After all, Japan resumes commercial whaling in its own EEZ despite the existence of
the whaling moratorium. Although the UNCLOS does not explicitly refer to the
IWC as the only appropriate international organisation for whales, Japan is still
required to cooperate further what some commentators have interpreted as meaning
either joining another organisation or starting a new one. Otherwise, it would be in
non-compliance with the requirements for marine mammals under the UNCLOS.
At the moment, only one other organisation for the management and sustainable
use of marine mammal exists: the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO). Since NAMMCO only deals with marine mammals in the North
Atlantic, a Japanese membership is not possible (see Sect. 4.3.2). This being said,
the UNCLOS does not define the term ‘cooperation’ more closely. While not being a
member of the IWC anymore, Japan has not broken with it completely and maintains
observer status with the right to participate in meetings and to contribute to the
discussions (yet not with a right to vote) while still working on scientific issues with
the IWC’s Scientific Committee. Furthermore, Japan is an observer to NAMMCO
and regularly participates in its meetings. One might therefore argue that it does
cooperate on marine mammal issues. Whether this interpretation is correct remains
to be seen.
In conclusion, while the UNCLOS does foster the conservation and optimum
utilisation of marine living resources, this does not apply to marine mammals, and
particularly not to whales. The conservation of whales stands at the fore of the
requirements enshrined in the UNCLOS and once the IWC (or any other appropriate
international organisation) decides to prohibit whaling, states are required to comply.
4.3
Regional Regimes
4.3.1 Europe
When attending the meetings of the IWC, those Commission members that are
also members of the European Union attract the observer’s attention due to their
strong view on the Commission being a conservation and not a sustainable use
organisation. Also in side meetings, representatives of the European Union make
unmistakably clear that any resumption of commercial whaling, or any whaling that
could in any way be interpreted as commercial whaling, is not to be resumed.
Anything else cannot be accepted.
The EU has put in place a regime that makes no exception to the credo of marine
mammal protection. For instance, when Iceland applied for EU membership in
2009, which was ultimately voted down in an Icelandic referendum, one of the
preconditions was that Iceland give up its whaling operations. Yet, under EU law
there are differences between whales and seals. For the latter, it is the regime on trade
in seal products, which started to emerge since 1983, that aims to end the trade in seal
products in order to prevent seals from being killed for commercial purposes. We
will get to know this regime in detail in Chap. 6. For now, suffice it to say that in
4.3 Regional Regimes
67
the whaling moratorium. Although the UNCLOS does not explicitly refer to the
IWC as the only appropriate international organisation for whales, Japan is still
required to cooperate further what some commentators have interpreted as meaning
either joining another organisation or starting a new one. Otherwise, it would be in
non-compliance with the requirements for marine mammals under the UNCLOS.
At the moment, only one other organisation for the management and sustainable
use of marine mammal exists: the North Atlantic Marine Mammal Commission
(NAMMCO). Since NAMMCO only deals with marine mammals in the North
Atlantic, a Japanese membership is not possible (see Sect. 4.3.2). This being said,
the UNCLOS does not define the term ‘cooperation’ more closely. While not being a
member of the IWC anymore, Japan has not broken with it completely and maintains
observer status with the right to participate in meetings and to contribute to the
discussions (yet not with a right to vote) while still working on scientific issues with
the IWC’s Scientific Committee. Furthermore, Japan is an observer to NAMMCO
and regularly participates in its meetings. One might therefore argue that it does
cooperate on marine mammal issues. Whether this interpretation is correct remains
to be seen.
In conclusion, while the UNCLOS does foster the conservation and optimum
utilisation of marine living resources, this does not apply to marine mammals, and
particularly not to whales. The conservation of whales stands at the fore of the
requirements enshrined in the UNCLOS and once the IWC (or any other appropriate
international organisation) decides to prohibit whaling, states are required to comply.
4.3
Regional Regimes
4.3.1 Europe
When attending the meetings of the IWC, those Commission members that are
also members of the European Union attract the observer’s attention due to their
strong view on the Commission being a conservation and not a sustainable use
organisation. Also in side meetings, representatives of the European Union make
unmistakably clear that any resumption of commercial whaling, or any whaling that
could in any way be interpreted as commercial whaling, is not to be resumed.
Anything else cannot be accepted.
The EU has put in place a regime that makes no exception to the credo of marine
mammal protection. For instance, when Iceland applied for EU membership in
2009, which was ultimately voted down in an Icelandic referendum, one of the
preconditions was that Iceland give up its whaling operations. Yet, under EU law
there are differences between whales and seals. For the latter, it is the regime on trade
in seal products, which started to emerge since 1983, that aims to end the trade in seal
products in order to prevent seals from being killed for commercial purposes. We
will get to know this regime in detail in Chap. 6. For now, suffice it to say that in
4.3 Regional Regimes
67