population, consisting of native Americans, Aleuts, Ainu and other indigenous
peoples who lived in the convention area. The precondition for their continuing
pelagic sealing was a non-commercial nature of that hunt. In addition to a hunting
prohibition, the Fur Seal Convention furthermore established trade barriers for skins
of the Northern fur seal stemming from the populations of that could be found in the
Americas, Russia and Japan.
Given that compensation for the economic losses stemming from the abandonment of sealing played such a defining role during the negotiation process of the
convention, a rather detailed outline of how and to what percentage compensation is
to be paid could be found in the convention. This effectively meant that even though
the Fur Seal Convention had entered into force, this did not mean that no seals were
killed anymore. Instead, the seal hunts had moved to the land areas in the Bering Sea,
yet strictly controlled by the respective governments. Of the respective revenue
stemming from the hunts, both the US and Russia surrendered 15% to Japan while
Japan, in turn, surrendered 10% of its herd to the other three governments. Canada
also received 15% compensation from Russia. At the time of the convention’s
conclusion, however, Canada had already ceased its sealing operations in the Bering
Sea and a compensation was therefore somewhat unjustified. Also the other parties
merely grudgingly complied to this provision in order to maintain friendly relations
and to ensure the longevity of the convention. Indeed, the compensation mechanisms
are of such fundamental importance that the efficacy of the convention was inevitably tied to them.
5
Even during the Great Depression of the 1920s the Fur Seal Convention endured.
During the time of the convention’s being in force, the seal populations in the Bering
Sea recovered, which proved to be a direct result of the effectiveness of the
convention. The parties, it appeared, had managed to establish a regime that
appeased all players involved and benefitted the seal. Further reaching geopolitical
developments took their toll on the convention, however. The outbreak of the
Second World War and ultimately the outbreak of the Pacific war between Japan
and the US and its allies also led to the collapse of the convention: on 23 October
1941 Japan officially withdrew, which meant that the regime was no longer in effect.
Northern fur seals, it appeared, could consequently be hunted in the sea again. The
remoteness of the Pribilof Islands, along with the war efforts of all parties elsewhere
in the world led to a notable scarcity of hunters in the early years of the war. In other
words, hardly any fur seal hunts were taking place during that time, which even
benefitted the fur seal populations even more. But beyond that, the US and Canada—
since 1931 an independent country—bilaterally agreed on the upholding of the
provisions of the convention even though it no longer was in force. However, the
Aleutian Islands were not spared from being battle grounds in the war and after the
Japanese occupation, which lasted from June 1942 to August 1943, sealing was
resumed by different parties. Despite the recovery of the herds, increasing pressure
5 Bailey (1935), p. 4.
132
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
peoples who lived in the convention area. The precondition for their continuing
pelagic sealing was a non-commercial nature of that hunt. In addition to a hunting
prohibition, the Fur Seal Convention furthermore established trade barriers for skins
of the Northern fur seal stemming from the populations of that could be found in the
Americas, Russia and Japan.
Given that compensation for the economic losses stemming from the abandonment of sealing played such a defining role during the negotiation process of the
convention, a rather detailed outline of how and to what percentage compensation is
to be paid could be found in the convention. This effectively meant that even though
the Fur Seal Convention had entered into force, this did not mean that no seals were
killed anymore. Instead, the seal hunts had moved to the land areas in the Bering Sea,
yet strictly controlled by the respective governments. Of the respective revenue
stemming from the hunts, both the US and Russia surrendered 15% to Japan while
Japan, in turn, surrendered 10% of its herd to the other three governments. Canada
also received 15% compensation from Russia. At the time of the convention’s
conclusion, however, Canada had already ceased its sealing operations in the Bering
Sea and a compensation was therefore somewhat unjustified. Also the other parties
merely grudgingly complied to this provision in order to maintain friendly relations
and to ensure the longevity of the convention. Indeed, the compensation mechanisms
are of such fundamental importance that the efficacy of the convention was inevitably tied to them.
5
Even during the Great Depression of the 1920s the Fur Seal Convention endured.
During the time of the convention’s being in force, the seal populations in the Bering
Sea recovered, which proved to be a direct result of the effectiveness of the
convention. The parties, it appeared, had managed to establish a regime that
appeased all players involved and benefitted the seal. Further reaching geopolitical
developments took their toll on the convention, however. The outbreak of the
Second World War and ultimately the outbreak of the Pacific war between Japan
and the US and its allies also led to the collapse of the convention: on 23 October
1941 Japan officially withdrew, which meant that the regime was no longer in effect.
Northern fur seals, it appeared, could consequently be hunted in the sea again. The
remoteness of the Pribilof Islands, along with the war efforts of all parties elsewhere
in the world led to a notable scarcity of hunters in the early years of the war. In other
words, hardly any fur seal hunts were taking place during that time, which even
benefitted the fur seal populations even more. But beyond that, the US and Canada—
since 1931 an independent country—bilaterally agreed on the upholding of the
provisions of the convention even though it no longer was in force. However, the
Aleutian Islands were not spared from being battle grounds in the war and after the
Japanese occupation, which lasted from June 1942 to August 1943, sealing was
resumed by different parties. Despite the recovery of the herds, increasing pressure
5 Bailey (1935), p. 4.
132
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals