review was complete. I cannot ascertain how many whales have finally been taken
under NEWREP-A, but once Japan announced its withdrawal from the IWC in
December 2018, it furthermore announced its cessation of scientific whaling in the
Antarctic. Instead, it would now increasingly focus on scientific (and commercial)
whaling in the North Pacific, the former to be conducted under the new research
programme NEWREP-NP. In 2019 it was announced, however, that also North
Pacific scientific whaling operations would be ceased by 2020. From then on,
scientific research would be done based on the whales landed by the commercial
whale hunts and predominantly based on non-lethal research practices.
5.3.6 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: The Question
of Traditionality and Necessity
The scientific hunt of whales is, apart from commercial whaling, not the only
controversial element within the IWC. The other major source of heated and
emotional discussions at IWC meetings circles around Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling (ASW). From the early days of the Commission, it was particularly the
United States that have pushed for an exemption of aboriginal whalers from any
regulatory measures decided by the Commission. Already the Schedule amendment
decided at the first meeting of the Commission in May 1949 included a provision
that the killing of gray and right whales is forbidden unless they “are to be used
exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines.”
15 This exemption was further
expanded the more regulatory steps the IWC took. In 1977, IWC reports make direct
reference to aboriginal subsistence and the cultural needs of aboriginal peoples. In
1980, the term ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling’ occurs for the first time. During the
discussion surrounding the moratorium it became quickly clear that aboriginal
whaling and commercial whaling are two different types of whaling. While the latter
aims for large numbers and ultimately for generating profit, the former is of a much
smaller scale and serves primarily local needs. Or to turn it around, it is not primarily
conducted for commercial gain but to directly feed the community it was hunted
by. To this end, a moratorium was not to impact these hunts and the Schedule was
amended accordingly. To further substantiate this difference, in 1983 the Commission adopted the Resolution on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, in which it pledged
to recognise aboriginal needs and to include aboriginal peoples in the management
processes.
Several elements coalesce in the consideration of ASW. First of all, a clear ethnic
dimension is involved: whalers who fall under this category must be indigenous/
native/aboriginal. Even though international law has not found a definition for these
terms—and particularly not at the time of the conclusion of the ICRW or at the time
of the moratorium—it is nevertheless rather clear that they have lived in the
respective whaling area prior to the commencement of commercial whaling and
15 ICRW, Schedule (1950), para. 2.
104
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
under NEWREP-A, but once Japan announced its withdrawal from the IWC in
December 2018, it furthermore announced its cessation of scientific whaling in the
Antarctic. Instead, it would now increasingly focus on scientific (and commercial)
whaling in the North Pacific, the former to be conducted under the new research
programme NEWREP-NP. In 2019 it was announced, however, that also North
Pacific scientific whaling operations would be ceased by 2020. From then on,
scientific research would be done based on the whales landed by the commercial
whale hunts and predominantly based on non-lethal research practices.
5.3.6 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: The Question
of Traditionality and Necessity
The scientific hunt of whales is, apart from commercial whaling, not the only
controversial element within the IWC. The other major source of heated and
emotional discussions at IWC meetings circles around Aboriginal Subsistence
Whaling (ASW). From the early days of the Commission, it was particularly the
United States that have pushed for an exemption of aboriginal whalers from any
regulatory measures decided by the Commission. Already the Schedule amendment
decided at the first meeting of the Commission in May 1949 included a provision
that the killing of gray and right whales is forbidden unless they “are to be used
exclusively for local consumption by the aborigines.”
15 This exemption was further
expanded the more regulatory steps the IWC took. In 1977, IWC reports make direct
reference to aboriginal subsistence and the cultural needs of aboriginal peoples. In
1980, the term ‘aboriginal subsistence whaling’ occurs for the first time. During the
discussion surrounding the moratorium it became quickly clear that aboriginal
whaling and commercial whaling are two different types of whaling. While the latter
aims for large numbers and ultimately for generating profit, the former is of a much
smaller scale and serves primarily local needs. Or to turn it around, it is not primarily
conducted for commercial gain but to directly feed the community it was hunted
by. To this end, a moratorium was not to impact these hunts and the Schedule was
amended accordingly. To further substantiate this difference, in 1983 the Commission adopted the Resolution on Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling, in which it pledged
to recognise aboriginal needs and to include aboriginal peoples in the management
processes.
Several elements coalesce in the consideration of ASW. First of all, a clear ethnic
dimension is involved: whalers who fall under this category must be indigenous/
native/aboriginal. Even though international law has not found a definition for these
terms—and particularly not at the time of the conclusion of the ICRW or at the time
of the moratorium—it is nevertheless rather clear that they have lived in the
respective whaling area prior to the commencement of commercial whaling and
15 ICRW, Schedule (1950), para. 2.
104
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales