Japan argued along historical and needs-based lines. In 1987, for example, a report
was presented to the Commission in which anthropologists and social scientists from
Japan and elsewhere outlined the history and necessity of whaling for the
communities in question.
18 While many Commission members were sympathetic
towards the coastal communities, they were nevertheless suspicious towards Japan’s
motivations—a suspicion that has continued until Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC.
After all, an introduction of the STCW category would mean the allocation of a
limited quota for baleen and sperm whales for the communities concerned. This, in
turn, would mean a de facto lifting of the moratorium, which, for more than threequarters of the Commission would be unacceptable. The fear of other countries
following suit, paired with the fear of potentially ever-increasing quotas made the
Japanese attempts fall on rather deaf ears. The last attempt occurred at the Commission meeting in 2018 when Japan’s proposal for co-existence included the allocation
of a quota for coastal whaling communities. As is known, the attempt failed and
Japan announced its withdrawal shortly after the meeting.
The question of STCW and ASW go closely hand in hand. While ASW is by and
large accepted by Commission members based on the historicity and necessity of
whaling for aboriginal communities, the same does not account for non-aboriginal
communities, for instance in Japan. The denotation of aboriginal is therefore crucial
in this regard. But even though ASW is enshrined in the Schedule and in the working
procedure of the Commission, it is by no means a given. The testament of this could
be observed at aforementioned Commission meeting in 2018, when new ASW
quotas were decided upon through a respective Schedule amendment. The specialty
of this vote rested in the fact that the 6-year quota allocation would be extended to a
7-year allocation based on automatic renewal unless the Scientific Committee had
concerns over the conservation implications of this automatic renewal. In addition to
this new mechanism, the amendment also saw the inclusion of carry-over provisions,
which would mean that quotas from a year that were not fully used could be used in
the following year.
The discussions that arose were preceded by emotional testimonies of aboriginal
whalers from Russia, Greenland, and the US (both Eskimo and Makah). Also the
Commissioner of St Vincent & the Grenadines gave an emotional account of the
benefits of the new system. While the overall majority of Commission members
approved of the new system and thus reached the three-quarter majority to amend the
Schedule, it was particularly Latin American states that voted against it. The automatic renewal was particular cause for concern and the states feared that this would
mean either de facto commercial whaling, just conducted by aboriginal peoples, and
might cause conservation issues in the future. Whether or not these concerns are
justified remains to be seen. Either way, it is clear that even though ASW is an
integral part of the IWC and legally possible, it is not to be taken for granted. After
the vote in the Commission, a sense of relief grappled aboriginal delegations, as the
image below demonstrates (Fig. 5.2).
18 Freeman and Akimichi (1988).
108
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales
was presented to the Commission in which anthropologists and social scientists from
Japan and elsewhere outlined the history and necessity of whaling for the
communities in question.
18 While many Commission members were sympathetic
towards the coastal communities, they were nevertheless suspicious towards Japan’s
motivations—a suspicion that has continued until Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC.
After all, an introduction of the STCW category would mean the allocation of a
limited quota for baleen and sperm whales for the communities concerned. This, in
turn, would mean a de facto lifting of the moratorium, which, for more than threequarters of the Commission would be unacceptable. The fear of other countries
following suit, paired with the fear of potentially ever-increasing quotas made the
Japanese attempts fall on rather deaf ears. The last attempt occurred at the Commission meeting in 2018 when Japan’s proposal for co-existence included the allocation
of a quota for coastal whaling communities. As is known, the attempt failed and
Japan announced its withdrawal shortly after the meeting.
The question of STCW and ASW go closely hand in hand. While ASW is by and
large accepted by Commission members based on the historicity and necessity of
whaling for aboriginal communities, the same does not account for non-aboriginal
communities, for instance in Japan. The denotation of aboriginal is therefore crucial
in this regard. But even though ASW is enshrined in the Schedule and in the working
procedure of the Commission, it is by no means a given. The testament of this could
be observed at aforementioned Commission meeting in 2018, when new ASW
quotas were decided upon through a respective Schedule amendment. The specialty
of this vote rested in the fact that the 6-year quota allocation would be extended to a
7-year allocation based on automatic renewal unless the Scientific Committee had
concerns over the conservation implications of this automatic renewal. In addition to
this new mechanism, the amendment also saw the inclusion of carry-over provisions,
which would mean that quotas from a year that were not fully used could be used in
the following year.
The discussions that arose were preceded by emotional testimonies of aboriginal
whalers from Russia, Greenland, and the US (both Eskimo and Makah). Also the
Commissioner of St Vincent & the Grenadines gave an emotional account of the
benefits of the new system. While the overall majority of Commission members
approved of the new system and thus reached the three-quarter majority to amend the
Schedule, it was particularly Latin American states that voted against it. The automatic renewal was particular cause for concern and the states feared that this would
mean either de facto commercial whaling, just conducted by aboriginal peoples, and
might cause conservation issues in the future. Whether or not these concerns are
justified remains to be seen. Either way, it is clear that even though ASW is an
integral part of the IWC and legally possible, it is not to be taken for granted. After
the vote in the Commission, a sense of relief grappled aboriginal delegations, as the
image below demonstrates (Fig. 5.2).
18 Freeman and Akimichi (1988).
108
5 The International Legal Framework for Whales