5.3.4 The Moratorium on Commercial Whaling: A Turning Point
at the IWC
The IWC is often called an organisation that is marked by dysfunctionality or as
being in a deadlock. Indeed, it is deeply divided between states favouring the
sustainable use of whales and those states favouring the conservation of whales.
But as we have seen above, whaling has always been a divisive activity. Either on the
question of whether an international regulatory body is necessary in the first place; or
on how to integrate the different types of whaling under one umbrella. While all
other divides were eventually overcome, the question of sustainable use vs conservation appears to be irreconcilable. The major turning point for the IWC was the
passing of the moratorium, or the zero-catch quota, at the 1982 meeting in Brighton,
England, when 25 states voted in favour, 8 against with 5 abstaining for the
respective Schedule amendment.
Throughout the 1970s, the divide on how to approach whaling had grown more
solid. On the one hand, whaling states did not wish to put a blanket moratorium in
place if scientific findings did allow for some form of commercial whaling. Or put
differently, a moratorium was considered not justifiable from a scientific standpoint
and that, as the Scientific Committee expressed in 1973, a “blanket moratorium is in
the same category as a blue whale unit quota, in that they are both attempts to
regulate several stocks as one group whereas prudent management requires regulation of the stocks individually.”
6 On the other hand, the political and public
discourse established ‘the whale’ as a type of species that is so special that any
form of utilisation is no longer acceptable. Essentially, throughout the 1970s the
IWC had to decide which way to go forward since more and more states joined the
IWC that were either actively whaling or that had a whaling history. The joining of
Sweden in 1979 marked a breaking point since the country was the first one to join
the IWC with the purpose of voicing its opposition to commercial whaling for
principal reasons. From then on, the number of countries joining the IWC increasingly opposed commercial whaling, which in the end led to the three-quarter
majority of states supporting the putting into place of a zero-catch-quota.
The questions that the Commission dealt with were essentially of a threefold
character: (1) is the killing of whales ethically justifiable given that they might be
sentient beings? (2) If it is, is there sufficient scientific evidence to ensure that whales
are being hunted sustainably? (3) Does the Commission have the right to prevent
states from using their own resources? In 1980, particularly Australia stood at the
fore in the question of a global ban on commercial whaling, both from a scientific
perspective as well as due to principal considerations. Also the United States and the
Seychelles were champions of a moratorium on whaling, however, contrary to
Australia, the latter countries considered this a temporary moratorium while
Australia’s approach did not hold temporary elements.
6 IWC (1973), p. 38.
94
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
at the IWC
The IWC is often called an organisation that is marked by dysfunctionality or as
being in a deadlock. Indeed, it is deeply divided between states favouring the
sustainable use of whales and those states favouring the conservation of whales.
But as we have seen above, whaling has always been a divisive activity. Either on the
question of whether an international regulatory body is necessary in the first place; or
on how to integrate the different types of whaling under one umbrella. While all
other divides were eventually overcome, the question of sustainable use vs conservation appears to be irreconcilable. The major turning point for the IWC was the
passing of the moratorium, or the zero-catch quota, at the 1982 meeting in Brighton,
England, when 25 states voted in favour, 8 against with 5 abstaining for the
respective Schedule amendment.
Throughout the 1970s, the divide on how to approach whaling had grown more
solid. On the one hand, whaling states did not wish to put a blanket moratorium in
place if scientific findings did allow for some form of commercial whaling. Or put
differently, a moratorium was considered not justifiable from a scientific standpoint
and that, as the Scientific Committee expressed in 1973, a “blanket moratorium is in
the same category as a blue whale unit quota, in that they are both attempts to
regulate several stocks as one group whereas prudent management requires regulation of the stocks individually.”
6 On the other hand, the political and public
discourse established ‘the whale’ as a type of species that is so special that any
form of utilisation is no longer acceptable. Essentially, throughout the 1970s the
IWC had to decide which way to go forward since more and more states joined the
IWC that were either actively whaling or that had a whaling history. The joining of
Sweden in 1979 marked a breaking point since the country was the first one to join
the IWC with the purpose of voicing its opposition to commercial whaling for
principal reasons. From then on, the number of countries joining the IWC increasingly opposed commercial whaling, which in the end led to the three-quarter
majority of states supporting the putting into place of a zero-catch-quota.
The questions that the Commission dealt with were essentially of a threefold
character: (1) is the killing of whales ethically justifiable given that they might be
sentient beings? (2) If it is, is there sufficient scientific evidence to ensure that whales
are being hunted sustainably? (3) Does the Commission have the right to prevent
states from using their own resources? In 1980, particularly Australia stood at the
fore in the question of a global ban on commercial whaling, both from a scientific
perspective as well as due to principal considerations. Also the United States and the
Seychelles were champions of a moratorium on whaling, however, contrary to
Australia, the latter countries considered this a temporary moratorium while
Australia’s approach did not hold temporary elements.
6 IWC (1973), p. 38.
94
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales