Australia V. Japan : New Zealand Intervening

Editorial5Australia V. Japan : New Zealand Intervening

Jaya Kathju

Japan has historically been whaling ever since the twelfth century. But it started whaling at an industrial scale around the 1890s. Japan’s commercial whaling continued till the moratorium on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission came into effect in 1986. But the Institute of Cetacean Research has been conducting whaling in-spite of the fact that IWC members oppose it.1 It is a well-known fact that whale meat got from this whaling is sold at shops and restaurants.2 Whaling is a source of major conflict between pro-whaling and anti-whaling nations. Anti-whaling nations consider Japan’s whaling not only harmful to the environment but also a disguise for commercial whaling.3 Japan contends that its whaling is sustainable and is carried on for the purpose of scientific research.4

On May 31, 2010 Australia filed an application in the International Court of Justice against Japan regarding its continued pursuit of whaling under the second phase of Japanese Whale Research Program under special permit in the Antarctic (‘JAPRA II’) which is against its obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). On November 20, 2012 New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention in the case. In its declaration, New Zealand stated that “as a party to the Convention, it has a direct interest in the construction that might be placed upon the Convention by the Court in its decision in these proceedings”. Japan contested the Court’s jurisdiction over the dispute, arguing that it falls within reservation (b) of Australia’s declaration, which Japan invokes on the basis of reciprocity. Arguments were also raised regarding the alleged violations of international obligations under the ICRW. The detailed arguments have been discussed below.

ICRW and IWC

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling was created in Washington in 1946 to “provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry.5 Based on the Agreement of 1937 and the continuing Protocols to that Agreement in 1938 and 1945, the ICRW led to the creation of the International Whaling Commission in 1949. It consists of the guidelines for the international regulation of coastal and pelagic whaling. Japan joined IWC in 1951.6

Research Whaling by Japan

In 1986, Japan introduced a proposal before the IWC and itself issued a special permit to take 825 minke whales and 50 sperm whales every year for 10 years. Though IWC rejected Japan’s research proposal, Japan continued whaling. In 1987, the IWC adopted a resolution, directing Japan not to proceed until conflict over its research proposal was resolved. On February 14, 1988, a similar resolution was also adopted recommending Japan not to proceed. In 1988, Japan killed the first minke whale in the Antarctic under the self-issued whaling permit. USA responded by cutting off Japanese fishing privileges in US waters under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment.10

Since then, Japan has been conducting whaling research programs in the North Pacific (JARPN 1994-1999 and JARPN II 2000-present) and in the Antarctic (JAPRA 1988-2005 and JAPRA II 2005- present). IWC has issued at least 19 resolutions criticizing Japan for its failure to meet its obligations and asking it to stop issuing permits.11

JAPRA

Japan has been operating a scientific whaling program in the Antarctic region for 24 years. The research program took place near Antarctica. The JAPRA program started with approval from the International Whaling Commission in 1987.

In 1997 the IWC Scientific Committee reviewed the JAPRA program. The Committee disagreed on whether lethal methods were necessary. Later, the Commission made note of the fact that the catches took place in the IWC established Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and that improving management of whaling in a sanctuary is unnecessary. The 2007-1 resolution on JAPRA is one of the many directing Japan by majority vote to suspend its lethal research.12

JAPRA II

JAPRA was extended in 2004-05 as JAPRA II. Its main objective was to estimate the number of Antarctic minke whales. On this pretext, over 6,700 minke whales have been killed till now.13 The current JAPRA II permit is for 850 (+ or – 10%) Antarctic minke whales, 50 fin whales and 50 humpback whales annually. But till now, Japan has refrained from taking humpback whales.14

Conflict over the value of research and the use of lethal methods continues in both the Scientific Committee and the Commission. In 2005 and 2007, the Commission passed resolutions by majority directing Japan to cease all lethal research in JAPRA II.15

Australia’s Reaction

On June 1st, 2010, Australia instituted proceedings against the Government of Japan in the International Court of Justice. Its allegations were that Japan under the ambit of the second phase of Japanese Whale Research Programs Special Permit in the Antarctic (JAPRA II) is breaching its obligations under International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as ICRW). The basis of jurisdiction of the Court was the “Optional Clause Declaration” of Article 36(2) of the Statute of International Court of Justice. It provides as under:16

“The State Parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: the interpretation of a treaty; any question of International Law;

The existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.”

All the three countries – Japan, Australia and New Zealand have made the Optional Clause Declarations. Australia contended that there was a dispute between Japan and Australia regarding the interpretation or application of the provisions of ICRW.

Japan contested the jurisdiction of the court on the ground of Australia’s reservation to its Declaration:

“(b) any dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones,… or arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation.”

The Court did not accept Japan’s contention as the dispute was not regarding maritime delimitation.

On November 20th, 2012, New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention, contending that it had a direct interest in the matter. On February 6th, 2013, the Court declared the Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand as admissible. Then, New Zealand submitted written observations, as directed by the Court.

In a judgement dated 31 March 2014, the International Court of Justice found that Japan’s whaling programme in the Antarctic (JARPA II) is not in accordance with three provisions of the Schedule to the ICRW.

The official body of Japan, under the auspices of which the Whaling Program was carried on – Institute of Cetacean Research (ICR), claimed that it had produced 130 peer-reviewed research articles, or an average of 5 articles per year since 1988. This may sound like a lot of research. But ICR included all the published research in this figure and not just the studies done as a part of the lethal program. As a part of the research done using the whales killed, Japan was able to show only two peer-reviewed papers.17

The Court said that neither of these papers addressed the stated objectives of JAPRA II – monitoring the Antarctic ecosystem, modelling competition among whale species, detailing temporal and special changes in stock structure, and improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks.

Furthermore, the study revealed that the amount of krill in minke whale stomachs had declined by almost a third over the 24 year long period.18 The paper studied close to 8,500 whales, including 1,828 whales from JAPRA II.

Japan’s official reaction was that of disappointment and regret that the Court ruled that JAPRA II by Japan did not fall within Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the ICRW. Japan said that it would abide by the judgement of the Court and place importance on the international legal order and the rule of law as a basis of the international community.

On September 4th, 2014, Japan declared that it will resume Antarctic Whaling in 2015 as per the revised research program that restricts whaling only to minke whales. Japan’s Fisheries Agency is working on a revised program to be submitted to the International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee.

The issue has been of major concern since Japan started its scientific research program JAPRA. This project intends to cover the major environmental concerns of the Whaling Program. The main points are:

Jurisdiction of ICJ

Australia had invoked the court’s jurisdiction on the basis of the declarations made by Japan and Australia under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of ICJ. Japan contested the jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of the reservation (b) of Australia’s declaration, which Japan invoked on the basis of reciprocity. This reservation excludes the jurisdiction of the court in “any dispute concerning or relating to the delimitation of maritime zones, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, or arising out of, concerning, or relating to the exploitation of any disputed area of or adjacent to any such maritime zone pending its delimitation.

However, the existence of a dispute concerning maritime delimitation is required according to both parties of the reservation. Since, both the parties acknowledged that the dispute was not about maritime delimitation, the ICF went on to examine whether JAPRA II involves the exploitation of an area which is the subject of a dispute relating to delimitation or of an area adjacent to it. The whaling activities under JAPRA II took place in the maritime zone claimed by Australia as relating to the asserted Australian Antarctic Territory or in adjacent area, and taking of whales, could be viewed as exploitation of a maritime area, even if it is for scientific research. But Japan asserted that Australia does not have sovereign rights over the area mentioned in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Japan’s questioning those maritime entitlements did not render these maritime areas under the dispute as between parties. The reservation was not applicable, since the parties had no overlapping claims to maritime area. Furthermore, the nature and extent of the concerned maritime zones were considered to be irrelevant to the dispute, which was about whether Japan had breached its obligation under the ICRW. Therefore, it was held that the Court had jurisdiction over the matter.19

Whether Japan Breached its Obligations under the Convention

ICRW was preceded by the 1931 Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which banned the killing of a few categories of whales and mandated the licensing of whaling operations by vessels of State parties, but did not address to the overall increase in catch levels; and the 1937 International Agreement for the Regulation of Whaling which prohibited whaling of certain whales, designated seasons for different kinds of whaling, closed some geographical areas for whaling and imposed regulations on the industry. It also banned the giving of Special Permits for whaling to nationals of the contracting States.

ICRW was adopted on December 2nd, 1946 and entered into force for Australia on November 10th, 1948 and for Japan on April 21st, 1951. New Zealand ratified it on August 2nd, 1949, but later withdrew on October 3rd, 1968, and adhered to it again with effect from June 15th, 1976.

Compared to its predecessors, ICRW does not contain substantive provisions for the regulation of conservation of whales. These are found in the Schedule, which is an essential part of the Convention, subject to amendments. An amendment is binding on a party, unless it objects to it.

The Commission established a Scientific Committee, in 1950, which reviews and comments on special permits before they are issued by the contracting States to their nationals for the purpose of scientific research. When JAPRA II was proposed in 2005, the concerned guidelines were collected in a document entitled “Annex Y: Guidelines for the Review of Scientific Permit Proposals.” The current guidelines were put in a document titled “Annex P: Process for the Review of Special Permit Proposals and Research Results from Existing and Completed Permits.”

Australia alleged that since JAPRA II was not a program for the purposes of scientific research under Article VIII of the Convention, Japan breached three substantive obligations under the Schedule:

–    To adhere to the moratorium putting zero catch limits for whaling for commercial purposes (para 10 (e))
–    To not undertake commercial whaling of fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (para 7 (b))
–    To respect the moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached for factory ships. (para 10 (d))

Australia had also alleged that Japan breached the procedural requirements for the proposed scientific permits according to paragraph 30 of the Schedule. Japan contested all the allegations. Japan argued that none of the provisions regarding substantive obligations applied to JAPRA II, as it was undertaken for the purposes of scientific research and hence was exempted under Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention. Japan also contested the breach of procedural requirements stated in the Schedule.

Interpretation of Article VIII, Paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling

As per the Article of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention, any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take, and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.”

According to this Article, special permit may be granted by a country for whaling, if it is being done for the purpose of scientific research. But then, certain restrictions on the methods have to be put on it. The Court segregated the terms “for the purposes of” and “scientific research” to give it a cumulative effect. To see whether the object of this paragraph has been met, the Court examined the lethal methods adopted by JAPRA II.

Australia’s Arguments

Australia argued that JARPA II did not fall under this provision, and that Japan was thus in breach of three substantive obligations under the Schedule – an integral part of the ICRW:20 ‘The obligation to respect the moratorium setting zero catch limits for the killing of whales from all stocks for commercial purposes (para 10 (e)); obligation not to undertake commercial whaling of fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (Para 7 (b)); Obligation to observe the moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships (Para 10 (d))’ (para. 48).

Court’s Review

The elements the ICJ took into consideration in the evaluation of the purpose of the programme and the reasonableness of its design and implementation were identified as follows:

‘Decisions regarding the use of legal methods, the scale of the programme’s use of lethal sampling, the methodology used to select sample sizes, a comparison of the target sample sizes and the actual take, the time frame associated with a programme, the programme’s scientific output, the degree to which the programme coordinates its activities with related research projects’ (para. 88).

The ICJ found that the decision to use lethal methods was not unreasonable per se, but it found fault with the lack of ‘analysis of the feasibility of non-lethal methods as a means of reducing the planned scale of lethal sampling in the programme’ (para 137). The ICJ specifically referred to IWC Resolutions and Guidelines calling upon States to consider non-lethal methods, but also the testimony of expert witnesses concerning the availability of such research techniques in the light of the JARPA’s objectives.

The ICJ conducted a thorough examination of the determination of species-specific sample sizes by JARPA II, based on evidence submitted by the parties and expert witnesses. It highlighted the lack of transparency and limited information in JARPA II, and stressed that

‘in the context of Article VIII, the evidence regarding the selection of a minimum sample size should allow one to understand why that sample size is reasonable in relation to achieving the programme’s objectives, when compared with other possible sample sizes that would require killing far fewer whales’ (para. 195).

It further relied on the unjustified differences in sample sizes between JARPA and JARPA II despite the similarities in their objectives, and the discrepancy between the targets and the actual take which according to the Court suggested that ‘that the target sample sizes are larger than are reasonable in relation to achieving JARPA II’s stated objectives’ (para. 212). Further evidence casting doubt on JARPA II’s purpose for scientific research were its open-ended time frame, its limited scientific output of JARPA II and the lack of cooperation with other research institutions.

ICJ stated that ‘the three Schedule provisions are clearly intended to cover all killing, taking and treating of whales that is neither ‘for purposes of scientific research’ under Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention, or aboriginal subsistence whaling under paragraph 13 of the Schedule, which is not germane to this case’ (para. 229). The ICJ argued that there is no undefined whaling activity which would fall outside the scope of the Convention and that any such interpretation ‘would undermine its object and purpose’ (para. 229). The ICJ thus found that Japan was in breach of the three substantive provisions of the Schedule as mentioned above, and ordered it to revoke any authorisation, permit or licence in relation to JARPA II and refrain from such activities in the future.

The ICJ also concluded that Japan was not in breach of Article 30 of the Schedule concerning the procedural requirement to provide the Scientific Committee with appropriate information so as to allow it to review proposals under Article VIII. This finding – albeit in line with a narrow reading of the requirements of this provision – may deprive the Scientific Committee from a more enhanced role; such a role could contribute to a more cooperative approach to Article VIII with the view to avoiding potential breaches and disputes as the one before the Court.

The ICJ admitted that Article VIII gives the State issuing the permit, discretion, but it clearly pronounced that ‘the question whether the killing, taking and treating of whales pursuant to a requested special permit is for purposes of scientific research cannot depend simply on that State’s perception’ (para. 61). The ICJ thus found that it had the power to review the programme, and adopted an objective standard of review based on the scope and purpose of JARPA II with a focus on whether ‘in the use of lethal methods, the programme’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives’ (para. 67).

The Court examined the following elements of research to check the reasonability of the phrase “for the purposes of scientific research”: decisions regarding the use of lethal methods; the scale of the programme’s use of lethal sampling; the methodology used to select sample sizes; a comparison of the target sample sizes and the actual take; the time frame associated with a programme; the programme’s scientific output; and the degree to which a programme co-ordinates its activities with related research projects.

Japan’s Arguments

Japan’s argument was that the whaling conducted by Japan was within the prescribed limits of ICRW. It said that the Court should look at “the applicable law” and argued that its purpose was “conservation and management of whale stocks” and the “optimum utilisation of the whale resources”. Japan said that sustainable whaling was one of the objectives of ICRW. It further said, “But Australia does not accept sustainable commercial whaling”. Australia and New Zealand argued that the special permit granted by Japan was not in accordance with the objectives of ICRW. To this Japan said that it was “an exemption from the Convention, an exemption that permits whaling for the purposes of scientific research”. Japan argued that it was up to each country to decide what was included in scientific research.21

On Australia’s arguments about science, Japan said “Australia’s best case is that there is some scientific disagreement” on aspects of Special Permit whaling. ‘But the question before the court is not whether Japan could improve its scientific research. It is whether it has no scientific merit at all; or whether it is commercial whaling in disguise”. Emeritus Professor Lowe, an expert on international law from Oxford University, argued for Japan that there is no standard definition on scientific research. While Australia and New Zealand contended that Japan’s program was not a part of scientific research, Japan said that it is “an absurd exaggeration to say that it is not scientific research at all”.22

Professor Allan Boyle from the University of Edinburgh argued that if Japan’s lethal whaling program was not scientific research, “then neither were the research activities of institutions providing advice on sustainable catch levels for fisheries worldwide”. He further said that the case could have “broad systemic” implications across the whole field of international environmental law.23

Before going on to the issue of treaty interpretation, let us go on to one of the key points raised by Japan in the court, which was of Jurisdiction-

Jurisdiction of ICJ

The Court found that it had the jurisdiction to examine the application made by Australia under Article 36, para 2 of the Statute of ICJ and that the dispute between Japan and Australia did not fall within the reservation made by Australia. Australia’s reservation excluded the Court’s jurisdiction in any matter concerning delimitation of maritime zones and hence this matter was out of its purview.

 

We now turn to the merits of the case:

Application of Article VIII, Paragraph 1, to JARPA II

Since the beginning, the International Whaling Commission believed that some research upon whales is required for their proper conservation24, hence it felt that it would be right to allow a reasonable amount of whaling, solely for the purpose of scientific research. Therefore, the legislative intent of the Article has to be met if permits are to be grated applying it. Hence, the question before the Court was, whether whaling by Japan met the object of Article VIII of ICRW.

While interpreting Article VIII, the Court considered two questions:

(i)    Whether the program under which these activities occur involves scientific research?
(ii)    Whether the killing, taking and treating of whales is “for purposes of” scientific research?

As to the first question, JAPRA II was regarded as a Scientific Research Program. In fact, JAPRA II has officially made a lot of contribution to scientific research.25 But it is not for the State but for the Court to decide whether JAPRA II was reasonable in relation to achieving the program’s stated objectives. To decide this, the Court adopted the reasonableness test or the proportionality test. The answer was in negative i.e. the evidence did not establish that the program’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to the achievement of its stated objectives.

The Court said that Japan failed to consider non-lethal alternatives and pointed out to how Japan set the sample sizes.

In the end, Japan couldn’t defend why they were taking up to 850 minke whales,’ Dr Gales said.26

One must also make reference to the strong criticism made by IWC of JAPRA II and IWC Resolutions 2005-1 and 2007-1, where it strongly urged the Government of Japan to withdraw JAPRA II proposal or to modify it in order to meet the stated objectives of the proposal by using non-lethal means. The Resolutions also called upon Japan to suspend indefinitely all the lethal aspects of JAPRA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

The International Court of Justice felt that to apply Article VIII, paragraph 1 of ICRW to give permission for whaling, there must be scientific merit in the procedure, which was lacking in Japan’s case. Japan’s whaling did not comply with the International Whaling Commission’s definition of scientific permit whaling. In reaching this conclusion, the ICJ was critical of JAPRA II for its,27

(1) open-ended time frame;
(2) limited scientific output; and
(3) failure to (a) consider non-lethal methods, (b) justify the large sample sizes, or (c) coordinate with other national and international research programs.

The Court said:28
“that the special permits granted by Japan in connection with JAPRA II do not fall within the provisions of Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;”

The Court further said that Japan acted in contravention with the moratorium (ban) on commercial whaling:

“that Japan, by granting special permits to kill, take and treat fin, humpback and Antarctic minke whales in pursuance of JAPRA II, has not acted in conformity with its obligations under paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.”

Japan also acted in contravention with the moratorium (ban) on factory ship whaling:

“Finds, by twelve votes to four, that Japan has not acted in conformity with its obligations under paragraph 10 (d) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in relation to the killing, taking and treating of fin whales in pursuance of JAPRA II”

Moreover, Japan had acted in contravention of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary:

“that Japan has not acted in conformity with its obligations under paragraph 7 (b) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling in relation to the killing, taking and treating of fin whales in the “Southern Ocean Sanctuary” in pursuance of JAPRA II”

Furthermore, the Court felt that Japan could not justify lethal sampling.

And for the reasons stated above, the International Court of Justice ordered Japan to cease all the Antarctic Whaling and not to issue any more permits to whale in Antarctica.

Impact of the Judgment

The stand taken by the International Court of Justice is commendable. The review of the State discretion of granting the special permits and its abuse of right or bad faith is important for the strict implementation of IWRC. The dissenting judges (Judge Owada and Judge Abraham) were of the opinion that the role of the Court in the decision of issuing permits must be limited.

But, following the Pulp Mills Case, the Court has shown readiness to assess scientific evidence. The Court relied on the opinion of experts and avoided questions that were a matter of scientific evaluation. ICJ provided a framework within which future whaling needs to be done. The Court noted that ‘it will look to the authorising State, which has granted special permits, to explain the objective basis for its determination.’ Thus, the authorising State has to ensure that it can justify the permitted whaling in accordance with stated research objectives.

The Position of Institutional Bodies and Examination of Alleged Violations of the Schedule

A quick reading of the ruling may give an impression that JAPRA was approved by IWC and its Scientific Committee. But that’s not true. The final part of the judgement, which deals with Japan’s procedural obligations, makes explicit reference to the criticism raised by a group of scientists inside the Scientific Committee (para 241).

The procedural obligations require Japan to submit the proposed permits, before being issued, and in sufficient time, to the Scientific Committee for review and comment. But, the Scientific Committee is not empowered to make any binding assessment. It only communicates the individual as well as collective opinion of its members in the form of reports and recommendations. Even if the opinion is divided, the majority view is not adopted. Therefore, by submitting the proposed special permits to a Committee that was not authorised to approve or disapprove them, Japan was discharged of its obligations.

Furthermore, the original design of JAPRA II submitted to the Scientific Committee of IWC was different from the one finally implemented. Hence, there was lack of cooperation on the part of Japan with IWC

Japan had actually followed the procedural requirements of permit under Article VIII, paragraph 1 of ICRW. But it went wrong in the following three ways: the moratorium on all commercial whaling; the moratorium on use of factory ships to process whales; and the prohibition on whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.

Hence, the Court had to halt its whaling in the Antarctic. But it does not affect the whaling of Japan in the Pacific Ocean.

Remedies

The remedy decided by the Court was that Japan should halt its whaling program in the southern ocean. Japan could still continue with whaling in the Pacific Ocean as long as it is conducted within the requirements of ICRW. The Court also stated in its judgment that it expects Japan to take account of its reasoning and conclusions when evaluating the possibility of granting any future permits under Article VIII of the ICRW.29

As regarding the new whaling program of Japan, if Australia and New Zealand believe that it will not meet the requirements of ICRW, it can go back to the International Court of Justice under Article 60 of its Statute which is mentioned here under:

In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.”

Alternatives to JAPRA II

Australia and others have built a significant body of research on the use of non-lethal technology, including satellite tagging, biopsy sampling, photographic identification and acoustic tracking, to obtain information, sought by the Japanese program through lethal methods.30

Hence, when non-lethal methods are available for the same purpose, lethal methods must be banned by the Court.

Conclusion

The judgement holds a lot of importance in the international sphere as it touches important aspects of Environmental Law. The Court has established an efficient and thoughtful procedure to elicit the problem involved and has an analytical approach. Although a hiatus has been put on Japan’s whaling activities, but the complete resolution of the conflict of whether whales can be hunted or not is not resolved. The Court affirms the objective of the International Convention on Regulation of Whaling to be conservation of whale stocks but did not mention the role of any other international law like Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on Biological Diversity, customary International Law, or evolving environmental norms.

 

• Visiting Faculty, G.R.Kare College of Law, Margao, Goa
1Kirby, Alex, “Whaling Ban Set to End”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/782697.stm Last visited on November 1, 2014.
2Anti-whaling Activist Faces Arrest on Arrival in Japan, , Mar. 11, 2010 at , http://web.archive.org/web/20140131045439/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/AH8q3dGK2f2vLZVgbRfLTjQPySe2yRaJHs. Last visited on November 1, 2014.
3An open letter to the government of Japan on “Scientific Whaling”, , Mar. 11, 2010 at , http://web.archive.org/web/20070819151058/http://www.baleinesendirect.net/pdf/whaling-letter_to_NY_Times.pdf. Last visited on November 1, 2014.
4The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling, Mar. 11, 2010 at , http://web.archive.org/web/20020607220909/http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/q_a/faq6.html Last visited on November 1, 2014.
5http://web.archive.org/web/20131111095403/http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf Last visited on November 1, 2014.
6History of Whaling, Mar. 11, 2010 at , http://www.whaling.jp/english/history.html Last visited on November 1, 2014.
7Day, David , The Whale War 29-32 (Taylor & Francis 1987). Visited on November 1, 2014.
8Darby, Andrew , Harpoon : Into the Heart of Whaling 125-126 (Allen & Unwin 2007).
9Supra Note 7
10Ellis, Richard , Men and Whales (The Lyons Press 1999). 490-491
11″International Environmental Law Project (IELP) : Whaling and the International Whaling Commission, http://law.lclark.edu/clinics/international_environmental_law_project/our_work/whaling/2010-12-27
12Australia v. Japan, http://www.edu.kobe-u.ac.jp/ilaw/en/whaling_docs/ICJ_Whaling_Volume_IIa.pdf. Last visited July 11, 2015.
13The Dodo, in Angie Plummer, the ‘Science’ of Whaling, https://www.thedodo.com/community/AngiePlummer/the-science-of-whaling-705747998.html Last visited October 31, 2014
142Special Permit Whaling, Int’l Whaling Commission , https://iwc.int/home Last visited on November 1, 2014.
15Brendan Gogarty, Peter Lawrence , The ICJ Whaling Case : Science, Transparency and the Rule of Law, http://www.scribd.com/doc/267247150/ Last visited on November 1, 2014.
16Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court As Compulsory, Int’l Ct. of Just. Publications , http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=GR Last visited October 29, 2014.
17Supra Note 13
18Ibid
19Whaling In The Antarctic (Australia v. Japan : New Zealand Intervening) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18160.pdf. Last visited November 3, 2014.
20Dr Sophia Kopela, Saving the Whales : The ICJ Judgment in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case,LancsLaw , https://lancslaw.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/saving-the-whales/last visited on October 31, 2014.
21Whaling in the Antarctic : The Case Concludes, THE Conversation , http://theconversation.com/whaling-in-the-antarctic-the-case-concludes-14493 Last visited October 29, 2014.
22Andrew Darby, Japan Rejects ‘rogue’ Status Over Whaling, 2013 The Sunday Morning Herald (2013), http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/japan-rejects-rogue-status-over-whaling-20130715-2q0ol Last visited October 29, 2014
23Whaling in the Antarctic : The Case Concludes, The Conversation , http://theconversation.com/whaling-in-the-antarctic-the-case-concludes-14493 Last visited October 29, 2014.
24The Responsibility for Responsibility for Research, 2011The Inst. Of Cetacean Res (2011), http://www.icrwhale.org/responsibility.html Last visited on October 30, 2014.
25Scientific Contribution from JARPA II ,2011The Inst. Of Cetacean Res ( 2011), http://www.icrwhale.org/scJARPA.html Last visited on October 30, 2014.
26Pyper, Wendy, The Laws of Whaling, 26 Australian Antarctic Mag (2014), http://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary;dn=545247821563314;res=IELHSS Last visited October 31, 2014.
27Pyper, Wendy, International Court of Justice Declares Japanese Antarctic Whaling Illegal, 2014 AWI Q. (2014), https://awionline.org/awi-quarterly/2014-spring/international-court-justice-declares-japanese-antarctic-whaling-illegal Last visited on October 30, 2014.
28In The Antartic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) [hereinafter Summary of the Judgment of 31 March 2014], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18160.pdf. Last visited November 3, 2014.
29Whaling In The Antartic Litigation, http://www.ag.gov.au/Internationalrelations/InternationalLaw/Pages/WhalingintheAntarcticLitigation.aspx Last visited October 29, 2014.
30Wendy Pyper, The Laws of Whaling, 26 Australian Antarctic Mag. , http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2011-2015/issue-26-june-2014/science/the-laws-of-whaling-reasonable-and-proportionate Last visited October 31, 2014.