whale conservation considered whale management more through a lens of benefit for
humans. Over the course of time, the US has developed to become an outspoken
anti-whaling and anti-sealing nation, best exemplified by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. This being said, ‘anti-sealing’ and ‘anti-whaling’ are to be considered with a hint of caution: for the United States, it is not the seal or whale hunt per se
which it opposes, but rather the hunts for commercial purposes. This is quite
interesting since the United States has always pushed, and even significantly shaped,
the free trade doctrine that has, in turn, been fundamental for the global economic
system. In the case of marine mammals, the US displays a stringent precautionary
approach: it is better not to hunt them in case of scientific uncertainty. This is further
paired with the inherently emotional view on marine mammal hunts. On the surface,
therefore, the US is a steadfast anti-use state.
When we dig a little deeper, however, we can see how contradictory this
behaviour is. For instance, while the MMPA is in force, this has not prevented the
US military from experimenting with dolphins or from keeping them, and other
species, in captivity for human entertainment. Furthermore, the precautionary
approach is not enshrined in US behaviour in other fora. For example, when the
European Union banned certain meat products from the US that contained certain
hormones, it was the United States that challenged this ban before the World Trade
Organization in 1996. Here, the US argued that there is no proof that these hormones
cause health problems and that it should be the European Union to provide scientific
evidence for this harm. In other words, while the EU applied the precautionary
approach, it was the US which challenged this.
1 Why the precautionary approach is
applied in the context of marine mammals in US policy-making remains in the realm
of speculation. It seems fair to assume that public opinion plays an important role,
making this behaviour consequently inherently political. In addition, commercial
trade in marine mammal products has not played an important role in the US
economic system. Therefore, it is rather ‘easy’ for the United States to take this
no-use approach—an approach which has also led the US to try to uplist the polar
bear under CITES. Instead of tackling the long-term effects that climate change
causes to polar bears, the US rather argues along lines that do not necessitate
significant changes in the US economy.
Along with the United States go a rather large group of industrialised and
developing nations that have taken up this view. The European Union’s anti-sealing
and anti-whaling policies do not cast doubt on this. Whether or not this corresponds
to the moral view of the European public remains doubtful, however. In the case of
sealing there is considerable evidence that shows that also within the European
Union no such general moral view exists in the first place. I have therefore argued
elsewhere that this opposition can rather be found in ‘not wanting it’ than in a
1 See WTO (1996).
178
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law
humans. Over the course of time, the US has developed to become an outspoken
anti-whaling and anti-sealing nation, best exemplified by the Marine Mammal
Protection Act. This being said, ‘anti-sealing’ and ‘anti-whaling’ are to be considered with a hint of caution: for the United States, it is not the seal or whale hunt per se
which it opposes, but rather the hunts for commercial purposes. This is quite
interesting since the United States has always pushed, and even significantly shaped,
the free trade doctrine that has, in turn, been fundamental for the global economic
system. In the case of marine mammals, the US displays a stringent precautionary
approach: it is better not to hunt them in case of scientific uncertainty. This is further
paired with the inherently emotional view on marine mammal hunts. On the surface,
therefore, the US is a steadfast anti-use state.
When we dig a little deeper, however, we can see how contradictory this
behaviour is. For instance, while the MMPA is in force, this has not prevented the
US military from experimenting with dolphins or from keeping them, and other
species, in captivity for human entertainment. Furthermore, the precautionary
approach is not enshrined in US behaviour in other fora. For example, when the
European Union banned certain meat products from the US that contained certain
hormones, it was the United States that challenged this ban before the World Trade
Organization in 1996. Here, the US argued that there is no proof that these hormones
cause health problems and that it should be the European Union to provide scientific
evidence for this harm. In other words, while the EU applied the precautionary
approach, it was the US which challenged this.
1 Why the precautionary approach is
applied in the context of marine mammals in US policy-making remains in the realm
of speculation. It seems fair to assume that public opinion plays an important role,
making this behaviour consequently inherently political. In addition, commercial
trade in marine mammal products has not played an important role in the US
economic system. Therefore, it is rather ‘easy’ for the United States to take this
no-use approach—an approach which has also led the US to try to uplist the polar
bear under CITES. Instead of tackling the long-term effects that climate change
causes to polar bears, the US rather argues along lines that do not necessitate
significant changes in the US economy.
Along with the United States go a rather large group of industrialised and
developing nations that have taken up this view. The European Union’s anti-sealing
and anti-whaling policies do not cast doubt on this. Whether or not this corresponds
to the moral view of the European public remains doubtful, however. In the case of
sealing there is considerable evidence that shows that also within the European
Union no such general moral view exists in the first place. I have therefore argued
elsewhere that this opposition can rather be found in ‘not wanting it’ than in a
1 See WTO (1996).
178
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law