Japanese whaling vessel Nisshun Maru. Image: Shutterstock
Advertisement
The case was brought to the ICJ by Australia, which sought to "establish, once and for all, that Japan's whaling hunt is not for scientific purposes and is against international law," as Australian Attorney General Mark Dreyfus told the Australian last August. Australia contended that Japan's special whaling permits issued under the International Whaling Convention, which governs international whaling, did not actually qualify as scientific exemptions.Broadly, Japan's Antarctic whaling is governed by what's called JARPA II, the second iteration of guidelines developed by the country to prove its whaling activities produce scientific contributions. While Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research has loudly trumpeted the value of the research it's conducted, the ICJ ruled that Japan's regulations have little scientific basis. For example, the court noted that Japan has killed some 3,600 minke whales since JARPA II began in 2005, a take that's produced little scientific output.Japan's statement following the historic decision of the World Court to end its Antarctic whaling #whaling #ifaw #icj pic.twitter.com/IORORBPfws
— Patrick R. Ramage (@patrickramage) March 31, 2014
Advertisement
- JARPA II was lacking studies testing whether research goals could be met without killing whales.
- JARPA II's research goals have "considerable overlap" with the previous program "in their subjects, their objectives, and their methods," suggesting that Japan's arguments for expanding its whaling program under JARPA II weren't valid.
- That Japan's whale quotas have little scientific rationale behind them, and a "significant gap" between target sample sizes and the actual number of whales killed.
- Finally, that the program has an open-ended time frame, that Japan has produced little scientific output based on the program, and that Japan has not cooperated well with other research interests all suggest that science was not the primary goal of the program.