
Barren islands that countries never stop fighting over - carlosgg
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20151117-the-islands-that-countries-never-stop-fighting-over
======
bmh_ca
The reason most of these islands are of such importance is because territorial
waters, customs zones, and exclusive economic zones are extended by any
sovereign land permanently above water, according to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea that binds almost all states.

So these little islands determine which state is legally entitled to write
legislation that determines taxation, shipping, airline routes, oil, fish, and
any other territorial, customs, and economic rights in the area around these
islands.

See e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters)

~~~
chrisacree
As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants the
right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass ships
merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters as well
as the Exclusive Economic Zone.

There are a couple exceptions for things like drug smuggling and terrorists,
and now there's some concern whether these rules (fairly vague on paper) will
be exploited by some for extensive search & seizures.

I made a site explaining the South China Sea disputes in particular if anyone
is interested. southchinasea.co

~~~
bmh_ca
> As far as taxation and shipping go, not really. The Law of the Sea grants
> the right of innocent passage to all ships, so a country can't tax or harass
> ships merely passing through its waters. This holds for territorial waters
> as well as the Exclusive Economic Zone.

I was unclear on the tax point, sorry; the extending of the baseline may
determine the entitlement to tax resource use and extraction. You are correct
in that UNCLOS prohibits tax of innocent passage.

On shipping it is also my understanding that UNCLOS grants broad rights to
passage, though these are subject to those exceptions you mentioned, as well
as an exception for "internal waters". I believe a couple cases turned on
islands (which I am sure you also know about better than I do– my background
is academic and dated!).

As an interesting aside, the word tariff comes from Tarifa, Spain, which would
tax ships passing through the Strait of Gibraltar.

Just for ease of any future readers, the actual convention is not horribly
complex, and is at:
[http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/uncl...](http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/UNCLOS-
TOC.htm)

------
smcl
This sort of situation has led to the exact _opposite_ \- territory which both
two countries claim doesn't belong to them:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bir_Tawil)

This is because both Sudan and Egypt claim a slightly nicer parcel of land by
the coast, and presumably taking Bir Tawil results in ceding the claim on the
other part. It all came about due to slight ambiguities chopping up the old
British Empire colonies in Africa.

~~~
100timesthis
Someone claimed that territory because his daughter's dream was to be a
princess[1].

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-
clai...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-man-plants-flag-claims-
african-country-calling-it-kingdom-of-north-
sudan/2014/07/12/abfbcef2-09fc-11e4-8a6a-19355c7e870a_story.html)

------
zorf
A fun example of an island which is not disputed: Märket is a small
uninhabited island located between Sweden and Finland. It's divided between
the countries and Finland even built a lighthouse on the wrong side of the
border!

Another example i the island Kataja, which didn't even exist when the border
between Sweden and Finland was drawn, but now sits on the border.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kataja)

~~~
robin_reala
Märket’s amazing: rather than Sweden demolishing or trying to take control of
the lighthouse they both agreed to redraw the border in a somewhat symmetrical
way to retain the same amount of territory.

------
impendia
On a visit to South Korea, I was astonished to watch a national weather report
on televsion. It showed the weather in Seoul, in Busan, in a few other major
cities, and on Dokdo! (Dokdo is this tiny island mentioned in the article,
disputed by Japan, with two people living on it.)

In this case, the status of the island is largely a proxy for remaining Korean
bitterness over WWII, towards the Japanese who (at least in the eye of many
Koreans) have not yet fully owned up to their war crimes.

~~~
bane
It gets lost in all the propaganda (designed to get the citizens behind a
complex geopolitical effort) - Dokdo is mostly about fishing and other
resource rights. The island itself is worthless, but the 200 nautical miles
around it aren't.

Here in the U.S. I've even seen local Korean owned businesses with posters up
in the window "Dokdo is Korean territory!" and other such slogans. It may seem
absolutely insignificant to Americans and people from other large countries,
but to South Koreans, surrounded by large powerful neighbors, in the middle of
immensely crowded territorial waters, it has a not insignificant economic
rationale.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_economic_zone)

~~~
TorKlingberg
You would think South Korea has bigger issues to deal with, what with North
Korea to the north and China to the west. I think South Korea focuses so much
on the Liancourt rocks precisely because there is zero risk of an actual
confrontation with Japan. It has become a safe way of conspicuous national
posturing.

~~~
bane
To the average South Korean, North Korea is surprisingly a non-issue. Most
people just don't all that fired up over it and view the efforts around it
(mandatory military conscription, etc.) as a huge inconvenience and not much
else.

China is mostly seen as a source of cheap stuff and transient air pollution
(even when the pollution is clearly caused by domestic activities). When China
comes up elsewhere its for reasons of economic competition or having to do
with those weird ethnic Koreans that live along the border between China and
North Korea.

What South Korea has as its most pressing problems are mostly economic,
stagnant wage growth in an advanced economy, pending shrinking population,
very limited agriculturally suitable land, an export dependent economy with
economically depressed customers and so on. A few years ago the price of
cabbage shot up a few hundred percent and almost caused riots. [1] Feeding the
population cheap stuff is a national political priority.

You are right though, that the rocks are politically convenient to saber
rattle over without having to worry about Japan too much (who _does_ have
bigger valueless rocks to fight over with China -- who is solving their
problems my simply manufacturing new islands where they want them).

1 -
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15kimchi.html)

------
andy_ppp
Ha, well played BBC! You mean the state broadcaster for the UK managed to
avoid mentioning the Falklands in an article about disputed barren islands.
I'm truly shocked!

~~~
noir_lord
Falklands has 3000 or so people, a small town, lots of sheep and is not really
disputed except when Argentina feels like distracting attention from whatever
shitshow is going on at home.

Even their historical claim is dubious as hell.

~~~
gyardley
I was in the Falklands earlier this year, and the place acts more English than
England. You'd have to deport everyone en masse to make it seem remotely
Argentine.

That doesn't stop the Argentinians from packing their cities with monuments
and street names dedicated to the Malvinas Argentinas, and the islands (along
with the brie wedge of their Antarctica claim) appear on every national map,
right down to the ones on keychain fobs for tourists. That's got to do
something to their collective psyche, whether it's saber-rattling season or
not.

Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands - you
could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative, I'd
expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.

~~~
noir_lord
> Right now there's offshore oil exploration taking place in the Falklands -
> you could see tons of equipment near Stanley. If that comes back lucrative,
> I'd expect the dispute to heat up accordingly.

I don't think it's a co-incidence given that they think there is vast oil
reserves around the Falklands that within a few years the UK will have two of
the most powerful aircraft carriers in the world (outside of the US carriers)
or that our Type-45 was designed to engage dozens of simultaneous air threats,
the argentine military isn't even the threat it was in the early 80's, a
British carrier battle group carrying F35's with MBDA Meteors (which are a
more advanced but similar missile to American AMRAAMS with a variant having a
200 mile range) with a support group of Type-45's and nuclear subs would make
it the most one sided naval battle since The Battle of the Nile in 1798.

Any in-bound Argentine planes would be dead before they got within 300 miles
of the Falklands from the F35's not to mention the Type 45's which is
acknowledged as the most advanced air defense destroyer in the world at the
moment.

I lament that we spend so damn much on the things but within 5-10 years we'll
have the 2nd most powerful blue water navy in the World (the question then is
do we need that really...)

Throw in that the British government has very effectively used political
pressure to block all sales of modern aircraft to the Argentine government
they'd be flying an obsolete 40 year old fighter against a state of the art
5th generation fighter, it wouldn't even be a war it'd be a damn blood bath,
they can't even afford to run the planes they have now, those planes are a mix
of 60's era French Mirages and upgraded vietnam era A4 Skyhawks.

------
jcrei
There's also the Savage Islands that are disputed between Portugal and Spain.
They are barely habitable, but make a big impact in calculating the EEZ of
each country in the northern Atlantic
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Islands)

------
afsina
Antoher one is "Kardak Island" between Turkey and Greece.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imia/Kardak)

------
DiThi
Also Perejil island disputed by my country.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perejil_Island)

~~~
TorKlingberg
Which is symbolic for the much more important Ceuta and Melilla.

~~~
mikro2nd
I'd bet good money that there's a more cogent reason than just "symbolic". ;)

------
sanxiyn
Some of these disputes do settle. One between Malaysia and Singapore was
settled in 2008.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Branca_dispute](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedra_Branca_dispute)

------
lazyant
Argentina and Chile almost went to war for three little barren islands in a
desolated place, but it's not about the islands but about claims to sea (or
also in this case, Antarctic territorial claims)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beagle_conflict)

------
bduerst
Better they expend their border-dispute resources over these barren islands
than the inhabited ones.

~~~
tfgg
In a way, isn't that just it? They're still 'fighting' over them because
they're actually not that important? If they were important, the fight would
be over much more quickly.

~~~
jandrese
These fights give politicians something to do and more importantly, get people
to rally around a nationalistic cause. We have always been at war with Europa.

------
dmichulke
Do countries fight over it or just governments?

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of the populations couldn't care
less

~~~
jnky
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti-
Japanese_demon...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_China_anti-
Japanese_demonstrations)

------
mikro2nd
Improved headline: "The barren islands that countries never _start_ fighting
over"

------
WildUtah
These island provide a valuable public service. If you've seen the Republican
debates, you've heard Rubio declare war on Russia and Syria and ISIS, Fiorina
reject diplomacy in all cases until we next decisively win a war, Kasich
competing with both to be the most belligerent, and Bush wanting to go back to
Iraq and Syria and celebrate his brother's big success there. A few years ago,
John McCain held a campaign event where he sang a 'bomb Iran' song he made up.

If Japan and Russia and China and Korea and Argentina and Canada and Denmark
keep these islands out there in uncertain status, they're doing the right
thing. When a McCain or Rubio comes to power in those countries, they have a
ready-made harmless _casus belli_ to whine about without actually killing
anyone. It's like how we have sports teams to consume our violent territorial
primate impulses in a constructive healthy competition.

Whereas if Rubio comes to power in the USA aching for war with Russia, we're
in danger of global nuclear war if the CIA and KGB guys can't keep their
leaders in line.

I tell you, I didn't think it was possible to finish the debate thinking that
Trump was the level headed, calm, and wise one in the group until I heard the
other ones.

