it would immediately abandon its scientific whaling activities in the Southern
Ocean—themselves significant causes for international dissatisfaction.
5.3.5 Scientific Whaling: The Loophole?
Even though a zero catch quota has been in effect since 1985/86, thus banning any
lethal use of whales listed in the Schedule for all those countries parties to the
whaling convention, this does not account for whales killed for scientific purposes.
This scientific whaling has legally been possible since the adoption of the ICRW in
1946 although it had not been actively pursued until the moratorium of 1982. As we
have seen above, it was Iceland which in 1986 initiated the first scientific hunts for
sei and fin whales in Icelandic waters. Since the sale of whale meat is not explicitly
forbidden under this ‘special permit’ type of whaling, Iceland consequently did not
act in contravention to the convention. In fact, although the Commission has put the
moratorium in place, it is the nation states themselves that decide to issue permits for
the killing, taking and treating of whales as they see fit for scientific purposes.
Moreover, the convention stipulates that whales that are taken under a special permit
are to be processed in a way the issuing government considers appropriate. This
means that the government of Iceland issuing permits and then selling the produce
stemming from these whales to Japan is, legally speaking, not illegal. What the
convention is silent about is the question of how to deal with the sale of whale meat
in light of a ban on commercial whaling. Hence, the conduct of scientific whaling—
even though it may yield scientific data—may be conducted in order to sell the meat
to other parties. This would ultimately jeopardise the purpose of putting a ban on
commercial whaling in place in the first place and all countries could conduct
scientific whaling, generate scientific data and then sell the meat based on its own
preferences.
This problem has been labelled by many as the ‘loophole’ of scientific or special
permit whaling under the ICRW. While strictly speaking perfectly legal, it
constitutes a problem in light of the ban on commercial whaling. However, this
loophole is only a loophole in this regard. If the RMS were in place and a limited
commercial whale hunt were possible, the characterisation of the special permit
clause being a loophole would consequently diminish since the demand for whale
meat in a third country would be satisfied through official commercial pathways.
Iceland, however, is not the only country having conducted scientific whaling and
an associated commercial component. In fact, Iceland has not conducted scientific
whaling since its official resumption of commercial whaling in 2006. Instead, it has
been Japan which has stood at the forefront of international controversy surrounding
its special permit whaling. Up until its announcement of the abandoning of its
Antarctic whaling operations, Japan had two branches of scientific whaling
programmes in place: one in the North Pacific and one in the Southern Ocean, the
latter of which has triggered the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) to
actively confront Japanese whaling vessels and physically hinder them from
100
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
Ocean—themselves significant causes for international dissatisfaction.
5.3.5 Scientific Whaling: The Loophole?
Even though a zero catch quota has been in effect since 1985/86, thus banning any
lethal use of whales listed in the Schedule for all those countries parties to the
whaling convention, this does not account for whales killed for scientific purposes.
This scientific whaling has legally been possible since the adoption of the ICRW in
1946 although it had not been actively pursued until the moratorium of 1982. As we
have seen above, it was Iceland which in 1986 initiated the first scientific hunts for
sei and fin whales in Icelandic waters. Since the sale of whale meat is not explicitly
forbidden under this ‘special permit’ type of whaling, Iceland consequently did not
act in contravention to the convention. In fact, although the Commission has put the
moratorium in place, it is the nation states themselves that decide to issue permits for
the killing, taking and treating of whales as they see fit for scientific purposes.
Moreover, the convention stipulates that whales that are taken under a special permit
are to be processed in a way the issuing government considers appropriate. This
means that the government of Iceland issuing permits and then selling the produce
stemming from these whales to Japan is, legally speaking, not illegal. What the
convention is silent about is the question of how to deal with the sale of whale meat
in light of a ban on commercial whaling. Hence, the conduct of scientific whaling—
even though it may yield scientific data—may be conducted in order to sell the meat
to other parties. This would ultimately jeopardise the purpose of putting a ban on
commercial whaling in place in the first place and all countries could conduct
scientific whaling, generate scientific data and then sell the meat based on its own
preferences.
This problem has been labelled by many as the ‘loophole’ of scientific or special
permit whaling under the ICRW. While strictly speaking perfectly legal, it
constitutes a problem in light of the ban on commercial whaling. However, this
loophole is only a loophole in this regard. If the RMS were in place and a limited
commercial whale hunt were possible, the characterisation of the special permit
clause being a loophole would consequently diminish since the demand for whale
meat in a third country would be satisfied through official commercial pathways.
Iceland, however, is not the only country having conducted scientific whaling and
an associated commercial component. In fact, Iceland has not conducted scientific
whaling since its official resumption of commercial whaling in 2006. Instead, it has
been Japan which has stood at the forefront of international controversy surrounding
its special permit whaling. Up until its announcement of the abandoning of its
Antarctic whaling operations, Japan had two branches of scientific whaling
programmes in place: one in the North Pacific and one in the Southern Ocean, the
latter of which has triggered the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS) to
actively confront Japanese whaling vessels and physically hinder them from
100
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales