cetaceans. While they are concluded based on the protection of specific species, they
have nevertheless arisen out of regimes that consider species within wider ecosystem
considerations. ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS, that have arisen as Agreements out
of the CMS fall into this category.
The Polar Bear Agreement falls in between this distinction, however. First of all,
it was concluded in a rather precautionary manner. This means that the immediate
threat to polar bears was not apparent at the time of conclusion. As we have seen in
Chap. 7, although scientific consensus between the parties did not exist, the agreement was adopted anyway. Through concerted efforts to enable its conclusion, the
polar bear agreement is somewhat progressive, also supported by the fact that despite
its species-based approach, it nevertheless pays due regard to the ecosystem in which
the polar bear occurs.
Over time, also the older, still existent regimes such as the whaling regime or the
regime on migratory species has adapted to wider ecosystem-based considerations.
In case of the IWC, for example, issues such as noise pollution, climate change or
ship strikes now play an increasing role in the work of the commission. Regimes
such as the EU Seal Regime, on the other hand, from the outset has merely
considered trade in seal products as a source for potential species decline—leaving
aside the fact that the EU as changed its course on the raison d’être of the regime.
Given the regime’s set-up it is not possible to include other threats to the species.
In the Antarctic, the sealing regime appears to be more of a complementary,
reassuring regime. In a way it resembles the Polar Bear Agreement as it was created
when neither seal species were in drastic decline nor an immediate seal hunt was
ongoing. It therefore is a precautionary regime that complements the special role of
marine mammal regulation within the Antarctic Treaty System.
8.7
Summary and Conclusion
International marine mammal law is a complex body of laws and regulations that has
made use of specific characteristics, some of which I have tried to flesh out in this
chapter. A crucial element of all regimes is its geographic limitation. Although the
whaling convention is global, its original set up made extensive use of geographic
boundaries by subdividing whale species into different stocks and allocating certain
quotas to these. Also other seemingly global regimes, such as the CMS, are regionally limited due to its different Agreements of a regional scope.
In order to prevent aboriginal populations from being adversely affected by
regulatory provisions, aboriginal exemptions have been created. In those areas in
which indigenous peoples live, hunting and management as well as the EU Seal
Regime have legally considered them to spare them from any adverse effects. I have
argued that this corresponds to the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities—a key principle of international environmental law. Whether the
concept works in practice, particularly taking into account contemporary socioeconomic in indigenous communities, is subject to debate.
8.7 Summary and Conclusion
187
have nevertheless arisen out of regimes that consider species within wider ecosystem
considerations. ASCOBANS and ACCOBAMS, that have arisen as Agreements out
of the CMS fall into this category.
The Polar Bear Agreement falls in between this distinction, however. First of all,
it was concluded in a rather precautionary manner. This means that the immediate
threat to polar bears was not apparent at the time of conclusion. As we have seen in
Chap. 7, although scientific consensus between the parties did not exist, the agreement was adopted anyway. Through concerted efforts to enable its conclusion, the
polar bear agreement is somewhat progressive, also supported by the fact that despite
its species-based approach, it nevertheless pays due regard to the ecosystem in which
the polar bear occurs.
Over time, also the older, still existent regimes such as the whaling regime or the
regime on migratory species has adapted to wider ecosystem-based considerations.
In case of the IWC, for example, issues such as noise pollution, climate change or
ship strikes now play an increasing role in the work of the commission. Regimes
such as the EU Seal Regime, on the other hand, from the outset has merely
considered trade in seal products as a source for potential species decline—leaving
aside the fact that the EU as changed its course on the raison d’être of the regime.
Given the regime’s set-up it is not possible to include other threats to the species.
In the Antarctic, the sealing regime appears to be more of a complementary,
reassuring regime. In a way it resembles the Polar Bear Agreement as it was created
when neither seal species were in drastic decline nor an immediate seal hunt was
ongoing. It therefore is a precautionary regime that complements the special role of
marine mammal regulation within the Antarctic Treaty System.
8.7
Summary and Conclusion
International marine mammal law is a complex body of laws and regulations that has
made use of specific characteristics, some of which I have tried to flesh out in this
chapter. A crucial element of all regimes is its geographic limitation. Although the
whaling convention is global, its original set up made extensive use of geographic
boundaries by subdividing whale species into different stocks and allocating certain
quotas to these. Also other seemingly global regimes, such as the CMS, are regionally limited due to its different Agreements of a regional scope.
In order to prevent aboriginal populations from being adversely affected by
regulatory provisions, aboriginal exemptions have been created. In those areas in
which indigenous peoples live, hunting and management as well as the EU Seal
Regime have legally considered them to spare them from any adverse effects. I have
argued that this corresponds to the principle of common but differentiated
responsibilities—a key principle of international environmental law. Whether the
concept works in practice, particularly taking into account contemporary socioeconomic in indigenous communities, is subject to debate.
8.7 Summary and Conclusion
187