you're reading...
PUBLICATIONS, Structural and Cohesion Policies

International Court of Justice rules on Japanese Antarctic whaling programme

The United Nations International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on 31 March 2014 that Japan’s large-scale whaling programme in the Antarctic was in breach of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, as well as other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine environment.

International Conventions on Whaling

Whaling is regulated by the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (“ICRW”). In 1982 the International Whaling Commission adopted a “moratorium” on whaling for commercial purposes. Having joined ICRW in 1951, Japan objected to the moratorium initially, but subsequently withdrew its objection. To justify its continued whale hunts, Japan claimed it was necessary to collect data to ensure sustainable use of marine resources.

Judgment

Whale killing

© maconga

Australia initiated the ICJ proceedings in 2010, arguing that Japan was in fact performing commercial whaling in disguise. According to the judgment, Japan’s programme was not reasonable “for purposes of scientific research”.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) did not rule on the legality of whaling. It interpreted the exemption “for purposes of scientific research”. According to Article VIII of the ICRW any contracting government may grant a special permit authorizing the killing or capture of whales for the purposes of scientific research. The respective governments also decide themselves the number and conditions for granting such permits.

The ICJ found that the Second Phase of the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic (“JARPA II”) could be considered “scientific research”. This programme concerns the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary around Antarctica, a large reserve established by the International Whaling Commission.

The ICJ then examined whether the programme’s design and implementation were reasonable in relation to achieving its stated research objectives. Examining Japan’s decisions regarding the use of lethal methods, the ICJ did not find evidence that Japan had seriously studied using non-lethal methods either when setting the JARPA II sample sizes or afterwards when the programme maintained the same sample size targets. The ICJ also saw no evidence that Japan examined the possibility to kill fewer whales and increase non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve JARPA II’s research objectives.

The judgment obliges Japan to revoke any existing authorisation, permit or licence granted in relation to JARPA II, and to grant no further permits in pursuance of that programme.

Japanese activities and reactions

Japan has been widely criticised for using the legal loophole that allows whaling to continue in order to gather scientific data. Since 2005 only two research papers have been published, using data from only a tiny number of the whales actually killed. During this time, some 3600 minke whales have been killed, with meat being sold to restaurants or shops ostensibly to finance the costs of the whaling programme. However, consumption has been decreasing and it is suggested that the judgment might give the government an impetus to scale down the industry.

So far this year Japan has hunted 251 minke whales in Antarctic waters. Japan has confirmed that it is cancelling the second part of its Antarctic programme for 2014. It will scale back the mission and review other details for whaling to be resumed in Antarctic waters in late 2015. The committee on fisheries in Japan’s National Diet has urged the government to prepare a new whaling programme that could be acceptable under the research exception.. Japan also has another whaling programme for the Northern Pacific Ocean, which falls under an ICRWC provision allowing “small scale indigenous whaling”.

Iceland and Norway

Since Iceland and Norway no longer claim to be carrying out research but hunt whale meat for commercial purposes, the ICJ’s ruling has no immediate consequences for them. In 1993 Norway resumed commercial whaling under the objection it lodged in 1982 and advocates settingcatch limits for stocks capable of withstanding harvesting. Iceland has resumed its commercial whaling practice under its reservation to the 2006 moratorium. However, Icelandic legislators have proposed a study on the economic contributions of whaling and, in turn, on losses for tourism and international standing. The US government has declared that it would take measures against Iceland over its whaling practices.

NGO positions

Greenpeace, which has sent anti-whaling expeditions on several occasions, claims that the market for whale meat in Japan is collapsing and that the Antarctic hunt has not been profitable for a long time.

Whale and Dolphin Conservation, a charity dedicated to the protection of whales and dolphinshas welcomed the ICJ judgment.

 

Discussion

3 thoughts on “International Court of Justice rules on Japanese Antarctic whaling programme

  1. 8hrsvyc.ga http://8hrsvyc.ga/ Ego suis très satisfaite, indulgence.

    Like

    Posted by 8hrsvyc.ga | October 11, 2018, 05:38

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: Is Japan whaling for sashimi or science? | iDIVhER - December 2, 2015

  2. Pingback: Japanese Whale reseach non-existent | Barnhard Blog - April 28, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Download the EPRS App

EPRS App on Google Play
EPRS App on App Store
What Europe Does For You
EU Legislation in Progress
Topical Digests
EPRS Podcasts

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,033 other followers

Disclaimer and Copyright statement

The content of all documents (and articles) contained in this blog is the sole responsibility of the author and any opinions expressed therein do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. It is addressed to the Members and staff of the EP for their parliamentary work. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorised, provided the source is acknowledged and the European Parliament is given prior notice and sent a copy.

For a comprehensive description of our cookie and data protection policies, please visit Terms and Conditions page.

Copyright © European Union, 2014-2019. All rights reserved.

%d bloggers like this: