Japanese “Scientific Whaling” by its Right Name is “Commercial Whaling”
Information note N°3
Whales at the International Court of Justice
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1st hearing of Australia, June 26th – June 28th
In his opening statement for Australia, Mr Campbell projected an image of a Japanese vessel with “Legal Research under the ICRW”* painted on the side and yet another whale lying dead on the slipway. For Australia, this is the image and language of a country trying to convince itself that they are contributing to science and thereby respecting the law. The international community and more specifically the international scientific community is not convinced.
The End of the Japanese Fairy Tale
Information note N°2
Whales at the International Court of Justice
The Hague, The Netherlands, 1st hearing of Australia, June 26th – June 28th
Impressions on the Australian point of view during the hearings from June 26th 27th and 28th 2013
During the first three days of the Australia v. Japan court case at the International Court of Justice, Australia has been presenting arguments stating them loud and clear to wake Japan up from over twenty years’ of sleep. Japan, indeed, had fallen into a deep legal sleep like a “Sleeping Beauty”, and the international community should not wait until a “beautiful white whale” comes along to wake them up. Such was the metaphor used by Mme Boisson De Chazournes when she presented the court with Japan’s interpretation on the wording of the text of the International Whaling Commission (IWC). She stated that contrary to Japan’s reading of the 1946 IWC, the Convention enforces whale conservation and does not provide for the reinforcement of commercial whaling. As to the breaching of international law, and the continuation of whaling by Japan, Australia’s arguments are threefold. Firstly, the use of whale catchers and factory ships, secondly, a clear breaching of the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and thirdly, a violation of the Southern Ocean Sanctuary specifically with regard to fin whale catches.
Australia v. Japan
Information note N°1
Whales at the International Court of Justice
Today, Australia is voicing out the cry of the whales by defending them against so-called Japanese scientific whaling. Over the next 3 weeks, public hearings in the case concerning ‘Whaling in the Antarctic’ (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) will be heard in The Hague at the International Court of Justice. The judgment is expected to be delivered within 4 to 8 months. Australia is hoping that a decision be taken within the next four months, before the next whaling season in the Southern Ocean.
Arctic: Keep it In My Backyard (KIMBY)
The Arctic Council is meeting this week in Kiruna Sweden an appropriately choice for the venue considering that mans’ impacts on the Arctic climate will be high on the agenda. Kiruna hosts the largest underground iron mine in the world where in response to ground deformations caused by mining, the city will be relocated over the coming years. Later this week at Kiruna the eight Arctic States (Russia, Finland, Denmark for Greenland, Sweden, Norway, Iceland, the U.S. and Canada) will sign a ‘Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response’ agreement. The agreement aims to strengthen cooperation, coordination and mutual assistance on pollution preparedness and response in the Arctic in order to protect the marine environment from pollution by oil. Despite this noble promise the agreement does little more than reinforce existing international agreements.
CITES : Vote blank !
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CITES 2013 – Bangkok, 7.00 pm (local time)
Press release # 6
The United States, Russia, and the European Union take plenary session this week for the 16th CITES assembly. “A joint proposition for polar bears!” such is Robin des Bois’ message for Bangkok.
This new, last resort proposal could ban international polar bear trade concerning eight declining subpopulations. It would be less restrictive than the Appendix-I ban on international trade for all polar bears, and would therefore be more likely to collect more votes than the initial proposal by the United States. The decline of some subpopulations is recognized by all, including Canada. In 1991, Canada regarded the fate of polar bears as something which raised serious concerns. Polar bears in the western part of the Hudson Bay are especially targeted.
“Le Beau Mâle,” the perfume that kills
An advertisement for John Paul Gaultier’s new perfume portrays a handsome man with the remains of a polar bear.
Polar bears are at risk of extinction. Hunting is specifically aimed at males. Polar bears are also threatened by the chemical contamination of the Arctic, noise pollution, food scarcity and climatic disturbances.
Of course the authenticity of these polar bear parts for advertising purposes is not guaranteed. But this image encourages a belief in the virtues of charm and virility associated with animal trophies. As CITES – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora – has just refused the proposal to transfer polar bears into Appendix I (1), this advertising is poorly timed.
International Trade of Polar Bears to Continue
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CITES 2013 – Bangkok, 12h50 (local time)
Press Release No. 3
The international community, inadequate in stopping the melting of the ice caps, is equally inadequate in protecting polar bears from international trade. The U.S. proposal to add polar bears to Appendix I of CITES was voted down yesterday with only 38 votes for, 42 against, and 46 abstentions (2/3 of the vote were necessary).
The agreement between the U.S. and Russia was not enough. The 27 members of the European Union abstained; they are well situated among the 70 countries that import polar bear hides and skulls each year.
Polar Bears Betrayed by the European Union
In Doha, Qatar in 2010, Europe played a deciding role in the rejection of the American proposal to add Ursus maritimus to Appendix I. Because Europe voted against it, the proposal failed.
In Bangkok, three years later, the E.U. tries again to block the U.S. proposal. Instead of supporting the U.S. proposal, like Russia, the E.U. proposes keeping the polar bear under Appendix II, which authorises the international trade of polar bears and their parts. This compromise suggested by the E.U. is actually more like the status quo. The E.U. presented its proposal several requirements already expressed by specialists, environmental NGOs and certain range states, claiming it would be best to first understand the state of sub-populations, investigate smuggling networks, and to evaluate the effects of the capture and the hunting of the species.
Is Coca Cola in favour of Polar Bear trade ?
Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
The Coca-Cola Company
One Coca-Cola Plaza
Atlanta, Georgia 30313
Dear Mr. Chairman Kent,
Robin des Bois is an NGO working for the protection of Man and Environment, based in Paris and has been an observer at CITES, (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) since 1988. Fear not, we are not asking for money, we are simply writing to you today with the hope of receiving a response.
We are well aware of the deep-seeded affection your company expresses for polar bears and your interest in their future. With this in mind Coca Cola has established a scientific and economic partnership with WWF. This partnership has raised millions of dollars with the goal of reinforcing efforts towards the protection of polar bears.
