The EU, however, argued that given the possibility of imposing trade barriers for
moral reasons, the regime corresponded to the European moral standards pertaining
to sealing. Once again, the case is inherently complex. Two studies that showcase
this complexity were conducted by Howse and Langlille in 2012
36 and by Nielsen
and Calle in 2013.
37 The result of this case was that the WTO indeed saw the EU
Seal Regime in breach of the free trade doctrine since the EU had not demonstrated
that the regime in fact corresponds to this moral standard. The argument was that,
first, animal welfare considerations did not play a role in the regime—after all it puts
in place a blanket ban—and therefore a moral claim could not be made. Second, the
seal trade was still possible resulting from marine management hunts, also without
any consideration of animal welfare. As a result, the EU was ordered to amend the
regime accordingly. Consequently, in 2015 an amended version was adopted in
which the MRM exception had been removed while now the Inuit exemption was
complemented with high animal welfare standards. Up to the point of writing, no
further challenges to the regime have been made.
6.8
Summary and Conclusion
International agreements for the regulation of sealing and management of seals were,
up to the 1970s, driven by the incentive to exploit them. All of the regimes that were
part of the pages above that were concluded before the 1970s considered seals as a
resource that can be used for human benefit. Especially the Bering Sea Fur Seal
Regime stands out in this regard, particularly since, in its various forms, is the oldest
multilateral cooperation on marine mammals in the world. After all, taking into
account the Arbitration Treaty of 1894, it lasted for almost 100 years, pointing
towards both the importance of Northern fur seals for the hunting parties involved as
well as towards the need of international cooperation in order to adequately manage
them. While seals were the focus of this cooperation, they were also part of a larger
narrative, particularly between Finland and Russia/the Soviet Union. Seals
contributed to strengthen the countries’ ties in regard to fisheries and access to
each other’s national waters. This, in turn, fostered overall cooperation in the spirit
of the Treaty of Tartu.
After the Second World War it was particularly Norway that had emerged as a
nation entering into agreements on sealing, thereby setting important international
standards on scopes and characteristics of sealing laws. Canada and the Soviet Union
were important partners in this regard. Notably, these three countries have, principally, maintained their pro-utilisation stance on marine mammals up to the present
day. The Russian Federation, however, has tightened its rules on sealing, especially
with the imposition of the 2011 trade ban. Within the IWC, however, the Russian
Federation still maintains its pro-sustainable use attitude. Whether the imposition of
36 Howse and Langlille (2012).
37 Nielsen and Calle (2013).
154
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals
moral reasons, the regime corresponded to the European moral standards pertaining
to sealing. Once again, the case is inherently complex. Two studies that showcase
this complexity were conducted by Howse and Langlille in 2012
36 and by Nielsen
and Calle in 2013.
37 The result of this case was that the WTO indeed saw the EU
Seal Regime in breach of the free trade doctrine since the EU had not demonstrated
that the regime in fact corresponds to this moral standard. The argument was that,
first, animal welfare considerations did not play a role in the regime—after all it puts
in place a blanket ban—and therefore a moral claim could not be made. Second, the
seal trade was still possible resulting from marine management hunts, also without
any consideration of animal welfare. As a result, the EU was ordered to amend the
regime accordingly. Consequently, in 2015 an amended version was adopted in
which the MRM exception had been removed while now the Inuit exemption was
complemented with high animal welfare standards. Up to the point of writing, no
further challenges to the regime have been made.
6.8
Summary and Conclusion
International agreements for the regulation of sealing and management of seals were,
up to the 1970s, driven by the incentive to exploit them. All of the regimes that were
part of the pages above that were concluded before the 1970s considered seals as a
resource that can be used for human benefit. Especially the Bering Sea Fur Seal
Regime stands out in this regard, particularly since, in its various forms, is the oldest
multilateral cooperation on marine mammals in the world. After all, taking into
account the Arbitration Treaty of 1894, it lasted for almost 100 years, pointing
towards both the importance of Northern fur seals for the hunting parties involved as
well as towards the need of international cooperation in order to adequately manage
them. While seals were the focus of this cooperation, they were also part of a larger
narrative, particularly between Finland and Russia/the Soviet Union. Seals
contributed to strengthen the countries’ ties in regard to fisheries and access to
each other’s national waters. This, in turn, fostered overall cooperation in the spirit
of the Treaty of Tartu.
After the Second World War it was particularly Norway that had emerged as a
nation entering into agreements on sealing, thereby setting important international
standards on scopes and characteristics of sealing laws. Canada and the Soviet Union
were important partners in this regard. Notably, these three countries have, principally, maintained their pro-utilisation stance on marine mammals up to the present
day. The Russian Federation, however, has tightened its rules on sealing, especially
with the imposition of the 2011 trade ban. Within the IWC, however, the Russian
Federation still maintains its pro-sustainable use attitude. Whether the imposition of
36 Howse and Langlille (2012).
37 Nielsen and Calle (2013).
154
6 The International Legal Framework for Seals