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.

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.

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.

Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 241-263 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Stephenson ◽  
Arne Mooers ◽  
Amir Attaran
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
International Whaling Commission ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
Size Matter ◽  
Scientific Arguments

AbstractThe competency debate over small cetacean regulation at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is legal in nature, yet has been in a political stalemate for years. In this article we argue that the IWC has the competence to regulate small cetaceans and that the commercial whaling of ‘small cetaceans’ is a violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling. We present hybrid legal and scientific arguments and counter-arguments for the treaty interpretation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and, given recent precedent, advocate that the International Court of Justice be called upon to resolve this matter.

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).

scholarly journals Whales, science, and scientific whaling in the International Court of Justice

2016 ◽  
Vol 113 (51) ◽  
pp. 14523-14527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Mangel
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
International Law ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
International Whaling Commission ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Antarctic

I provide a brief review of the origins of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and the failure to successfully regulate whaling that led to the commercial moratorium in 1986. I then describe the Japanese Whale Research Programs Under Special Permit in the Antarctica (JARPA I, JARPA II) and the origins of the caseWhaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening)in the International Court of Justice. I explain that the International Court of Justice chose to conduct an objective review of JARPA II, the standard that it used for the review, and the pathway that it took to adjudicate the case without providing a definition of science to be used in international law. I conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of the Judgment for the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, and the International Whaling Commission in particular, for other international treaties, and for the interaction of science and law more generally.

scholarly journals Sidney Holt on principles for the conservation of wild living resources, whaling in the Antarctic, and the Beverton–Holt stock–recruitment relationship

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Mangel
Keyword(s):  
Fishery Management ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Treaty ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Stock Recruitment ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Parameter Function ◽  
Two Parameter

Abstract I review my interactions with Sidney Holt concerning principles for the conservation of wild living resources, the whaling case between Australia and Japan in the International Court of Justice, and the Beverton–Holt stock–recruitment relationship (BH-SRR). Holt and Lee Talbot published a monograph on principles for conservation in 1977; I lead the publication of an update ∼20 years later. I compare the two versions and discuss Holt’s contributions. Holt was active in the world-wide campaign to cease whaling and in efforts to have the Japanese special permit whaling programme in the Antarctic recognized as violating the moratorium on commercial whaling. I describe my involvement in the case and my interactions with him during oral arguments in the case and when the International Court of Justice rendered its decision that the Japanese programme of special permit whaling contravened the international treaty for the regulation of whaling because it was not for purposes of scientific research. In response to a paper of mine concerning steepness, Holt wrote to me that the BH-SSR is a one-, not two-, parameter function. I explain my current understanding of his reasoning, which involves how we use the SRR in fishery management.

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-407
Author(s):  
Udoka Ndidiamaka Owie
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract International law has a long history of dealing with racial discrimination, including its involvement in the perpetration of racial discrimination. However, in establishing a body of norms to tackle the problems of racial discrimination, several multilateral instruments have been adopted under the auspices of the United Nations addressing this malaise to various extents with the most extensive being the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) of 21 December 1965. While lauded for its singular and dedicated focus on racial discrimination, the Convention is challenged, at least interpretatively, as to the grounds for racial discrimination within its remit. Events occurring between Qatar and the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 have afforded the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, an opportunity—the third since the coming into effect of the Convention—to interpret this landmark treaty.

scholarly journals Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures (I.C.J.)

2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 973-1030
Author(s):  
Alexandra Hofer
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
National Origin ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On July 23, 2018, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its Order on Qatar's request for provisional measures in the Qatar v. United Arab Emirates (UAE) case in which Qatar claims the UAE is responsible for violating the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD or the Convention). The Court has previously ordered provisional measures under CERD in the context of the Ukraine v. Russia case and in the Georgia v. Russia proceedings. As is already apparent in the Order and the dissenting and separate opinions, the Qatar v. UAE case raises important issues pertaining to the interpretation of racial discrimination on the basis of “national origin” under Article 1(1) CERD as well as to the reading of the procedural conditions under Article 22 CERD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document