ICJ's Decision in Australia v. Japan: Giving up the Spear or Refining the Scientific Design?

Abstract

The case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan) decided by the International Court of Justice is a landmark that introduces new parameters for measuring the “reasonableness” of scientific research by permit under the International Convention on Whaling. However, aspects of these parameters and how they may be applied in future cases remain uncertain. Because the Court's interpretation of the language “for purposes of scientific research” avoids defining scientific research, the Court's decision provides only a limited degree of clarification for States that intend to operate scientific whaling programs under Article VIII of the Convention. The Court's reasonableness test is unlikely to prevent scientific whaling. States who no longer support the dual object and purpose of the Whaling Convention may want to consider negotiating a new international instrument that would be more protective of whales and their habitat.