therefore does not explicitly focus on marine mammals, but takes into account the
latest scientific data on different population statuses and threats. From the outset,
OSPAR was not designed as a regime for the protection of marine mammals, but as a
regime that, within its geographical limitations, aims to tackle different sources of
pollution in the convention area.
Geographical limitations within international marine mammal law thus follow a
twofold approach. Older regimes that have a distinctly species-based set-up, particularly the sealing and whaling regimes, make use of geographical limitations either
based on regional exploitation (e.g. the Bering Sea regime) or based on political
stances on marine mammal exploitation (e.g. the ICRW and its whale sanctuaries).
Whether these regimes translate into long-term protection of the species in question
remains doubtful given the very limited umbrella of protection they afford.
The polar bear regime is somewhat different in this regard. Naturally, it is
geographically restricted since polar bear habitat can only be found in the Arctic.
The polar bear regime therefore follows the habitat of the bear instead of being
artificially designated. The inclusion of utilisers of the species also points towards
the fact that geographical limitation is not rooted in political decisions but rather
corresponds to the realities on the ground. The conclusion of three additional
agreements and the establishment of commissions that display co-management
characteristics, i.e. governmental and non-governmental decision-making, makes
this regime somewhat unique. Especially since it can be considered a type of hybrid
regime: on the one hand it focuses on the polar bear explicitly and is therefore
species-based; on the other, it takes polar bear habitat and resource users into
consideration in the setting of quotas and modes of utilisation. Given that the polar
bear agreement stems from the early 1970s, this is rather unique. After all, at that
time, international discourse was on the verge of a shift towards a non-use agenda of
marine mammals. Arguably, the polar bear was not part of this discourse since its
representativeness for the negative effects of climate change had not been known.
Only in recent times, international discourse has also started to consider polar bears
as a species that is not to be used for human consumption. However, while that may
be so, the overall legal landscape for polar bears has remained considerably unaffected and the polar bear agreement remains in force.
8.3
State Behaviour
International marine mammal law is deeply marked by the behaviour of different
states or groups of states that stand representative for the way humans can interact
with marine mammals. At the same time, it is also marked by successful cooperation,
working towards the common goal of their protection.
From the very beginning of modern international law, the United States, along
with other European states, has played a crucial role in its development. This is
particularly true for the development of international marine mammal law. Already
prior to the Second World War the United States pushed for more conservationbased approaches in whale management while other states that also had an interest in
8.3 State Behaviour
177
latest scientific data on different population statuses and threats. From the outset,
OSPAR was not designed as a regime for the protection of marine mammals, but as a
regime that, within its geographical limitations, aims to tackle different sources of
pollution in the convention area.
Geographical limitations within international marine mammal law thus follow a
twofold approach. Older regimes that have a distinctly species-based set-up, particularly the sealing and whaling regimes, make use of geographical limitations either
based on regional exploitation (e.g. the Bering Sea regime) or based on political
stances on marine mammal exploitation (e.g. the ICRW and its whale sanctuaries).
Whether these regimes translate into long-term protection of the species in question
remains doubtful given the very limited umbrella of protection they afford.
The polar bear regime is somewhat different in this regard. Naturally, it is
geographically restricted since polar bear habitat can only be found in the Arctic.
The polar bear regime therefore follows the habitat of the bear instead of being
artificially designated. The inclusion of utilisers of the species also points towards
the fact that geographical limitation is not rooted in political decisions but rather
corresponds to the realities on the ground. The conclusion of three additional
agreements and the establishment of commissions that display co-management
characteristics, i.e. governmental and non-governmental decision-making, makes
this regime somewhat unique. Especially since it can be considered a type of hybrid
regime: on the one hand it focuses on the polar bear explicitly and is therefore
species-based; on the other, it takes polar bear habitat and resource users into
consideration in the setting of quotas and modes of utilisation. Given that the polar
bear agreement stems from the early 1970s, this is rather unique. After all, at that
time, international discourse was on the verge of a shift towards a non-use agenda of
marine mammals. Arguably, the polar bear was not part of this discourse since its
representativeness for the negative effects of climate change had not been known.
Only in recent times, international discourse has also started to consider polar bears
as a species that is not to be used for human consumption. However, while that may
be so, the overall legal landscape for polar bears has remained considerably unaffected and the polar bear agreement remains in force.
8.3
State Behaviour
International marine mammal law is deeply marked by the behaviour of different
states or groups of states that stand representative for the way humans can interact
with marine mammals. At the same time, it is also marked by successful cooperation,
working towards the common goal of their protection.
From the very beginning of modern international law, the United States, along
with other European states, has played a crucial role in its development. This is
particularly true for the development of international marine mammal law. Already
prior to the Second World War the United States pushed for more conservationbased approaches in whale management while other states that also had an interest in
8.3 State Behaviour
177