mammals, particularly whales and seals, faced significant resistance in the western
hemisphere. Calls for a whaling moratorium at the 1972 Stockholm conference as
well as the growing on-the-ground protests against sealing in Newfoundland are but
the tips of the iceberg of a changing international discourse on marine mammals and
marine mammal hunts. As we have seen above, the United States has been a
forerunner in efforts to conserve fur seals and has been the driving force in
establishing the fur seal regime. While international efforts to protect fur seals
were crucial in the first and early second half of the twentieth century, the domestic
legal sphere would change dramatically in 1972 when the US adopted its Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The act establishes a blanket prohibition on the
killing, taking, import and export of marine mammals. The only exception in this
regard are native peoples, provided they do not engage in the hunts for commercial
purposes. This explains the United States’ strong support for its native population,
i.e. the Inuit (Eskimo) of Alaska and the Makah of Washington State, at the IWC.
The adoption of the MMPA was the manifestation of a changed discourse in the
United States. While the Interim Convention was rooted in the notion of conservation and sustainable use, the MMPA merely focuses on conservation irrespective of
any possibility of sustainable exploitation. Consequently, the concept of maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) was replaced by an ecosystem-based management
approach. Despite the fact that negotiations were started again in 1979 for a
successor to the Interim Convention, the practice of the United States of inserting
a no-use approach to all marine mammals into its own legal environment violated the
spirit of consultation and cooperation on the fur seal issue. All research programmes
that aimed towards a potential reopening of the commercial seal hunt in the Pribilofs
were effectively terminated when in 1983 Congress passed the Fur Seal Act
Amendments.
13 By then, therefore, the Interim Convention had lost its momentum
and officially became void in 1984.
6.4.2 Norway, A Key Player of for Seal Conservation and Utilisation
The Bering Sea’s Interim Convention was not the only agreement that was
concluded in the year 1957. Also the second region of international seal hunting
efforts, the Northeast Atlantic, saw the conclusion of an agreement between its main
actors: Norway and the Soviet Union. Both countries conducted rather intense seal
hunts both at Jan Mayen Island as well as in the Barents Sea. As we have seen above,
these regions were subject to previous regimes and it is therefore not surprising that,
given their importance as seal hunting grounds, further international, in this case
bilateral, efforts were necessary to protect and use the prevailing seal populations.
Consequently, in November 1957 Norway and the Soviet Union adopted the
13 An Act to provide for the orderly termination of Federal management of the Pribilof Islands,
Alaska. (Public Law 98-129), 14 October 1983.
138
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
hemisphere. Calls for a whaling moratorium at the 1972 Stockholm conference as
well as the growing on-the-ground protests against sealing in Newfoundland are but
the tips of the iceberg of a changing international discourse on marine mammals and
marine mammal hunts. As we have seen above, the United States has been a
forerunner in efforts to conserve fur seals and has been the driving force in
establishing the fur seal regime. While international efforts to protect fur seals
were crucial in the first and early second half of the twentieth century, the domestic
legal sphere would change dramatically in 1972 when the US adopted its Marine
Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The act establishes a blanket prohibition on the
killing, taking, import and export of marine mammals. The only exception in this
regard are native peoples, provided they do not engage in the hunts for commercial
purposes. This explains the United States’ strong support for its native population,
i.e. the Inuit (Eskimo) of Alaska and the Makah of Washington State, at the IWC.
The adoption of the MMPA was the manifestation of a changed discourse in the
United States. While the Interim Convention was rooted in the notion of conservation and sustainable use, the MMPA merely focuses on conservation irrespective of
any possibility of sustainable exploitation. Consequently, the concept of maximum
sustainable yield (MSY) was replaced by an ecosystem-based management
approach. Despite the fact that negotiations were started again in 1979 for a
successor to the Interim Convention, the practice of the United States of inserting
a no-use approach to all marine mammals into its own legal environment violated the
spirit of consultation and cooperation on the fur seal issue. All research programmes
that aimed towards a potential reopening of the commercial seal hunt in the Pribilofs
were effectively terminated when in 1983 Congress passed the Fur Seal Act
Amendments.
13 By then, therefore, the Interim Convention had lost its momentum
and officially became void in 1984.
6.4.2 Norway, A Key Player of for Seal Conservation and Utilisation
The Bering Sea’s Interim Convention was not the only agreement that was
concluded in the year 1957. Also the second region of international seal hunting
efforts, the Northeast Atlantic, saw the conclusion of an agreement between its main
actors: Norway and the Soviet Union. Both countries conducted rather intense seal
hunts both at Jan Mayen Island as well as in the Barents Sea. As we have seen above,
these regions were subject to previous regimes and it is therefore not surprising that,
given their importance as seal hunting grounds, further international, in this case
bilateral, efforts were necessary to protect and use the prevailing seal populations.
Consequently, in November 1957 Norway and the Soviet Union adopted the
13 An Act to provide for the orderly termination of Federal management of the Pribilof Islands,
Alaska. (Public Law 98-129), 14 October 1983.
138
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals