{"id":1950,"date":"2013-07-05T00:00:50","date_gmt":"2013-07-04T23:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/le-japon-contre-attaque-2\/"},"modified":"2015-02-04T14:43:59","modified_gmt":"2015-02-04T13:43:59","slug":"le-japon-contre-attaque-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/le-japon-contre-attaque-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Japan Strikes Back"},"content":{"rendered":"

Information note N\u00b04
\nWhales at the International Court of Justice
\nThe Hague, The Netherlands, 1st hearing of Japan, July 2nd \u2013 July 3rd<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Japan, a country surrounded by sea, states that they \u201cwould be the last to misuse whales as resources because [they] know [they] benefit from the fruits of the sea\u201d. Japan goes back in time explaining that they joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1951 \u201cat a time when, amidst the devastation of war, whale meat helped prevent starvation\u201d for a country with scarce land resources. They go even further back in time and point at the irony of history as it was whaling that forced them to interact with the international community after three hundred years of isolation. Japan stated that in the 19th century, \u201cmajor maritime powers engaged in massive scale whaling demanded that Japan open up its ports to supply their whalers\u201d. And it is this very subject, whaling, which today puts in question Japan\u2019s compliance with the international community and international law and has brought them, for the first time, before the International Court of Justice.<\/p>\n

It is now Japan\u2019s turn to accuse Australia of a unilateral interpretation of the text and spirit of the international Convention. Japan told the Court that they believe Australia\u2019s argument and interpretation of the role of the IWC to be founded on cultural beliefs by a nation that perceives the whale is an intelligent and almost sacred animal. Australia\u2019s reading of the preamble, written clearly in black and white, overlooks the purpose of the Convention \u201cto provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry\u201d. Japan states that it is Australia\u2019s unilateral interpretation of the Convention which puts the multilateral Convention at risk. Sentimental, emotional feelings should not stop other countries from pursuing their cultural traditions. For Japan, who claims to have been a whaling country for over 2,000 years, traditional practices are being persecuted. \u201cFor the anti-whaling moral crusaders, saving whales that are clearly not endangered outweighs saving foreign cultures and communities\u201d.<\/p>\n

Japan\u2019s interpretation of the Convention is that its purpose is to manage whale stocks for present and future generations to exploit. Japan states that they fully respect the IWC Convention and that they carry this out in complete \u201cgood faith\u201d and in full accordance with Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties \u201cA treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose\u201d. Japan\u2019s \u201cgood faith\u201d is demonstrated by the simple fact that they have remained within the framework of the Convention. Japan believes that \u201cbad faith\u201d stems from anti-whaling countries. More specifically, they reproach Australia for \u201cdisguising\u201d the temporary moratorium, under a permanent moratorium. Moreover, Japan argued that the moratorium was implemented only through the pressure of anti-whaling countries. On behalf of Japan, Mr. Akhavan stirred up a strong image stating that Australia, along with other anti-whaling countries, have \u201chijack[ed] the IWC\u201d. It is therefore Australia\u2019s anti-whaling stance which has twisted the purpose of the IWC with a bias.<\/p>\n

For Japan, the case concerns the legality of their activities in regard to Article VIII of the IWC. However, the debates should not be focused on the \u201cevaluation of good or bad science\u201d. On scientific grounds, Japan challenged Australia claiming that they and other anti-whaling Contracting Governments refuse to consider scientific evidence on the current recovery of whale stocks. The only reason Japan signed the moratorium was because it was to be revised in 1990 based on scientific evidence. The very reason that Japan undertook their scientific program was because \u201cJapan wants to resume commercial whaling based on science in a sustainable manner\u201d. In the name of science Japan counterattacks Australia stating that without Japan\u2019s \u201cdata\u201d the Scientific Committee would not be able to \u201cdemonstrate that the resumption of commercial whaling on a sustainable basis is possible\u201d. They believe that without their scientific contribution the moratorium would continue \u201cindefinitely\u201d. Japan\u2019s \u201cgood faith\u201d is reflected by their very willingness to present scientific findings to the Scientific Committee.<\/p>\n

The fact that Australia is uniquely focusing on \u201cscientific whaling\u201d in the Southern Oceans and the fact that they have not called upon other international Conventions (see information note n\u00b0 3<\/a>) is, according to Japan, a clear indication that the case is not based on a breach of the Convention but on the question of territorial waters and the exploitation of resources. Their belief is that it is Australia is trying to protect their sovereignty on a \u201cself-proclaimed\u201d Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), within the Antarctic; that Australia is trying to enforce their sovereignty to Antarctic waters without putting their claim on the line. On these grounds, Japan believes that it is not within the competence of the International Court of Justice to decide on whether Japan is in compliance with the Convention.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Information note N\u00b04 Whales at the International Court of Justice The Hague, The Netherlands, 1st hearing of Japan, July 2nd \u2013 July 3rd \u00a0 Japan, a country surrounded by sea, states that they \u201cwould be the last to misuse whales as resources because [they] know [they] benefit from the fruits of the sea\u201d. Japan goes back in time explaining that they joined the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1951 \u201cat a time when, amidst the devastation of war, whale meat helped prevent starvation\u201d for a country with scarce land resources. They go even further back in time and point at the irony of history as it was whaling that forced them to interact with the international community after three hundred years of isolation. Japan stated that in the 19th century, \u201cmajor maritime powers engaged in massive scale whaling demanded that Japan open up its ports to supply their whalers\u201d. And it is this very subject, whaling, which today puts in question Japan\u2019s compliance with the international community and international law and has brought them, for the first time, before the International Court of Justice. It is now Japan\u2019s turn to accuse Australia of a unilateral interpretation of the text and spirit of the international Convention. Japan told the Court that they believe Australia\u2019s argument and interpretation of the role of the IWC to be founded on cultural beliefs by a nation that perceives the whale is an intelligent and almost sacred animal. Australia\u2019s reading of the preamble, written clearly in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[55],"tags":[78,84,83,82,79,85,77,86],"class_list":["post-1950","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-arctique-et-antarctique-balisage","tag-australie","tag-baleine","tag-cbi","tag-chasse-a-la-baleine","tag-commission-baleiniere-internationale","tag-cour-internationale-de-justice","tag-japon","tag-la-haye"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1950","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1950"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1950\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1950"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1950"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/robindesbois.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1950"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}