And about damn time, too! I knew that this case was pending at the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations, but five minutes ago I got a notice there’s just been a ruling. No more slaughter of whales! From CNN alerts:
The International Court of Justice ruled today that Japan can no longer continue its annual whale hunt, rejecting the country’s argument that it was for scientific purposes.
“Japan shall revoke any extant authorization, permit or license granted in relation to JARPA II, and refrain from granting any further permits in pursuance of that program,” the court said, referring to the research program. \
According to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and the Sydney Morning Herald, the suit was initiated by Australia, as a breach of the International Whaling Convention’s moratorium on hunting, which has been in force since 1986. In the past 27 years, the Japanese have slaughtered 10,454 whales in the name of “scientific research” and “tradition”. (Right: there was hardly any scientific research, and Japanese “tradition” didn’t include high-technology slaughter boats plying the open seas). Because of those argument, the Japanese were granted special permits for hunting.
But of course they violated them: whale meat regularly turned up in the markets of Tokyo, and, thanks to DNA analysis (by Steve Palumbi, I recall), it was properly identified.
The new headline at the ABC is this:
And the Sydney paper just reported this:
ICJ president Peter Tomka said the court concluded the scientific permits granted by Japan for its whaling program were not scientific research as defined under International Whaling Commission rules.
Mr Tomka said in The Hague that the court was persuaded that Japan had conducted a program for logistical and political considerations, rather than scientific research.
The court unanimously found it had jurisdiction to hear the case, and by 12 votes to four found that special permits granted by Japan in connection with the program, JARPA II, did not fall within the IWC convention.
It therefore ordered that Japan revoke any scientific permit under JARPA II and refrain from granting any further permits.
The Japanese lawyers made an untenable argument:
Japan claimed a clear and indisputable right under the convention to conduct its scientific program.
“Australia has pursued an express policy of using the IWC, against its stated purpose, to ban all whaling,” Japan’s counsel, Payam Akhavan, said.
“It has politicised science in order to impose Australian values on Japan in disregard for international law,” Mr Akhavan said.
These aren’t “Australian” values if the permits were granted for scientific research, research that everyone knew was a cover for commercial whaling. Those in the know could find whale sushi in the restaurants of Japan. The science was a sham, and the values are the international values of conservation, which are not solely Australian.
The decision of the court, in the Hague, is binding. I doubt Japan will want to flout it. But if they do, I’m not sure what recourse there is, save more activity by Greenpeace, and their own protection from having their boats rammed.
What about Iceland? This was last summer…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/19/iceland-fin-whale-hunting-greenpeace
They’re no longer IWC members, so those rules unfortunately don’t apply to them
Now, if the link you provided is correct – i.e. if the meat is being illegally exported to Japan – that is definitely a crime. (…although, sadly, the killing is not)
FWIW, they have also been accused of shipping meat to Denmark
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Iceland
Which makes me wonder, what will stop Japan from also withdrawing from the IWC, and continue killing whales at an even greater rate?
(Oops! Just saw my question answered below!)
I think the Japanese had some clause in their agreement that allowed them, once the “scientific studies” were done, that the meat could be legally (in Japan) turned over to commercial interests- we Japanese are so thrifty; we wouldn’t want to waste anything now, would we? I do remember seeing an article a while back saying that whale meat was losing its popularity in Japan; probably why they didn’t raise more of a stink about it. Now- time to halt the annual slaughter of dolphins there!
This is excellent news!
Good news to start the week!
As Jerry says, it’s about damn time! It has always riled me that Japan was using science as a ruse. Whaling is finally recognized for what it is: criminal activity.
+1
Sadly, this won’t stop the hunting if they want to continue. They can simply withdraw from the International Whaling Commission – like Norway did – instead of depending on the IWC loophole for scientific whaling. If they are not part of the IWC, they are no longer subject to its rules
Isn’t whaling outside of IWC’s aegis illegal in international law anyway?
Can the ICJ ruling be enforced by other nations’ navies?
I so, we might see something analogous to the Cod Wars between the UK and Iceland. Whale War I.
/@
Nope, that’s not even close to true.
Membership is voluntary. Any country can withdraw if they want, and they can even choose to maintain membership but opt out of parts of the agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Whaling_Commission#Enforcement_under_the_IWC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Norway#International_Legal_Status
Well, thanks for the robust clarification.
/@
Obviously effective legislation. At least it shows the majority of nations find whaling unacceptable. Has anyone tried economic sanctions or the like?
And yes, I am totally ignorant about such matters. I did see “Blackfish”, though and am trying to get anyone I know to watch it, especially the ones that frequent SeaWorld.
Lisa said, “At least it shows the majority of nations find whaling unacceptable.”
That’s true, and it is one of the things that makes this issue complicated. The IWC was founded to by pro-whaling nations in an effort to promote a sustainable harvest; i.e. to “protect all species of whales from further over-fishing; Recognizing that the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources;”
http://iwc.int/private/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf
Back in the 1960’s, marine mammal scientists like Ken Norris were writing about a possible future where orca would be trained to act as sheep dogs to herd the pods of large baleen whales that we would harvest. Times have changed, and most nations no longer have any interest in whaling. The ones that do claim that the IWC has been hijacked by anti-whaling lobbyists and nations. They may indeed be right.
Jerry said, “the values are the international values of conservation, which are not solely Australian.” This may indeed be true for many species which are still depleted, but I doubt that this is true for all species. (e.g. meinke[!])
IMHO, it would be more intellectually honest to admit say that we believe that the hunt is barbaric and unnecessary, that it is wrong to kill animals in such a slow and painful manner. That seems more legitimate to me than taking an organization designed from the start to promote sustainable killing and undermining that organization’s entire purpose.
[!] – Please note that I have already commented below that Baker and Palumbi demonstrated that the Japanese fleet were killing other species when they claimed to only take meinke. One might be able to make a convincing conservation claim based on the refusal of the Japanese to limit themselves to the species which are “best able to sustain exploitation” (IWC convention phrasing)
Good news indeed. Strictly though, it wasn’t Greenpeace whose boats they rammed. It was Sea Shepherd, founded by a former Greenpeace member Paul Watson, who left in 1977.
“It was Sea Shepherd, founded by a former Greenpeace member Paul Watson, who left in 1977.”
Indeed it was the Sea Shepherd organisation that, at great risk to their own welfare and safety, kept the Japanese whaling activities centered in the media spotlight. This verdict is a rich reward for their tireless activism.
That the disguise of so-called “scientific research” has been used by the Japanese government to hide such an immoral and selfishly destructive activity is certainly a further black mark against them.
I must admit I was tempted to sign up with the Sea Shepherd’s when I first heard about them. If environmental problems become severe, I liked the idea of telling my kids/grandkids that I didn’t just send $100 to Friends of the Earth, I went out and rammed whaling ships.
You could even show them the t-shirt to prove it.
Good on Australia for taking Japan to the ICJ!
Yes, very happy with this news, global ban on killing all cetaceans without exceptions please!
Good news though this is, I somehow doubt it’ll actually change the number of whales that get hunted. That would take enforcement, which would require either stiff sanctions or even military action…and who’s gonna piss off Japan over sushi?
Tragedy of the commons rules again still.
b&
I wish there were a UN of animal rights and species protection with their own peace keepers.
Sadly, I fear we may well someday see wars fought over ecological resources, as perverted and counterproductive as that would be. Fisheries would be the most obvious candidate, even.
b&
Worse, the fighting will be over use of the jellyfish, the vertebrates all being gone.
When it gets bad enough that the oceanic vertebrates are gone, the terrestrial vertebrates might not be far behind.
Yes, I know we’re not that far away from the jellification of the oceans.
b&
The BBC news site says “Japan said it would abide by the decision but added it ‘regrets and is deeply disappointed by the decision’.” The web site of NHK, the Japanese national broadcaster, mentions the ruling and says “Japan may not be able to continue its Antarctic whaling program, which it has been conducting since 1987”, though it does not give any statement comparable to the BBC one.
It’s been difficult for me to see why Japan had continued whaling so long – as others have mentioned, whale meat is piling up in freezers because consumers are not interested; but perhaps it was, as suggested, just sheer stiff-necked national pride.
If this really is the end, I’d be most happy to have my pessimism shattered.
b&
It is possible there are industry-support issues here, where the government subsidized the whaling without regard for low demand. Maybe there is corruption involved, too? I understand such things do happen in the world.
It might not – they might decide to come down here and continue the butchery anyway. However if they do that, they won’t have any protection (as was offered by the IWC) and will essentially be on their own – rogue operators. That will give the Oz government even less reason to tolerate them as they’ve been doing, and our Navy might actually end up being ordered to police our waters and the whale sanctuary.
Also, Sea Shepherd will throw everything they’ve got at the whale pirates, just as they’ve been doing. Their efforts this whaling season were successful beyond (I think) all previous seasons.
Hi Jerry,
my understanding is that the IWC in fact requires whales taken for research purposes to be processed and sold (“so far as practicable”), and certainly the selling of whale meat in Japan was not covert.
The Japanese whaling program was run like a commercial enterprise, but apparently whale meat is accumulating in Japanese warehouses because there isn’t enough consumer demand, so that can’t have been the only motive.
Ultimately, I think the Japanese whaling program is an exercise in nationalistic nose-thumbing at the west, and this ruling is a recognition that the program has no legitimate scientific purpose.
You are correct that the selling of the meat was not covert. It has been a few years since I read their work, but (IIRC) what Baker and Palumbi found was that much of the meat labeled as “whale” was dall’s porpoise, and that the actual whale meat contained species like fin, sei, and even a humpback. (…as opposed to the meinke whales they said they were hunting.) My recollection was that most of it was actually meinke, but that there were glaring exceptions that gave the impression that any whale in front of the boats got shot, regardless of species.
(…and the dall’s porpoises are a separate issue; there’s no way to claim misidentification….it was clearly an attempt to mislead consumers about the species being purchased)
Reblogged this on The Road.
Before I can call that decision a good one (and I really would like to!), I think it would be fair to give the Japanese scientific community a chance to present the results of 30 (or so) years of scientific whaling. What exactly was the scientific objective of it? 30 years should be plenty of time to gather *some* results …
If you fire a harpoon at them they die? 🙂
Hmmm .. maybe that was it – the objective of the experiments was to develop improved explosive harpoons.
The problem with that idea is that they tested the harpoons on whales, not on whalers.
b&
I’m not sure whether she was expressing herself poorly or whether I simply misremember, but a Japanese friend of mine appeared to make an argument along the lines of:
To find out whether you can sustainably hunt whales, i.e. without diminishing the population size, you need to hunt them while monitoring the population size. Apparently the whaler-scientists of Japan then found that the population size remains stable.
The argument that you could also simply leave the whales alone and then monitor their population size didn’t want to stick. Hunting them was a constant, or at best, a variable never set to zero.
“those in the know could find whale sushi” Actually, you can find canned whale meat in virtually any supermarket, or convenience store in Japan. We see it all the time when we go. My wife is Japanese, and she delights in pointing it out to me (working in a conservation organization).
I agree that this is good, but I wonder why it makes us so happy. Certainly there were at least two issues at play here: claiming science as a cover for certain activities and the activities themselves. Everyone seems to agree that the science claim was simply a lie, so it’s good that we’ve fixed that issue. But the bigger issue, I think, is the relationship between us and animals that we use for food. I’m no food activist (or even a vegetarian), but it seems many people have a strong and clear opinion on Japanese whaling, on the one hand, but a much less clearly articulated and passionate position on, for example, U.S. animal husbandry practices. I think both cases–how the Japanese fish and how we raise animals for meat–are relevant and related. I think that the Japanese practice was bad, for sure, but in terms of scale and effect, I’m pretty sure that practices here in the U.S. are far more troubling and potentially harmful. So I am happy that this ruling has come down, but I hope it will also push to thick further about our own food systems and the way we treat animals as part of that.
” I’m pretty sure that practices here in the U.S. are far more troubling”
It’s interesting to note that even in the face of such a clear judicial decision some people still have the ability, out of some perverted sense of Western self-guilt and cultural relativism, to state that WE are far worse than any possible non-Western offenders in such matters as animal welfare. I wonder exactly how you have become to be so “pretty sure” of this assertion that you make. Do you have any familiarity with animal welfare legislation as it pertains say to practices in farming? Well I do. I can assure you that our practices, policy and enforcement are exceedingly stringent. There is NOTHING here that compares to the cruelty of the hunting and killing of whales (this aside from the fact that with whales we are talking of highly sentient animals). In whaling the chase lasts for hours, until animal exhaustion. The death is horrifically painful and brutal, often lasting hours. Processing often occurs before the animal has even died.
Perhaps, just once you can concede that other people in other cultures can also do wicked things. This is certainly the case for the Japanese and their obsession with their “right” to kill whales.
I take your point but I also must point out that an US (Pacific Northwest) native tribe has started hunting whales.
The Canadian seal hunt continues.
Trapping fur bearing animals continues in both countries.
Both countries use poisons to kill animals they consider out of balance, for example, coyotes.
It may very well be a big jump to assume that Westerners, or Americans or Canadians are do worse. Every activity should be judged on it’s own merits regardless of tradition or culture. Stepping out of ones own culture is often the only way these things get changed.
I can see why Japanese would continue the hunt, for the same reason Canada continues the seal hunt. The seal hunters developed a decent communications team and sold the activity as “Canadiana”, wrapped themselves in the Canadian flag and turned the seal hunt into a political issue.
On the other hand China’s demand for shark fins, bear parts, rhino horn and other exotic so called “Oriental medicines” or foods is driving many species to the edge of extinction or simply creating an enormous amount of suffering and waste.
Cutting the fins off sharks then tossing the still living shark back in the ocean should be illegal. It’s a massive waste, it’s cruel, and it’s causing problems for shark populations.
The problem is not American, Japanese, Chinese or African, the problem is one of Homo Sapiens, a species that supposedly is intelligent and has the ability to occasionally empathize with other humans and animals.
Supposedly.
It is probably a forlorn hope, but it might eventually just be possible that people realise that intensively farmed meat is rubbish. The local butcher (in the UK) that I have used for many years sells only grass-fed beef and lamb. Currently the beef that he is selling comes from angus/shorthorn crosses from fields a kilometre from my house. It is absolutely delicious, and vastly superior to anything that I ever had in a score of visits to the USA.
That’s the trend in Whole Foods and other similar “high-end” grocery stores: lots of local foods, all meats required to meet certain ethical treatment standards, lots of pasture-raised meats and dairy. And California is on the verge of legislatively mandating ethical treatment standards comparable to the minimums required by Whole Foods…with California being one of the world’s largest agribusiness powerhouses, that could be very significant.
It’s still a long way from where we need to be, but it’s definite progress in the right direction.
b&
According to our news agencies here in Canada, this is a *temporary halt* on whaling by Japan. Vigilance in staying on top of this problem is still the order of the day.
Finally something good from the UN. Next step should be UN Security Resolution to allow navies to made whalers (regardless of nationality) sink.
I must be one of the few on this site who has eaten whale. 1946/7, London. Great square lumps of gelatinous red meat, dredged in flour and cooked in strips. Tastes of old fish.
A bit off-topic, but I once ate hippopotamus. It was in northern Uganda, if memory serves, in 1967 or so.
It was very tough.
Now to get aquaria to stop purchasing cetaceans to imprison.
Some Japanese eat dolphin as well; I wonder if dolphins are protected by any international agreements.
Reblogged this on Michael Patrick Hicks and commented:
I’m just going to echo Jerry Coyne’s sentiments here – It’s about damn time!
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/2014/03/31/the-whales-have-won-icj-rules-japans-southern-ocean-whaling-not-for-scientific-research-1569
Just walked past their boat on the way to work this morning-it’s tied up in Wellington. Neat looking boat.
As noted above Japan can almost certainly get around this by either opting out of the agreement or rearranging their programme to fit within the rules. I suppose it will be a political choice between giving the world the finger or using the decision as an excuse to abandon what is probably a running political sore.(commented rated “Good” grade 10)
I think they re-paint them every year.
They always look neat.
Probably need to. There were a few scrapes near the bow
…
I wonder if the Japanese gov’t is secretly relieved at this?
They couldn’t back down for reasons of national pride,but it was getting more and more embarrassing.
Now they can plead force majeure while still bitching about Western hypocrisy.
(Disclosure: My very first job back in the 60s involved grinding up whale meat to fed to mink who were raised in tiny cages till they were old enough to be slaughtered for their fur.)