International Court of Justice orders Japan to suspend its Antarctic whaling program

31 March 2014 by

japan-whaling-e1270007253119The International Court of Justice has today upheld Australia’s bid to ban Japan’s Antarctic whaling program.

ICJ president Peter Tomka said the court concluded the scientific permits granted by Japan for its whaling program were not scientific research as defined under International Whaling Commission rules.  The Court had found, by a majority of twelve votes, that Japan had conducted a program for logistical and political considerations, rather than scientific research. There is of course no appeal against an ICJ ruling and Japan has officially said that it will comply with the ruling.

The following is based on the ICJ’s press release.

Findings of the Court

First, the Court dismissed Japan’s argument that the Court had no jurisdiction over the dispute, submitted by Australia.  The only reason why Court would not have such jurisdiction was if the dispute concerned the exploitation of any disputed area of a maritime zone. Since there was no maritime delimitation dispute between the Parties in the Antarctic Ocean and since the current dispute was only about the compatibility or not of Japan’s whaling activities with its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the Court concluded that Japan’s objection to the Court’s jurisdiction could not be upheld.

In relation to the purpose of the whaling mission, the Court found that the question of whether the killing, taking and treating of whales pursuant to a requested special permit was indeed “for purposes of scientific research” could not depend simply on that perception of the state responsible for granting a whaling permit.

The Court then went on to consider how to ascertain whether a programme’s use of lethal methods was really “for the purposes of” scientific research. Looking at Japan’s decisions regarding the use of lethal methods, the Court found no evidence that it had undertaken any studies of the feasibility or practicability of non-lethal methods. The Court also found no evidence that Japan examined whether it would be feasible to combine a smaller lethal take and an increase in non-lethal sampling as a means to achieve its own programme’s research objectives.

After an extensive examination of the determination of species-specific sample sizes, the Court noted that the evidence provided by Japan under its whaling program provided “scant analysis and justification” for the underlying decisions that generated the overall sample size, raising further concerns about whether the design of the program, “JARPA II” was “reasonable in relation to achieving its stated research objectives”.

There were additional aspects of Japan’s whaling program  which cast further doubt on its characterization as a programme for purposes of scientific research:

  1. the open-ended time frame of the programme,
  2. its limited scientific output to date, and
  3. the lack of co-operation between JARPA II and other domestic and international research programmes in the Antarctic Ocean.

Taken as a whole, the Court considered that JARPA II involved activities that could broadly be considered as scientific research, but that “the evidence does not establish that the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives”.

The Court therefore concluded that the special permits granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in connection with JARPA II were not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to the Regulation of Whaling Convention.

Furthermore, the Court found that Japan had violated

  1. the moratorium on commercial whaling
  2. the factory ship moratorium in each of the seasons during which fin whales were killed
  3. the prohibition on commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

Remedies

Since JARPA II is an ongoing programme under which whales continue to be taken and killed, measures that went beyond declaratory relief were warranted. The Court therefore ordered that Japan revoke any extant authorisation, permit or licence to kill, treat or take whales under the JARPA II programme.

Comment

This is the first time that the ICJ has made a definitive ruling against whaling operations and it is rightly welcomed as a significant victory by conservation groups. It is also the first time that Japan has been a respondent at the ICJ, being accused of being in breach of the moratorium on commercial whaling. However, this battle may be won but the war still rages, since this ruling is restricted to the Antarctic whale sanctuary. Japan also has an ongoing “scientific whaling” program in the North Pacific, as well as commercial whaling in their  territorial waters. And the ICRW does not cover the killing small cetaceans, such as the dolphin drive-hunt fishery depicted in the documentary The Cove.

Whaling isn’t even the most serious threat to whale populations, just the most visible. More lethal is the effect of pollution and noise on whales, as well depletion of populations by-catches and ship strikes. But it is important that a respected international court has called Japan out on their dubious claims for the legitimacy of their scientific research program, particularly at times when a plethora of other methods exist for examining such data.  It should be possible for researchers to collect shed skin from whales, blubber and decal matter, and samples that whales exhale through their blowholes. DNA sampling would then reveal all the scientists need to know about the animals’ own DNA, contaminant or pathogen loads.  According to Professor Chris Parsons at George Mason University, quoted on the Southern Fried Science Explainer Blog,

 The ending of so-called scientific whaling really will be zero loss to science. Much of the data they were collecting was pretty much already known, most of the rest could be gathered by non-lethal means, and the methods that were being used were often controversial and heavily criticized by leading whale researchers”

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

 

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: