main points of criticism is that a two-third majority decides over the future of
international trade in a specific species. Even though the range state may be firmly
opposed to the decision—either for commercial reasons or for reasons taking into
account the interests of the local populations—it may be outvoted by states that have
themselves no immediate interest in or benefit from such trade. I will delve more into
the listing of the polar bear in Sect. 7.7.
The setting of CITES meetings is oftentimes a highly emotional one. After all,
CITES deals with species of high emotional value, such as elephants, polar bears or
whales. Not surprisingly, CITES meetings are the battleground of international
organisations opposing and supporting the trade in products from species such as
the African elephants. Moreover, decisions that are taken at CITES also affect other
regimes, such as the whaling regime, and vice versa. For instance, Japan’s now
discontinued research whaling of sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis), which are
listed on Appendix I, and the associated sale of whale meat on the Japanese market
was debated at the meeting of the CITES Standing Committee—a committee setting
the overall course for the conferences of the parties—in October 2018. While in
principle legal, and arguably even required under the whaling convention in order
not to waste whale meat, the Committee found this to be in violation of CITES since
this de facto constitutes commercial trade despite an Appendix I-listing. As a
response, Japan promised to take action by delaying the departure of the vessels
and to halt the research hunt for sei whales.
4 While Japan did indeed take remedial
action, this was not reflected in media outlets against whaling. For instance, the
International Marine Mammal Project stated that “CITES Rules Japan Whaling
Violates International Law.”
5 This is bold at best, but legally also wrong since it
infers that all Japanese whaling is in violation of international law—which branch of
international law remains in the dark. The CITES Standing Committee did find that
research whaling of sei whales is in contravention of CITES, but it did not find that
other whaling is in contravention of CITES or other regimes. As we will see in
Chap. 5, scientific whaling is legal under the whaling convention while also the sale
of whale meat deriving from these whale hunts is permitted.
This case demonstrates how complex legal issues are broken down into simple, if
not incorrect, statements to influence public opinion. The electronic form that
visitors of the story above can fill out in order to show their opposition to whaling
is but one example in this context. Not surprisingly, CITES meetings commonly see
intense lobbying efforts, the display of large posters, as well as other means to
influence the voting behaviour of states. As could be expected, also the decision of
the CITES parties not to uplist the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I was
received with much resentment by humane and animal welfare organisations. In an
interview, a high-level executive of the International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW), speaking on behalf of several other organisations, even noted in regard to
the decision to leave the polar bear on Appendix II: “In years to come, people will
4 CITES (2018).
5 International Marine Mammal Project (2018).
60
4 The Global Framework for the Environment and Marine Mammals
international trade in a specific species. Even though the range state may be firmly
opposed to the decision—either for commercial reasons or for reasons taking into
account the interests of the local populations—it may be outvoted by states that have
themselves no immediate interest in or benefit from such trade. I will delve more into
the listing of the polar bear in Sect. 7.7.
The setting of CITES meetings is oftentimes a highly emotional one. After all,
CITES deals with species of high emotional value, such as elephants, polar bears or
whales. Not surprisingly, CITES meetings are the battleground of international
organisations opposing and supporting the trade in products from species such as
the African elephants. Moreover, decisions that are taken at CITES also affect other
regimes, such as the whaling regime, and vice versa. For instance, Japan’s now
discontinued research whaling of sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis), which are
listed on Appendix I, and the associated sale of whale meat on the Japanese market
was debated at the meeting of the CITES Standing Committee—a committee setting
the overall course for the conferences of the parties—in October 2018. While in
principle legal, and arguably even required under the whaling convention in order
not to waste whale meat, the Committee found this to be in violation of CITES since
this de facto constitutes commercial trade despite an Appendix I-listing. As a
response, Japan promised to take action by delaying the departure of the vessels
and to halt the research hunt for sei whales.
4 While Japan did indeed take remedial
action, this was not reflected in media outlets against whaling. For instance, the
International Marine Mammal Project stated that “CITES Rules Japan Whaling
Violates International Law.”
5 This is bold at best, but legally also wrong since it
infers that all Japanese whaling is in violation of international law—which branch of
international law remains in the dark. The CITES Standing Committee did find that
research whaling of sei whales is in contravention of CITES, but it did not find that
other whaling is in contravention of CITES or other regimes. As we will see in
Chap. 5, scientific whaling is legal under the whaling convention while also the sale
of whale meat deriving from these whale hunts is permitted.
This case demonstrates how complex legal issues are broken down into simple, if
not incorrect, statements to influence public opinion. The electronic form that
visitors of the story above can fill out in order to show their opposition to whaling
is but one example in this context. Not surprisingly, CITES meetings commonly see
intense lobbying efforts, the display of large posters, as well as other means to
influence the voting behaviour of states. As could be expected, also the decision of
the CITES parties not to uplist the polar bear from Appendix II to Appendix I was
received with much resentment by humane and animal welfare organisations. In an
interview, a high-level executive of the International Fund for Animal Welfare
(IFAW), speaking on behalf of several other organisations, even noted in regard to
the decision to leave the polar bear on Appendix II: “In years to come, people will
4 CITES (2018).
5 International Marine Mammal Project (2018).
60
4 The Global Framework for the Environment and Marine Mammals