After the storm: The Whaling in the Antarctic Case and the Australian Whale Sanctuary
Access status:
Open Access
Type
ArticleAuthor/s
Stephens, TimAbstract
In March 2014 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case between Australia and Japan, in which it found by 12 votes to four that Japan’s whaling program in the Southern Ocean was not undertaken "for the purposes of scientific ...
See moreIn March 2014 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case between Australia and Japan, in which it found by 12 votes to four that Japan’s whaling program in the Southern Ocean was not undertaken "for the purposes of scientific research" as required by the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Although this was a clear endorsement of the Australian claims, the ICJ did not rule out the practice of scientific whaling altogether. The court emphasised that the ICRW expressly allows for the conduct of scientific whaling programs, including those that are lethal and that "pursue an aim other than either conservation or sustainable exploitation of whale stocks". The decision therefore leaves open the possibility that Antarctic whaling activities could be continued in an adjusted form. If so, it is possible that, as in past seasons, Japanese whaling vessels will continue to pass through the Australian Whale Sanctuary in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone en route to Southern Ocean whaling grounds. Against this background this article considers whether Australia’s domestic legal framework applicable to cetacean conservation can be applied more effectively, or further strengthened.
See less
See moreIn March 2014 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision in the Whaling in the Antarctic Case between Australia and Japan, in which it found by 12 votes to four that Japan’s whaling program in the Southern Ocean was not undertaken "for the purposes of scientific research" as required by the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). Although this was a clear endorsement of the Australian claims, the ICJ did not rule out the practice of scientific whaling altogether. The court emphasised that the ICRW expressly allows for the conduct of scientific whaling programs, including those that are lethal and that "pursue an aim other than either conservation or sustainable exploitation of whale stocks". The decision therefore leaves open the possibility that Antarctic whaling activities could be continued in an adjusted form. If so, it is possible that, as in past seasons, Japanese whaling vessels will continue to pass through the Australian Whale Sanctuary in the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone en route to Southern Ocean whaling grounds. Against this background this article considers whether Australia’s domestic legal framework applicable to cetacean conservation can be applied more effectively, or further strengthened.
See less
Date
2014Source title
Environmental and Planning Law JournalVolume
31Issue
6Publisher
Thomson ReutersLicence
Copyright All Rights ReservedRights statement
This article was published by Thomson Reuters and should be cited as Stephens, T. (2014). After the storm: The Whaling in the Antarctic Case and the Australian Whale Sanctuary. Environmental and Planning Law Journal, 31(6), 459–469. For all subscription inquiries please phone, from Australia: 1300 304 195, from Overseas: +61 2 8587 7980 or online at legal.thomsonreuters.com.au/search. The official PDF version of this article can also be purchased separately from Thomson Reuters at http://sites.thomsonreuters.com.au/journals/subscribe-or-purchase. This publication is copyright. Other than for the purposes of and subject to the conditions prescribed under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part of it may in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, microcopying, photocopying, recording or otherwise) be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted without prior written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Limited. PO Box 3502, Rozelle NSW 2039. legal.thomsonreuters.com.auFaculty/School
The University of Sydney Law SchoolShare