Whaling in the Antarctic: Case Analysis and Suggestions for the Future of Antarctic Whaling and Stock Management
Casey G. Watkins
affiliation not provided to SSRN
March 30, 2012
New York International Law Review, Vol. 25, June 2012
On May 31, 2010, Australia instituted proceedings against Japan in the International Court of Justice alleging that Japan’s JARPA II whaling operation violates “obligations assumed by Japan under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (‘ICRW’), as well as its other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine environment.”
This paper examines the claims raised by Australia and makes the case for an ICJ judgment absolving Japan of the allegations leveled in the application. I argue that Australia’s claims, although representative of a majority of the global community, are not solidly grounded in treaty law binding upon Japan. The solution to the problem of Japanese scientific whaling lies in compromise and negotiations, not in the ICJ. I discuss the historical exploitation of global whale stocks that led to the creation of the IWC. Section II discusses Japan’s obligations under and compliance with international law, with particular focus on the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Finally, I discuss the need for a new regulatory system that can effectively limit and monitor whaling and suggest a new market-based regulatory system that could effectively regulate and eventually eliminate commercial whaling.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 31
Keywords: Japanese Whaling, Antarctic, Whaling, ICRW, CITES, CBD
JEL Classification: K32, Q22
Date posted: April 7, 2012 ; Last revised: June 13, 2012
© 2016 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollobot1 in 0.172 seconds