establishment of the International Trade Organization, as part of the Bretton Woods
institutions, thus placed the US in the position of having to gauge the conservation of
whales and free trade in the postwar world. Disagreement, particularly from the
Norwegian and British side, over the planned conference ensued about the invitation
to states that had no previous history in whaling or that had not been parties to the
1930s agreements. The Netherlands, for instance, were such a case, but as the Dutch
delegate at the conference noted, the Netherlands were forced to enter the whaling
business after the war due to the shortage of oils and fats.
The United States proposed the establishment of an International Whaling Commission which would be following the Zeitgeist of 1945 as well as include somewhat
progressive elements. The International Whaling Commission’s overall task would
be to provide guidance on the way whaling was to be conducted and which types of
whales could be taken. Based on scientific advice, this guidance would not be static,
but adjusted to changing conditions. This adjustment, however, could only be taken
by a three-quarter majority of Commission members. These, however, would have
the right to object to any decision and would thus not be bound to it. Even though the
objection-clause did not find much appreciation among British and Norwegian
delegates since it would potentially undermine the regulatory competence of the
Commission, other states expressed their support for this approach since this would
underline a state’s sovereign right not to follow the decisions by the Commission.
Sovereignty was also a primary reason for the dismissal of the US proposal to place
the whaling commission under the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations. The UK and Norway considered their primacy in the whaling
industry potentially undermined while the Soviet Union remarked that it is not part
of the FAO in the first place.
The conference, which was held in November and December 1946, was marked
by heated debates over the issues above, but resulted in the adoption of two distinct
instruments: on the one hand, a new protocol for the 1937 Agreement was negotiated
that would take effect for the 1947/48 season. On the other, the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted, which was to
take effect from the 1948/49 season onwards. With the adoption of the ICRW, also
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established with its headquarters
in London (relocated to Cambridge in the 1970s). The ICRW entered into force on
10 November 1948 and was ratified upon its coming into force by Australia, France,
Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the UK and
the United States. Japan ratified the ICRW and thus joined the IWC in 1951. On
17 December 2018 Japan announced its withdrawal.
With the ICRW in force, in August 1952 Chile, Peru and Ecuador signed a
regional agreement for the South Pacific, the Regulations for Maritime Hunting
Operations in the Waters of the South Pacific.
4 While the title of the agreement does
not stipulate the fact that it refers to whales, the body of these regulation set specific
rules for the South Pacific, implementing the ICRW in a South Pacific context. At the
4 Regulations for Maritime Hunting Operations in the Waters of the South Pacific, 18 Aug 1952.
88
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
institutions, thus placed the US in the position of having to gauge the conservation of
whales and free trade in the postwar world. Disagreement, particularly from the
Norwegian and British side, over the planned conference ensued about the invitation
to states that had no previous history in whaling or that had not been parties to the
1930s agreements. The Netherlands, for instance, were such a case, but as the Dutch
delegate at the conference noted, the Netherlands were forced to enter the whaling
business after the war due to the shortage of oils and fats.
The United States proposed the establishment of an International Whaling Commission which would be following the Zeitgeist of 1945 as well as include somewhat
progressive elements. The International Whaling Commission’s overall task would
be to provide guidance on the way whaling was to be conducted and which types of
whales could be taken. Based on scientific advice, this guidance would not be static,
but adjusted to changing conditions. This adjustment, however, could only be taken
by a three-quarter majority of Commission members. These, however, would have
the right to object to any decision and would thus not be bound to it. Even though the
objection-clause did not find much appreciation among British and Norwegian
delegates since it would potentially undermine the regulatory competence of the
Commission, other states expressed their support for this approach since this would
underline a state’s sovereign right not to follow the decisions by the Commission.
Sovereignty was also a primary reason for the dismissal of the US proposal to place
the whaling commission under the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the
United Nations. The UK and Norway considered their primacy in the whaling
industry potentially undermined while the Soviet Union remarked that it is not part
of the FAO in the first place.
The conference, which was held in November and December 1946, was marked
by heated debates over the issues above, but resulted in the adoption of two distinct
instruments: on the one hand, a new protocol for the 1937 Agreement was negotiated
that would take effect for the 1947/48 season. On the other, the International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) was adopted, which was to
take effect from the 1948/49 season onwards. With the adoption of the ICRW, also
the International Whaling Commission (IWC) was established with its headquarters
in London (relocated to Cambridge in the 1970s). The ICRW entered into force on
10 November 1948 and was ratified upon its coming into force by Australia, France,
Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Panama, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the UK and
the United States. Japan ratified the ICRW and thus joined the IWC in 1951. On
17 December 2018 Japan announced its withdrawal.
With the ICRW in force, in August 1952 Chile, Peru and Ecuador signed a
regional agreement for the South Pacific, the Regulations for Maritime Hunting
Operations in the Waters of the South Pacific.
4 While the title of the agreement does
not stipulate the fact that it refers to whales, the body of these regulation set specific
rules for the South Pacific, implementing the ICRW in a South Pacific context. At the
4 Regulations for Maritime Hunting Operations in the Waters of the South Pacific, 18 Aug 1952.
88
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales