Abstract This paper provides an introduction and overview of the Anglo‑Icelandic Cod Wars. Further, it demonstrates that academic discourse has yet to analyse the longer‑lasting legacies of the confict coming into the 21 st century. It connects separate elements of existing academic and historic analysis, showing how myths and “psyche” around the confict have impacted political discourse up to near‑ ‑current events in Britain and Iceland both subtly and bluntly. It also frames how the Cod Wars ft into broader narratives of decolonisation and women’s movements. Finally, it encourages others to explore the topic further and continue the discourse. Keywords Cod Wars, Fishery Disputes, North Atlantic History, UK‑Iceland Relations, Cold War, Decolonisation, Women’s Movements. Disclosure The views and opinions expressed in this article are entirely the author’s own. They do not state, refect, or represent the views, opinions, or policies of any other entity, organisation, or other individual. They are not connected to any entity that the author has been, is, or may be afliated with. Acknowledgements The author thanks: Tânia Martins – for her assistance in archival research, proofreading, patience, and loving support; Harry Riedl – for his advice on style and structure; The Archive staf of the University of Iceland, and, the Ofce of the President of Iceland – for their assistance in obtaining lecture recordings. Author’s note This paper was drafted during periods of Covid‑19 “lockdown”, limiting access to primary archival resources. The author acknowledges a reluctant over‑reliance on secondary academic resources, primarily in the English language. The author hopes to publish further once archives reopen, and that until then, this paper inspires others to continue the discourse and write further about the confict. Introduction The competition among peoples and nations to catch fsh, particularly cod, and particularly in the North Atlantic, has at least a 2000‑year history.1 Fishing as profession, economic driver, and fundamentally as a way of life, can be emotive like few other subjects. Maritime disputes – from high‑drama piracy, to environmental damage from petrochemical mishap, and near‑ ‑comic blockages of congested shipping canals – all create signifcant international bureaucratic fuster. Nothing, however, captures the enduring attention and imagination of people like fsheries disputes. When, therefore, access to this ichthyologic resource is restricted, or the resource itself declines, signifcant human efort has been expended to protect interests, maintain access, and infuence its governance. The focus of this paper is one such example – the Anglo‑Icelandic “Cod Wars”. Generally defned into four periods following World War II: the “Proto Cod War” (1952‑1956); the “First Cod War” (1958‑1961); the “Second Cod War” (1972‑1973); and the “Third Cod War” (1975‑1976). 2 In just over 35 years, Iceland incrementally expanded its maritime sovereignty from 3 nautical miles in 1952 to an eventual 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone, changing international maritime governance and defnitions of territorial and international waters in the process. 3 While this paper focuses on the Cod Wars’ 1970s denouement, and acknowledges the validity of existing historical analysis, it seeks to contextualise it in broader international and societal terms. It will attempt to frame how narratives about the Cod Wars have infuenced socio‑economic elements of the confict’s legacy, including how gender‑based aspects have been undervalued; and how these can be interpreted through contemporary discourse. Finally, this article posits that extant academic conclusions 1 Kurlansky, Mark (1999), Cod – A Biography of the Fish That Changed The World. (London: Vintage), pp.19‑24 2 Steinsson, Sverrir (2016), The Cod Wars: a re‑analysis. In: European Security, 25:2 (2016), [Thereafter: “Steinsson (2016)”], pg.1 3 Guðmundsson, Guðmundur (2006), The Cod and the Cold War. In: Scandinavian Journal of History, 31:2 (2016), pg.97 The Cod Wars: Aleksander Owain Loesch* *King’s College London (UK) A Case Study of Social Narratives and Economic Legacies 35