David @ Tokyo
Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics6/28/2006
IWC 2006: Whalers to sue the IWC?
"The alternative is that the anti-whalers will continue to decline any request for whaling for any reason, and the pro-whalers will take advantage of those loopholes that exist under the whaling convention and go ahead and whale anyway"Another legal expert, Dr Eric Wilson of Monash Law School, has an article on how he sees the situation in terms of law in The Age.
This is why the recent symbolic win of Japan is potentially of great significance; by indicating the purely temporary nature of the moratorium, the (slight) majority of IWC members have reaffirmed their understanding of the convention as a conservationist document, not a preservationist one. If so, then the pro-whalers have the stronger legal position.Interesting comments. Essentially, the scientific argument that sustainable whaling is possible was already won, more than a decade ago. The Scientific Committee unanimously recommended the Revised Management Procedure, and the IWC itself also adopted it. What more evidence is required?If incontrovertible proof of sustainable numbers of whale species can be provided, then the continuation of the moratorium - at least as it is applied to the numerically "safe" species - is clearly illegal, and the anti-whaling nations are in breach of their fundamental treaty obligations. In this event, the pro-whalers will be in an unambiguously lawful position to either resume commercial hunting unilaterally, or, more likely, to secede from the IWC altogether and establish their own whaling treaty system.
Dr Wilson states that the whalers could either hunt unilaterally or start a new whaling organization.
This reminds us of another, perhaps more likely, possibility.
Masayuki Komatsu, in his book "The Truth Behind the Whaling Dispute" talks about the chance that one day Japan may sue the IWC:
"The fact that the IWC has been acting in violation of its own Convention is obvious to anyone with legal knowledge. We have a sufficient number of objective and legal evidence to support our claim."We have seen that the US looks set to agree to some form of commercial whaling. If the remainder of the anti-whaling nations refuse to follow this responsible and constructive lead, perhaps we can expect to see such a case within the next few years.
"Surely some day Japan may bring the case against the IWC to an international court. I am looking forward to that day."
It is known that the Government of Japan is wanting to see progress made, after 14 years of procrastination and filibustering from the anti-whaling side on the development of an RMS. It is unlikely that the whaling nations will be able to encourage enough of their friends to join the IWC and support them to obtain the 75% majority to overturn the unnecessary moratorium. Perhaps court action is the next most likely means of resolving the issue, after the more likely situation of the less fanatical anti-whaling nations deciding to compromise at the IWC for the benefit of whale conservation.
Though it's far from topping my priorities, I do pick up my rhetorical harpoon at least once a year. Every time, I am baffled by the ignorance and emotional fervor of the anti-whaling international majority, extending to any number of otherwise reasonable people. In the last two weeks I've been called "beneath contempt" and more names than I care to repeat, merely for pointing out that there are two (or more) sides to this. It's baffling how many are convinced that every whale species on earth is on the verge of going dodo and that every individual of every such is a holy hybrid of Albert Einstein and the Princess Diana, eating which is at best on a par with cannibalism.
And isn't it incredible what myths and lies the Anglophone press is able to comprise in a few lines? I just read in the new edition of Time Magazine that Norway "openly flouts IWC rules." WTF? Not to mention all the nonsense about Japan, often bordering on racism.
It feels hopeless to stem the tide of myth and disinformation. But thanks for trying -- hang in there!
: 4:59 pmI too just got a new comment telling me that I "disgust" the poster, that I am not welcome in New Zealand, and that I am a Japanese puppet.
If anything, this sort of nonsense just encourages me to let even more people know the folly of the New Zealand position on this issue.
It's just embarassing, for New Zealand's position to be so devoted, yet so driven by ignorance of the facts. The government's position is purely to appease anti-whaling sentiment amongst the general public. So this needs to change, but how could my people have been deceived in this way? And if we can be deceived so easily what if this issue was one of greater importance?
That's kind of scary. I thank goodness that this is a minor issue, or otherwise who knows what might happen.
I do see progress though. There was a time when I'd be the only one in a particular Internet forum saying "um, hang on you guys...", but today a greater number of people seem to have an appreciation for the concept of sustainable use and whaling, in a range of forums that I participate in.
I look forward to the day when the majority of people in New Zealand can sit back in their sofas, and have a chuckle to themselves: "boy, didn't we get ourselves all so excited about that whaling thing... ah well, I guess everyone is just human..."
The whalers suing the IWC at the ICJ (and winning) would be a huge boost to reaching this end, even if just in moral terms not pratical ones. I guess it's something that the whalers will continue to consider, but it seems like they have decided to try to gain a simple majority at the IWC first. I think the policy has a lot of merit, because the majority of nations that do oppose whaling are the developed western nations. The whaling side can get support from developing nations, which are by far in the majority, globally. There's simply not that many more nations for the anti-whaling camp to recruit.
By the way, do get in touch if you should ever need translation from Norwegian, or Swedish/Danish for that matter. My e-mail is found at my blog.
Cheers!
: 7:42 amI have the story also from Norwegian paper Dagbladet:
http://www.dagbladet.no/dinside/2006/07/04/470632.html
Please read the comments and translate some of them to David, but he may delete some Norwegian comments like the one posted 4.7.06 13.55
Ann
: 10:34 pm<< Home
Archives
June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 February 2011 March 2011 May 2013 June 2013
