Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorStephens, Tim
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-28T00:40:19Z
dc.date.available2024-11-28T00:40:19Z
dc.date.issued2014en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/33336
dc.description.abstractIn 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.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherThomson Reutersen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofEnvironmental and Planning Law Journalen_AU
dc.rightsCopyright All Rights Reserveden_AU
dc.subjectWhaling in the Antarctic Caseen_AU
dc.subjectInternational Court of Justiceen_AU
dc.subject1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whalingen_AU
dc.subjectscientific whalingen_AU
dc.titleAfter the storm: The Whaling in the Antarctic Case and the Australian Whale Sanctuaryen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen_AU
dc.rights.otherThis 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.auen_AU
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::The University of Sydney Law Schoolen_AU
usyd.citation.volume31en_AU
usyd.citation.issue6en_AU
usyd.citation.spage459en_AU
usyd.citation.epage469en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyNoen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.