496 Chapter 5
threatened that it would seize the customs house—a crucial source of income for
Morocco—as collateral. The crisis ended on June 24 when Perdicaris and his stepson
were released. Morocco had relented to almost all of Raisuni’s demands with the
exception of allowing the United States and Great Britain to guarantee the terms of
the agreement (and Morocco reneged on the deal in a little over a year). The United
States pulled out of Morocco’s waters on June 28, after France gave assurances that it
would monitor the area to secure peace.
Coding changes: Dropped from the dispute: 220 France. Start Date changed from
May 31, 1904.
2 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA/620 LIBYA
MID#2950
Dispute Number: 2950
Date(s): March 21, 1973
Participants: 620 Libya/2 United States of America
Outcome (and Settlement): Unclear (None)
Fatalities: None
Narrative: Two Libyan fighters attacked an American C-130 transport over the
Mediterranean. The transport was not hit.
MID#3021
Dispute Number: 3021
Date(s): July 27, 1979 to August 9, 1979
Participants: 2 United States of America/620 Libya
Outcome (and Settlement): Unclear (None)
Fatalities: None
Narrative: On August 9, 1979, the Carter administration gave the go-ahead to naval
commanders to sail anywhere up to three miles off the coast of Argentina, Burma,
and Libya. Historically, the United States recognized maritime claims only up to three
miles off the coast of the claimant. This policy was seen as a support mechanism for
free trade. Several countries in the international system, however, had made claims on
maritime boundaries up to 12 miles off their coast (Argentina, Burma, and Libya had
12-mile boundary claims off of their coasts), and a couple up to 200 miles. The United
States sought to challenge these claims by actively opposing them. These maritime
territories policies are not to be confused with fishing rights policies, which the United
States observed up to 200-mile coastal limits. Ironically enough, this news story broke
during the annual UN Conference on the Law of the Sea. Many countries criticized
this new decision by the United States as “contrary to customary international law”
and “inconsistent with the prevailing understanding at the UN Conference on the Law
of the Sea which has recognized the validity of such practice [12 mile coastal claims].”
The US response did not deny the accusations of the news story, but called them “dis-
torted” and contended that all activities of the United States in the oceans are “fully in
keeping with its long-standing policy and with international law.”