Patrick Ramage, director of the International Fund for Animal Welfare's, said the ruling "certainly has implications ultimately for whaling by Iceland and Norway as well."
Presiding Judge Peter Tomka at the International Court of Justice said that the court’s 16-member panel decided that Japan has not justified the large number of minke whales it takes under its program, while failing to meet much smaller targets for fin and humpback whales. The IWC is the global body charged with the conservation of whales and the management of whaling. The IWC is responsible for setting catch limits for commercial whaling (with the exception of catches set by countries under objection or reservation to the current moratorium - see below). The Commission's role has expanded since its establishment in 1946. Australia launched the case in 2010, and in July 2012 argued there was no need to kill any whales for scientific purposes. The court ordered a halt to the issuing of whaling permits until the program is redesigned. The US and several other nations are whaling under aboriginal whaling auspices. The vote to adopt the sanctuary resolution was twenty-three in favour, one opposed (Japan) and six abstaining. In 2002, Iceland was allowed to rejoin IWC with a reservation to the moratorium (Iceland withdrew from IWC in 1992), but this reservation is not recognised as a valid objection by many IWC members. In addition, Italy, Mexico, and New Zealand do not consider the ICRW to be in force between their countries and Iceland. In its defense, Japan cited only two peer-reviewed scientific papers relating to its program from 2005 to the present — a period during which it has harpooned 3,600 minke whales, a handful of fin whales, and no humpback whales at all. However, environmental groups dispute the claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."
But Japan argued that Australia's case was an attempt to use the court to impose its cultural standards on Japan, rather than any violation of international law.
The reports of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species in 1977 and 1981 identified many species of whales as being in danger of extinction. There are generally three types of whaling that the Commission regulates: commercial, scientific, and aboriginal subsistence whaling. Some countries who were previously major whaling forces, like the United States, became strong proponents of the anti-whaling cause.
The IWC has had a moratorium on commercial whaling since 1986. Despite the ruling, Japan will continue to conduct a smaller whaling program in the northern Pacific. "I think it will increase pressure on those two countries to re-examine their own whaling practices and the various reasons and pretexts given for that whaling activity.". From then on, successful non-lethal whale research took place in that area (some of it funded by WWF). Japanese whaling not for science, rules UN International Court of, Japanese government defends dolphin slaughter, Taiji Cove dolphins: This slaughter must stop, You may not agree with our views, or other users’, but please respond to them respectfully, Swearing, personal abuse, racism, sexism, homophobia and other discriminatory or inciteful language is not acceptable, Do not impersonate other users or reveal private information about third parties, We reserve the right to delete inappropriate posts and ban offending users without notification. The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling is an international environmental agreement signed in 1946 in order to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry". Since 1994, Norway, has been whaling commercially and Iceland began hunting commercially in September 2006. International Whaling Commission - 1986 Moratorium 1986 Moratorium The 1970s saw the beginning of the global anti-whaling movement. Misleading information from some member states At the 1979 IWC meeting, a moratorium on all whaling using factory ships (with an exception for minke whales) was agreed. Although Japan, USSR, and Peru withdrew their opposition to the whaling moratorium in 1987, Norway did not do so. As the moratorium applies only to commercial whaling, whaling under the scientific-research and aboriginal-subsistence provisions of the ICRW is still allowed. The most insightful comments on all subjects will be published daily in dedicated articles. The relevant text reads: The measure passed by 25 votes to seven, with five abstentions. In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm adopted a proposal that recommended a ten-year moratorium on commercial whaling to allow whale stocks to recover. The existing Open Comments threads will continue to exist for those who do not subscribe to Independent Premium. It compared the case to Hindu people demanding an international ban on killing cows. In 1972 the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm adopted a proposal that recommended a ten-year moratorium on commercial whaling to allow whale stocks to recover.
Please continue to respect all commenters and create constructive debates. The Commission receives advice on sustainability from its Scientific Committee and this assists it in deciding catch limits, which are then set out in a document called the Schedule to the International Convention for the …