investment in herring purse seiners during the 1960s, Icelanders caught more herring than they had in the previous six decades”(Hamilton 327). This boom in herring fishing caused Siglufjordur to become known as the “Herring Capital of the World”. However, unsustainably high catch rates coupled with a loss of the herring’s main food supply left the docks of this boom town bare of any herring. Siglufjordur fell into economic decline and has since been forced to look for alternate sources of revenue and development. The same oceans that are a source of life for billions of people, can, with enough mismanagement, leave only ruined fisheries and towns in its wake. Declines in the availability of oceanic resources can lead not just to economic hardship, but to conflict between nations.
Countries dependent on the oceans for food, income, and prosperity are pushed into conflict over the utilization of those resources. In order to examine the evolution of disputes over scarce resources we must return to Iceland. This time, instead of herring, the source of conflict was the declining population of Atlantic Cod. Cod are large, tasty fish that swim along the bottoms of the oceans with their mouths open, eating whatever they can find. They have even been known to eat their own young. As a result of their fairly predictable patterns and high nutritional value, Cod fishing has been one of the most profitable industries ever to operate on the high seas. In the early 1990’s, stocks of Cod in Iceland had been steadily declining for some time. As a result, several Icelandic trawlers sailed to a small area in the Barents Sea known as the Loophole, bordered by territories belonging to Norway and Russia. It is known as the Loophole because it falls just outside the economic areas of Norway and Russia. Norway, outraged at this situation, demanded that Iceland withdraw its boats. However, as they were not legally violating International Law, the Icelandic government did nothing. Years after continued violation of the Loophole, both Norway and Russia are continuously frustrated by what they deem illegal fishing. Even if Norway were to sue, they would likely lose because, according to international law, international vessels are allowed to fish in the loophole: “But if Iceland has international law on its side in this dispute, it would appear to have few moral arguments in its favor… Loophole cod is a natural part of the living resources overwhelmingly inhabiting Norwegian and Russian waters. Logic would demand that most of this fish be allocated to Norway and Russia” (Gudmundsson 572). These continual conflicts between Norway, Russia, and Iceland are known as the Cod Wars. While these wars have yet to draw actual casualties, they are a constant source of tension between the three countries. Another oceanic dispute occurred in 2013 when 70 Spanish fishing vessels clustered around the coast of Gibraltar in order to protest an artificial reef being constructed by the UK. In response, the UK reasserted their control over Gibraltar and said that the reef was for the purpose of protecting the British fishing industry. The Spanish responded by saying that the waters around Gibraltar belonged to them, not to the British. Two highly developed nations do not normally conduct relations in this way, “yet in the history of international maritime conflict, such disputes are common” (Nyman 6). Again this conflict resulted in no actual bloodshed, but served as a source of tension for Britain and Spain. Disputes over control of oceanic resources “generally feature at most a display of force, rather than actual violence, and they often resolve quickly, though the conflict may recur” (Nyman 6). Although these struggles for control rarely resort in violence and are resolved relatively quickly, they are no less real. In order to avoid continued tension over maritime resources and to prevent overfishing, international laws are passed governing the freedom of the seas.
For much of human history, there was no codified law to determine how nations utilized sea resources because there was never a need to protect these resources. In the 15th and 16th centuries, sea-faring nations expanded across the seas. These countries were never interested in the resources under the waves, rather the distant lands across them. As these empires grew and needed to connect their vast colonial networks over sea, they needed to for the first time exert control over a large section of the sea. Around this time, a Dutch lawyer named Hugo Grotius published an influential book named De Mare Liberum. In this book, he “postulated the idea of Freedom of the Seas. His main argument for such an idea was an easy one and absolutely the truth for his time. He argued that the resources of the oceans were in fact endless and that there was no chance of extinction” (Heidbrink 661). Grotius coined what has become one of the world’s most famous saying based on the belief that oceanic resources had no bounds, and indeed, for vessels of the time, they didn’t. Several decades later, another Dutch lawyer named Cornelius van Bynkershoek laid out the practice that “at least a certain strip of the ocean adjunct to the coastline should be treated as territorial water of the coastal nation” (Heidbrink 662). These two ideas set the precedent for the management of ocean resources for the next two and a half centuries. Some bilateral treaties between coastal nations were made to determine the usage of maritime resources, but for the most part the ocean was left unlegislated and open for people of all nations. This view of the oceans as a Commons available to all worked for so long because nations and people were unable to individually alter the availability of oceanic resources through overfishing or pollution. This all changed during the age of industrialization.
As nations began to industrialize and resource began to become scarcer, it was necessary to enact laws governing the usage of the world’s oceans. With new innovations in fishing technology like steam trawlers and otter-board-nets caused fish stocks to be depleted at a rate never before seen. While some politicians understood the effects of these unsustainably high fishing rates, very little was done. In one instance, “the coastal nations of the North Sea agreed in a multilateral treaty in 1882 on some regulations for their fishing fleets, but the treaty area was only for the North Sea and beyond the 3-nm limit fisheries were still open to every fisherman” (Heidbrink 663). This multilateral treaty, while it was a step forward on the path to comprehensive oceanic legislation, was only one small agreement and in the face of a global overfishing problem it changed almost nothing. As time progressed, a combination of new technology and a lack of control led to declining fish populations around the world. In 1929, the newly formed League of Nations met to negotiate a new Law of the Sea and protect dwindling resources. However, the talks failed and no new legislation was implemented until after WWII. A combination of newly developed technology, a lack of control of the high seas, and no legislation controlling the usage of maritime resources contributed to massive overfishing and exploitation of resources in the world’s oceans.
After the end of WWII and the de-colonization of the North Atlantic, nations began to expand the areas of the ocean under their control, bringing to the forefront of international discussion the utilization of oceanic resources. In 1945, US President Harry Truman, although he wasn’t intending it, set the foundation for our current law of the sea. In an address to other American states he said: “Having concern for the urgency of conserving and prudently utilizing its natural resources, the Government of the United States regards the natural resources of the subsoil and sea bed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but contiguous to the coasts of the United States as appertaining to the United States, subject to its jurisdiction and control” (Truman 2667). This declaration was unprecedented because it expanded on the traditional 3-nm economic zone and was not disputed by any states. Newly-formed Iceland, taking this proclamation as an example, also declared its control of the continental shelf around its borders. For the first time, the United Nations convened a Conference on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS. This meeting however, only guaranteed the rights of nations to 12 nautical miles of coastal waters. In 1960, a second UNCLOS resulted in no change to the Law of the Sea in any way whatsoever. A combination of the Cod wars between Iceland and England and a speech by Arvid Pardo, the Maltese ambassador, to the UN resulting in the passage of two resolutions. The first accepted a common heritage principle for the sea bed, and the second called for another UNCLOS to start immediately. Beginning in 1973 and ending in 1982, the conference lasted almost 10 years and resulted in the creation of the 200-nm Economic Exclusion Zone that is still currently in place. Additionally, a result of the third UNCLOS was that “for the utilization of the sea bed and the deep sea, in other words an area outside the Exclusive Economic Zones, the installation of an international control institution was agreed upon, but only for non-living resources like minerals” (Heidbrink 667-668). At the end of this conference, the Freedom of the Seas made way for a globally accepted Law of the Seas. While this law does mark several major changes in the way oceanic resources are utilized and preserved, there are still some issues that have not been resolved.
One instance where the law of the sea is exploited is the usage of flags of convenience. Flags of convenience are when fishing vessels use flags other than their countries of origin because it allows them to catch larger quantities of fish despite the fact that it is illegal. An example of a flag of convenience is a ship owned by an American, flagged by Liberia, and operating for a Venezuelan company. These fishing vessels cannot be pursued outside of another nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone: “So long as a vessel is flagged, states other than the flag state generally cannot take any meaningful action for violations outside of their EEZs, because the flag state – the state that registered the vessel – possesses exclusive control over their vessels” (Ferrell 327-328). Boats flying FOCs constitute a large percentage of the global fishing fleet and remain unregulated. There are numerous ways to try to stop FOC fishing, such as promoting responsibility among flag states and creating a registry of responsible flag states. However, under the current lack of a more comprehensive international law, illegal and unregulated fishing will continue. This issue highlights that although international maritime law has come a long way, it needs to continue to develop.
In order to affect more comprehensive change in regards to the utilization of oceanic resources, we must change shift our mindset away from the idea that oceanic resources are unlimited. The third UNCLOS took a large step in moving away from the idea of limitless oceans by creating the idea that they are the common heritage of all humans. However, despite this change in philosophy, a majority of the world’s oceans are still unregulated and unprotected. As Gary Russ and Dirk Zeller, professors at James Cook University and the University of British Columbia respectively, have put it, “we have to give serious thought to zoning the entire oceans of the world, not just the land margins, giving specific responsibility and international accountability for resource management to individual entities, International Groupings, and Global Organizations” (Russ and Zeller 76). We understand that the oceans are not limitless and if we don’t act to protect them, they will not last much longer. As a result, we should enact legislation that truly echoes this commitment to maintaining an economic and environmental balance.
Without a doubt, we have come a long way from Hugo Grotius’ “Freedom of the Seas” and we have a long way still to go. It took three UNCLOS’ to arrive at the 200-nm EEZs and there is no reason to think that further legislation will not take longer. That being said, however, there is more of a need now than ever before to enact laws which protect and preserve our oceans as common heritage. In the past, the oceans have been so essential to human civilization that wars have been fought over them. Maritime Law has changed dramatically in the past 100 years, but it has yet to halt illegal fishing under flags of convenience and other such violations. If we are to prevent such conflict from occurring in the future, and ensure the survival of oceanic ecosystems, we must enact more comprehensive legislature regarding the usage of the world’s oceans.