--- title: The Ocean Rock That 4 Countries are Fighting Over... description: "Rockall Bank is a tiny little rock in the ocean, indistinguishable from every other rock in the ocean you've ever seen before. And yet, hundreds of kilometres into the North Atlantic, it lies at the epicentre of a decades-long political dispute. On the line are fishing rights, minerals, sovereignty, bragging rights, and most of all, pride. Peeling back the curtain reveals overlapping territorial claims, United Nations conventions, maritime law, and geopolitical threats, between four nations who refuse to give an inch. And beyond it all, there's one bizarre reason that means it might never get resolved. You've heard of \"making a mountain out of a molehill?\" Well, this is how you make an island out of a rock.\n\n## Sweet Rockall\n\nSo, what is Rockall Bank? No, it's not a place to store your money, it's a teeny tiny islet, just off the West coast of the British Isles and slap bang in the North Atlantic. Depending on the tide, it juts out around 17 metres above sea level, and at 25 metres across, it's miniscule. If you happened to pass by it whilst sailing in the region, you wouldn't even look at it twice. It's the rump of a piece of land known as Rockall plateau, which only emerged from the ocean thanks to a volcanic eruption over 55 million years ago. And despite SpongeBob's claims that the pioneers used to ride these babies for miles, this one has stayed put since then.\n\nAnd let's be clear when we tell you that Rockall Bank has absolutely nothing going for it. No permanent population, no economic market, no arable land, there's barely enough space for a sizable flock of birds to call it home, let alone a community. As actual land goes, it is completely and utterly useless. It's a tiny scrap of zero significance in and of itself, otherwise totally inconsequential if it were placed almost anywhere else on planet earth.\n\nBut that's the point. This tiny rock, because of where it is, has garnered significant controversy, with four separate countries who all want to call it their own. This dispute has been ongoing for seven decades, it may well go on for seven more. And when you look into the history of this tiny islet, it will start to tell you why.\n\nThe first recorded mention of any nation even paying attention to Rockall Bank is in 1810, when the British Royal Navy first scrambled onto it to claim it for blighty. At least it wasn't big enough to draw borders across.\n\nCome 1861 was the first time that it was even ever considered in terms of the potential riches laying beneath it. On page four of the *Irish Times*, it was written that it could have resources, \"surpassing in value the gold discoveries of California or Australia.\" This was because local anglers had long been pulling up tonnes and tonnes of valuable fish here for generations. If a country or an empire could one day take control over Rockall, they'd have exclusive rights to the waters around it for the bountiful number of fish it could produce, which would also make whichever country that owned it a pretty penny. There was even the possibility of oil and gas fields there as well, which of course would make any country who controlled it fabulously wealthy.\n\nIn reality the disputes around Rockall aren't really centred around the rock at all, but the Rockall plateau it sits on. This underwater land includes the Hatton Bank, another formerly volcanic area to its North-West. The plateau is sometimes called the \"Hatton-Rockall area\" because of this.\n\nNow lots of countries in the region have sailed through these waters and fished in them throughout history. But the dispute over this long-traversed region wouldn't actually ramp up until almost 100 years after that *Irish Times* article. As in 1955, two British Royal Marines landed on Rockall and hoisted the British flag in an attempt to annex it (must have been a slow day at the office). It is even rumoured that the recently coronated Queen Elizabeth the 2nd ordered the annexation herself. But this was no longer the days of empire, when you could simply plant a flag, nail a plaque to the rockface and call it a day. We were now in the era of nations, of international cooperation and peaceful disputes that get resolved through diplomacy. As such, a number of countries took exception to the British claiming Rockall, and outright denied the British crown's claim to it. These were: longstanding thorn in Britain's side, the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Kingdom of Denmark and the Northwest Atlantic nation, the Republic of Iceland. The dispute, especially over the fishing rights in the region has existed ever since.\n\nBut what actually are the claims the four countries in question have made? And how strong are their cases for ownership of Rockall bank to control those sweet cod, haddock and squid?\n\n## Sedimental Value\n\nOk, let's start with the UK, seeing as they made their claim first, and theirs is the basis for other nations renouncing the British one. Britain's claim started in 1955 with the plaque and the flag, but it intensified in the 1960s and 70s as other political disputes were kicking off between Ireland and the UK. This came to a head in 1972, when the UK passed the Island of Rockall Act in an attempt to formally take control over the rock. This law claimed the islet as part of Scottish territory, specifically under the jurisdiction of the County of Inverness. In reality, nothing changed.\n\nNow this gets even more complicated when you add in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, a landmark international agreement that affects Britain's claim, but didn't come into force until 1994. So, generally under international law, a country's territorial waters extend up to 22 kilometres away from their coastline, and where there are overlaps there is either a median line or sharing agreement that administers joint jurisdiction. But Rockall falls well outside of that range for any of the countries claiming it, so what gives? Well, under the UN Convention, which we'll call \"sea law\" for short, countries are allowed to claim land up to 370 kilometres (that's 200 nautical miles for you \"metric haters\") out to sea, as long as no one else claims it. This is what's known as an \"Extended Economic Zone\" or \"EEZ\". This can be further extended up to almost 650 kilometres, but this is related exclusively to the seabed and their associated resources, or what's known as the \"Extended Continental Shelf\", not the water above it. So, whilst that would apply for things like oil and gas, the question about fishing rights would stick to the 370-kilometre range. International law is complicated, just know that countries can claim land further out to sea than the convention says.\n\nThe basis of the UK's claim is that Rockall falls within the right range of its territory. The islands of St. Kilda on the Outer Hebrides are a little over 311 kilometres away. In fact, this is the closest landmass to Rockall Bank at all, and thus entitles the UK to a pretty strong claim over the islet and its territorial waters. Great Britain claims that the 22 kilometres surrounding Rockall itself are therefore within its own EEZ, as per maritime law, meaning that other countries should not be able to fish there.\n\nBut there are a few holes in the British claim. Namely that in 1997, the UK officially downgraded it by calling Rockall Bank, \"a rock\". You see under sea law, \"Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.\" Which means that whilst the UK has often tried to enforce its EEZ, namely by bothering Irish fishing vessels near the rock, this 22-kilometre exclusion zone shouldn't apply under UN regulations, but the UK claims it anyway. What's more, St. Kilda is considered by most to be uninhabited other than the National Trust for Scotland staff who live there to protect the native seabird populations, as well as a permanent Ministry of Defence base. In 1930 it was evacuated and it hasn't had a real population or community living on it since, although people are welcome to visit. This calls into question the validity of using it for a point to measure from, and if St. Kilda's status in that regard was ever challenged or disqualified in a tribunal, the UK's valid territories might be further away than the other nations who claim Rockall and its surrounding area.\n\nAs the UN's rules explicitly apply to \"rocks which cannot sustain human habitation\", there have been unsuccessful attempts to prove that Rockall is in fact an island and does not fall into that category. Back in 1985, former British SAS soldier Tom McClean spent 40 days on Rockall in an attempt to validate it as an island and make it a British territory. Others have since broken that record. Greenpeace activists protesting spent 42 days on Rockall in 1997, and in 2014 British explorer Nick Hancock occupied the rock for 45 days, the longest so far.\n\nIn 1988, the UK and Ireland agreed to delineate the areas of the continental shelf between the two nations, which would give each of them one half of the plateau, but this doesn't take into account Iceland or Denmark's claims which reject this concept outright.\n\nIreland's claim is a little more complicated. The Republic doesn't actually claim Rockall Bank itself, nor has the nation ever wanted to annex it, what it does claim is a stretch of the Rockall plateau owing to the proximity between it and the Irish mainland. Rockall Bank itself falls around 423 kilometres from the closest area of Ireland, Tory Island in County Donegal, but this distance is misleading as most of the plateau is well within range for Ireland's own claims under sea law, Rockall Bank itself is on the North-East quadrant. Ireland's former Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan said on the matter that the consistent position of successive Irish governments is that rocks have no significance for establishing legal claims to minerals in the seabed or to the fishing rights around them.\n\nAnother major facet of Ireland's territorial claims because of this standpoint, is the outright rejection of the UK's attempted annexation of the rock itself. Ireland's main concern being that the UK will use ownership of the rock as an excuse to claim exclusive rights to fishing in the region. Ireland argues that Irish fishermen have used the waters around Rockall to make their living for generations, and that they have a right to fish there on historical precedent, Iceland and Denmark will argue the same for their own nations' anglers. Ireland in effect doesn't care about owning some rock in the middle of the sea, they care about being able to fish where they always have, and what British claims over the rock would mean for that.\n\nBut Ireland's own claims to the plateau have their own issues, as their claim extends far beyond the almost 650-kilometre limit traditionally set by the UNCLOS to include the whole lower half of the plateau. That could be an issue, especially as they lay no claim to Rockall itself unlike the Brits. For what it's worth though, Ireland are the only country to lay claim with a song which came from Irish band The Wolfe Tones called \"Rock on Rockall\". The chorus goes:\n\n> \"Oh rock on Rockall, you'll never fall to Britain's greedy hands.\n> Or you'll meet the same resistance that you did in many lands.\n> May the seagulls rise and pluck your eyes and the water crush your shell.\n> And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you all to hell.\"\n\nExtra style points for that one guys.\n\nNext is Denmark, and you'd rightly think, with Denmark more associated with Northern Europe than it is the Atlantic, how on earth has a country so far away got any real chance of claiming Rockall? Well, it's more a technicality that it's the Danish government are claiming it at all. Travel North from Scotland and you'll soon reach the Faroe Islands, which are ultimately self-governing, but like Greenland, are officially part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Faroe Islands are a similar distance from the northeast edge of the plateau as Ireland is to its closest section. As such, Denmark, which has jurisdiction over the Faroe Islands' foreign policy and defence, is the one fighting this battle, even if the Faroese have self-governance over their fisheries and natural resources. Basically, foreign policy trumps fish, even if the foreign policy is about fish.\n\nDenmark don't just claim part of the plateau like Ireland or the rock like Britain however; they want the whole thing. In 1985, Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen claimed the entirety of Rockall plateau, stating that the Faroe Islands exists as part of an underwater \"microcontinent\" formed by only the Rockall plateau and the Faroe Islands. How convenient…\n\nAnd if you look at a map of the area without water, this is kind of true, you can see a series of elevated land masses that connect Rockall to the Faroe Islands. But ultimately this claim is kind of a longshot. If you follow this logic, the geography of the region would place the Faroe Islands themselves under the jurisdiction of Iceland and not Denmark. And who's really to say where at what depth underwater makes one set of landmasses intimately connected and another totally irrelevant? With the Faroe Islands 590 kilometres from Rockall Bank itself, much further than the British claim, Denmark might struggle to make a compelling argument for their case over others.\n\nAnd then you have Iceland, which is, in the nicest way possible, a total basket case in terms of its claim to the Rockall-Hatton area. Much like Ireland, Iceland considers Rockall Bank itself to be irrelevant as far as delineations of EEZs and continental shelf areas are concerned. But, much like Denmark's claim, Iceland also claims pretty much the entire Rockall plateau, under the justification that it is an extension of its own continental shelf. This area goes from around 111 kilometres from the foot of the plateau all the way up to the top. To its fullest extent this is almost 1300 kilometres away from the nearest Icelandic landmass, a fraction of the distance of the British claim.\n\nBut you see, Reykjavik had a plan for that. Iceland gets extra points in our book for throwing the most shade at the claims of other nations. Despite the long history of people inhabiting St. Kilda up until the 20th century, Iceland considers it to be, quoting directly here, \"a miniscule, effectively uninhabited islet.\" Ouch. To further dismiss the British claim, it states that St. Kilda lies outside the British territorial sea limit, essentially arguing that St. Kilda is so far from the rest of Britain that it's not a fair basepoint to measure from when considering territorial claims.\n\nIceland also has probably done the most work in terms of surveying the ocean floor to assess its claim. In total Iceland has surveyed 1.3 million square kilometres of it, an area roughly 13 times larger than the entirety of Iceland itself. So, if you get extra credit for effort, they might be in with a shot.\n\nBut there are some major issues with Iceland's claim. For starters Iceland's claim is de facto the furthest of all four nations vying for ownership of Rockall Bank and its surrounding plateau, and it's not close, being 707 kilometres from Rockall Bank itself. The second reason however, is just bizarre. Iceland was the first Western nation to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1985. Yet despite that fact, Iceland itself, whilst stating that the only way to come to a consensus on ownership would be through UN mediation, has not submitted its claim to the UN, stating that doing so would compromise its claim over the continental shelf in the area. Whilst I'm no maritime lawyer, that does seem a lot like Iceland is afraid of the case going to the UN for arbitration because the result might end up not going its way. Basically, it's like four kids fighting over a toy, and Iceland doesn't want mum to decide who should get to play with it, because Reykjavik thinks she will force them all to share. That's not exactly a compelling defence.\n\nSo, what was the UN to do about all this? What would mum say? Could it end this dispute once and for all?\n\n## A Rock and a Hard Place\n\nAll of this was supposed to come to a conclusion at the 24th session of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) when between 2009 and 2010, Denmark, Ireland and the UK submitted their claims to the CLCS over the Rockall-Hatton zone, whilst Iceland did not. And the CLCS decided… well… nothing.\n\nAnd, it literally couldn't. You see, because Iceland hasn't actually submitted its claim to the CLCS over Rockall, the CLCS is unable to come to a consensus on the dispute. This is because it requires all disputing parties to have submitted their claims before a decision can be made, and that includes Iceland. So, the overall decision on who owns Rockall remains unresolved.\n\nEssentially, the UN was forced to leave the four countries to argue between themselves into maybe finding an agreement later down the line, but other than the UK and Ireland amending their 1988 agreement in 2014 to form one maritime boundary, no consensus has been found. The UK and Ireland still claim half each, the UK's half claims the rock itself, Iceland and Denmark each claim the whole thing, Ireland's main position is that historical rights should trump legal precedents to any exclusive access, and Iceland has stopped the whole process moving forward for fear of being proven wrong. Conferences in Dublin, London, Copenhagen and Reykjavik all sought to end the dispute throughout the 2000s and 2010s but they were not successful. Basically, it's a mess.\n\nAnd it only became more of a mess once the UK voted itself out of the European Union in 2016. Because whilst on paper this didn't change the dispute, in practice the UK became far more defensive over what it saw as its own fishing territories, which for it includes the 22 kilometres around Rockall Bank. The devolved Scottish and UK government have both been at loggerheads with the Irish as a result, and British ships have on occasion chased off Irish fishermen from the region. Scottish external affairs minister Fiona Hyslop warned the Irish Government in 2019 that it will deploy its vessels to protect Scottish fishing rights around Rockall.\n\nAnd we have to remember that this is more than about just fishing, as Rockall could be a source of rare earth minerals, as well as oil and gas. Although surveys of the area not finding many resources, the political implications of drilling, and the bad weather, have put anyone off from starting a full drilling operation. The UK government's 2023 estimate puts the predicted number of barrels of oil equivalent at around two and a half billion. But some estimates, such as from the Geological Society in 1999, claim there could be up to 75 billion barrels of oil under the plateau, and many others land somewhere in between. But if that's even remotely true, this is going to go from a slightly amusing maritime dispute to… whatever the opposite of that is VERY quickly. If it's on the upper side of that range, the US military might even show up ready to dole out some freedom.\n\nSo, who's right? Well, it's complicated. Every nation claiming Rockall has at least a somewhat valid claim for the undersea territory, or at least a portion of it. Some countries are more aggressive with those claims than others (looking at you Iceland) and this is generally why we now get the UN to decide a winner on all of this. But there is no easy solution here. If you gave it all to Britain, for example, other nations might start claiming uninhabited islands are the point to measure from, and that opens up a whole can of worms. Split it between the UK and Ireland like they agreed in the 80s, and the Faroe Islands will feel unfairly treated, as it's barely further away from Rockall Bank than Ireland is. Throw them in the mix too and not only might the UK complain as both Ireland and the Faroe Islands are further away than St. Kilda, but you might have Iceland upset that the whole thing is theirs regardless and it's been left out. Honestly the best option might be for Rockall and its plateau to remain neutral. Nobody gets exclusivity, nobody gets the fish, the minerals, the oil, or the rock. But unless that's a formal decision from the UN, that won't stop these countries continuing to claim it regardless.\n\nAnd that's because it's actually not about some rock in the ocean at all, one could argue it's not even about the plateau and its resources. There's a reason that until the UN helps resolve it, no country will give an inch. Rockall Bank itself isn't exactly special, and all of these countries continue to fish in the surrounding waters to great success, and the natural resources that could be worth billions are unproven. But there's a legal, sovereign, and territorial principle that could be considered the thin end of the wedge for other issues among the disputing nations if any country is publicly seen to be giving in to another on the international stage. The territorial implications of Rockall are simply far more important than some boulder in the North Atlantic and its resources could ever be.\n\nWhere does Rockall Bank go from here? Well until Iceland submits its claim, nowhere. But further things could complicate an already complex situation. Brexit succeeded in ramping up tensions over fishing, a one-day independent Faroe Islands would cause a stir, an independent Scotland could cause even more issues, as would the discovery of oil. But until that point, everyone seems content just to not let anyone else have it.\n\nAs long as the fish keep flowing, of course.\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- Rockall Bank is a tiny, insignificant rock in the North Atlantic, but its location makes it the center of a long-standing dispute.\n- The dispute involves the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland, each claiming rights over the Rockall Plateau and its resources.\n- The UK's claim is based on proximity to St. Kilda, but its status as a rock complicates its legal standing.\n- Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland have varying claims, with Iceland refusing to submit its claim to the UN, stalling resolution.\n- The dispute is more about sovereignty and principle than the rock itself, with potential resources adding complexity.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### What is Rockall Bank?\n\nRockall Bank is a tiny islet located off the west coast of the British Isles in the North Atlantic. It is approximately 17 meters above sea level and 25 meters across. It is part of the Rockall plateau, which emerged from the ocean due to a volcanic eruption over 55 million years ago.\n\n### Why is Rockall Bank significant despite its small size?\n\nRockall Bank is significant due to its strategic location, which has led to disputes over fishing rights, minerals, sovereignty, and territorial claims among four nations: the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland.\n\n### What are the main resources that countries are disputing over Rockall Bank?\n\nThe main resources in dispute include fishing rights, potential oil and gas fields, and rare earth minerals. The Rockall plateau, which includes the Hatton Bank, is believed to have significant natural resources.\n\n### What is the UK's claim to Rockall Bank?\n\nThe UK claims Rockall Bank based on its proximity to the islands of St. Kilda, which are about 311 kilometers away. The UK argues that Rockall falls within its Extended Economic Zone (EEZ) under maritime law. However, the UK's claim has been weakened by its own designation of Rockall as a 'rock' in 1997, which under UN regulations means it cannot sustain an EEZ.\n\n### What is Ireland's position on Rockall Bank?\n\nIreland does not claim Rockall Bank itself but argues for a share of the Rockall plateau based on historical fishing rights and proximity. Ireland rejects the UK's annexation of Rockall and advocates for historical rights over legal precedents.\n\n### Why does Denmark claim Rockall Bank?\n\nDenmark claims Rockall Bank through its jurisdiction over the Faroe Islands, which are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark argues that the Faroe Islands and Rockall Bank are part of an underwater 'microcontinent,' but this claim is considered a longshot due to geographical and legal complexities.\n\n### What is Iceland's stance on Rockall Bank?\n\nIceland claims the entire Rockall plateau, arguing that it is an extension of its continental shelf. Iceland has surveyed a large area of the ocean floor to support its claim but has not submitted its claim to the UN, fearing that arbitration might not go in its favor.\n\n### What role does the UN play in the dispute over Rockall Bank?\n\nThe UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) is involved in the dispute, but it cannot make a decision because Iceland has not submitted its claim. The UN requires all disputing parties to submit their claims before a decision can be made.\n\n### How has Brexit affected the dispute over Rockall Bank?\n\nBrexit has increased tensions over fishing rights, with the UK becoming more defensive about its territorial waters, including the area around Rockall Bank. This has led to confrontations between British and Irish fishing vessels.\n\n### What are the potential future complications in the Rockall Bank dispute?\n\nFuture complications could include the discovery of significant oil reserves, changes in the political status of the Faroe Islands or Scotland, and ongoing tensions over fishing rights. These factors could further escalate the dispute.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Places video: The Ocean Rock That 4 Countries are Fighting Over...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9WtKEiUtQ)\n- [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Meeting_of_the_North_Atlantic_Council_at_the_level_of_Heads_of_State_and_Government_-_2025_NATO_Summit_in_The_Hague.jpg) by Estonian Foreign Ministry / openverse, by.\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://places.site/article/ocean-rock-4-countries-fighting-over.md canonical: https://places.site/article/ocean-rock-4-countries-fighting-over datePublished: 2026-07-01 dateModified: 2026-07-01 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://places.site/author/simon-whistler publisher: Places image: "https://media.places.site/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/rO9WtKEiUtQ/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: 9498ccb40ddbfdcf579836baeb6ed3c3a503bd1639c7608d32d5da2c606b6402 tokens: 6497 summaryUrl: https://places.site/article/ocean-rock-4-countries-fighting-over.md.summary.md --- Rockall Bank is a tiny little rock in the ocean, indistinguishable from every other rock in the ocean you've ever seen before. And yet, hundreds of kilometres into the North Atlantic, it lies at the epicentre of a decades-long political dispute. On the line are fishing rights, minerals, sovereignty, bragging rights, and most of all, pride. Peeling back the curtain reveals overlapping territorial claims, United Nations conventions, maritime law, and geopolitical threats, between four nations who refuse to give an inch. And beyond it all, there's one bizarre reason that means it might never get resolved. You've heard of "making a mountain out of a molehill?" Well, this is how you make an island out of a rock. ## Sweet Rockall So, what is Rockall Bank? No, it's not a place to store your money, it's a teeny tiny islet, just off the West coast of the British Isles and slap bang in the North Atlantic. Depending on the tide, it juts out around 17 metres above sea level, and at 25 metres across, it's miniscule. If you happened to pass by it whilst sailing in the region, you wouldn't even look at it twice. It's the rump of a piece of land known as Rockall plateau, which only emerged from the ocean thanks to a volcanic eruption over 55 million years ago. And despite SpongeBob's claims that the pioneers used to ride these babies for miles, this one has stayed put since then. And let's be clear when we tell you that Rockall Bank has absolutely nothing going for it. No permanent population, no economic market, no arable land, there's barely enough space for a sizable flock of birds to call it home, let alone a community. As actual land goes, it is completely and utterly useless. It's a tiny scrap of zero significance in and of itself, otherwise totally inconsequential if it were placed almost anywhere else on planet earth. But that's the point. This tiny rock, because of where it is, has garnered significant controversy, with four separate countries who all want to call it their own. This dispute has been ongoing for seven decades, it may well go on for seven more. And when you look into the history of this tiny islet, it will start to tell you why. The first recorded mention of any nation even paying attention to Rockall Bank is in 1810, when the British Royal Navy first scrambled onto it to claim it for blighty. At least it wasn't big enough to draw borders across. Come 1861 was the first time that it was even ever considered in terms of the potential riches laying beneath it. On page four of the *Irish Times*, it was written that it could have resources, "surpassing in value the gold discoveries of California or Australia." This was because local anglers had long been pulling up tonnes and tonnes of valuable fish here for generations. If a country or an empire could one day take control over Rockall, they'd have exclusive rights to the waters around it for the bountiful number of fish it could produce, which would also make whichever country that owned it a pretty penny. There was even the possibility of oil and gas fields there as well, which of course would make any country who controlled it fabulously wealthy. In reality the disputes around Rockall aren't really centred around the rock at all, but the Rockall plateau it sits on. This underwater land includes the Hatton Bank, another formerly volcanic area to its North-West. The plateau is sometimes called the "Hatton-Rockall area" because of this. Now lots of countries in the region have sailed through these waters and fished in them throughout history. But the dispute over this long-traversed region wouldn't actually ramp up until almost 100 years after that *Irish Times* article. As in 1955, two British Royal Marines landed on Rockall and hoisted the British flag in an attempt to annex it (must have been a slow day at the office). It is even rumoured that the recently coronated Queen Elizabeth the 2nd ordered the annexation herself. But this was no longer the days of empire, when you could simply plant a flag, nail a plaque to the rockface and call it a day. We were now in the era of nations, of international cooperation and peaceful disputes that get resolved through diplomacy. As such, a number of countries took exception to the British claiming Rockall, and outright denied the British crown's claim to it. These were: longstanding thorn in Britain's side, the Republic of Ireland, as well as the Kingdom of Denmark and the Northwest Atlantic nation, the Republic of Iceland. The dispute, especially over the fishing rights in the region has existed ever since. But what actually are the claims the four countries in question have made? And how strong are their cases for ownership of Rockall bank to control those sweet cod, haddock and squid? ## Sedimental Value Ok, let's start with the UK, seeing as they made their claim first, and theirs is the basis for other nations renouncing the British one. Britain's claim started in 1955 with the plaque and the flag, but it intensified in the 1960s and 70s as other political disputes were kicking off between Ireland and the UK. This came to a head in 1972, when the UK passed the Island of Rockall Act in an attempt to formally take control over the rock. This law claimed the islet as part of Scottish territory, specifically under the jurisdiction of the County of Inverness. In reality, nothing changed. Now this gets even more complicated when you add in the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, a landmark international agreement that affects Britain's claim, but didn't come into force until 1994. So, generally under international law, a country's territorial waters extend up to 22 kilometres away from their coastline, and where there are overlaps there is either a median line or sharing agreement that administers joint jurisdiction. But Rockall falls well outside of that range for any of the countries claiming it, so what gives? Well, under the UN Convention, which we'll call "sea law" for short, countries are allowed to claim land up to 370 kilometres (that's 200 nautical miles for you "metric haters") out to sea, as long as no one else claims it. This is what's known as an "Extended Economic Zone" or "EEZ". This can be further extended up to almost 650 kilometres, but this is related exclusively to the seabed and their associated resources, or what's known as the "Extended Continental Shelf", not the water above it. So, whilst that would apply for things like oil and gas, the question about fishing rights would stick to the 370-kilometre range. International law is complicated, just know that countries can claim land further out to sea than the convention says. The basis of the UK's claim is that Rockall falls within the right range of its territory. The islands of St. Kilda on the Outer Hebrides are a little over 311 kilometres away. In fact, this is the closest landmass to Rockall Bank at all, and thus entitles the UK to a pretty strong claim over the islet and its territorial waters. Great Britain claims that the 22 kilometres surrounding Rockall itself are therefore within its own EEZ, as per maritime law, meaning that other countries should not be able to fish there. But there are a few holes in the British claim. Namely that in 1997, the UK officially downgraded it by calling Rockall Bank, "a rock". You see under sea law, "Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf." Which means that whilst the UK has often tried to enforce its EEZ, namely by bothering Irish fishing vessels near the rock, this 22-kilometre exclusion zone shouldn't apply under UN regulations, but the UK claims it anyway. What's more, St. Kilda is considered by most to be uninhabited other than the National Trust for Scotland staff who live there to protect the native seabird populations, as well as a permanent Ministry of Defence base. In 1930 it was evacuated and it hasn't had a real population or community living on it since, although people are welcome to visit. This calls into question the validity of using it for a point to measure from, and if St. Kilda's status in that regard was ever challenged or disqualified in a tribunal, the UK's valid territories might be further away than the other nations who claim Rockall and its surrounding area. As the UN's rules explicitly apply to "rocks which cannot sustain human habitation", there have been unsuccessful attempts to prove that Rockall is in fact an island and does not fall into that category. Back in 1985, former British SAS soldier Tom McClean spent 40 days on Rockall in an attempt to validate it as an island and make it a British territory. Others have since broken that record. Greenpeace activists protesting spent 42 days on Rockall in 1997, and in 2014 British explorer Nick Hancock occupied the rock for 45 days, the longest so far. In 1988, the UK and Ireland agreed to delineate the areas of the continental shelf between the two nations, which would give each of them one half of the plateau, but this doesn't take into account Iceland or Denmark's claims which reject this concept outright. Ireland's claim is a little more complicated. The Republic doesn't actually claim Rockall Bank itself, nor has the nation ever wanted to annex it, what it does claim is a stretch of the Rockall plateau owing to the proximity between it and the Irish mainland. Rockall Bank itself falls around 423 kilometres from the closest area of Ireland, Tory Island in County Donegal, but this distance is misleading as most of the plateau is well within range for Ireland's own claims under sea law, Rockall Bank itself is on the North-East quadrant. Ireland's former Foreign Affairs Minister Charlie Flanagan said on the matter that the consistent position of successive Irish governments is that rocks have no significance for establishing legal claims to minerals in the seabed or to the fishing rights around them. Another major facet of Ireland's territorial claims because of this standpoint, is the outright rejection of the UK's attempted annexation of the rock itself. Ireland's main concern being that the UK will use ownership of the rock as an excuse to claim exclusive rights to fishing in the region. Ireland argues that Irish fishermen have used the waters around Rockall to make their living for generations, and that they have a right to fish there on historical precedent, Iceland and Denmark will argue the same for their own nations' anglers. Ireland in effect doesn't care about owning some rock in the middle of the sea, they care about being able to fish where they always have, and what British claims over the rock would mean for that. But Ireland's own claims to the plateau have their own issues, as their claim extends far beyond the almost 650-kilometre limit traditionally set by the UNCLOS to include the whole lower half of the plateau. That could be an issue, especially as they lay no claim to Rockall itself unlike the Brits. For what it's worth though, Ireland are the only country to lay claim with a song which came from Irish band The Wolfe Tones called "Rock on Rockall". The chorus goes: > "Oh rock on Rockall, you'll never fall to Britain's greedy hands. > Or you'll meet the same resistance that you did in many lands. > May the seagulls rise and pluck your eyes and the water crush your shell. > And the natural gas will burn your ass and blow you all to hell." Extra style points for that one guys. Next is Denmark, and you'd rightly think, with Denmark more associated with Northern Europe than it is the Atlantic, how on earth has a country so far away got any real chance of claiming Rockall? Well, it's more a technicality that it's the Danish government are claiming it at all. Travel North from Scotland and you'll soon reach the Faroe Islands, which are ultimately self-governing, but like Greenland, are officially part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The Faroe Islands are a similar distance from the northeast edge of the plateau as Ireland is to its closest section. As such, Denmark, which has jurisdiction over the Faroe Islands' foreign policy and defence, is the one fighting this battle, even if the Faroese have self-governance over their fisheries and natural resources. Basically, foreign policy trumps fish, even if the foreign policy is about fish. Denmark don't just claim part of the plateau like Ireland or the rock like Britain however; they want the whole thing. In 1985, Danish Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen claimed the entirety of Rockall plateau, stating that the Faroe Islands exists as part of an underwater "microcontinent" formed by only the Rockall plateau and the Faroe Islands. How convenient… And if you look at a map of the area without water, this is kind of true, you can see a series of elevated land masses that connect Rockall to the Faroe Islands. But ultimately this claim is kind of a longshot. If you follow this logic, the geography of the region would place the Faroe Islands themselves under the jurisdiction of Iceland and not Denmark. And who's really to say where at what depth underwater makes one set of landmasses intimately connected and another totally irrelevant? With the Faroe Islands 590 kilometres from Rockall Bank itself, much further than the British claim, Denmark might struggle to make a compelling argument for their case over others. And then you have Iceland, which is, in the nicest way possible, a total basket case in terms of its claim to the Rockall-Hatton area. Much like Ireland, Iceland considers Rockall Bank itself to be irrelevant as far as delineations of EEZs and continental shelf areas are concerned. But, much like Denmark's claim, Iceland also claims pretty much the entire Rockall plateau, under the justification that it is an extension of its own continental shelf. This area goes from around 111 kilometres from the foot of the plateau all the way up to the top. To its fullest extent this is almost 1300 kilometres away from the nearest Icelandic landmass, a fraction of the distance of the British claim. But you see, Reykjavik had a plan for that. Iceland gets extra points in our book for throwing the most shade at the claims of other nations. Despite the long history of people inhabiting St. Kilda up until the 20th century, Iceland considers it to be, quoting directly here, "a miniscule, effectively uninhabited islet." Ouch. To further dismiss the British claim, it states that St. Kilda lies outside the British territorial sea limit, essentially arguing that St. Kilda is so far from the rest of Britain that it's not a fair basepoint to measure from when considering territorial claims. Iceland also has probably done the most work in terms of surveying the ocean floor to assess its claim. In total Iceland has surveyed 1.3 million square kilometres of it, an area roughly 13 times larger than the entirety of Iceland itself. So, if you get extra credit for effort, they might be in with a shot. But there are some major issues with Iceland's claim. For starters Iceland's claim is de facto the furthest of all four nations vying for ownership of Rockall Bank and its surrounding plateau, and it's not close, being 707 kilometres from Rockall Bank itself. The second reason however, is just bizarre. Iceland was the first Western nation to ratify the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1985. Yet despite that fact, Iceland itself, whilst stating that the only way to come to a consensus on ownership would be through UN mediation, has not submitted its claim to the UN, stating that doing so would compromise its claim over the continental shelf in the area. Whilst I'm no maritime lawyer, that does seem a lot like Iceland is afraid of the case going to the UN for arbitration because the result might end up not going its way. Basically, it's like four kids fighting over a toy, and Iceland doesn't want mum to decide who should get to play with it, because Reykjavik thinks she will force them all to share. That's not exactly a compelling defence. So, what was the UN to do about all this? What would mum say? Could it end this dispute once and for all? ## A Rock and a Hard Place All of this was supposed to come to a conclusion at the 24th session of the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) when between 2009 and 2010, Denmark, Ireland and the UK submitted their claims to the CLCS over the Rockall-Hatton zone, whilst Iceland did not. And the CLCS decided… well… nothing. And, it literally couldn't. You see, because Iceland hasn't actually submitted its claim to the CLCS over Rockall, the CLCS is unable to come to a consensus on the dispute. This is because it requires all disputing parties to have submitted their claims before a decision can be made, and that includes Iceland. So, the overall decision on who owns Rockall remains unresolved. Essentially, the UN was forced to leave the four countries to argue between themselves into maybe finding an agreement later down the line, but other than the UK and Ireland amending their 1988 agreement in 2014 to form one maritime boundary, no consensus has been found. The UK and Ireland still claim half each, the UK's half claims the rock itself, Iceland and Denmark each claim the whole thing, Ireland's main position is that historical rights should trump legal precedents to any exclusive access, and Iceland has stopped the whole process moving forward for fear of being proven wrong. Conferences in Dublin, London, Copenhagen and Reykjavik all sought to end the dispute throughout the 2000s and 2010s but they were not successful. Basically, it's a mess. And it only became more of a mess once the UK voted itself out of the European Union in 2016. Because whilst on paper this didn't change the dispute, in practice the UK became far more defensive over what it saw as its own fishing territories, which for it includes the 22 kilometres around Rockall Bank. The devolved Scottish and UK government have both been at loggerheads with the Irish as a result, and British ships have on occasion chased off Irish fishermen from the region. Scottish external affairs minister Fiona Hyslop warned the Irish Government in 2019 that it will deploy its vessels to protect Scottish fishing rights around Rockall. And we have to remember that this is more than about just fishing, as Rockall could be a source of rare earth minerals, as well as oil and gas. Although surveys of the area not finding many resources, the political implications of drilling, and the bad weather, have put anyone off from starting a full drilling operation. The UK government's 2023 estimate puts the predicted number of barrels of oil equivalent at around two and a half billion. But some estimates, such as from the Geological Society in 1999, claim there could be up to 75 billion barrels of oil under the plateau, and many others land somewhere in between. But if that's even remotely true, this is going to go from a slightly amusing maritime dispute to… whatever the opposite of that is VERY quickly. If it's on the upper side of that range, the US military might even show up ready to dole out some freedom. So, who's right? Well, it's complicated. Every nation claiming Rockall has at least a somewhat valid claim for the undersea territory, or at least a portion of it. Some countries are more aggressive with those claims than others (looking at you Iceland) and this is generally why we now get the UN to decide a winner on all of this. But there is no easy solution here. If you gave it all to Britain, for example, other nations might start claiming uninhabited islands are the point to measure from, and that opens up a whole can of worms. Split it between the UK and Ireland like they agreed in the 80s, and the Faroe Islands will feel unfairly treated, as it's barely further away from Rockall Bank than Ireland is. Throw them in the mix too and not only might the UK complain as both Ireland and the Faroe Islands are further away than St. Kilda, but you might have Iceland upset that the whole thing is theirs regardless and it's been left out. Honestly the best option might be for Rockall and its plateau to remain neutral. Nobody gets exclusivity, nobody gets the fish, the minerals, the oil, or the rock. But unless that's a formal decision from the UN, that won't stop these countries continuing to claim it regardless. And that's because it's actually not about some rock in the ocean at all, one could argue it's not even about the plateau and its resources. There's a reason that until the UN helps resolve it, no country will give an inch. Rockall Bank itself isn't exactly special, and all of these countries continue to fish in the surrounding waters to great success, and the natural resources that could be worth billions are unproven. But there's a legal, sovereign, and territorial principle that could be considered the thin end of the wedge for other issues among the disputing nations if any country is publicly seen to be giving in to another on the international stage. The territorial implications of Rockall are simply far more important than some boulder in the North Atlantic and its resources could ever be. Where does Rockall Bank go from here? Well until Iceland submits its claim, nowhere. But further things could complicate an already complex situation. Brexit succeeded in ramping up tensions over fishing, a one-day independent Faroe Islands would cause a stir, an independent Scotland could cause even more issues, as would the discovery of oil. But until that point, everyone seems content just to not let anyone else have it. As long as the fish keep flowing, of course. ## Key Takeaways - Rockall Bank is a tiny, insignificant rock in the North Atlantic, but its location makes it the center of a long-standing dispute. - The dispute involves the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland, each claiming rights over the Rockall Plateau and its resources. - The UK's claim is based on proximity to St. Kilda, but its status as a rock complicates its legal standing. - Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland have varying claims, with Iceland refusing to submit its claim to the UN, stalling resolution. - The dispute is more about sovereignty and principle than the rock itself, with potential resources adding complexity. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is Rockall Bank? Rockall Bank is a tiny islet located off the west coast of the British Isles in the North Atlantic. It is approximately 17 meters above sea level and 25 meters across. It is part of the Rockall plateau, which emerged from the ocean due to a volcanic eruption over 55 million years ago. ### Why is Rockall Bank significant despite its small size? Rockall Bank is significant due to its strategic location, which has led to disputes over fishing rights, minerals, sovereignty, and territorial claims among four nations: the UK, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. ### What are the main resources that countries are disputing over Rockall Bank? The main resources in dispute include fishing rights, potential oil and gas fields, and rare earth minerals. The Rockall plateau, which includes the Hatton Bank, is believed to have significant natural resources. ### What is the UK's claim to Rockall Bank? The UK claims Rockall Bank based on its proximity to the islands of St. Kilda, which are about 311 kilometers away. The UK argues that Rockall falls within its Extended Economic Zone (EEZ) under maritime law. However, the UK's claim has been weakened by its own designation of Rockall as a 'rock' in 1997, which under UN regulations means it cannot sustain an EEZ. ### What is Ireland's position on Rockall Bank? Ireland does not claim Rockall Bank itself but argues for a share of the Rockall plateau based on historical fishing rights and proximity. Ireland rejects the UK's annexation of Rockall and advocates for historical rights over legal precedents. ### Why does Denmark claim Rockall Bank? Denmark claims Rockall Bank through its jurisdiction over the Faroe Islands, which are part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Denmark argues that the Faroe Islands and Rockall Bank are part of an underwater 'microcontinent,' but this claim is considered a longshot due to geographical and legal complexities. ### What is Iceland's stance on Rockall Bank? Iceland claims the entire Rockall plateau, arguing that it is an extension of its continental shelf. Iceland has surveyed a large area of the ocean floor to support its claim but has not submitted its claim to the UN, fearing that arbitration might not go in its favor. ### What role does the UN play in the dispute over Rockall Bank? The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) is involved in the dispute, but it cannot make a decision because Iceland has not submitted its claim. The UN requires all disputing parties to submit their claims before a decision can be made. ### How has Brexit affected the dispute over Rockall Bank? Brexit has increased tensions over fishing rights, with the UK becoming more defensive about its territorial waters, including the area around Rockall Bank. This has led to confrontations between British and Irish fishing vessels. ### What are the potential future complications in the Rockall Bank dispute? Future complications could include the discovery of significant oil reserves, changes in the political status of the Faroe Islands or Scotland, and ongoing tensions over fishing rights. These factors could further escalate the dispute. ## Sources - [Original Places video: The Ocean Rock That 4 Countries are Fighting Over...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rO9WtKEiUtQ) - [Hero image source](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Meeting_of_the_North_Atlantic_Council_at_the_level_of_Heads_of_State_and_Government_-_2025_NATO_Summit_in_The_Hague.jpg) by Estonian Foreign Ministry / openverse, by. ## Related Coverage