ICJ Decides the Whaling in the Antarctic Case: Australia Wins

Written by

This morning the ICJ delivered its judgment in the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening). Australia won on almost all counts, and by 12 votes to 4. The Court’s principal reasoning is that while Japan’s whaling programme involved ‘scientific research,’ a concept that the Court did not want to define with particular precision, it was still not conducted for the purposes of scientific research, and thus violated Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The Court took a number of factors into account in making this determination, including: decisions regarding the use of lethal methods; the scale of the programme’s use of lethal sampling; the methodology used to select sample sizes; a comparison of the target sample sizes and the actual take; the time frame associated with a programme; the programme’s scientific output; and the degree to which a programme co-ordinates its activities with related research projects. The determination in the Court’s view required an objective standard of review, rather than a deferential one which would take the state’s professed objectives at face value. It thus found that bearing in mind the design of Japan’s programme, its minor scientific output etc,  it was not set up for the purposes of scientific research. In terms of the remedy, the Court ordered Japan to revoke existing whaling permits and refrain from authorizing new ones under the current whaling programme.

The judgment summary is available here, the judgment itself and a number of separate opinions here. We will have more coverage of the case in the week to come.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags

No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed

Comments

Mohammad Rubaiyat Rahman says

April 1, 2014

ICJ would have clarified as to 'limits of discretion' of contracting parties under Article VIII of the ICRW. Learned Judge Julia Sebutinde also suggests it in her separate opinion.

Though ICJ states in the Judgment that design and implementation of JARPA II does not fall within 'Scientific Research', the Court neither propounds any dragging line between 'Scientific Research' and 'Commercial Whaling Program'.

Nevertheless, the case would be a landmark victory for Whales in the Southern Ocean front!

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed

Comments

2 comments

Mohammad Rubaiyat Rahman says

April 1, 2014

ICJ would have clarified as to 'limits of discretion' of contracting parties under Article VIII of the ICRW. Learned Judge Julia Sebutinde also suggests it in her separate opinion.

Though ICJ states in the Judgment that design and implementation of JARPA II does not fall within 'Scientific Research', the Court neither propounds any dragging line between 'Scientific Research' and 'Commercial Whaling Program'.

Nevertheless, the case would be a landmark victory for Whales in the Southern Ocean front!