International Court of Justice Upholds Australia’s Bid to Ban Japanese Whaling in Antarctica
ANIMAL RIGHTS - VEGETARIANISM, 31 Mar 2014
Andrew Darby – The Sydney Morning Herald
Australia takes Japan to The Hague: Tokyo is accused of exploiting a legal loophole.
Photo: AP
31 Mar 2014 – The International Court of Justice has 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.
Mr Tomka said in The Hague that the court was persuaded that Japan had conducted a program for logistical and political considerations, rather than scientific research.
The court unanimously found it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and by 12 votes to four found that special permits granted by Japan in connection with the program, JARPA II, did not fall within the IWC convention.
It therefore ordered that Japan revoke any scientific permit under JARPA II and refrain from granting any further permits.
Prominent Australians welcomed the ICJ’s decision.
Case launched in 2010
Australia sought an order from the International Court of Justice to stop the Japanese whale hunt in a case launched by the Rudd government in 2010.
The case began as tortuous diplomatic negotiations for Japan to phase out its Antarctic hunt broke down in the International Whaling Commission.
Other anti-whaling nations, including the United States, warned Australia against going to the court to fight the hunt which kills hundreds of whales each summer.
Washington’s IWC Commissioner, Monica Medina, said that it was an uncertain gamble on whales’ lives.
“This is a ‘bet-the-whales’ case,” Ms Medina said then.
But a series of opinions by legal expert panels gathered by international wildlife conservation groups encouraged the then environment minister, Peter Garrett.
He argued strongly inside the Rudd government for taking on Japan, WikiLeaks documents showed.
When the case came to hearing in the Hague last June, it hinged on the court’s view of the IWC convention’s clause letting any member nation conduct its own scientific whaling program, despite a global moratorium on commercial whaling.
The Australian government’s counsel, Bill Campbell, QC, told the 21 judges they had an important opportunity to decide for the world what did, and did not, constitute scientific activity.
“In short, Japan seeks to cloak its ongoing commercial whaling in the lab coat of science,” Mr Campbell said.
“It simply is not science.”
Japan currently issues its fleet with a scientific permit for a quota of up to 935 minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpbacks, with the humpback quota currently “suspended”.
Then attorney-general Mark Dreyfus said the case was not about an Australian “civilising mission” against Japan.
“This case is about one country’s failure to comply with its legal obligations not to conduct commercial whaling,” Mr Dreyfus said.
Japan claimed a clear and indisputable right under the convention to conduct its scientific program.
“Australia has pursued an express policy of using the IWC, against its stated purpose, to ban all whaling,” Japan’s counsel, Payam Akhavan, said.
“It has politicised science in order to impose Australian values on Japan in disregard for international law,” Mr Akhavan said.
The decision comes with the whaling fleet under increased pressure from conservationist direct action that brought serious conflict to the far south – much of it in waters off the Australian Antarctic Territory.
However, despite this pressure from Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, the whalers killed 10,439 minkes and 15 fin whales under scientific permit from the 1986 moratorium until the end of the 2013 season, according to the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Last season’s kill figure has not yet been released.
Established in 1945, the ICJ is the UN’s highest judicial body and the only one of five principal UN bodies not located in New York.
The ICJ’s judgements are binding and cannot be appealed.
– with AFP
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Read more
Click here to go to the current weekly digest or pick another article:
ANIMAL RIGHTS - VEGETARIANISM: