doubtful that a no-use NGO would be accepted. Another reason could be that by
applying for observership, anti-use NGOs would provide NAMMCO with a degree
of legitimacy. By ignoring the organisation, NGOs demonstrate their disapproval.
Whether the establishment of NAMMCO is an isolated case of rebutting anti-use
dominance in the organisations dealing with marine mammals remains to be seen.
However, with Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC, a new organisation dealing with
whales or marine mammals might be a possibility.
8.6
Other Characteristics
As all preceding chapters have demonstrated, international marine mammal law is a
scattered body of law—if it can even be considered a separate body of international
law. What has become clear, I hope, is that there are different regimes that treat
marine mammals under different pretexts. On the one hand, whale protection and
utilisation could be globally treated through the International Whaling Commission,
depending on the number of contracting parties. Since it is open to a global
membership it remains to be seen how its membership will develop in the future.
The issue is fundamentally different in the case of seals. Here, it is, and was, rather
regional regimes that constitute regulatory efforts.
The question of regulating whales and whaling has first and foremost been a
question of regulating the global commons since the commercial whale hunt has
predominantly taken place in the high seas. Sealing, on the other hand, has in most
cases boiled down to questions relating to the sovereign rights of nation states within
the respective maritime zones. The international regulatory regimes relating to small
cetaceans resemble sealing regimes in this regard: they are mostly of a regional
character while questions of sovereign rights feed into them.
While we have seen that international marine mammal law is in many instances
marked by confrontational attitudes or at least by diametrically opposed stances on
marine mammal protection, we should not forget that in the past it has also served as
a means for deeper cooperation. The Finnish-Russian sealing regimes (see Sect.
6.3.2) or the conclusion of the Polar Bear Agreement show that despite potential
conflict, they served as avenues that strengthened the ties between potential
adversaries. Of course, it is not these regimes alone that have deepened cooperation,
but at least they have opened certain back channels through which additional
diplomatic efforts were possible.
All in all, I would argue that international marine mammal law is deeply reactive.
Most regimes were concluded when the danger towards a species was already
prevalent. These reactive regimes can be subdivided into two distinct strains of
regime set-up. On the one hand, more conservative regimes are limited to specific
species and do not necessarily take the larger ecosystem-based approach to conservation. Most instruments of the whaling and sealing regimes, the latter including the
EU Seal Regime, fall under this category. On the other hand, there are regimes that
either take an explicit ecosystem approach, for instance OSPAR, or that are somewhat hybrid in nature. The hybrid regimes can mostly be found in regard to small
186
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law
applying for observership, anti-use NGOs would provide NAMMCO with a degree
of legitimacy. By ignoring the organisation, NGOs demonstrate their disapproval.
Whether the establishment of NAMMCO is an isolated case of rebutting anti-use
dominance in the organisations dealing with marine mammals remains to be seen.
However, with Japan’s withdrawal from the IWC, a new organisation dealing with
whales or marine mammals might be a possibility.
8.6
Other Characteristics
As all preceding chapters have demonstrated, international marine mammal law is a
scattered body of law—if it can even be considered a separate body of international
law. What has become clear, I hope, is that there are different regimes that treat
marine mammals under different pretexts. On the one hand, whale protection and
utilisation could be globally treated through the International Whaling Commission,
depending on the number of contracting parties. Since it is open to a global
membership it remains to be seen how its membership will develop in the future.
The issue is fundamentally different in the case of seals. Here, it is, and was, rather
regional regimes that constitute regulatory efforts.
The question of regulating whales and whaling has first and foremost been a
question of regulating the global commons since the commercial whale hunt has
predominantly taken place in the high seas. Sealing, on the other hand, has in most
cases boiled down to questions relating to the sovereign rights of nation states within
the respective maritime zones. The international regulatory regimes relating to small
cetaceans resemble sealing regimes in this regard: they are mostly of a regional
character while questions of sovereign rights feed into them.
While we have seen that international marine mammal law is in many instances
marked by confrontational attitudes or at least by diametrically opposed stances on
marine mammal protection, we should not forget that in the past it has also served as
a means for deeper cooperation. The Finnish-Russian sealing regimes (see Sect.
6.3.2) or the conclusion of the Polar Bear Agreement show that despite potential
conflict, they served as avenues that strengthened the ties between potential
adversaries. Of course, it is not these regimes alone that have deepened cooperation,
but at least they have opened certain back channels through which additional
diplomatic efforts were possible.
All in all, I would argue that international marine mammal law is deeply reactive.
Most regimes were concluded when the danger towards a species was already
prevalent. These reactive regimes can be subdivided into two distinct strains of
regime set-up. On the one hand, more conservative regimes are limited to specific
species and do not necessarily take the larger ecosystem-based approach to conservation. Most instruments of the whaling and sealing regimes, the latter including the
EU Seal Regime, fall under this category. On the other hand, there are regimes that
either take an explicit ecosystem approach, for instance OSPAR, or that are somewhat hybrid in nature. The hybrid regimes can mostly be found in regard to small
186
8 The Characteristics of International Marine Mammal Law