On June 30, 2019, Japan officially withdrew from the International Whaling Commission for the first time in 31 years for commercial whaling. Japan's behavior can be seen as a warning in previous ICJ case with Australia. On May 31, 2010, Australia filed a complaint with the ICJ against Japan for violating the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling and other international obligations for the conservation of marine mammals and the marine environment, which was implemented under the special permit of JARPA II. The ICJ concluded that the special permit granted by Japan for the killing, taking and treating of whales in relation to JARPA II was not "for purposes of scientific research" as stipulated in Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The ICJ ordered that all permits or licenses issued through JARPA II should be revoked so that Japan can kill, take or treat whales. The ICJ also ordered Japan to refrain from granting any additional permits under the Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention in carrying out the program. What is characteristic of this case is that the ICJ has only examined whether the facts are in conformity with the Convention. In particular, the ICJ examined the phrase "for purposes of scientific research" stipulated in Article VIII, paragraph 1 of the Convention more closely, clearly distinguishing between commercial whaling and whaling for scientific research purposes, and evoked awareness among the international community about the conservation of whales. It is necessary to grasp the tendency of judgment in these international trials and respond to future international issues we face. In this paper, the ICJ Judgement on the whaling in the Antarctic is analyzed, and the implications for the international dispute response are derived.