Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T11:57:19.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2014

Sean Stephenson ,
Arne Mooers  and
Amir Attaran
Sean Stephenson
Affiliation:
Center for International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL), Montreal, QC (Canada). Email: [email protected].
Arne Mooers
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University (SFU), Department of Biological Sciences, Vancouver, BC (Canada). Email: [email protected].
Amir Attaran
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa, Faculties of Law and Medicine, Ottawa, ON (Canada). Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The competency debate over small cetacean regulation at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is legal in nature, yet has been in a political stalemate for years. In this article we argue that the IWC has the competence to regulate small cetaceans and that the commercial whaling of ‘small cetaceans’ is a violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling. We present hybrid legal and scientific arguments and counter-arguments for the treaty interpretation of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and, given recent precedent, advocate that the International Court of Justice be called upon to resolve this matter.

Keywords

International Environmental LawSmall CetaceansWhalingBiodiversityInternational Court of Justice
Type
Articles
Information
Transnational Environmental Law , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , October 2014 , pp. 241 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Washington, DC (US), 2 Dec. 1946, in force 10 Nov. 1948, available at: http://iwc.int/convention. The ICRW currently has 88 members.

2 C. Linnaeus, Systema naturæ per regna tria naturæ, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis, Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata (1758), at p. 77.

3 ICJ, Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan, New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 Mar. 2014, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18136.pdf.

4 Montego Bay (Jamaica), 10 Dec. 1982, in force 16 Nov. 1994, available at: http://www.un.org/depts/los.

5 While other organizations exist, as Gillespie has stated, the IWC has primacy over other organizations and is the only organization that is truly international: A. Gillespie, Whaling Diplomacy: Defining Issues in International Law (Edward Elgar, 2005).

6 IWC, 43rd Report 3 (1991), Report of the Sub-Committee on Small Cetaceans, Annex G; Burns, W.C., ‘The International Whaling Commission and the Regulation of the Consumptive and Non-Consumptive Uses of Small Cetaceans: The Critical Agenda for the 1990s’ (1994–95) 13 Wisconsin International Law Journal, pp. 105–44, at 116.Google Scholar

7 Ceta-Base: Online Marine Mammal Inventory, ‘Tracking Taiji: Live Capture and Export Data from Drive Fisheries’, 14 Mar. 2012, at 2, available at: http://www.ceta-base.com/library/cetabasedocs/trackingtaiji-thehunt-2012.pdf.

8 For a review of whaling regulation see, e.g., P. Birnie, International Regulation of Whaling: From Conservation of Whaling to Conservation of Whales and Regulation of Whale-Watching (Oceana, 1985); Burns, n. 6 above; Bowman, M.J., ‘“Normalizing” the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’ (2008) 29 Michigan Journal of International Law, pp. 293–500.Google Scholar

9 Geneva (Switzerland), 24 Sept. 1931, in force 16 Jan. 1935, available at: http://iea.uoregon.edu/pages/view_treaty.php?t=1931-Whaling.EN.txt&par=view_treaty_html.

10 London (UK), 8 June 1937, in force 7 May 1938, available at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1946/10.html.

11 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above, at para. 43.

12 Ackerman, R.B., ‘Japanese Whaling in the Pacific Ocean: Defiance of International Whaling Norms in the Name of “Scientific Research”, Culture, and Tradition’ (2002) 25(2) Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, pp. 323–42, at 327.Google Scholar

13 Hirata, K., ‘Why Japan Supports Whaling’ (2005) 8 Journal of International Wildlife Law & Policy, pp. 129–49Google Scholar; US Department of State, ‘Status of International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’, 13 Aug. 2009, available at: http://iwcoffice.org/cache/downloads/40m1pmlwi4e8ogscwwoww0wws/convention_status.pdf. In 1959, Japan gave notice that it would withdraw from the ICRW, but cancelled its withdrawal the day before it was to take effect.

14 ICRW, n. 1 above, Preamble. See also Birnie, n. 8 above, at pp. 166–70; Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 108; Haskell, R. Jr., ‘Abandoning Whale Conservation Initiatives in Japan Whaling Association v. American Cetacean Society’ (1987) 11 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 551–92, at 555.Google Scholar

15 Art. 5(3) allows a state to object to any amendment that is made with the result that that amendment will not apply to that state. Further, Art. 11 allows a state to withdraw easily from the Convention without consequence.

16 ICRW, n. 1 above, Arts 3 and 4.

17 Birnie, n. 8 above, at pp. 166–7; McGonigle, R., ‘The Economizing of Ecology: Why Big, Rare Whales Still Die’ (1980) 9 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 119–238Google Scholar, at 132–3. Art. 3(6) ICRW does note that various UN specialized agencies will have an interest in the work of the IWC.

18 ICRW, n. 1 above, Art. 1; Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 173.

19 ICRW, n. 1 above, Arts 3–6 ; Haskell, n. 14 above, at p. 556.

20 The list of IWC sub-groups is available at: http://iwcoffice.org/commission-sub-groups.

21 This sub-committee was first established in 1974 and has continued its work since then. The sub-committee completes its work without prejudice to the legal position of states.

22 E.g., Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBANS), New York, NY (US), 17 Mar. 1992, in force 29 Mar. 1994 (also for the Netherlands), available at: http://www.ascobans.org. ASCOBANS now has 10 Member States: Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Additionally, the Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS), Monaco, 24 Nov. 1996, in force 1 June 2001, available at: http://www.accobams.org, has 23 Member States.

23 UN Earth Summit, ‘Agenda 21: The United Nations Programme of Action from Rio’, June 1992, Ch. 17, para. 17.62, available at: http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400.

24 Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 322.

25 Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 126; Scarff, J., ‘International Management of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises: An Interdisciplinary Assessment’ (1977) 323 Ecology Law Quarterly, pp. 323–428, at 373.Google Scholar

26 Caron, D.D., ‘The International Whaling Commission and the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission: The Institutional Risks of Coercion for Consensual Structures’ (1995) 89 American Journal of International Law, pp. 154–74, at 156.Google Scholar

27 See, e.g., IWC, 22nd Report, Report of the Scientific Committee, at p. 30, para. 29–30, cited in Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 416. Here, the Scientific Committee agreed to observe the catch of minke whales.

28 IWC, 27th Report (1977), at pp. 49 and 480. In 1972, the IWC also requested that Member States provide information on small cetaceans to provide an early warning for species’ depletion, a lesson learned from past failures.

29 Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 494; however, the entire amendment process died when consensus proved elusive: ibid., at p. 549.

30 See IWC, 42nd Report, at p. 41, 1990:3 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 43rd Report, p. 42, 1991:5 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 44th Report, at p. 43, 1992:9 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 44th Report, at p. 4, 1992:10 Resolution on the Directed Take of Striped Dolphins in Drive Fisheries; IWC, 45th Report, at p. 44, 1993:4 Resolution on Addressing Small Cetaceans in the IWC; IWC, 45th Report, at p. 44, 1993:10 Resolution on the Directed Take of the Striped Dolphin; IWC, 46th Report, at p. 45, 1994:2 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 48th Report, at p. 47, 1996:4 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 50th Report, at p. 48, 1997:8 Resolution on Small Cetaceans; IWC, 53rd Report at p. 52, 2001:13 Resolution on Small Cetaceans.

31 Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 128.

32 IWC, 42nd Report, at p. 41, 1990:4 Resolution on the Directed Take of Dall’s Porpoises.

33 IWC, 59th Report, 2006:1 St. Kitts and Nevis Declaration.

34 IWC, ‘Proposed Consensus Decision to Improve the Conservation of Whales from the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Commission’, IWC/62/7rev Agenda item 3, available at: http://iwc.int/private/downloads/68iqrx5r6mwws4cc08wowcsow/62-7rev.pdf.

35 For a list of issues negotiated see the Small Working Group (SWG) 2008/2009, available at: http://iwcoffice.org/future2.

36 IWC, ‘Future of the IWC’, available at: http://iwc.int/future.

37 Ibid.

38 ‘Flights, Girls and Cash Buy Japan Whaling Votes’, The Sunday Times, London, 13 June 2010, available at: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Environment/article316598.ece.

39 Paris (France), 21 Nov. 1997, in force 15 Feb. 1999, available at: http://www.oecd.org/corruption/oecdantibriberyconvention.htm.

40 IWC, 2011:1 Resolution on Improving the Effectiveness of Operations within the International Whaling Commission, available at: http://iwcoffice.co.uk/meetings/resolutions/resolution2011.htm.

41 J. Vidal, ‘Whaling Body Outlaws Malpractice with Anti-Corruption Reform’, The Guardian, 14 July 2011, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jul/14/whaling-body-anti-corruption.

42 IWC, 31st Report (1980), at p. 24; Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 128.

43 Vienna (Austria), 23 May 1969, in force 27 Jan. 1980, available at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf.

44 Ibid., Arts 1 and 5.

45 The Oxford English Dictionary, online, s.v. ‘whale’ definition 1a. Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 32, states that the term is widely used for any species over 12 feet (= 3.7 metres).

46 VCLT, n. 43 above, Art. 31(2).

47 N. 9 above, Art. 2.

48 N. 10 above, Art. 18.

49 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above, at paras 43–45.

50 Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Decision of 13 Apr. 2002, Permanent Court of Arbitration, Ch. 3, p. 31, para. 3.5, available at: http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1150; see also M.N. Shaw, International Law, 5th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2003), at p. 840.

51 Ibid.

52 Linnaeus, n. 2 above, at p. 77.

53 Here, it should be noted that in his original classification Linnaeus erected a distinct taxon for the narwhal. Over time this was proven to be incorrect and modern classification places the dolphins, narwhal, porpoises, river dolphins, beaked whales and sperm whales all as subcategories of the toothed whales: see Simpson, G.G., ‘The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals’ (1945) 85 Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, pp. 1–350, at 213–6.Google Scholar

54 Ibid., at pp. 100–5.

55 Steeman, M.E. et al. ., ‘Radiation of Extant Cetaceans Driven by Restructuring of the Oceans’ (2009) 58 Systematic Biology, pp. 573–85.Google Scholar

56 Ibid.

57 ICRW, n. 1 above, Art. 5.

58 N. 4 above.

59 Ibid.

60 See ICRW, n. 1 above, Schedule.

61 T.A. Jefferson, M.A. Webber & R.L. Pitman, Marine Mammals of the World: A Comprehensive Guide to Their Identification (Elsevier, 2008), at p. 573; M.A. Donahue & W.L. Perryman, ‘Pygmy Killer Whale – Feresa Attenuata’, in W.F. Perrin, B. Würsig & J.G.M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, 2nd edn (Academic Press, 2009), at pp. 938–9.

62 ICRW, n. 1 above, Art. 5. All amendments must be made based on necessity, science and a fair consideration of the effect of the new amendment on consumers of whale products and the whaling industry.

63 ICRW, n. 1 above, Schedule, Art. 10(e).

64 Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 284.

65 Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 425. For example, it is well documented that the minke whale was not originally regulated in the Schedule or commercially exploited. However, as exploitation of the minke whale increased they were eventually included within the Schedule.

66 Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 106.

67 ICRW, n. 1 above, Art 4.

68 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above, at para. 47.

69 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Nuclear Weapons), Judgment, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports (1996), p. 66, at 74–5.

70 Shaw, n. 50 above, at p. 1194; VCLT, n. 43 above, Art. 31(2).

71 C.F. Amerasinghe, Principles of Institutional Law of International Organizations (Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 327.

72 Ibid.

73 Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 3 Mar. 1950, ICJ Reports (1950), p. 4, at 9; Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports (1971), p. 17, at 22.

74 Amerasinghe, n. 71 above, at p. 50.

75 European Commission on the Danube, Advisory Opinion, 8 Dec. 1927, PCIJ Ser. B No. 14, at pp. 57–8; Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, Advisory Opinion, 8 June 1960, ICJ Reports (1960), p. 150, at 167–8.

76 See ‘Appendix I List of Smaller Cetaceans Recognized’, Report 27 IWC, 1977, cited in Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 667.

77 Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 285.

78 Ibid.

79 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above, at para. 111.

80 VCLT, n. 43 above, Art. 31(2)(a).

81 Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 631; Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 287; Burns, n. 6 above, at p. 129.

82 Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 286.

83 Ibid., at p. 20.

84 Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 631.

85 Ibid., at p. 1028.

86 Gillespie, n. 5 above, at p. 18.

87 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ‘Management of Dolphins and Porpoises’, available at: http://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/fishery/whales/iwc/dolphin.html.

88 Birnie, P., ‘Small Cetaceans and the International Whaling Commission’ (1997–98) 10(1) Georgetown International Environmental Law Review, pp. 1–18, at 12.Google Scholar

89 UNCLOS, n. 4 above, Art. 65, entitled ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’.

90 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above, at para. 40.

91 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, n. 87 above.

92 Australia v. Japan, n. 3 above.

93 See Birnie, n. 8 above, at p. 486, fn. 171, p. 487, fn. 174, and p. 606, fn. 50.

94 See, e.g., E. Posner, ‘The Decline of the International Court of Justice’, University of Chicago Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 233, Dec. 2004, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=629341.

95 J. McCurry, ‘Australia Accused of “Affront” to Japan’s Dignity in Whaling Case’, The Guardian, 16 July 2013, available at: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/16/australian-accused-whaling-case-affront-japan.

96 ‘Japan Accepts Court Ban on Antarctic Whaling’, 21 Mar. 2014, BBC Online, available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26818863.

97 San Francisco, CA (US), 26 June 1945, in force 24 Oct. 1945, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0, Arts. 62–63.

98 Ibid.

99 Bonafe, B., ‘International Court of Justice: Interests of a Legal Nature Justifying Intervention before the ICJ’ (2012) 25(3) Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 739–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 740 and 743; Rubio, M.G., ‘Intervention before the International Court of Justice: The Nicaraguan Intervention in El Salvador/ Honduras Case’ (2001) 1 Anuario Mexicano de Derecho International, pp. 165–95, at 740, 743Google Scholar; Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America), Preliminary Question, Judgment, 15 June 1954, ICJ Reports (1954), p. 19, at 32.

100 Case concerning Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to Intervene, Judgment, 13 Sept. 1990, ICJ Reports (1990), p. 92, at 133–4; Rubio, ibid., at p. 189.

101 Palchetti, P., ‘Opening the International Court of Justice to Third States: Intervention and Beyond’ (2002) 6 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, pp. 139–81, at 141.Google Scholar

102 Case concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), Declaration of Intervention, Order, 4 Oct. 1984, ICJ Reports (1984), p. 215, at 215–6. See also Sztucki, J., ‘Intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute in the Phase of Preliminary Proceedings: The “Salvadorian Incident” (1985) 79 American Journal of International Law, pp. 1005–36, at 1005.Google Scholar

103 Fitzmaurice, G.G., ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–54’ (1958) 28 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 1–28, at 27.Google Scholar

104 Nuclear Weapons, n. 69 above, at p. 73.

105 Organizations that may bring advisory cases include the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and Security Council, UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Trusteeship Council, Interim Committee of UNGA, International Labour Organization (ILO), FAO, UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), WHO, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), International Finance Corporation (IFC), International Development Association (IDA), International Monetary Fund (IMF), International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), International Maritime Organization (IMO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

106 Nuclear Weapons, n. 69 above, at pp. 71–2.

107 Ibid., at p. 74.

108 See Bowman, n. 8 above.

109 Ibid.

110 FAO Constitution, in ‘Basic Texts of the FAO’, vol.1, 2011 edn, at Art. 1.1, available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/022/k8024e.pdf.

111 Ibid., at Art. 1.2.

112 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing, 22 Nov. 2009, Art. 1, defines fish as ‘all species of living marine resources’, available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/1_037t-e.pdf.

113 UN, NGO Branch, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, ‘At Your Service’, available online at: http://csonet.org.

114 ICJ Statute, n. 97 above. Only states may be parties to cases before the Court (ICJ Statute, Art. 34) and all Members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the ICJ Statute (Charter of the United Nations, San Francisco, CA (US), 26 June 1945, in force 24 Oct. 1945, Art. 93(1), available at: www.un.org/en/documents/charter.

115 For a list of declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, see the ICJ website, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3.

116 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Jurisdiction), Judgment, 30 Aug. 1924, PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 2, 1924, p. 11.

117 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Advisory Opinion, 30 Mar. 1950, ICJ Reports (1950), p. 65, at 74.

118 Shaw, n. 50 above, at pp. 969–70.

119 See also Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement, Advisory Opinion, 26 Apr. 1988, ICJ Reports (1988), p. 12, at 30; Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 30 June 1995, ICJ Reports (1995), p. 90, at 99–100.

120 Case concerning Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, 20 Dec. 1988, ICJ Reports (1988), p. 16, at 91. See also Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 20 July 1962, ICJ Reports (1962) p. 151, at 155.

121 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case (Greece v. Turkey), Judgment, 19 Dec. 1978, ICJ Reports (1978) p. 3, at 12.

122 C.J. Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 25–30.

123 International Law Commission (ILC), ‘Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with Commentaries’, Nov. 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), Ch. IV.E.1, at Art. 42, available at: http://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/english/a_56_10.pdf.

124 Ibid., at p. 117.

125 Bonn (Germany), 23 June 1979, in force 1 Nov. 1983, available at: http://www.cms.int.

126 ILC Draft Articles, n. 123 above, at Art. 48.

127 Case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd, Judgment, 5 Feb. 1970, ICJ Reports (1970), p. 3.

128 Ibid., at para. 33.

129 Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), 5 June 1992, in force 29 Dec. 1993, available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/text.