The IWC moratorium on commercial whaling was not a value judgment and was not intended as a permanent prohibition

Abstract

A review of the International Whaling Commission’s institutional discourse related to the “moratorium” as reflected in the Commission’s documents together with a literal reading of Schedule paragraph 10(e) of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) shows that the moratorium does not include language which permanently prohibits commercial whaling, does not include any expression which demonizes whaling, does not label the killing for commercial purposes as criminal as opposed to catching for indigenous purposes, and does not reflect any value judgments about whales and whaling. Rather, this paper shows that with only few exceptions these documents together with the language of paragraph 10(e) clearly demonstrate that the moratorium was intended as a temporary conservation and management measure related to uncertainties of scientific information. Notwithstanding this, anti-whaling NGOs have mischaracterized the moratorium as a permanent prohibition or ban on commercial whaling. This mischaracterization was a major factor in the failure of the “Future of IWC” process which was aimed at getting compromises from both pro-whaling and anti-whaling members to resolve the bipolar, conflictive and dysfunctional nature of the organization. Finally, it is concluded that the moratorium as a permanent prohibition would be inconsistent with the purpose of the ICRW and that science related to the management of whales and international law, in this case the literal interpretation and implementation of the Schedule paragraph 10(e), provide the only possible means to resolve the controversy concerning whaling.