• Login
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.
    Troubled Waters. Cod War, Fishing Disputes, and Britain's Fight for the Freedom of the High Seas, 1948-1964 
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Troubled Waters. Cod War, Fishing Disputes, and Britain's Fight for the Freedom of the High Seas, 1948-1964
    •   QMRO Home
    • Queen Mary University of London Theses
    • Theses
    • Troubled Waters. Cod War, Fishing Disputes, and Britain's Fight for the Freedom of the High Seas, 1948-1964
    ‌
    ‌

    Browse

    All of QMROCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    ‌
    ‌

    Administrators only

    Login
    ‌
    ‌

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Troubled Waters. Cod War, Fishing Disputes, and Britain's Fight for the Freedom of the High Seas, 1948-1964

    View/Open
    JOHANNESSONTroubledWaters2004.pdf (22.98Mb)
    Publisher
    Queen Mary University of London
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    The thesis describes Britain's disputes over fishery limits and territorial waters, 1948- 64. Norway, Iceland, the Soviet Union and Denmark (on behalf of Greenland and the Faroe Islands) extended national jurisdiction on the oceans. Britain protested against every move, even despatching the Royal Navy to the disputed waters off Iceland, the main antagonist. Yet, on every occasion Britain had to admit defeat. In analytical terms, the thesis is partly a case study on foreign policy decision-making, the nature of power in international relations, and the relative decline of Britain after the Second World War. It also sets the quarrels over territorial waters in the context of the Cold War. The central conclusion is that Britain was too slow to recognise changes in the composition of power in international relations after the Second World War. British policy-makers overestimated their capability to enforce on other states their interpretation of the law of the sea. Their miscalculations were influenced by five considerations: power (the existence of stronger naval forces than the Nordic opponents), pressure (from the British trawling industry), precedence (the danger that retreat in one place would weaken the British stand elsewhere), principle (adherence to international law as it had been developing when Britain was a stronger power), and prestige (the belief that Britain was still strong enough to have her way on the high seas). Furthen-nore, departmental differences in Whitehall often slowed down the process of decision-making and ensured that the views of those officials who best realised the actual extent of British capabilities did not prevail. And finally, the frustrating obstinacy of a newly independent nation like Iceland contributed to the conflicts. The thesis is based on primary sources from public and private archives in Britain, Iceland, Canada, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway, the United States and Russia. Numerous interviews were also conducted.
    Authors
    Johannesson, Gudni Thorlacius
    URI
    http://qmro.qmul.ac.uk/xmlui/handle/123456789/1834
    Collections
    • Theses [3321]
    Copyright statements
    The copyright of this thesis rests with the author and no quotation from it or information derived from it may be published without the prior written consent of the author
    Twitter iconFollow QMUL on Twitter
    Twitter iconFollow QM Research
    Online on twitter
    Facebook iconLike us on Facebook
    • Site Map
    • Privacy and cookies
    • Disclaimer
    • Accessibility
    • Contacts
    • Intranet
    • Current students

    Modern Slavery Statement

    Queen Mary University of London
    Mile End Road
    London E1 4NS
    Tel: +44 (0)20 7882 5555

    © Queen Mary University of London.