83

The following image is circulating on LinkedIn:

Photograph of an island, credited with 'via 9gag.com', and text (quoted below)

There is an island which is disputed territory between Canada and Denmark. The militaries of both countries periodically visit to remove the other guy's flag and leave a bottle of Danish schnapps or Canadian whiskey.
This is what happens when nice countries fight.

So are the following statements true?

  1. There is a disputed island between Denmark and Canada.
  2. Militaries of both countries periodically visit the island to remove flags.
  3. The militaries exchange gifts after removing the opposing party's flag.
unor
  • 1,143
  • 9
  • 23
JonathanReez
  • 10,917
  • 11
  • 51
  • 102
  • 21
    I've always thought this was one of the more charming pieces of internet lore. I am glad to find out that it is mainly based on facts. – JasonR Jul 12 '16 at 15:39
  • 1
    If you want bizarre resolutions of such disputes, see the border of the tiny island of [Märket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rket) between Sweden and Finland – Henry Jul 12 '16 at 20:07
  • 2
    Both countries are part of NATO and fought in Afghanistan and Iraq. So the last sentence is a mischaracterisation. –  Jul 13 '16 at 01:02
  • Neither country has anything to gain by asserting its claim on a small uninhabited island in the arctic using military force. It'll just waste time, money, and other resources as well as severely weaken their relationship. Really no good would come from it other than a large mound of dirt. – PC Luddite Jul 13 '16 at 04:25
  • 6
    The picture's claim is wrong because Whisky is spelled Whisky in Canada, not Whiskey. :-) – Erwin Bolwidt Jul 13 '16 at 05:50
  • I'd rather be skeptic about the nice country claim. denmark aswell has a pretty ugly history about ways to fight, like drowning knights in their heavy armors by breaking dams. – Zaibis Jul 13 '16 at 09:25
  • 7
    @Zaibis Most countries have some ugly things in their past. That usually doesn't hinder them from becoming 'nice' countries later on. – Mast Jul 13 '16 at 10:39
  • @Mast: Well, my point was more about, just beeing in one thing nice isn't what makes a country becoming nice. I would even bet I could dig up something nice about syrias army, but would that make syria a country representative of fair and modern warfare? I doubt so. – Zaibis Jul 13 '16 at 11:19
  • 1
    @Zaibis: Out of curiosity - what are you referencing when you talk about drowning knights? It sounds like an interesting story, but not one I've heard. In regards to naughty or nice, it is certainly subjective. Compared to Vlad the Impaler, I am 'nice', but compared to Nicolas Cage, I'll be getting coal in my stockings. Unfortunately, the only authority on niceness only has rules regarding children. And even there there are some controversy regarding his location. Canadians think (incorrectly) that we resides on the North Pole, while all Danes know we lives on Greenland. – Troels Larsen Jul 13 '16 at 11:37
  • @TroelsLarsen: I sadly couldn't find any refference yet. I just remember it was probably somewhere between 1550 ~ 1650 and could have been due to the 30 years war. But by anyeffort I wasn't able to look it up for you. if you find something I'd be glad you would share it with me. – Zaibis Jul 13 '16 at 12:44

1 Answers1

73

Yes, yes, and maybe. The island in question is Hans Island and is disputed territory between Canada and Denmark due to some historical quirks,

According to World Atlas, Hans Island is located in the middle of the 22-mile wide Nares Strait, which separates Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, from Canada. Due to international law, all countries have the right to claim territory within 12 miles of their shore.

As such, Hans Island is technically located in both Danish and Canadian waters. World Atlas notes that the island was decided to be Danish territory by the Permanent Court of International Justice of the League of Nations in 1933.

However, as the League of Nations fell apart in the 1930s and was then replaced by the United Nations, the ruling on the status of Hans Island carries little to no weight.

It is true that the militaries of the respective claimants visit the island and both leave their national flag and schnapps or whiskey it is unclear if these are meant as gifts or as territorial markers.

In 1984, Canadian troops made a fateful voyage to Hans Island. In addition to planting Canada's flag in the rock, they also left behind a bottle of Canadian whisky. Just one week later, a Danish official visited the island, replacing Canada's flag with Denmark's and replacing the whisky with a bottle of Danish brandy. He also upped the ante a bit, leaving a note that wryly welcomed visitors to Denmark.

"[W]hen Danish military go there, they leave a bottle of schnapps," Danish diplomat Peter Taksøe-Jensen tells WorldAtlas. "And when Canadian military forces come there, they leave a bottle of Canadian Club and a sign saying 'Welcome to Canada.'"

Kevin
  • 131
  • 6
rjzii
  • 16,884
  • 4
  • 92
  • 102
  • 31
    "*As such, Hans Island is technically located in both Danish and Canadian waters.*" That isn't the way it works at all, which rather devalues that source. If it's Danish then Hans Island is part of the reference for measuring the extent of Danish waters; and if it's Canadian then it's part of the reference for measuring the extent of Canadian waters. Since the separation between the coastlines of the two nations is less than 24 nautical miles, the default border would be drawn at the midpoint between the coastlines. – Peter Taylor Jul 12 '16 at 16:06
  • 17
    @PeterTaylor I think the point being made is that _while the island was undiscovered_ the (supposed) maritime boundary ran through it, providing a basis for both countries to claim the land. I'm also not sure that it becomes "part of the reference" - nearby Franklin Island on the Greenland side doesn't seem to affect things. – Random832 Jul 12 '16 at 16:15
  • 6
    Note that the "gifts" part is not actually part of the claim in the image. The image doesn't say anything about the intent behind leaving the beverages. – user2357112 Jul 12 '16 at 16:22
  • 1
    @user2357112 Note the full question description, "The militaries exchange gifts after removing the opposing party's flag" the asker wanted to know if it was true. – rjzii Jul 12 '16 at 16:31
  • 5
    @rjzii: It may be part of the question, but that's an error on the part of the asker, not a claim actually made by the source that prompted the question. It's important to distinguish between the image's claim and the asker's interpretations. – user2357112 Jul 12 '16 at 16:39
  • @user2357112 Sounds like a question you should take to Meta since it appears your objection is more to site policy as opposed this question and answer. – rjzii Jul 12 '16 at 16:41
  • 5
    @user2357112 That's implied by the "That's what happens when nice countries fight" bit. – JonathanReez Jul 12 '16 at 17:13
  • 30
    @JonathanReez Personally, I just read that part to mean that they engage in light-hearted pranks rather than, say, building an airbase on it, trying to ram boats from the other country who get near it, shooting at people from the other country when they get near it, etc. I suppose it could mean either, though. – reirab Jul 12 '16 at 18:33
  • 29
    I just needed to add that this isn't a joke. As a Canadian I can tell you that the Canadian military is meaning to appear extraordinarily hostile, because they are not leaving letters apologizing for the claim at the site. I'm on the edge of my seat, who knows where this is headed!? –  Jul 13 '16 at 06:00
  • As long as there isn't any oil or natural gas nearby they can fool around :-D. – WalyKu Jul 13 '16 at 09:05
  • I just wonder what would happen if forces from both countries would meet there at the same time. Would they drink together? – okolnost Jul 13 '16 at 12:02
  • @okolnost. Yes. this is all about maintaining a presence to keep the claim alive. "Our army was here, we left evidence, it's ours." The claim will be settled politically, if at all. But if they were to not show up one year, or for several years, the other side could then make a case that the claim was abandoned. – Chris Cudmore Jul 13 '16 at 12:59
  • 1
    @Random832, the island was discovered no later than the 1870s. Back then, I think everyone operated on a 3-mile basis (the cannon-shot rule), although I'd have to find sources to specifically confirm that for Denmark and Canada. With respect to Franklin Island, I did say "*default*". It appears that in this case the boundary is delimited by a specific bilateral treaty, which deliberately fails to rule on Han Island. But that (the low-water line of) islands in general are part of the baseline seems to be the plain reading of UNCLOS. – Peter Taylor Jul 13 '16 at 13:58
  • @PeterTaylor So after finally establishing the island as their territory, Denmark could by that logic also claim Canada was part of theirs (or vice versa)? – Tobias Kienzler Jul 13 '16 at 14:27
  • @TobiasKienzler, I have no idea how you get that conclusion. International law on territorial waters, however generally "*territorial waters*" is interpreted, works from territorial claims to aquatic claims, not vice versa. – Peter Taylor Jul 13 '16 at 15:23
  • 2
    @PeterTaylor Well if the island can be claimed, it becomes territory. And then Canada is less than 12 miles away and thus could also be claimed. I _am_ carrying this law to the extreme, of course. Then again, I don't exactly approve all this territorial claiming moronity anyway... – Tobias Kienzler Jul 13 '16 at 17:41
  • 1
    @TobiasKienzler Canada is clearly part of the territory of the United States. The United States will never surrender an inch of sovereignty. – emory Jul 13 '16 at 22:18
  • 1
    @emory Nah, there's no sea in between so the law doesn't apply ;) – Tobias Kienzler Jul 14 '16 at 05:52
  • WorldAtlas uses the image from Wikimedia Commons without proper attribution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HansIsland.png, it is under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported. The meme on 9gag forgets the attribution as well. – Debora Weber-Wulff Nov 06 '16 at 22:23
  • The Permanent Court of International Justice did not make a ruling about Hans Island in 1933. [It did make rulings](https://www.icj-cij.org/en/pcij-series-ab) about Eastern Greenland ([Erik the Red's Land](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red%27s_Land)) and South Eastern Greenland in a dispute between Denmark and Norway, but Hans Island is near the west coast of Greenland and Canada was not a party to the case – Henry Apr 20 '20 at 07:23