1 / 21

How much whale hunting is needed in the name of science?

How much whale hunting is needed in the name of science? . History of whaling in Japan. Definition: Hunting of whales for commercial , recreational or scientific purposes. Whaling in Japan dates back as far as the 7 th century

abra
Download Presentation

How much whale hunting is needed in the name of science?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. How much whale hunting is needed in the name of science?

  2. History of whaling in Japan Definition: Hunting of whales for commercial, recreational or scientific purposes. Whaling in Japan dates back as far as the 7th century Proverb: "There's nothing to throw away from a whale except its voice.” Staple piece of the Japanese diet

  3. The Issue Gradual extinction - By the late 16th Century ‘right whales’became virtually extinct in the North Atlantic. 19th century improvements in hunting technology heavily distorts population numbers Booming hunting industry = Unsustainability The Numbers In 2011/2012 Japan killed around 445 whales in total. In 2010/2011 Japan killed around 445 whales in total. Japan has slaughtered over 6,000 whales since commercial whaling was banned in 1986

  4. Science as an excuse?

  5. Action by the International Community International Whaling Commission (IWC) came into effect in 1986 Goals: Combat extinction and promote sustainability Complete protection of certain species Set limits on the number and size of whales which could be taken Prescribed open and closed seasons and areas for whaling International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling 1946 Purpose: "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". "Save the Whale" become one of the most successful campaigns of the 1970s, and brought groups like Greenpeace to prominence.

  6. Australia vs Japan • 2010 – Australia launches International case against Japan • 31st March 2014 - International Court of Justice ordered Japan to stop whaling • Scientific whaling' is not compatible with the ICRW Japan, Iceland and Norway still continue to hunt whales. 2003 – Countries wanted to recommence commercial whaling, arguing that… The hiatus had allowed whale stocks to recover sufficiently enough. Minke whales were endangering other species

  7. Interpretation of Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention

  8. Interpretation of Article VIII paragraph 1 of the Convention “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.”

  9. Examination of the function of art VIII §1. • Analyzes of the relationship between Article VIII and the object and purpose of the Convention. • The power of the State issuing a special permit.

  10. The standard of review • The meaning of the phrase “for purposes of scientific research”.

  11. JARPA II in light of Article VIII of the Convention

  12. Description of the programs • JARPA I (1982) • JARPA II (2005)

  13. Design • Japan’s decision regarding the use of lethal methods • Are lethal methods necessary? • Reliability and value of data collected • Consideration of alternative non-lethal methods • The scale of the use of lethal weapons • Comparison of target sample sizes with that of JARPA • Determination of target sample sizes • 5 stage process

  14. Implementation • Gap between target and actual sample sizes • changes to the programmes objectives and target sample sizes? • Time frame • Co-operation with scientists • Scientific output

  15. Application of A VIII(1) to JARPA II • design and implementation are not reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives • not “for purposes of scientific research” pursuant to Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the Convention.

  16. Perspectives

  17. Science or law? • Dissenting opinion ofJudgeOwada • NGOs think science is clear!

  18. Whathappenedto theprecautionary principle? • The partiesreferto it, but not the Court! • JudgesCharlesworth and CançadoTrindade • May undermine the authority of the principle in environmental law in general

  19. Evolving instrument? • JudgeOwada: ”Changing the rulesof the game” • Progressive measuresareimportant in environmental law! • JudgeCançadoTrindade: indication of opiniojuris New customarylaw?

  20. Conclusion

  21. Thankyou!

More Related