Japanese Official Explains Grounds for Resuming Scientific Whaling

Morishita said a close reading of the court’s decision has left Japan an opening. He said that Japan has long argued that the IWC should remain faithful to its original objectives, which include both conservation and sustainable use of whale stocks. Australia had argued that amendments to the convention had shifted IWC’s focus to conservation. But the court ruled that amendments could emphasize one or another objective but “cannot alter [the IWC’s] object and purpose.” The court also ruled that research whaling that meets the conditions of the IWC convention is not subject to the moratorium, that lethal methods of research are permissible, and that the meat resulting from capturing whales can be sold—all points Australia contested.As his trump card, Morishita pointed to a paragraph in the ruling that states: “It is to be expected that Japan will take account of the reasoning and conclusions contained in this judgment as it evaluates the possibility of granting any future permits” for research whaling.Revamping the Antarctic research whaling program to meet the court’s criteria is exactly what Japan will do, Morishita said. Details will be spelled out in a plan to be drawn up by the end of this year for submission to the IWC with the aim of resuming research whaling in the 2015 to 2016 season.Critics are skeptical that Japan will be able to come up with convincing scientific justifications. In its decision, the court “had a whole range of criticisms,” Naoko Funahashi, the Japan representative for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, told ScienceInsider. “Addressing all of those criticisms in a new plan will be impossible,” she said. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) TOKYO—Japan’s delegate to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) said today that a recent decision by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that seemingly went against this nation’s whaling activities is actually pretty good news. “I feel now that the ICJ decision actually is good for Japan,” Joji Morishita said at a press conference. He explained that the ruling lends support to Japan’s position on research whaling and the proper role of the IWC.On 31 March, the ICJ, based in The Hague in the Netherlands, ordered Japan to cease its Antarctic research whaling program, known as JARPA II, because it was “not for purposes of scientific research.”“The evidence does not establish that the program’s design and implementation are reasonable in relation to achieving its stated objectives,” the court said. The decision was seen as a huge victory for Australia, which took Japan to the court in 2010 arguing that the research program was thinly veiled commercial whaling and thus in violation of a moratorium adopted by the IWC in 1982. Japan had taken advantage of a clause in the IWC convention that allows a country to grant itself permits to hunt whales for research purposes. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Email read more

Continue reading "Japanese Official Explains Grounds for Resuming Scientific Whaling"