Rudd resurrects plan to take Japan to international court over whaling

Source: Sydney Morning Herald



THE government has decided to press ahead with legal action in the International Court of Justice to stop Japan's ''scientific'' whale hunt. Federal cabinet discussed the issue in Sydney on Thursday, a day after the Environment Protection Minister, Peter Garrett, rejected a ''compromise deal'' from the International Whaling Commission to set long-term whale-kill quotas for Japan, Norway and Iceland and proposed instead a five-year phase-out plan for whaling in the Southern Ocean.

Sources said the government decided to make good on its election promise in 2007 to take Japan to court. The government has come under intense attack for putting its centrepiece environment policy - the emissions trading scheme - on hold until at least 2013, and for reneging on other election promises.

The Coalition and the Greens have demanded the government act on its consistent threats to take the legal action after Tokyo also rejected the ''peace deal'' put forward by the IWC on the basis that the cuts it proposed to Japan's ''scientific'' whaling program in the Antarctic were ''too drastic''.

The legal action would not stop Australia taking part in the international diplomacy before the IWC meeting in Morocco next month, where the ''peace plan'' to legitimise strictly limited whaling quotas will be debated. In February the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said Australia would take legal action in time to halt the start of the annual hunt in November. But if the ''peace plan'' succeeds and legitimises Japanese whaling, the basis of the court case would be undermined.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/rudd-resurrects-plan-to-take-japan-to-international-court-over-whaling-20100430-tzam.html

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-100423-1.html

Stand up, Australia. Live up to your promises.

I applaud the initiative that it appears is happening. Far better than what shitdiots in my country are doing to invoke change.

Anything else to say, apologist?

Glad this thread pulled you out of the woodwork like a proper termite.

Insanity is continuing to do the same dumb-assed damned thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.

Far fewer than expected. Looking into bankrupting the shits involved. Oh, and then there's the tv show shaming the Japanese. You know, that really popular one called "Whale Wars"

Season three starts in just over a month. Check in and see how folks can easily and vehemently hate the bullshit the Japanese do in the Southern Ocean.

Hah. Between Sea Shepherd costing them millions and Agenda 21 sending other's whalers to the bottom, I'll keep my money where it is.

If you want to see failure? Check out whaling in another 5 years.

That is why this has never gone beyond campaign rhetoric.

All that will happen is that Au's claim to ownership of Antarctica is going to lose its status of ambiguity and be ruled on - with the likely outcome of it being rejected.

If you want Japan to stop whaling you have to shame them into it. IF you are going to shame them into it, you have to operate from their paradigm. For them to feel shame, they have to value the critique, and for them to value the critique they have to believe the message is sincere. For the message to be sincere, WE have to start from a perspective of friendship, not animosity.

All this kind of stuff does (especially because of the close links to Watson) is cause them to dig in their heels to resist the "bullying and arrogance" of their critics.

What happened to the DNA profiles and the bootleg whale meat that was found in CA? Did they turn them over or did it just drop off the radar?

Japan is a signatory to- and has attempted to modify relevant provisions of the IWC. It's estopped from asserting that provisions don't apply to it's commercial activities, and it's clear on its face that Japan has breached its obligations to cooperate by continuing it's sham "research program" in the Antarctic in violation of the intent expressed in the convention.

This is an "abuse of right" and raises avenues for redress under ITLOS (International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea) for compulsory settlement of a dispute pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and potentially the ICJ.

Moreover, Japan is also in violation of requirements to conduct environmental impact assessment under the provisions of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity -and has likely the 1973 Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

A further avenue is to take the matter up with Antarctic Treaty parties, including at the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR).

Bottom line: There's no defense whatsoever on the merits- Japan's only "hope" to continue it's illegal commercial whaling is through reticence to enforce international obligations, which in the decade(s) to come, will provide a MUCH more responsible, stable and safer manner of resolving issues with declining world fisheries than hauling out the gunboats.

Of course, this particular matter is something Obama could provide a little "encouragement" to Japan on, to help out Rudd- his close personal and political ally in an election year.

UNCLOS, and CBD you think could be used against Japan in court - otherwise it's just so much alphabet soup.

CCAMLR specifically doesn't apply to whales, so I don't think that one will help. I still think the bogus-research attack is the only path that has a hope, and that's a tough one - Australia would have to prove that the research program is BS and a wilfull attempt to conceal commercial whaling, and I suspect 'everyone knows' (however true that might be) won't cut it in court. And even if that approach did work, Japan could just walk away from the IWC and we'd be back at square one...

And if a country is not a party to the IWC they can whale (or not) as much as they want, right?

It seems to me that Australia has two possible cases for the ICJ:

1. that Japan is violating Australia's EEZ based on Australia's Antarctic claim. Australia would pretty much certainly lose that, which would be a good thing IMO opinion because it would hammer home the international character of Antarctica, or
2. Japan is not honestly abiding by the IWC agreement. It seems like Australia would lose that one too - since Japan is following the letter of the law if not the spirit - but it's a stronger case. However, if Australia won that, wouldn't Japan just leave the IWC entirely?

Frankly, it seems like Australia is going to push a showdown that can't have any good (i.e. ending whaling) outcomes. My guess is that Japan is correct - it's all for domestic consumption and they don't plan to really go through with it...

are primarily a domestic political statement, intended for the Australian voters.

The support for Sea Shepherd among the Australian people is probably why the government is finally taking action.

Sea Shepherd keeps an anachronistic and cruel practice from slipping silently into the normal background noise. They've been highly successful at ruining the seal fur trade between Canada and the EU, and it's just a matter of time before the Threshold for Japan is reached. I was able to get our Corporate Procurement Department to stop purchasing office products made in Japan. Our company isn't huge, only about 7,000 employees, but it felt good anyway.

On a related issue, I purchased a number of copies of "The Cove" and sent them to friends and family I knew wouldn't see the movie on their own initiative. The responses ranged from anger at my views, to shock, to anger at Japan, to anger at not being allowed their ignorance to continue. And the $400 I invested in the movies has resulted in several times that in donations to Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and the Ocean Preservation Society. Better still, at my request those friends have passed the twenty copies of the movie on to their friends.

This is an ongoing battle. Everyone plays their part. Those who are willing to let cultural evolution settle the issue over centuries, those who seek solutions in treaties, those who seek solutions in international court, and my personal favorites--those who confront the whalers directly--all play parts in this process.