SOVEREIGNTY, SCIENCE, AND CETACEANS: THE WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC CASE

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-44
Author(s):  
Brendan Plant
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Scientific Reasoning ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
International Convention ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Considerable Controversy ◽  
The Antarctic

THE issue of whaling has been the subject of considerable controversy in recent years, as the international community remains divided as to how the world's marine resources should be managed: some states prioritise conservation, while others favour sustainable exploitation. Against this background, Australia initiated proceedings against Japan before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in May 2010, claiming that Japan's continuing whaling activities, carried out under the guise of scientific research, were in breach of its various obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). New Zealand later intervened in the proceedings, exercising its right under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, and oral pleadings involving the three states were held in June and July 2013. On 31 March 2014, the ICJ delivered its judgment in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, New Zealand Intervening), finding that Japan had violated three provisions of the ICRW – the moratorium on commercial whaling, the ban on factory ships, and the prohibition on whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary – by authorising the killing of certain whale species as part of its JARPA II research programme. The decision has largely been welcomed, especially by environmental activists, for offering a measure of protection to endangered marine life, but the judgment carries broader significance for its treatment of a number of points of international law, including the standard of review exercised by international courts, the role of scientific reasoning in international dispute settlement, and the interpretation of treaties.

Conceptions and (Mis)conceptions of Science in International Treaties; the ICJ Whaling Case in Context

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 607-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Gogarty
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
The Antarctic

The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese ‘special permit’ whaling in the Southern Ocean was not ‘for the purposes of scientific research’. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’s current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law.

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) (I.C.J.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Peel
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Southern Ocean ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Scientific Merit ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Environmental Decision

On March 31, 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its judgment in the case of Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) (Whaling Decision). In what is perhaps its most important environmental decision to date, the ICJ ordered Japan to halt its whaling program in the Southern Ocean, finding the program lacked scientific merit and breached requirements of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).

The Consequences of the ICJ Decision in the Whaling Case for Antarctica and the Antarctic Treaty System

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 168-187
Author(s):  
Michael Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
International Convention ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Treaty Body ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Antarctic Treaty System

This paper identifies parts of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) that might hold broader relevance beyond the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and explores what that might entail for the Antarctic Treaty System. There are four aspects explored. First, an analysis of the Court’s treatment of Japan’s challenge to jurisdiction that touched upon the relevance or otherwise of Antarctic sovereignty to the issues at hand in the case. Second, the Court’s drawing of important conclusions from the Whaling Convention’s status as an ‘evolving instrument’, in light of it having a treaty body with ongoing decision making responsibility will be discussed. Third, to what extent might the Court’s assessment of the concept of ‘science’ in a legal context find relevance in Antarctic obligations will be analysed. Finally, the success of the claim brought by Australia, and the manner in which the Court addressed the issues before it, and whether they bear any consequences for potential, future environmental cases, will be discussed.

Mules of the British Antarctic Expedition 1910–13

Polar Record ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 27 (160) ◽  
pp. 23-28
Author(s):  
D. L. Harrowfield
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Low Temperatures ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Research Programme ◽  
First Year ◽  
New Information ◽  
Antarctic Expedition ◽  
Antarctic Research ◽  
Unbalanced Diet ◽  
The Antarctic

AbstractHorses were first used in Antarctica when eight Manchurian ponies provided support for Shackleton's British Antarctic Expedition (1907–09). Scott's British Antarctic ‘Terra Nova’ Expedition (1910–13) used 17 ponies during its first year, and seven Indian mules in the following season. This paper presents new information on the mules, which suffered severely from the effects of an unbalanced diet and low temperatures. They were the last horses ever used to support an Antarctic expedition. In January 1989 when the stables of Scott's hut at Cape Evans were reclad and cleared of ice by a working party from the Antarctic Heritage Trust (New Zealand Antarctic Research Programme), artefacts relating to their occupancy by Manchurian ponies and Indian mules were located.

scholarly journals Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 8)—Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) and the Settlement of the Macedonian Name Dispute: Knowing and Seizing upon Many Things or One Big Thing in Treaty Interpretation and International Dispute Settlement in General

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-502
Author(s):  
Sienho Yee
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
Final Agreement ◽  
The One

Abstract During the lead-up to the Final Agreement settling the Macedonian name dispute, apparently no or scant mention was made of the Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) case that FYROM brought in 2008 and won overwhelmingly in 2011 against Greece at the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or the “Court”). This paper highlights the structure and main points of the ICJ judgment in the Interim Accord case and analyzes the part of the judgment on the main substantive issue. The paper argues that, even on its own terms, the Court’s judgment did not conduct the interpretation exercise to the full and further that the experience with the Court’s judgment in this case does flash a warning light to any decision-maker that it must not lose sight of “the one big thing”, which may vary from case to case, in a dispute settlement endeavor if it wants to have its decision implemented. This experience also teaches any State party in a dispute that it may have to know and unyieldingly seize upon the one big thing in the dispute settlement effort in order to achieve its goal.

12. International dispute settlement and the ICJ

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-322
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Principal Characteristics ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Prior Consent ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj

This chapter examines the various political or diplomatic methods available for international dispute settlement. These methods include negotiation, mediation or ‘good offices’, inquiry, and conciliation. The array of diplomatic techniques available to parties to resolve a dispute is complemented by various means of settling disputes through the application of binding solutions based on the law. Two in particular, arbitration and adjudication, principally developed from earlier forms of non-binding settlement. Though these are different, they are linked by two principal characteristics. Foremost, they allow for a third party to issue a decision that is binding on the parties. Second, resorting to these methods requires the prior consent of the parties. The chapter then considers the International Court of Justice, the ‘principal judicial organ’ of the United Nations. The ICJ’s structure was frequently utilized as a model for later judicial institutions, making an enormous contribution to the development of international law.

Whale

2018 ◽  
pp. 539-552
Author(s):  
Malgosia Fitzmaurice
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Detailed Analysis ◽  
Emotional Reactions ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Acceptable Solution ◽  
International Convention ◽  
International Whaling Commission ◽  
International Court ◽  
Contemporary Status ◽  
The Antarctic

This chapter discusses the totemic object of the whale. It analyses the provisions of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and the work of the International Whaling Commission. It gives a detailed analysis of the contemporary status of whaling activities provided for under the Whaling Convention: commercial; scientific; and Indigenous; all eliciting conflicting and emotional reactions for the member states of the International Whaling Commission. The whale can also be seen as an object of consumption, which leads to very strong reactions. It appears that at present there is no acceptable solution to reconcile such divergent attitudes. The chapter also deals with the 2014 case before the International Court of Justice, concerning scientific whaling in the Antarctic (Australia, New Zealand intervening v Japan), which serves as an excellent example of problems and conflict of whaling. Whaling appears to be a Gordian Knot of contemporary international law.

After Whaling in the Antarctic: Amending Article viii to Fix a Broken Treaty Regime

2015 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 700-726
Author(s):  
Anastasia Telesetsky ◽  
Seokwoo Lee
Keyword(s):  
Research Program ◽  
Antarctic Ocean ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Whaling Industry ◽  
Research Plan ◽  
The Antarctic

Since the global decline in commercial whaling, the International Whaling Commission (iwc) has been at the centre of a long-standing debate between pro-whaling industry States and whale preservation States that threatens the collapse of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (icrw) as a treaty regime. This article describes the ongoing treaty regime disagreement that led to the International Court of Justice (icj) Whaling in the Antarctic case and suggests that the icj’s decision highlights further weaknesses in the existing icrw treaty regime. The fissures in the treaty regime have become even more apparent with the iwc Scientific Committee’s request for more data from the Japanese government on the Proposed Research Plan for New Scientific Whale Research Program in the Antarctic Ocean (newrep-a) and Japan’s diplomatic threat to unilaterally resume whaling. The article concludes with a suggestion that States amend Article viii in order to strengthen the existing icrw framework.

ICJ Halts Antarctic Whaling – Japan Starts Again

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cymie R. Payne
Keyword(s):  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
International Court ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
The Antarctic

AbstractThe International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment inWhaling in the Antarctic, a dispute brought by Australia against Japan, found that Japan had violated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) moratoria on all commercial whaling and the use of factory ships to process whales, and also the prohibition on whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. In the course of analyzing whether special permits issued by Japan qualified for the scientific whaling exemption under Article VIII ICRW, the Court benefited from a more robust scientific fact-finding process than at times in the past. The judgment emphasized the mutual obligations of this multilateral agreement by taking the view that the provisions of the ICRW’s scientific whaling exemptions are neither self-judging nor subject to a ‘margin of appreciation’ in favour of a state party claiming the exemption. The case was driven by conflicting attitudes towards commercial whaling, and also towards global common spaces. The ICJ’s decision and Japan’s response indicate the limits of the ICRW in resolving those differences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document