226
D. Tamada
The Government of Japan highly appreciates the important role played by the Tribunal in
terms of the peaceful settlement of disputes as well as the maintenance and development of the
rule of the law at sea. Japan thus welcomes that proceedings have been continually instituted
before the Tribunal and it has been steadily producing results including this judgment, which
is the first ruling it has issued in a maritime delimitation case, as well as the first advisory
opinion issued by its Seabed Disputes Chamber in February 2011.
12.2.6 Relationship with the ICJ Optional Clause
Declaration
Following the Whaling case before the ICJ,
21 Japan, on 6 October 2015, deposited to
the UN Secretary-General a new declaration,
22 including a new reservation, stating:
[…] This declaration does not apply to:
(3) any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation,
management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea (emphasis added).
It is obvious that Japan intends to exclude disputes on ‘living resources’, including
disputes concerning its whaling operations, from the compulsory jurisdiction of
the ICJ. Curiously, however, Japan sought to explain its reasons in the following
statement:
On 6 October 2015, Japan made a new declaration which does not apply to disputes relating
to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the
sea, considering that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
has provisions regarding such resources and dispute settlement procedure, which allow the
involvement of experts from the scientific or technical perspective. Japan is a State Party
to the UNCLOS and continues to observe the obligations under the UNCLOS (emphasis
added). 23
In the Japanese version of the above statement, the following expression also
appears (which is absent in the English version cited above):
it will be more appropriate, unless another special agreement does not exist, to use the dispute
settlement procedures under the UNCLOS. 24
Read conjunctively, it is clear that Japan prefers recourse to the UNCLOS-DSM
than to the ICJ, for settling disputes concerning living sea resources.
of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal’ (March 16,
2012), available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/3/0316_01.html.
21 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March
2014, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 226.
22 Declarations of Japan recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory (6 October
2015), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations/jp and https://treaties.un.org/pages/Vie
wDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=I-4&chapter=1&clang=_en#EndDec.
23 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ‘ICJ and Japan: Japan’s declaration recognizing the
jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory’, available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000104046.pdf.
24 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ‘ICJ and Japan: Japan’s declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory’, available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000103330.pdf.
NB., as the text is available only in Japanese, this translation is not official.
D. Tamada
The Government of Japan highly appreciates the important role played by the Tribunal in
terms of the peaceful settlement of disputes as well as the maintenance and development of the
rule of the law at sea. Japan thus welcomes that proceedings have been continually instituted
before the Tribunal and it has been steadily producing results including this judgment, which
is the first ruling it has issued in a maritime delimitation case, as well as the first advisory
opinion issued by its Seabed Disputes Chamber in February 2011.
12.2.6 Relationship with the ICJ Optional Clause
Declaration
Following the Whaling case before the ICJ,
21 Japan, on 6 October 2015, deposited to
the UN Secretary-General a new declaration,
22 including a new reservation, stating:
[…] This declaration does not apply to:
(3) any dispute arising out of, concerning, or relating to research on, or conservation,
management or exploitation of, living resources of the sea (emphasis added).
It is obvious that Japan intends to exclude disputes on ‘living resources’, including
disputes concerning its whaling operations, from the compulsory jurisdiction of
the ICJ. Curiously, however, Japan sought to explain its reasons in the following
statement:
On 6 October 2015, Japan made a new declaration which does not apply to disputes relating
to research on, or conservation, management or exploitation of, living resources of the
sea, considering that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
has provisions regarding such resources and dispute settlement procedure, which allow the
involvement of experts from the scientific or technical perspective. Japan is a State Party
to the UNCLOS and continues to observe the obligations under the UNCLOS (emphasis
added). 23
In the Japanese version of the above statement, the following expression also
appears (which is absent in the English version cited above):
it will be more appropriate, unless another special agreement does not exist, to use the dispute
settlement procedures under the UNCLOS. 24
Read conjunctively, it is clear that Japan prefers recourse to the UNCLOS-DSM
than to the ICJ, for settling disputes concerning living sea resources.
of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal’ (March 16,
2012), available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/announce/2012/3/0316_01.html.
21 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment of 31 March
2014, I.C.J. Reports 2014, p. 226.
22 Declarations of Japan recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory (6 October
2015), available at https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations/jp and https://treaties.un.org/pages/Vie
wDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=I-4&chapter=1&clang=_en#EndDec.
23 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ‘ICJ and Japan: Japan’s declaration recognizing the
jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory’, available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/files/000104046.pdf.
24 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, ‘ICJ and Japan: Japan’s declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory’, available at https://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/files/000103330.pdf.
NB., as the text is available only in Japanese, this translation is not official.