The Whaling Dispute in the South Pacific: A Japanese Perspective

Author:Ad hoc Editorial Chamber
Pages:449-456
SUMMARY

Australia instituted proceedings against Japan before the International Court of Justice alleging that the JARPA II is violating the obligation of ICRW which prohibits the commercial whaling. Japan is strongly protesting against Australia arguing that the JARPA II has been carried out only for research whaling. This paper contains the Japan’s position over the whaling in the South Pacific. The... (see full summary)

 
FREE EXCERPT
The Whaling Dispute in the
South Pacific: A Japanese
Perspective
Ad hoc Editorial Chamber
Australia instituted proceedings against Japan before the International Court of
Justice alleging that the JARPA II is violating the obligation of ICRW which
prohibits the commercial whaling. Japan is strongly protesting against Australia
arguing that the JARPA II has been carried out only for research whaling. This paper
contains the Japan
s position over the whaling in the South Pacific. The Japan
s
arguments are divided into two sections in this paper. First, it will check if whales
are truly vulnerable following the Comprehensive Assessment of the IWC. Second, it
argues the legitimacy of the JARPA II under international law.
Keywords
JARPA II, Minke Whale, ICRW, IWC, Schedule, ICJ
1. Introduction
On May 31, 2010, Australia instituted proceedings against Japan before the International
Court of Justice.
1
Australia alleged that: Japans continued pursuit of a large scale
program of whaling under the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program
under Special Permit in the Antarctic (JARPA II) [is] in breach of 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
KFBJM3)3122*  449
* This paper has been written by Ad hoc Editorial Chamber consisting of Professors Hyun-soo Kim, Eric Yong Joong
Lee and John Riley. Japanese sources have been translated by Ms. Song-yi Kim.
1In accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the ICJ Statute, Australia and Japan recognized the Courts
jurisdiction as compulsory on March 22, 2002 and July 9, 2007, respectively.

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL