Whaling Program Research Articles

Yasunaga et al. (2022) meets the ethics code of Marine Mammal Science, and the journal's decision to publish the paper is correct

Yasunaga et al. (2022) meets the ethics code of <i>Marine Mammal Science</i>, and the journal's decision to publish the paper is correct

At 75 years old, the IWC has never been more globally relevant

Against the well known backdrop of fiercely contested debates about commercial whaling I examine the current status and relevance of the International Whaling Commission as it reaches its 75th year of operation. Japan’s 2019 withdrawal from the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Iceland’s recent announcement considering ending its commercial whaling program and the dramatic pause in business as usual that resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic have all changed the nature and range of tensions and challenges in the IWC. Past and current IWC successes in science and conservation are used to provide a potential pathway through the existing, often polarised, differences among the IWC member states. As commercial whaling operations continue to decline, the world’s whales and dolphins face a dramatic rise in threats resulting from other human activities including fisheries, climate change and habitat degradation. The IWC has taken meaningful and effective steps to address these non-whaling threats, and is ideally placed to expand its leadership role and influence through collaborations with relevant multi-lateral agencies and conventions.

Japan's rejection of international norms against whaling

This research is intended to explain the reasons for Japan's rejection of the anti-whaling norms. To investigate this, a qualitative approach was used with document-based data methods, both primary and secondary. Japan is one of the industrialized countries that have stopped hunting for commercial breaks because of the moratorium in 1982. This moratorium is a form of development of the anti-whaling norm. This research found that Japan is a country that chooses not to this norm with several reasons that state as a strong background for not including and not accepting the norm. This is evidenced by the continuing Japanese whaling through the scientific whaling program. If Japan stops this norm, so all Japanese whaling practices will also stop. The Japanese decision was the result of consideration in understanding norms through a better social context by Japan itself and Japanese society in general who could state in the concept of legitimacy of international norms. This decision was taken from Japan to decide to withdraw from the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in December 2018 which is also Japan's behavior after understanding this social context.

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

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.

Our Cows and Whales

Our Cows and Whales

The ICJ Whaling Case: Missed Opportunity to Advance the Rule of Law in Resolving Science-Related Disputes in Global Commons?

A number of treaties relating to the global commons include provisions which rely on science, or scientific research, without defining these terms (e.g. climate change, Antarctica). Disputes relating to what counts as genuine science and/or the appropriate responses to science are a feature of these regimes. Against this context, the Whaling Case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) created hopes that the court would advance the rule of law by interpreting the concept of “scientific research” under the Whaling Convention. We argue that the court missed an opportunity by adopting a narrow approach which involved assessing the Japanese whaling programme in terms of its own objectives, by use of a standard of review test extracted from World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence. On close inspection the ICJ implicitly adopted a definition of science while maintaining that it was doing no such thing. We argue that the Court should have proceeded to interpret scientific research under Art. VIII of the Whaling Convention applying the international law rules on treaty interpretation and informed by direct evidence from scientific experts which it is entitled to call on under its Statute. The Whaling Case thus represented a missed opportunity.

Can bargaining resolve the international conflict over whaling?

As the International Whaling Commission has failed to establish a consensus on the interpretation and enforcement of a moratorium on commercial whaling, the disagreement between Australia and Japan over whaling has recently escalated. Australia, a leading opponent of whaling, questioned Japan's scientific whaling program in the Antarctic at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in 2014 that the Japanese whaling program is unscientific, but Japan revised the program and implemented it after the court ruling. To overcome the current international stalemate regarding whaling, this paper examines the possibility of a bargaining solution to this conflict, particularly through voluntary monetary compensation from Australia to Japan to halt whaling activities. The results of nationwide surveys indicate that Australia's total willingness to pay for the discontinuation of whaling by Japan is significantly greater than Japan's willingness to accept to abandon whaling in the high seas despite a substantial population difference between the two countries. The results suggest that a financial transfer could be a win-win strategy to resolve this long-standing international conflict.

The scientific value of scientific whaling

Scientific whaling has polarized opinion for decades, and its scientific value has been intensely debated. Here, the output of scientific whaling programs is examined by comparing it to the scientific output pertaining to whales of countries that do not practice scientific whaling. Between 1986 and 2013, whaling and non-whaling countries produced, on average, similar total numbers of publications that were directly relevant to the goals of the scientific whaling permits issued by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), and similar numbers of papers that were relevant to whale ecology and conservation but not directly related to IWC goals. Half of the scientific productivity of scientific whaling countries resulted from non-lethal data collection. One-third of publications by whaling countries were published in peer-reviewed outlets, compared to twice as many for non-whaling countries. Publications by whaling countries were cited ~4 times less often than those of non-whaling countries, with no evidence of citation discrimination against whaling countries since the citation rates of papers that did and did not use lethal sampling were similar. These academic criteria suggest that although the overall volume of science produced by scientific whaling countries is similar to that of non-whaling countries, the quality of the science is not. Arguably, academic criteria are not the best way to assess the usefulness of science for management and conservation, but demonstrating links between the science produced by scientific whaling, its integration in management plans and actions, and shifts towards sustainable exploitation or recovery of whale populations is challenging.

The ICJ’s Handling of Science in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case: A Whale of a Case?

In the whaling in the Antarctic case, the International Court of Justice was confronted with a highly technical issue requiring the appraisal of scientific elements. The Court evaluated the claim of Australia who considered that Japan with its whaling programme `JARPA II' was hiding commercial purposes behind `false' scientific research. The question arose at an interesting moment, increasing attention being paid in the international agenda to the relationship between law and science. The Court had the opportunity to take a stance on this issue after coming under criticism for its handling of technical cases. Questions have arisen as to its ability to rule on disputes involving factual complexity in a sound way. Basically, the Court had to avoid two main hurdles : limiting its assessment to legal aspects or becoming a judge of science by itself performing the technical analyses. Both are criticized positions taken by the Court in former instances. In this respect, this article advocates that the Court initiated an original approach by elaborating a comprehensive methodology, some elements of which may appear at first sight inspired by the WTO practice. In addition to adopting an active attitude during the cross-examination of experts, the Court explicitly articulated a standard of review characterized as `objective' and involving the use of a reasonableness test. However, the solution is not without substantial ambiguities, if not inconsistencies, that somehow limit the scope of the method.

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

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).

Evolving to Conservation?: The International Court's Decision in the Australia/Japan Whaling Case

The decision of the International Court of Justice in the Australia/Japan Whaling Case marks an advance in the law of the sea and the obligation on states to cooperate in common ocean resource regimes. The Court found substantially for Australia, prohibiting Japan's long-running program to capture large cetaceans in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica for scientific research. The Court's discussion of the criteria for states to design and implement scientific research whaling programs is assessed, as is the obligation for cooperation in such research and ocean research generally. The result for whaling and for the future work of the International Whaling Commission is considered.

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

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.

Japan׳s whaling following the International Court of Justice ruling: Brave New World – Or business as usual?

Since 1987, Japan has conducted extensive special permit whaling (“scientific whaling”) in the Antarctic and North Pacific. This has been viewed by many as a way to circumvent the International Whaling Commission׳s (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling, which was implemented in 1985. Recently, Australia took Japan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over this issue. Using various criteria, the Court ruled that Japan׳s whaling was not “for purposes of scientific research” as required by Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and ordered Japan to immediately cease its JARPA II whaling program in the Antarctic. Despite optimism that the Court׳s ruling might spell the end of Japanese whaling in the Antarctic and even elsewhere, Japan has indicated that it will redesign its whaling programs and continue operations. Based upon Japan׳s history at the IWC, I argue here that this was an expected outcome; I predict the course of events over the next months, and suggest that the ICJ ruling, while satisfying as an independent vindication of Japan׳s critics, represents little more than a temporary setback for that nation׳s whaling enterprise.

Science Friction: Antarctic Research Whaling and the International Court of Justice

Whaling remains one of the most controversial and divisive aspects of the modern regulation of marine resources. In 1982, the International Whaling Commission, the global management body responsible for the regulation of whale stocks, instituted a moratorium on commercial hunting, which has been in force for almost 20 years. Nevertheless, a number of legal avenues exist within the current international regulatory framework to facilitate a degree of continued hunting. The most contentious of these is the scientific research exemption advanced under Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946, which provides for the national authorization of permits for lethal research. Japan has undertaken a significant programme of scientific whaling in Antarctica since 1987, despite widespread international criticism and an escalating campaign of nautical obstruction by militant activists, duly generating a long-standing legal dispute with Australia. On 31 March 2014, judgment was rendered by the International Court of Justice, in favour of Australia, ordering Japan to cease and desist its Antarctic whaling programme and refuting Japanese assertions that these activities had been legitimately conducted ‘for the purposes of scientific research’ as permitted under the 1946 Convention

Scientific Justification for Animal Capture

In the News & Analysis story “Court slams Japan's scientific whaling” (4 April, p. [22][1]), V. Morell recounts the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice that the second Japanese scientific whaling program in the Antarctic (JARPA II) shall cease. This decision has given extra weight to a principle that is already contained in most existing scientific and ethical guidelines for research involving the taking of wild animals: Sample sizes (numbers of animals taken) must be justified in advance in relation to the specific objectives of the research. Wisely, the court did not try to answer the broader question of what constitutes legitimate scientific research, but it faulted the absence of explanation or analysis as to how the specified numbers of whales to be caught would have contributed to the objectives of the JARPA II program. The ruling has implications for Japan's whaling program in the North Pacific (JARPN II). An Expert Panel appointed by the International Whaling Commission to review Japan's whaling in the North Pacific, which targeted up to 100 sei whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 220 minke whales, and 10 sperm whales a year ([ 1 ][2]), also noted the absence of a scientific justification for the number of whales killed in relation to quantifiable research objectives ([ 2 ][3]). While not restricting the freedom of scientific research, the International Court of Justice ruling highlights the importance of careful analysis and clear justification of the study duration and of the sample sizes required to meet research objectives, in advance of any take of wild animals. 1. [↵][4] International Whaling Commission, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (suppl.), 405 (2010). [OpenUrl][5] 2. [↵][6] Government of Japan, “Revised research plan for cetacean studies in the western North Pacific under Special Permit (JARPN II),” Paper SC/56/O1 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, Sorrento, Italy (2004). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.344.6179.22 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BCetacean%2BRes.%2BManage.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.spage%253D405%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text

Court Slams Japan's Scientific Whaling

The United Nations' highest court dealt a blow to Japan's scientific whaling program in the Antarctic, saying it isn't science.

L’arrêt de la Cour internationale de Justice du 27 janvier 2014 dans l’affaire du Différend maritime (Pérou c. Chili)

On 31 March 2014, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on the dispute between Australia (with New Zealand as the intervening State) and Japan. In light of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Australia and New Zealand called into question the lawfulness of the Special Permits granted under the second phase of the “ Scientific Research Program on Whales under the Special Permit in the Antarctic” (JARPA II). Japan, on the other hand, invoked the discretion offered by the first paragraph of Article VIII of the Convention relating to scientific research. These opposing views of the object and purpose of the Convention reflect the legal and political tensions that divide the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and its scientific committee. However, the judgment demonstrates that the Court determined not to intervene in matters beyond the specific dispute submitted to it. By twelve votes to four, the Court considered that Japan had failed to fulfill its obligations relating to commercial whaling. It ruled to oversee the exercise of discretionary powers by Japan and thus considered that the unreasonable nature of JARPA II prevents it from being characterized as scientific whaling. Instead, JARPA II was deemed to fall within the scope of the various moratoria applicable to commercial whaling. In its judgment, the Court blurs the line between a legal assessment of the whaling program and a scientific assessment. It considers that the unreasonableness character of JARPA II makes it fall into the scope of the various moratoria applicable to commercial whaling. Another important aspect of the judgment lies in the value the Court grants to the Acts (mandatory or not) of the IWC, and the role they can play in the modification and interpretation of the Convention, as well as the obligation of Member States to take them into account. Ultimately, the Court chose to refer to the Law of Treaties, rather than Environmental Law, to call upon States to rationalize their behavior within the IWC.

Methodologies and Motivations: Was Japan's Whaling Programme for Purposes of Scientific Research

Methodologies and Motivations: Was Japan's Whaling Programme for Purposes of Scientific Research

The Antarctic Whaling case: litigation in the international court and the role played by NGOs

Australia, in 2010, commenced proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Japan challenging the international legal validity of Japan’s conduct of its “scientific” whaling programme in the Southern Ocean. The case against Japan was argued in the International Court in June and July 2013. These proceedings were brought following a sustained campaign by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) in Australia and internationally in which four Legal Panels were sponsored to consider the legality of Japan’s whaling programme. The role played by IFAW in promoting international litigation strategies to challenge Japan’s whaling in the Southern Ocean is considered, against a backdrop of similar and related environmental campaigns by other non-governmental organisations.

The Scientific Whaling Loophole

At the recent International Whaling Commission's annual meeting in Panama, South Korean officials announced their plan to initiate a “scientific whaling” program ([ 1 ][1]). This announcement came as a surprise given the general sentiment that the global demand for whale meat is declining. After weeks of international outcry, on 17 July, South Korea reversed their decision to hunt whales for research, but the issue is not dead ([ 2 ][2]). South Korea claimed that the goal of the scientific whaling program is to study the types and amounts of fish whales eat, given conflict with fisheries. Yet, it is well established in the scientific literature that there are many ways to study whale diet without killing them ([ 3 ][3]). ![Figure][4] CREDIT: LEAH GERBER/ ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY Decades of fruitless negotiation between pro- and anti-whaling nations suggests a broken system, wrought with loopholes that allow unsustainable whaling to continue. Within this broken system, there is no incentive to reduce whaling, as the recent announcement by South Korea shows. Whaling groups are unwilling to compromise by allowing a sustainable harvest of whales, so unsustainable (scientific) whaling continues. To ensure a future of both whales and whalers, we must harness the passion and value that people place on living whales, without telling people what to do or force one set of values on others. We need novel, out-of-the-box approaches to effective management and conservation of whales. We must compromise to ensure reductions in whales being killed, better oversight of countries that harvest them, and limited whaling that does not threaten the persistence of whales. For those who believe that whaling is unethical, I challenge you to put forward alternative ideas to a global moratorium that fosters the “loophole” of scientific whaling. With new plans to develop scientific whaling programs ([ 4 ][5]), the current global moratorium is clearly broken. Scientists, conservation advocates, resource managers, and the public must work together to develop new approaches to ensure the persistence of whales in our oceans. 1. [↵][6] Associated Press, The New York Times, 6 July 2012, p. A7 ([www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/europe/south-korea-whaling-plan-criticized.html][7]). 2. [↵][8] 1. S. Herman , Voice of America, 24 July 2012 ([www.voanews.com/content/south-korea-still-considering-resumption-of-whaling/1444081.html][9]). 3. [↵][10] 1. L. R. Gerber, 2. L. Morissette, 3. K. Kaschner, 4. D. Pauly , Science 323, 880 (2009). [OpenUrl][11][Abstract/FREE Full Text][12] 4. [↵][13] 1. R. Black , BBC News, 5 July 2012 ([www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18719512][14]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: pending:yes [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/europe/south-korea-whaling-plan-criticized.html [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: http://www.voanews.com/content/south-korea-still-considering-resumption-of-whaling/1444081.html [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [11]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DGerber%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%2BR.%26rft.volume%253D323%26rft.issue%253D5916%26rft.spage%253D880%26rft.epage%253D881%26rft.atitle%253DECOLOGY%253A%2BShould%2BWhales%2BBe%2BCulled%2Bto%2BIncrease%2BFishery%2BYield%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1169981%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F19213900%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [12]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjMvNTkxNi84ODAiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNToiL3NjaS8zMzcvNjA5OC8xMDM4LjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9 [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [14]: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18719512