Antarctic Treaty System started to respond. The result of the overall environmental
awakening also in the Antarctic was the conclusion of the CAMLR and its inherent
ecosystem approach to environmental protection. In other words, CAMLR aims to
treat the Antarctic ecosystem comprehensively without specific focus on individual
species. What is noteworthy, however, is that CAMLR explicitly singles out the
whaling convention and the CCAS. This is to say that CAMLR holds provisions in
which the rights and obligations of CAMLR parties that are also parties to the
whaling convention and CCAS are to be respected. This means that CAMLR does
not overrule the IWC and the decisions taken by CCAS members.
In a similar manner, the Madrid Protocol reinforces this approach. It appears
therefore that both the CAMLR and the Madrid Protocol do not consider marine
mammal issues. Particularly in the case of the latter, the prevalence of the UNCLOS
is underlined in the context of marine resource extraction while other marine
activities that the Protocol relates to deal with scientific research programs, tourism
and other governmental and non-governmental activities. While that may be so,
some commentators have suggested that the Madrid Protocol, and arguably also the
CAMLR, can be applied to issues relevant for, but not directly related to, whaling
activities. For instance issues of general environmental protection or cooperation in
the planning of activities in the Antarctic Treaty area would fall under this category.
However, one particular trademark of Antarctic cooperation is that decisions both
under the Antarctic Treaty and under CAMLR are taken by consensus. Whaling is an
activity which prevents consensus decision-making given its emotional nature. The
IWC is the manifestation of failed decision-making. Therefore, ATS parties have by
and large abstained from taking into consideration whaling issues in order to avoid a
stall in negotiations and decision-making.
The importance of the ATS vis-à-vis Antarctic whaling became relevant when
in February 2007 a fire on the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru killed one
crew member and disabled the vessel for 10 days. This meant that it drifted
without control through Antarctic waters, spurring the danger of major oil spills.
New Zealand raised concerns about these potential environmental impacts and
wished to discuss the issue amongst the Antarctic Treaty parties. Japan, however,
quickly blocked these attempts, arguing that this would inevitably lead to normative
discussions about whaling in Antarctica—an issue that would affect the cooperative
spirit of Antarctic governance.
The case of sealing is somewhat different, as indicated in the opening paragraphs
of this section. Since I enter into a more detailed discussion on Antarctic sealing in
Sect. 6.4.3, I merely briefly introduce the regulatory regime here. In 1972 the CCAS
was adopted, which put in place regulatory measures for the hunt of six Antarctic
seal species, three of which were fully protected. Yet, since sealing at that time was
no longer actively conducted in the Antarctic, the convention can be considered a
proactive, or precautionary rather than a reactive measure. Also up to the time of
writing, no seal hunts are ongoing in the Antarctic. However, also seals are considered differently than other species in the Antarctic, as the CAMLR and the Madrid
Protocol show. While in the Antarctic sealing has not reached as emotional a level as
in, say, Canada, the cooperative spirit of the Antarctic Treaty may also play a role
4.3 Regional Regimes
75
awakening also in the Antarctic was the conclusion of the CAMLR and its inherent
ecosystem approach to environmental protection. In other words, CAMLR aims to
treat the Antarctic ecosystem comprehensively without specific focus on individual
species. What is noteworthy, however, is that CAMLR explicitly singles out the
whaling convention and the CCAS. This is to say that CAMLR holds provisions in
which the rights and obligations of CAMLR parties that are also parties to the
whaling convention and CCAS are to be respected. This means that CAMLR does
not overrule the IWC and the decisions taken by CCAS members.
In a similar manner, the Madrid Protocol reinforces this approach. It appears
therefore that both the CAMLR and the Madrid Protocol do not consider marine
mammal issues. Particularly in the case of the latter, the prevalence of the UNCLOS
is underlined in the context of marine resource extraction while other marine
activities that the Protocol relates to deal with scientific research programs, tourism
and other governmental and non-governmental activities. While that may be so,
some commentators have suggested that the Madrid Protocol, and arguably also the
CAMLR, can be applied to issues relevant for, but not directly related to, whaling
activities. For instance issues of general environmental protection or cooperation in
the planning of activities in the Antarctic Treaty area would fall under this category.
However, one particular trademark of Antarctic cooperation is that decisions both
under the Antarctic Treaty and under CAMLR are taken by consensus. Whaling is an
activity which prevents consensus decision-making given its emotional nature. The
IWC is the manifestation of failed decision-making. Therefore, ATS parties have by
and large abstained from taking into consideration whaling issues in order to avoid a
stall in negotiations and decision-making.
The importance of the ATS vis-à-vis Antarctic whaling became relevant when
in February 2007 a fire on the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru killed one
crew member and disabled the vessel for 10 days. This meant that it drifted
without control through Antarctic waters, spurring the danger of major oil spills.
New Zealand raised concerns about these potential environmental impacts and
wished to discuss the issue amongst the Antarctic Treaty parties. Japan, however,
quickly blocked these attempts, arguing that this would inevitably lead to normative
discussions about whaling in Antarctica—an issue that would affect the cooperative
spirit of Antarctic governance.
The case of sealing is somewhat different, as indicated in the opening paragraphs
of this section. Since I enter into a more detailed discussion on Antarctic sealing in
Sect. 6.4.3, I merely briefly introduce the regulatory regime here. In 1972 the CCAS
was adopted, which put in place regulatory measures for the hunt of six Antarctic
seal species, three of which were fully protected. Yet, since sealing at that time was
no longer actively conducted in the Antarctic, the convention can be considered a
proactive, or precautionary rather than a reactive measure. Also up to the time of
writing, no seal hunts are ongoing in the Antarctic. However, also seals are considered differently than other species in the Antarctic, as the CAMLR and the Madrid
Protocol show. While in the Antarctic sealing has not reached as emotional a level as
in, say, Canada, the cooperative spirit of the Antarctic Treaty may also play a role
4.3 Regional Regimes
75